Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   New flaw in TA scope (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/67769-new-flaw-ta-scope.html)

rvr350 05-30-2012 09:58 AM

My questions to our brothers are: Why are we helping the company to shed airplanes that they got in the first place, with the sole intention of replacing our jobs, and now we're supposed to play nice, and assist them to put on the final touch and put the noose on our necks? I guess most of us don't even know we're standing on a 3 pegged chair, and the executioner is just sharpening his axe.

FIIGMO 05-30-2012 10:33 AM


Originally Posted by rvr350 (Post 1200961)
My questions to our brothers are: Why are we helping the company to shed airplanes that they got in the first place, with the sole intention of replacing our jobs, and now we're supposed to play nice, and assist them to put on the final touch and put the noose on our necks? I guess most of us don't even know we're standing on a 3 pegged chair, and the executioner is just sharpening his axe.

I hear you brother. I am in the yes column for the record. I know what we will have with a yes vote and all the dangers it implies. Thats my vote my risk. I still don't have any sound arguments about what we will have if we do vote it down, am I looking for specifics about what we will gain. It is for me a lot like Moneyball. A Home run TA would be great but that is not what we have to vote on obviously. How can we maximize gains and move forward. That is what it comes down to for me. Scope is not the way I wanted it to play out. But it is an improvement that is clear. It would be better if all flying was brought in house. But that would have been a home run. Time to start loading the bases. Not what the other teams are doing out there, just look around. Maybe we have to do this different and keep building on all the percentages and getting ahead. Can it be more of everything? Sure. I like it here right now and I like are chances at moving ahead and putting gains in my pocket.

rahc 05-30-2012 10:54 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1200857)
DAL (the corporation) is providing that life support BTW... and will continue to do so as long as they have leases and no way to reduce them. Vote NO.

The line that CAL/UAL will hold is 40% behind this TA in terms of pay.. and light years behind in terms of scope. It is not a bar to aspire to, it is one to trip over.. Vote NO.

T,

Our TA Scope is nothing compared to CAL's current scope.
They have 0 CRJ 700s. DCI operates 82
They have 0 CRJ 900s. DCI operates 101
They have 0 E170s. DCI operates 20
They have 0 E175s. DCI operates 52
They have 275 50 seaters. DCI has how many?

Basically we have more total RJs than CAL, we have 255 more LARGE RJs than CAL. Their scope allows ZERO jets over 50 seats. They do however have 30 Q400s running. I would trade for their scope any day.

tsquare 05-30-2012 10:59 AM


Originally Posted by untied (Post 1200897)
Keep bragging about your small pay raise that you help to fund with less profit sharing and concessionary work rules!:p

Our "small pay raise" will take you a 40% increase to achieve parity, never mind leaping it. Good luck with that.

How's that SLI and JCBA going over there?

tsquare 05-30-2012 11:00 AM


Originally Posted by tomgoodman (Post 1200942)
Is it too late to insert this clause in the TA? :D

Pilots will be excused from compliance with the provisions of the Flight Operations Manual in the event a circumstance over which the Pilot does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance.

I think "Captain's Authority" just might do that. ;)

untied 05-30-2012 11:09 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1201007)
Our "small pay raise" will take you a 40% increase to achieve parity, never mind leaping it. Good luck with that.

How's that SLI and JCBA going over there?

The JCBA is going well. We haven't sold out the profession yet, so we have that going for us.;)

SLI is AFTER the JCBA by design. The company wants the SLI done, so that's leverage for us.

Our TA will surpass your pay rates with better scope. Have fun being #4 (behind SWA,FedEx and UPS) for 5 minutes. After that we'll be #4! We rock!

Going2Baja 05-30-2012 11:23 AM


Originally Posted by rahc (Post 1201001)
T,

Our TA Scope is nothing compared to CAL's current scope.
They have 0 CRJ 700s. DCI operates 82
They have 0 CRJ 900s. DCI operates 101
They have 0 E170s. DCI operates 20
They have 0 E175s. DCI operates 52
They have 275 50 seaters. DCI has how many?

Basically we have more total RJs than CAL, we have 255 more LARGE RJs than CAL. Their scope allows ZERO jets over 50 seats. They do however have 30 Q400s running. I would trade for their scope any day.

GREAT POST!!!!

Baja.

rvr350 05-30-2012 11:28 AM


Originally Posted by FIIGMO (Post 1200989)
I hear you brother. I am in the yes column for the record. I know what we will have with a yes vote and all the dangers it implies. Thats my vote my risk. I still don't have any sound arguments about what we will have if we do vote it down, am I looking for specifics about what we will gain. It is for me a lot like Moneyball. A Home run TA would be great but that is not what we have to vote on obviously. How can we maximize gains and move forward. That is what it comes down to for me. Scope is not the way I wanted it to play out. But it is an improvement that is clear. It would be better if all flying was brought in house. But that would have been a home run. Time to start loading the bases. Not what the other teams are doing out there, just look around. Maybe we have to do this different and keep building on all the percentages and getting ahead. Can it be more of everything? Sure. I like it here right now and I like are chances at moving ahead and putting gains in my pocket.

I appreciate your candid answer. Personally, i just can't get over the extra 76 seaters. I can deal with the reserve concession, even the measly payraise. The dealbreaker for me, is the increase of 76 seaters. I will be called a single issue, myopic vote. But to me, the 76 seaters are the last thing i'll see on the guillotine.

80ktsClamp 05-30-2012 11:30 AM


Originally Posted by rahc (Post 1201001)
T,

Our TA Scope is nothing compared to CAL's current scope.
They have 0 CRJ 700s. DCI operates 82
They have 0 CRJ 900s. DCI operates 101
They have 0 E170s. DCI operates 20
They have 0 E175s. DCI operates 52
They have 275 50 seaters. DCI has how many?

Basically we have more total RJs than CAL, we have 255 more LARGE RJs than CAL. Their scope allows ZERO jets over 50 seats. They do however have 30 Q400s running. I would trade for their scope any day.

Headshot!

Nice shooting, rahc. :)

shiznit 05-30-2012 11:30 AM

Who says that DALPA won't tighten then "450" noose again in 2015? You know it would be easier to sunset some 70-76's once 2:1 50 swaps are done and the "obligated" big RJ contracts are nearing the end....

I'll take a double, a single, a double, and another double instead of a home run with thre strikeouts any day of the week!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands