DAL to replace 100 757's with 739's
#101
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Since when have any Delta aircraft orders (787's, MD90's from afar) actually resulted in a net gain of flying for Delta pilots? Answer, they haven't! I wouldn't tie in a purchase of 737-9ers that may or may not happen with upgrades. With our new joint venture buddies down south, out west and the worse scope in the industry, maintaining what flying we currently have will exceed what I am expecting (don't confuse this with what I am hoping for).
#102
#103
If you would read your contract comparison, you would know this is certainly NOT the case. We have limits on ALL airplanes, plus very good JV language. FYI, those large RJs with UsAir colors have 86 seats in them & UAL has unlimited 70 seat RJs. That's right, unlimited. Plus the whole WB outsourcing to Air Lingus. That's just a few tidbits.
I wouldn't start talking up your bad scope package. It's still really poor.
#104
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
153 76 seaters. And I never said it was good, I said it wasn't the worst. But hey, at least we HAVE a limit. And we do have the best Joint Venture language hands down.
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
If you would read your contract comparison, you would know this is certainly NOT the case. We have limits on ALL airplanes, plus very good JV language. FYI, those large RJs with UsAir colors have 86 seats in them & UAL has unlimited 70 seat RJs. That's right, unlimited. Plus the whole WB outsourcing to Air Lingus. That's just a few tidbits.
#106
I believe that this, while true, is not exactly accurate. UAL tried to keep their scope language in the New Continental corporate entity, but was not successful. The New Continental has (will have) old Continental's scope language, which is much more restrictive. Is this not more correct???
Unlimited turboprops no seat restrictions I believe, hence colgan flying the Q
The CAL guys have it figured out and are actively fighting against further scope degradation. Their MEC has even come out publically against it, something ours hasn't.....
#107
So have UCAL pilots won this fight to use CALs scope? I might have missed it but if they did that's an event that should be measured by a seismograph. If not, hope they win it here soon.
#108
Still separate and UAL(cal) mgmt gave them the finger when they fought it. Grievance filed, grievance won, mgmt said fine we'll just put UAL code on those flights out of CAL bases. Which is why skypest and Rebubbalick are circumventing cals scope currently flying out of cal bases against cals scope....
#109
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I believe that this, while true, is not exactly accurate. UAL tried to keep their scope language in the New Continental corporate entity, but was not successful. The New Continental has (will have) old Continental's scope language, which is much more restrictive. Is this not more correct???
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
No argument there....of course the New United would LOVE to have the old United's scope, and will aggressively pursue that goal. The big Q is: Will the pilot's "cave-in" for marginal gains, and sell out their junior pilots. Hopefully, our industry will converge (on scope language) to where Continental currently stands. Also, the day that some airframe manufacturer builds a comfortable, efficient, quite (in the cabin) turbo prop (think Convair type room w/ ATR72 efficiency & 430 KTAS), then, we'd ALL (pilots) be caught with our collective pants down.
Respectfully,
Chuck416
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post