DL/UA/AA - Large RJ fleet comparison
06-07-2012, 03:47 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by uaav8r
Sink r8, you said that your union's presentation handout is telling you that - "UA has potentially unlimited 50 and 70 seaters"? I sure hope your union is not telling you this. Look, AA's future scope is anyone's guess (as it stands it's pretty favorable). As for UA's current (bankruptcy era, concessionary) scope language...unlimited 50 seaters? -basically true, unlimited 70 seaters? -absolutely not. There is a mainline BH ratio in place. In fact at 152 70 seaters they are pretty much against the wall as it is. Of course, our CAL side has successfully held the line at 50 seats, albeit unlimited. My feeling is that whoever signs first (DL/UA/AA) will set the precedent for the rest in regard to scope. I just hope that we are all properly informed.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not going to base my vote on the impact on other airlines, but I will consider whether we're leapfrogging anyone else. I expect AMR to do something spectularly bad, based on term sheet with UsAirways.
Here is a question for you, and it might be painful to contemplate: you guys are way behind on payrates. You want us to hold the line on 76-seaters, and not consider a smaller regional footrpint (with marginal pay ncreass) as a gain... are you then willing to forego pay increases in exchnage for a draconian scope clause?
Last edited by Sink r8; 06-07-2012 at 03:59 PM. Reason: spelling
06-07-2012, 03:52 PM
#22
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
People need to read that number over and over. 218 50 seaters will leave the fleet. That is significant.
Carl
06-07-2012, 03:53 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Bill, there is no doubt that the 50 seat jet doesn't work economically anymore. The 70 seater barely makes it at $140/barrel oil. So what's the solution? How about the 90 seater? Perfect fit!...Problem is that our CEO's only see the likes of Skywest and Mesa pilots flying it. Not you or I. Therein lies the problem. How do we deal with that? Hold the line on scope! I'm sure you would agree that Delta passengers should be flown by Delta pilots.
06-07-2012, 03:54 PM
#24
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by uaav8r
Thanks Dawg. Who would have thought?... It seems that my coworkers at Continental (I'm LUAL) were the only pilot group to successfully hold the line on scope. I sure hope you guys don't get screwed by allowing 325 aircraft comparable in size to a DC9-10 to be outsourced. Sadly, my airline will likely follow suit.
Carl
06-07-2012, 03:59 PM
#25
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Geardownflaps30
There are block hour ratios that must be maintained in this TA also.
Carl
06-07-2012, 04:04 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Sink r8, you are absolutely correct in saying that we are way behind in payrates. I will answer your question honestly. Scope is as important if not more important to me as getting a payraise. Your TA payrates are posted on a wall in our ops in ORD. I can tell you that our senior pilots salivate over them. I can also tell you that those senior pilots won't get furloughed as a result of the scope relaxation that will be required to "buy" those payrates. I have seen way too many of my fellow pilots furloughed as a result of outsourcing.
06-07-2012, 04:08 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Is there any serious talk of removing ALPA over there after your TA?
Carl
Carl
06-07-2012, 04:19 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by DAWGS
The problem I see is even if it is voted down, the money may come back higher, but Alpa will still bring us RJ scope concessions. They may even trade more scope for for a little more money. They are not capable of bringing us a TA which truly restricts RJ growth. More large RJs = FAIL!!....and an easy NO vote.
I think this is one of the main problems with a no vote. If we send this back, I think we're going to get worse scope with only a little more money on the next attempt. I still may vote no b/c of the 70 large RJs, but most people I fly with are unhappy about the money not the scope. So in my opinion, if it gets voted down, ALPA will try to fix the pay with more scope concessions.
06-07-2012, 04:19 PM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Numbers in news articles are meaningless. It's not in the TA, period.
Carl
Carl
The slides at the roadshow said 311 50 seaters with solid leases through 2015. Is that a lie? What does 311 minus 125 equal again? 176? That is probably more accurate, and a huge number regardless. Subtracting 176 and adding 70 does not equal more outsourcing. It just doesn't.
06-07-2012, 04:24 PM
#30
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
The TA also says 88 717s, but there are an additional 25 sitting there in the desert. But since the TA only says 88, that must be the eventual number. Nothing ever changes........
The slides at the roadshow said 311 50 seaters with solid leases through 2015. Is that a lie? What does 311 minus 125 equal again? 176? That is probably more accurate, and a huge number regardless. Subtracting 176 and adding 70 does not equal more outsourcing. It just doesn't.
The slides at the roadshow said 311 50 seaters with solid leases through 2015. Is that a lie? What does 311 minus 125 equal again? 176? That is probably more accurate, and a huge number regardless. Subtracting 176 and adding 70 does not equal more outsourcing. It just doesn't.
311-125= 186.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
