Not certain if it is a competitive disadvantage. Sure if you look at crew costs they'll come up with pay and work rules. But you get merger synergies (not calling UCALs plan a merger btw), you stop funding someones profits, you stop being obligated to use airplanes you don't want anymore because of a contract with a contractor, you take control back and you prevent the creation of the next RAH.

The whipsaw, and the negative externalities from it, just bit airline managers and airline BOD's as much as it has bit pilots over the years.

We'll see if its enough to tighten scope.

 

Been there, been crapped on. Many of us are keenly aware to what life is like at the regionals, having survived it before going to mainline companies.

As far as "what are we willing to give up" goes, I think you'd be surprised how close the work rules are in the post Ch11 world. Flying at UAL is no picnic. It's gotten a little better over the past couple of years with incremental improvements, but right after Ch11 we were flying 95 hours, 11 days off per month, and duty/flight times basically at FAR's. I don't know, but THINK that CAL pilots are mostly right at the FAR's. Throw in a bunch of all-nighters, and it was a real picnic. Last winter over Christmas, here was my schedule. 6 on, 1 off, 4 on, 1 off, 6 on. (I called in fatigued for the last 4 days of that sequence). In that time, I had 3 all-nighters and 4 east coast departures before 6am body-clock time. It was legal because they would put a 25 hour layover after the all-nighters and then depart me early off the east coast the day following the arrival. Try getting your body to figure THAT out 3 times in a 2 week period.

That being said, the goal is not to accept the current state of regional work rules. The goal is to raise the standard of what is acceptable. It's all about leverage. If UAL wants a single operating certificate, they need a single list. If they want a single list, they need a JCBA. If they want a JCBA, they are going to have to address the Scope issue to some degree. How much is what the negotiations are about.

We shouldn't negotiate in public, as management has and does use these forums to "make their case" regarding contract issues, so I'll stick to a few general ideas.

The 50 seater market is much more limited than the number of airframes currently in the market with oil above a certain value. I think that Comair's announcement yesterday will support that theory. So the fight is MOSTLY about what happens above 50 seats. jetBlue has successfully brought the E190 in-house at a VERY competitive wage. The E170 common type would make it a reasonable assertion that it could be incorporated into the mainline fleet as well.

It's easy to think with the success of companies like Skywest and Republic is because of their cheap labor and horrible working conditions. You have to remember that their results are shielded from the prevailing economic realities because they are guaranteed a profit by their mainline partners. The two attempts to operate a regional fleet independently were miserable failures (Indy Air and XJET) for a reason... without someone taking all the risk out of the uber-risky airline market, those 50 seaters suddenly don't look so good - regardless of how cheap you can find people to fly them.

What will happen? Who knows. I, like everyone else, have a guess, but I'm not going to state it on a public forum. What I DO know is that I like the direction that the UAL/CAL pilot groups are heading on this. Despite the opinions of some of this forum, my perception is that we are more unified on this issue than any other.

Good luck to us all. Job losses are never fun, and while the regionals have been growing at ridiculous levels for the last decade, we have lost almost half our pilots. For the sake of the piloting profession, here's to hoping that this tide turns, and turns hard.

 

I hope you guys are successful. I would rather take the furlough now and have a good future as a mainline pilot later, then to keep the status quo

 

I don't care who you are or what you say, money talks. Does anyone really think that if management offers the pilots enough money that they will care about the regional pilots below them? I personally don't think that the top half, if not more, of the mainline guys give two ****s about RJ's and outsourcing. As long as they are getting theirs, they don't care. And if you offer them an even bigger slice of the pie, they will care even less. If I was a senior mainline guy, I wouldn't care either and would take the money.

 

Wrong... I was a senior mainline guy. Not anymore. That's because of downsizing. If we tighten up scope, I get senior again...

Scope is number one for me.

 

You're right. There are many good reasons for mainline to take the flying back, unfortunately the bean counters don't see the intrinsic value of having 100% operational control. At the beginning of the year, they are knowingly taking into account the errors and losses they'll accrue with their regional partners. Their business plans already have the 'slop' baked into them. And they're fine with it because at the end of the day, it's just a numbers game.

As someone already mentioned, the mainline pilots will essentially be flying the regional jets for going regional rates. Will they suck it up and do what needs to be done?

 

I'll try this again....

You don't even have to assume that mainline pilots care about the regional guys below them, all you have to do is assume they care about THEMSELVES... and we KNOW they do that.

Let's say UAL didn't grow 1 pilot since 2000, but also didn't outsource any flying jobs to regional carriers. I'd be 70% up the list. As it stands, I'm 50% up the list. And I've got it GOOD compared to people below me. Our 747-400 fleet is substantially smaller than it used to be. That's not good for ANYBODY unless you are in the top 100 or so. Those guys might not care, but they are also going to be in the VAST minority when it comes time to vote. I'd estimate 95% of our pilots have been negatively impacted to some degree by the outsourcing of UAL jobs to our regional, code-share, and now international revenue share partners. I'm telling you right now that there are MORE pilots at UAL than not that wouldn't vote for a relaxed scope than would, regardless of how much of a pay raise is involved. Even I can't understand what I just said. All you need is 50% +1. I'm halfway up the list, and you could give me a 100% payraise, and if scope was relaxed, I'd vote no. You think anyone JUNIOR to me would vote for that deal?? No way. Now, how MUCH scope needs to be tightened to get it to pass is the big question. All regional flying done in house? Get rid of all 70 seaters? Cap the 70 seaters where they are? Allow Aer Lingus to keep growing in IAD? That is where the negotiation is going to be. Trust me, relaxing scope is a complete non-starter, regardless of the money.

 

My solution to this whole regional/mainline thing

Regionals max capacity 50 seat.
Max distant per leg 300 miles.
Only hub to spoke or spoke to hub (No multi stops to final destination)
No International Flying.

But unfortunatly I makes sense.

For Mgmnt only rewards stupidity (mainly themselves)

Feel free to chip in.

 

My 2 cents..for what it's worth.
I suspect mainline mgmt. will fight tooth and nail to prevent any return of regional flying to the mainline senority list.(it is possible they will purchase a regional or two, but they almost assuredly will keep the certificates/lists/contracts seperate)
Why? For same reasons most posters here want the lists/contracts combined. If mgmt. puts all their eggs in one basket they are more vulnerable to a job action. They lose the ability to shift regional-size flying from one low bidder to another. They know they may get a one time contract at current low rates, but the next one would require big raises,etc. If they lose the ability to shift flying to some other low bidder, then they face either labor war or higher regional costs.
I will cite Comair as a historical example.They went on strike to achieve superior pay and work rules. Since achieving that better contract Delta has steered additional flying to cheaper operators. Now Comair is facing shrinking to, what is it..less than half their former size? Mngmt does not want to lose the ability to move flying around to different operators.If all flying is required to be on one senority list/contract they would lose that ability.
So, what can we do? Well, the mainline pilots can "buy" the flying back. However, I suspect that the cost would be so high that it would not get rank and file approval.
2.go on strike over it and risk everything on a case by case basis.
3.have a national senority list for all ALPA pilots (or some other visionary thinking union). That way as the flying gets shifted around, there would at least be ajob to "shift" to without taking pay cuts in the 75% range plus start over on probation.
Like I said,it's just my 2 cents. I am not Nostradameus, so all my musings may prove to be wrong, but I do think the "take it back" scenerio will be difficult.If anyone is serious about protecting careers, the national list is, in my opinion, the surest and fairest way.
So it goes.

 

Big money doesn't mean squat when your flying gets furthered outsourced and you get downgraded back to FO. You don't think so? Ask a DAL CA who lost his DC9 CA seat and went back to 757 FO. You think he will vote in more pay and less scope? At NWA/DAL we have watched the DC9 fleet shrink from 160+ airframes to less then 50. Meanwhile the E175's & CRJ900's kept rolling in with new shiny paint, and the displacements/downgrades continued.

Perhaps you saw UAL park 94 737's? Yes, 94 of them in less then a year. You really think those guys will vote in more pay for less scope? CAL has 250+ 50 seat RJs and numerous 70 seat Q400's taking former 737 jobs. You really think those guys will vote in more money for less scope?

I could go on, but like Mainline pilots I think you get the point.