Ual/cal Scope
 

Greetings All,

So what is the SCOPE deal guys? Can UAL (since that is what will remain as a name) shove their SCOPE clause down CALs throat? Can CAL pilots veto this?

What is the recourse for this merged pilot group? Anyone with insight, thoughts, ideas?

Regards,

AA

I would suspect NO as they are agreeing to a new joint PWA. I would fight tooth and nail for that one.

Knowing that UAUA has many longer term standing FFD contracts, that may prove difficult, but they can have it in writing not to renew any of them as they become due, nor allow any new ones to be written.

CAL has proven that you do not need that feed siphoned off to make a business model work.

True - but I could the discussion in the boardroom, "but if we allow more 50 seaters, 70 seaters and even 100 seaters, we can make MORE profit that we do now".

My reading of the tea leaves - admittedly from a distance - I think the UAL concept of outsourcing is going to prevail. The airline is going to be based in Chicago, United's going to be the name, etc. etc. Those kind of choices tend to, influence other choices that are made.

Scope should be the NUMBER 1 thing that gets fixed in this whole deal.

Best of luck to the collective pilot group. I have no doubt that they will be able to improve on every aspect of the Delta contract...scope, QOL and pay. The contrast between the DAL/NWA merger and US/AW is all the leverage the pilot group needs. Lets hope it also means the return of those currently out of work.

For the sake of all the pilots at major carriers, I hope so.

The problem is that because of the existing contracts at United, it's unlikely that they will reduce the number or size of airplanes that are permitted (I don't know how the UAL pilot's scope clause is written). I'd be concerned that United will want to apply their scope to CAL's operation with the result being some serious layoffs and parking of airplanes on the CAL side.

So can we gert a recap of scope clauses between the two?

Is CAL still at max 59 seats for RJs and 70 seats for turboprops?

And what is the cap on jets?

CAL's scope looks awesome now, not so awesome a decade ago but hey, works now.

Think CAL has a 50 seat jet cap and no turbo prop limit

A tight line to walk.

It would seem that the pilots (both groups) should join together to let everyone know they'll make it as difficult as possible for the executives to pull this off unless scope is satisfactorily resolved.

Not sure if the fatcats can bypass this issue to their benefit or not though.

I think it is unrealistic to expect scope to be tightened to CAL's standards. It is what every pilot wants, but it would be far too costly to cancel the 70 seat contracts with RAH, GoJet, Skywest, etc.

What I would like to see is the 70+ seat fleet capped where it is at and then a deal worked out where 100 seaters go to mainline. Even that though would be hard to pull off.

Best of luck to CAL/UAL pilots.

This is true...since UA has contracts (some long term) with their regionals, it would be almost impossible to immediately roll back scope to 50 seats. The pilot group would have to pay the cancellation fees out of their own pockets...basically the cost all leases and parking fees on all 70 seaters, plus a profit margin. The regionals are not going to give up profitable flying if they don't get their markup.

Plus the regionals would be killing their own golden goose...more likely they will not settle for merely expenses + a reasonable markup, they demand a ridiculous amount to walk away.

I an addition to paying off the regionals, the CALUA pilots would also have to give concessions to their own managers to incentive the scope change.

The negotiating dollar values are off the scale here.

The regional landscape immediately after the merger will be same-O, same-O....longer term, the new pilot group could try to roll back scope to 51 seats.

They can't do that either, without the consent of the CAL pilot group.

Not good enough I'm afraid. I say let the current contracts run their course then revert to the 50 seat scope with all 50+ seat flying done by mainline UAL Pilots.

Can't figure out why so many guys are so willing to sell themselves short all the time?

Just remember the Midwest guys and what the effects of not having solid scope mean. You can have everyones pay rate at $300 an hour but if if your jobs can be outsourced then the rest of your contract is WORTHLESS. SCOPE should be a front burner issue. Look at what UAL is trying with Air Lingus!! Its not just about the junior guys, they want to outsource your widebody flying also. Dont let it happen.

Put a permanent cap on outsourcing. Tell em they can have any size jet they want from this point forward but any additional airframe MUST have a UAL/CAL pilot at the controls. Pay rates come and go but once jobs are outsourced its next to impossible to get them back.

This is the way to go - in time the 70 seat contracts would die off and slowly revert back to 50 seat scope period.

Scope is not one thing in the contract it should be the number 1 thing in the contract.

As a current regional puke, I know this merger is anything but a done deal, and I understand the need to keep my comments short and let the adults do the talking, but:

Look at the current state of the UAL narrow body fleets. Look at their mainline vs. regional departure statistics. Look at their furlough list. All of this is according to the plan of UAL's current management. Since he showed up on property, Tilton has displayed a near-pathological desire to cripple his own company in the long term in order to ensure a merger. Now that his objective nears completion, I doubt very much that he and the UAL management group have a real plan to lead the company back to viability. The unified pilot group needs to do everything in their power, however painful the process will be, to limit such destructive practices.

Pushing to adopt CAL's scope, instead of allowing UAL's current scope nightmare to expand to a largely healthy airline, would be the SINGLE MOST POWERFUL action a pilot group could take to reverse the downward trend this profession has followed for the past decade+. Every day I come on here, I hear the usual hawkish comments about "taking it back", "getting the camel out of the tent", etc. I've heard about how much people have learned from the past mistakes of scope relaxation. As difficult as the still-hypothetical merger would be for all involved, it strikes this outside observer as the first real opportunity to take a stand on this issue.

Having flown both turboprops and jets, here and abroad, my current position is as an FO on a plane entirely too large to be an RJ. I got into this industry because I saw first-hand what kind of company UAL used to be. I, and many others, would be happy to go right back out on furlough again if it meant UAL/CAL limited scope to fifty seats. It would be clear evidence that people are still willing to fight for this profession.

-$.02

Keep the good fight guys, you must know the rest of us are watching. It is the battle royal here at AMR as we fight for the 70-100 seat jets to be flown here at mainline. Having the worlds largest airline fly these makes it more negotiable for us, helps DAL and the rest as well.

AA

Yep, Pattern Bargaining has it pluses.

Well, this is one thing a CAL and UAL pilot can agree on. Let the contracts unwind and then we take take the 50+ planes back. It's time to stand for something. Together.

ALL flying should be held by the Major entity, by pilots on the SAME seniority list, not just the flying above 50 seats, there should be no "regional" status only "Major"....

What deal do you think needs to be worked out? Can anyone fly a 100 seat airplane other than CAL or United? I'm pretty sure they are the only ones that are allowed right now so I don't think there has to be a deal worked out. :rolleyes:

Nothing is stopping management from flying 100 seat airplanes except themselves.

I would say lack of real leadership

Hear Hear!!

A merger is able to happen without doing anything with scope...as far as giving up scope. The pilots/ALPA will have more control in this than most realize. I still think it will be very difficult to get back what has been given away.

Speaking of ALPO, it would be nice if the MEC would throw out some info on just what our position is. Or is it that we have no position and just negotiate until we feel that is the best we can do??

Carpe Diem

The ALPA survey we did in the last month gave everyone a starting "say". Lots of questions that are appicable to this situation....not sure if you are a CAL of UAL pilot...did CAL get a survey too?

Does anyone know if the UAL/CAL MEC's are already engaged in Seniority and Joint Contract talks?

Yes they are, have been for some time.

As to the scope debate and how it relates to contracts - Does it matter whether a FFD operator departs with a 50 seat or 70 seat airplane?

If not perhaps CALs scope is within reach. Otherwise, not one more 70 seater than is operating today.

Look at the range the 70 seaters have now. What airplane has it replaced? UAL has put crj-700s on old 737 runs where mainline flew. So I do think there is a difference between 70 and 50 seats.
The 50's can barely make it above 30k and have all kinds of weight issues. They should be "feed" not destination flights: I.e. Sbn-Ord, pia-Ord not Sfo-Sat, or Lax-Dfw.

Just curious - what would your "position" be on the issues that can and will be addressed by the MECs during the merger? Do you really need them to tell you a "position" at this moment? I think your MEC might be busy right now.

You do a job that sometimes requires you to focus on doing important tasks as well as possible, without informing the passengers exactly what you're doing...and why. Maybe the MECs are handling this correctly right now, and you're too stuck in the passenger mode to appreciate what its like up front?

Not a criticism; just a thought.

I'd check your source on that. CRJ 200's perhaps but not EMB 145's. The 145's regularly fly at 35 or 37 and have a range at minimum over 1000nm with the XR's closer to 2000nm

You should keep looking because you'll find old 737 routes that have 50 seaters on them as well.

I non reved on SkyWest yesterday from LAX to SLC and back, my first time since my September furlough. My wife and daughter without any prompting from me both commented on how small the CRJ700 was and how they were both uncomfortable on an aircraft that size. I was a 2000 hire at United and initially flew the Shuttle. All of the flights United had going into SLC while I was there yesteday, LAX, SFO, DEN were RJ's, they all used to be 737's. I will comment that the flight attendants on SkyWest were all young, female attractive and had a better attitude than most of their counterparts at United.

This is an easy one to answer.

CAL, 50 seat scope = 147 furloughees.
UAL, 70 seat scope = 1500 furloughees.

Yes it does matter.

Sadly, LOTS of mainline aircraft these days are pretty uncomfortable as well. Ever ride on a CAL 737/757 in coach?

Nothing but the purest example of what happens when scope gets relaxed. Sucks you lost your job because of it.

How SkyWest does it, I'd like to know. I wish not only the majors, but the other "regionals" could take note.

There's actually another prevailing belief as to why United has 1450 furloughs vs the 147 at Continental. Scope was the relief valve, but many, if not most at United, believe that Tilton sacrificed his own in order to induce a merger.

CAL 4,804 Total Pilots

UAL 7,733 Total Pilots

Yes, it does matter, but that isn't the only reason. To assume it is would be a major mistake. Beware of "easy answers".

Your points are the most likely to be true. Airline managers at American, Southwest, Airtran and other competitors are hoping the CAL/UAL pilots hold firm to the idea of turning back the clock to 1978.

Why would that be hard to pull off? UAL scope is capped at 70 seats. The only way around that would be a code share agreement which would quickly end up in court.

My question is if CAL went to United's work rules how many jobs would that create? would be interested in knowing, but I don't have both contracts.

Not sure I'm following your train of thought.

Would you mind sharing with us what you think about the disparity regarding the furloughees?

CAL = 3% furloghees/total Pilot group
UAL = 19%

I'd say the 70 seat scope has plenty to do with the large difference.

I have heard this before and not sure I see the logic/reason??

If CAL went under UAL's work rules, how would it "create" jobs??? If UAL's rules were going to do so, how come not a single UAL furlough has been brought back. Didn't the the most recent furlough just take place as recent as this past fall/winter of 2009??? I have not heard of any 'new'/or recently changed rules that would all of a sudden make this happen either??

If I'm missing something, I'd really like to know the reasoning for this fact (no sarcasm in this question).