bcrosier

About 99.8% of what I fly is international, and not all international flying is created equal. It's not magic, but there is a LOT gained by experience that you aren't going to get in one hour of class. Based on your statement, I'm curious what routes you typically fly.

BTW - FWIW, I'm not ex-military, so I'm not debating that point one way or the other.

I do agree with that statement!

To stay on topic - I hope APA holds an EXTREMELY firm line on scope!

Radials Rule

The soon to be (probably a done deal by now) budgeted/forced out C17 driver that paid us a visit on our plane in Bishkek to ask if we were hiring might disagree with that statement.

Grumble

Don't be so sure. There was huge "hiring" of pilots by all services in the 2-3 years immediately after 9/11. Those guys will all be hitting the end of their commitments starting next year. With the proposals in budget cuts, retirement reform, drawdown, and the number of guys sick of the beaurocracy and deploying are already watching the situation waiting to make the next move.

DASH8EE

As much as I wish you are right, you my friend are wrong! How can AMR even afford to pay pilots to fly 50+ seat jets with out a pay cut? Why is Eagle being spun? Why is AMR looking to diversify their regional feed? Because it is cheaper. AMR will not pay you what you want. Again, I want you to be correct, but you are not.

A good source at AA told me that one of the scope "experts" that are now actually negotiating your scope in favor of the pilots said "we (pilots) are going to get hosed". Watch and see. I hope he is wrong, but we might see real soon the outcome around OCT. If not by OCT then bankruptcy is more likely, and who has more to lose then the pilot group in that scenario. I hope the scope holds out and raises come. Reality says nope.

galaxy flyer

Just an outside, long-term observer, I'm trying to figure out what an "EXTREMELY firm line" on scope will get you. AA has the firmest line in the industry now and what did it do for the 2,000+ furloughed pilots?

Would you seek a "firmer" and require the company to bring in all RJ flying under the APA contract? At what terms and conditions?

Right now, AA has the least successful regional feed, has restricting them to 50-seaters helped the company be more successful?

If you had a stricter scope, would the company bring 70-120 seat jets, which the market is dictating, into the company fleet? Could they do so profitably?

What really needs to happen is for APA and AA to figure out a contract that helps the company compete in today's market, which allows smaller, not larger planes, to be profitably fielded. The weird situation of the mainline, represented by APA, being pitted against the regionals, represented by ALPA needs to end. How would a strong scope affect the AE guys?

Yes, loads of military guys just hanging on waiting for the airlines to open up--not nearly enough to block RJ guys, but enough to make the competition tougher. The RJ CAs will do fine. The economy is a bigger question mark--not good and not getting better.

GF

chuck416

[QUOTE=bcrosier;1050905]About 99.8% of what I fly is international, and not all international flying is created equal. It's not magic, but there is a LOT gained by experience that you aren't going to get in one hour of class. Based on your statement, I'm curious what routes you typically fly.

O.K., I'll bite. My guess is YYZ-DTW

Carl Spackler

Great point. The pilot shortage is "pending" just like my subscription to USA Today is pending.

Carl

gettinbumped

Says WHO? Management?? You most certainly CAN have it both ways!

I won't speak for any airline but United, but our next contract WILL have pay raises, and it WILL have increased restrictions in Scope, with respects to the present UAL contract. It will never pass otherwise. I'll wager money on that.

At UAL, of the 3 times that Scope has been "negotiated" away, only once was it for increased pay.

The first vote came in the mid 90's and was presented by our MEC Chairman as a "we either get 777's or RJ's, but not both. Which do you want?". We voted for the 777's, and immediately found out we'd been lied to, as there has never been another 777 ordered. The armchair QB's over at the regionals constantly point to this as our big failure, but that's SOOOOO easy to do in hindsight. At the time, the RJ's were being billed as straight turboprop replacements, and it was not evident that management would use them as the cancer they are. Easy to see now, not so easy then. Of COURSE we would love to go back and have that vote over again with the benefit of knowing we were being snaked by the company and our MEC chairman.

C2000. Straight up trade $$$$ for some Scope. But that wasn't the BIG give. The BIG give was done in CH11.

I hear your contention that Scope was given away in exchange for less of a paycut. Since Whiteford inserted his own team into the negotiations, we'll never really know how that conversation went. He was clearly outsmarted, and did a TREMENDOUS amount of damage to this pilot group. Every time I see an E170 jet in UAL colors I swear at him under my breath. But you need to go back and review the CH11 proceedings to really understand what was happening. Have you seen the 1113c Emergency Contract the company filed? I have. Do you know what the Scope provision was in that contract? There was none. NO Scope. Period. The company could fly as many RJ's and outsource as much flying to Foreign Carriers as they wanted. At the time that the 1113c was filed, Judge Wedoff had pretty much rubber stamped whatever UAL was asking for. Let's just say we weren't negotiating out of a position of power. UAL knew it, and took full advantage. They wanted massive Scope relief, and they were GOING to get it. Do you think if we had agreed to ANOTHER 25% that we could have kept Scope where it was?? NOT.A.CHANCE. That's now how those negotiations were going to work. UAL had a once in a lifetime chance to decimate EVERY section of our contract, and Scope was GOING to go, regardless of how much money we gave back.


Flash forward to 2011. Here is why I think you are DEAD wrong about not being able to get Scope and Pay in this next contract. One: We aren't in CH11. The company doesn't get to have the very real threat of an IMPOSED contract to steer negotiations (unless we agree to Binding Arbitration). Two: CAL scope allows for NO 70 seat jets. Anything that allows for 70 seaters to fly at the combined company is ALREADY a concession for them. A Scope neutral agreement would be to allow the number of 70 seaters currently flying to remain constant. That is unacceptable to me, and every single United Pilot that I've ever talked to. I'm feeling pretty comfortable saying that the CAL pilots agree. From what I've been told, our position is that the 70's would be removed or rolled into mainline as the contracts with the regionals expire over the coming years. I've also been told that we won't be moving from that very reasonable position. Three: You are forgetting that Scope is a MUCH bigger issue than just RJ's. I would also bet money that we do not ever sign a contract that doesn't eliminate the Aer Lingus JV.

Here is the irony. The 50 seat RJ's are dead. Smart managements are unloading them. The 70's aren't far behind. Oil is too expensive for them to be profitable in any but the most perfect circumstances. This is not some pie in the sky theory that I just made up. It's the general consensus of the industry. Without the archaic and ridiculous fee-for-departure agreements that have made the Regionals so rich, the economics would be exposed: ala Independence Air. So why the big battle to keep them at the regionals if they are clearly a drag on mainline profits? It's a weapon. A HUGE one. We know it, and they know it.

To say that it's "impossible" to get Scope improvements AND pay raises is ridiculous. We are working with absolutely bottom tier contracts in both areas, and have been for a decade while our managers continue to suck on the corporate teet until they are drunk. Do you honestly think we would ever sign an agreement that doesn't offer improvements in both those areas? If so, you need to start taking a closer look at the pulse of the pilot group here at UAL/CAL.

Flyby1206

Sounds great! Prove me wrong and get all flying above 50seats back to UAL/CAL and get an industry leading contract at the same time. Good luck and godspeed!

eaglefly

Odd. That's not what I've heard from my sources. Personally, I don't expect a clean sweep on scope resulting in all flying over 50-seats flown by AA pilots (unless there's some sort of official list stapling from Eagle), but expanding seat/weight above 70-seaters and unlimited code-sharing are dead ducks outside of BK.

By AA pilots being "hosed", if you mean a TA allowing more 70-seaters to replace 50-seaters, then THAT I could see, but whether that passes a membership ratification is another thing.