Originally Posted by
pilot64golfer
United had a similar scope clause in the 90s and we had over 12,000 pilots in 2001, so this isn't a straight line comparison. It was 9/11 and not SCOPE that caused the furloughs. Also, DAL has a worse scope than we do and they have 12,000 pilots as well.
Not only that but the full force of the scope provision isn't in place until Jan 2016 when it is at its most restrictive, so I'm not convinced that this is costing jobs, especially when we have hired 400 pilots off the street and recalled a total of 1,700 furlougees from CAL and UAL. far exceeding the number of retirements in the last 4 years. That's 2,100 more pilots than were actively flying for CAL or UAL in 2010.
We were told by the naysayers that if we voted in this scope we would furlough 1,500 - 2,000 pilots, and the reality is that the opposite has happened.
Hiring is the only true barometer of whether the scope clause is working the way we wanted it to, and apparently they can't hire as fast as they want because of training problems in IAH.
Word.
We are only hiring due to retirements, UAL work rules applied to Fred's PE operation and most importantly FAR 117. Growth, NOPE. What you call restrictive in the scope clause will only be seen in the parking of 50 seaters which management has no problem doing as long as the 76 seaters grow, which sure as hades they are. Scope as of right now is not hurting, but the stage has been set for more future small narrowbody outsourcing just as it was by Contract 2000. And I have zero doubt you will vote YES once again to save your own bacon.
Btw if the were hiring as fast as you believe, we would have classes full of New Hires and not half recalls.