Thread: It's so simple
View Single Post
Old 06-17-2012 | 08:39 AM
  #71  
ualheavy
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29
Interesting perspective. How do you feel about our TA's Sec 1? This is an honest question. No flame intended. It seems other UAL pilots(a very small representation I'm sure) have been on here chastising anyone considering a YES vote because it will destroy any chance of UAL bringing back 51+ seat jets to mainline.

My personal opinion on the UCAL scope issue is that "the toothpaste (RJs) is out of the tube and there is no putting it back in" for the 50-70 seat variety of RJs at UCAL. Any RJ above the 70 seat version should be flown by mainline period. Use ratios and hard caps to limit the overall RJ effect on mainline flying (much like what your TA proposes). I'm concerned about JV's and widebody flying being siphoned away from us by other Star alliance carriers (Aer Lingus and COPA comes to mind) and we need lots of contract help in these areas going forward post-merger.

CEO Smisnk has made it known he wants 90 seaters and have them outsourced. I'm sure he is using USAir and AA's bk proposed scope arguments at the negotiating table to try and win his case before the NMB.

As far as Delta's TA for scope, it seems like a nice solution to reduce overall RJ airframes and seats, add mainline 717's, and provide your metals customer the 1st class cabin that they seek for upgrades. UCAL sucks in this area and I'm sure we have lost many customers to you because of this.