UAL block hour ratio
 

The DALPA roadshow presentation “RJ fleet count Comparison” slide notes that (old) UAL has “unlimited 70 seat jets and 78 seat turboprops, subject to block hour ratio.” Anybody know what their block hour ratio is, or how it works?

I’ve also seen it posted on this forum that the UAL 70 seat jets are currently capped at 124 or so – but I’ve never heard anything about them being capped. Anybody know if that’s true?

UAX block hours are maxed out as they cannot exceed L-UAL mainline hours. They could exchange 50 seaters for CRJ-700s or E-170s with 70 seats max, but they haven't done that for a while and are parking 5 70 seaters in 2012 with no planned replacements. L-CAL is maxed out on 50 seaters.

UAX turboprops as of 12/31/11
E-120: 9
Q-200: 16
Q-300: 5
Q-400: 30
Props: 60

UAX RJs as of 12/31/11
CRJ200: 79
CRJ700: 115
ERJ145: 263
E-170: 38
Tot RJs: 495
RJ 70s: 153



Delta SJs as of 12/31/11
Type: DAL Connection/Comair/DAL Options
ERJ-145: 24
CRJ-100: 0/15
CRJ-200: 300
CRJ-700: 67/15/0
CRJ-900: 88/13/0
EMB 170: 19
EMB 175: 52/0/36
Total: 550/43/36
RJ70-6s: 226/28/36

So the ratio of United's block hours domestic+international is now 1 to 1 with UAX.

Delta's ratio of block hours DOMESTIC ONLY is now 1.19 to 1 and is slated to go up to 1.56 with this TA.

With this TA, if you include international hours, then the MINIMUM ratio between mainline and DCI is more than 2 to 1.

So, to recap, United's minimum ratio is 1 to 1, Delta's is 2 to 1.

L-CAL (or s-CAL) is maxed out at 50 seat JETS.
The T-Props are now at 70+ with the Q. And Republic is now taking those over...

So you ass u me that the CAL limits are gonna be the ones enforced. Not saying they won't, but I'll betcha you are gonna have to pay a premium to get that. And don't forget,, there will be a pretty large ay disparity between DAL and UCal if this TA passes. Gonna get it all in one bite? Best of luck, we are all counting on ya!

Oh, and how's that SLI coming along?

The CAL limits will not be in the joint contract. Those jobs are gone. Scope is a one way check valve. Once flying is outsourced, it is no longer your flying. Best case scenario for UAL is they cap the current outsources flying where it's at, then not raise that cap ever again. This is why I am a no vote and cannot vote yes no matter what's offered to me.

So what part of the company's ability to turn the 102 70s into 102 76s do you not understand? Or in your mind is a 70 and a 76 seater the same thing?

And this doesn't even address the company's ability to -once those airplanes are converted- start parking as many mainline airplanes as they wish.. with no -zero- corresponding reduction in RJs... Of course YOU will be the one furloughed because YOU are at the bottom of the list. with no protection. It's a cold world out there.. I hope you have a backup plan.

I didn't know macular degeneration was contagious, but the medical community should be made aware of these forums.

Oh, and the CAL scope restrictions are the more restrictive of the two from what I understand... You think they are gonna do BETTER than that??? Really?

The fact that the company would have to park 70s to get more 76 seaters is huge.

Not to mention mainline would have to grow 60+ more airplanes before they can exchange the first one... whereas this TA allows it while we are still below 767 mainline aircraft.

You are exactly right.. and then there is nothing stopping the company from parking as many of the mainline airplanes as they want. They will be able to save millions in maintenance checks and keeping all those extra pilots around in this sucky economy.. If I were management.. that is EXACTLY what I would do.

Me? I prefer some guarantees and contractual language that would prevent that. I have no interest in fighting for airplanes that are gone forever... All that is contained in this TA. We can say no, and they can trade 70s for 76s.. and the 50s stay to boot. Big win for management.

What is sad, and quite obvious is that many are only seeing one thing in this contract, and cannot get past that. They are incapable of seeing the package as a whole, the protections contained therein and how they (especially if they are junior) will benefit from them. But it is your choice.

Ah, so you're saying management would be vindictive and just take their toys from the sandbox if we turn this down?

Management does not want to keep the 50's, and trading 70's for 76's is a bad deal for them as well. We hold the key to their long term plan, they will include us because they have to.

I like most others planning on voting no are not focused on one single thing, and you know better than that. We are big picture people. This contract is lacking in numerous areas that need to be shored up.