Originally Posted by horrido27

While I would LOVE that.. I am also a realist. It will take some sort of co-ordinated direction from ALPA National/APA to go that route. Why?
Are you willing to take a pay cut (or even stagnation pay) to bring all flying inhouse? Do you believe United can turn a profit by operating a 50 seat jet at a cost that is 30-50% higher than Delta and American. Cause that's what would happen.

I have always said I would love to have every United passenger flown by a United Pilot. Not an express/regional pilot. But, when I've also said we would have to have some sort of different payscale I get accused of promoting a 'B' scale.

Well, if we decide to bring Trans States pilots and their 50 seaters in house at the bottom of our payscales, and Delta and American continue to outsource.. how does that work for us?

We (us and Delta) drew a line in the sand with the 50/70/76 seaters. Delta utilized a clause allowing them to grow the smaller/rj aircraft by getting a 100seater on mainline. We have a similar clause yet management won't utilize it.
Oh well.

So if we are not going to figure a way to bring all flying in house economically, let's figure a way out that at least doesn't screw fellow ALPA/union pilots by giving planes WE OWN to a non union carrier.
Our union should be screaming at every investors meeting that the company can grow the 76seaters but we need to get the 100seaters. That it can work. That management is lying because they want to outsource everything.

My opinion.. and hopefully you and I keep discussing this stuff on here and it translates to guys/gals taking about it over dinner on an overnight.

FS, FP and FtC
Motch

PS) We Buy It, We Fly It.