The Scope Discussion Thread
 

I've seen some very good points made on various UAL threads about threats to our Scope. I've learned a lot as a result. However, if I wanted to go back and search for a particular post, it would be difficult to find. Hence, I am creating this thread in hopes of it becoming a one stop shop for civilized Scope discussion (oxymoron alert!). I'll throw out some chum in a bit to get things started...

So, no one says they want to relax our current Scope (except perhaps trolls). Many have stated they would give up pay to protect our current Scope (e.g. - if we were forced into concessions to avoid bankruptcy).

Would anyone give up some pay to further tighten our Scope? I expect not but figured I'd ask. I don't honestly know how we could successfully tighten up Scope further than it is right now, does anyone? I'd love to see more 50 seaters put out to pasture, but aside from a NSNB I'm not sure how else we could force management's hand.

I imagine management would love to buy 175 E2s, but I understand they are too heavy under current Scope. So, would it be wise to use the 175 E2 as a bargaining chip to tighten Scope elsewhere? Any thoughts?

I'm not sure of a cost/benefit analysis would produce a substantial benefit by giving up pay? In my mind, Scope is the single most important section of any CBA. Scope=Job. It's that simple! I would love to be able to tighten Scope, but I'm not sure that the cost would be worth it. JH our former MEC Chairman said that we had industry leading Scope language until Delta agreed to their Scope. After that, it was copy and paste.

True. They're old, crappy to ride on, etc. And depending on which outsourced vendor is operating it and and their specific W/B program, stupidly weight restricted.

But ask yourself this;

What's the BIGGER threat to the mainline NB pilot's job? The crappy 50 seater serving East Jesus Texas and BFE Louisiana, or wherever else? OR, the 70 seater that's more capacity disciplined/flexible for medium/large cities when mainline feels the need to scale back NB service?

Or asked another way, would you rather see the 70 seaters go away at the regionals, OR the 50?

In a PERFECT WORLD, the 70's would all be at mainline, as well as the 50's. But you can poop in one hand and wish in the other, we're NOT THERE YET on scope recovery.

God forbid a Kirb Stomp comes down the pike.....

Easy. Remember the thread discussing how pathetic our cs100 rate is? Chop that rate in half and then we have rates for 76 seaters on par with what our express carriers pay. I'm certain if the union said fine we'll accept those rates to bring all express airplanes on property mgmt would go for it. Probably would make the seat mile cost even cheaper since there isn't a separate corporate structure that has to be paid for and the mainline wouldn't have to worry about quality control.

Who loses in that scenario? How do we staff it? I guess I started this post tongue in cheek, but would it be such a bad thing? Would any FO on property even bid 76 seat CA? If not, why would the pay rate even matter then since everyone would agree having the planes and staffing at the mainline is better for the brand anyway? The RJ capt getting paid 100/hr is still flying our pax anyway so is it better for him to be paid by the mainline or the express flavor of the month?

This post is directed at 50 or 76 seaters only. Not a 100 seater. I'm all for max pay rates, but also for max profit sharing, max job security, max brand protection, and max career expectations. Therefore, what is the right answer to get all planes back?

I have to side with John Carr. 50 seaters suck to ride on but if they feed our hubs from tiny towns that can't support any other service, that's not all bad. There definitely needs to be cut-backs in 50 seaters in some areas though. But the 70 seaters are flying 1200-1400 mile routes between major metropolitan areas.... THOSE should be mainline routes. Not sure how we go about getting those back though...

How about this.......let management buy the planes, and we force the them to comply with agreement in place. This thread is pure negotiating in public which is NEVER a good idea.

Next subject, do you think your wife/ girlfriend or both would cheat on you while you were on a trip? Hows that for a nice public discussion?

How about not giving anything? Stop with this mentality of trading one thing for another. I won't pay out of pay rates to bring airplanes on property. Pilots don't buy airplanes. I also won't vote for anything other than tighter scope restrictions.

Yep, This ^ Of course the corollary is to show up at a union meeting and make sure your elected union officers have a firm grasp too.

Are we talking about the wife/GF cheating on you with each other?

Excellent point, and something I hadn't thought about. And thanks for not quoting my entire post, saves time.

I think most guys who flew RJs for too long are committed to not letting any scope go. No matter what carrot is offered.

On the other side of things when we are talking about reclaiming scope, I can't stress enough how important that is to me. Had I been hired at United to fly a RJ, instead of at a subcontractor, I'd be sitting on over a dozen years of seniority, instead of two. If my relative seniority was unchanged, if my pay at mainline flying RJs was the same as it was at a subcontractor flying RJs, if I finally got to the Guppy at the same time, I'd have been at the top of the pay scale, instead of at the bottom, which right now is about a $300,000 difference over a career.

On top of that pay difference, I'd have an extra decade of 401k match. I'd have enjoyed better medical coverage, at a lower premium. I'd have been enjoying an annual month of vacation, instead of the two weeks I've been at forever.

Management can schedule any kind of airplane on any route they want. Really. 50 seaters kind of suck to ride in, but they fly ok. My bottom line: if it says United on the ticket, the people at the controls need to be United pilots. Pay should be as high as the Union can secure. But even if it isnominally less than what express pays, it is 100% worth it to the new hire who has to sit in the seat at that rate for a decade.

Agreed 100%.

Those of us who languished at the regionals for a decade plus know the value of scope because the wrecking ball of C-scale regional wages swung through our families that entire time. We know how lucky we are to have made it through, and we know how close that precipice is behind us.

You don't have to worry about ANY regional guys voting to give up scope. The sentiment here is strong and unified: "NO EFFING WAY." Period. End of story.

The only conversation former regional guys want our Negotiating Commitee to take part in regarding scope is to INCREASE restrictions on outsourcing. I'll fight that battle until my last day.

Ultimately they need to fill whatever airplane they put on a route to make it profitable. If you can fill a 76 seat airplane you can fill a 118 seat airplane with proper marketing and reliable service. Especially when you consider the fleet commonality and the cost to operate another 737 vs a new fleet type. LCCs are starting routes with 160+ seat jets and yet we are determined to use crappy, delayed, and incompetent regionals to build new markets. We don't need a new fleet type that will do nothing but complicate our operation. Let the 737's and Airbus's do the lifting.

There is zero reason to give on scope. Not on weight and not on passengers. The 175, in my eyes, isn't a regional aircraft. We have 3d printing and an increased use of composite materials coming that will lower the weights of these jets.

Regional scope is very important, but JV scope may actually be even more important. Delta has the best wide body fleet, but they don't fly most of them. Wide body positions are obviously the best paying positions.

You have listed several reasons why management would want to continue outsourcing the smaller aircraft, even if the pay rates are the same. When you moved to the A-320 or B-737, it was first year pay..etc.
All the maint of the RJ would be done by mainline...the flight attds mainline. Etc.
Mngmt will work hard to keep a smaller airplane off the certificate for these and other reasons. It may prove to be a futile effort as pilot supply dwindles.

Personal opinion( like noses, everyone has one): If the regionals can't crew their fleets, the legacies will let cities that can't support a larger aircraft go, or find some way to string a series of cities together between hubs, as the regionals such as North Central, Ozark etc used to do.
I do not expect to see the legacies fly anything under 100 seats, and am personally skeptical that Delta's 100 seat experiment will work out when fuel prices go up and the collapse of the more rural economies accelerates.

Also expect more pressure ( from the more ideological people in power) to open up the USA aviation market to everyone around the world and mngmnt to try to find a way to outsource all jobs...(except theirs of course)

You don't think Delta's higher operating costs for the CS fleet are being offset by the Trainer, PA refinery profits? They're currently beating the crack spread by about $16/barrel which equates to $3M per DAY.

The refinery's original forecast was for annual contributions of $300M, but with storm Sandy and some EPA compliance costs they were late achieving that. In the aftermath of Houston's post Harvey refinery woes, it'll be Q4-Q1 before the industry regains domestic equilibrium. In the short term it looks like DAL's Trainer refinery can easily beat the original revenue forecast in less than 2 quarters.

DAL makes more money than UAL because of the better focus on fully distributed network costs and contributions. UAL is starting to show signs of life on that front, but is still years behind. I agree with you that it'll be interesting to see how DAL's strategy for hedging fuel expense will stack up against UAL's auxiliary fee revenue model when global fuel prices rise.

Sorry for the ignorance but what exactly do you mean by that?

I is just pilot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have access to the same SEC filings, read them and draw your own conclusions.

Scope give is a non-starter for me no matter what the rest of the contract entails. Watching hundreds of RJs all over the system and seeing them on the ramp is watching mainline jobs be flown for substantially less rates. All those RJ guys would LOVE to fly those same planes or larger for our pay rates.

I'm ok not seeing significantly higher pay rates and focus on QOL improvements like vacation, sick time, healthcare, retirement, training and online pay, squeezing scope more among a myriad of other improvements.

Skywest has an order in for 100 non-scope complaint E2 ERJs, and Kirby likely has a plan for using them in the United network.

Don't give in.

I have a plan for using them too, and it involves you and me flying them at mainline. Problem solved.

Next?

They're starting to get it.

Manufacturers Not Expecting E175-E2, MRJ90 Scope Relief | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

Alaska has no scope clause.

Exactly... Hopefully they get that changed ASAP.

Does anyone know the history behind the max t/o 86000lbs scope limit? How they came up with that number in particular. I'm sure this is the number Kirby wants relaxed but I'd like to know more about why this limit exists in the first place (I'm not of the position its up for negotiation).

The weight used to be lower but was raised during the bankruptcy by the MEC Chairman, without ratification, to allow the company to have the Express carriers fly the E-170. He raised it in a terrible attempt to save the A Plan.

Edit: What 89Pistons said.

The ratified limit (by weight) did not mention a specific aircraft type but was established to permit an aircraft the size of the CRJ700. Shortly thereafter the company returned in a panic to get a higher limit to allow the E170 which the MEC Chair obliged.

#massivefail

Either the worlds biggest sucker, or a devious and feckless Alpha Hotel.

The UAL Contract 2003, aka the "Bankruptcy Contract" defined a small jet as max weight of 80,000lbs and certified for 70 or fewer seats. Here is that infamous LOA that everyone says is SO evil. The fact is...the Company and Whiteford's special negotiating committee had already agreed to allow the E170 with 70 seats. BTW, the Company flew 115 CRJ700s but only 38 EMB170s. The 76 seats and 86,000 pound Regional Jet definition came with the Merger UPA in 2012. I suspect it was to allow for the EMB175.


Embraer 170
Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman
UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association
6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700
Rosemont, IL 60018

Dear Paul,
In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer 170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company
further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy (70) seats.

If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies for our file.
Sincerely

The so-called "scope discussion" is dead with ALL MAINLINE PILOTS.

We ain't giving shtt up. No more givebacks period. No givebacks with a fox, no givebacks in a box. no givebacks in a shoe, no givebacks sniffing glue. No givebacks with some ham, no givebacks at all Sam I am.

If we want some good "IRON CLAD" scope language at the mainline carriers, better go out and hire some former 10 year regional FO's to staff your negotiating committee. The guys stuck at the regionals thanks to so-called "scope relief" at mainline carriers are still paying off their second hand Ford Escorts and their second mortgages.

Great poem!

Be very careful who you elect as your LEC reps. Ask for unequivocal assurances that not one ounce of scope will be bargained away in exchange for anything.

This content was originally posted here: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/2461227-post9.html


United ALPA pilots do not need to lose scope to secure orders of aircraft which UAL already needs. UAL can currently outsource 504 regional aircraft equivalent to 90% of UAL's mainline count of narrow-body fleet. This equates to a max potential outsourcing of over 31,218 physical seats! 255 of the 504 aircraft (45.5% of narrow-body fleet) are larger 70/76 airframes (18,768+ physical seats) which UAL may outsource. Kirby does not need outsourcing, he simply wants it to keep ALPA and the piloting profession from growing more unified.

United gorged itself on regional flying to the point that outsourced flying became a financial liability. At one point roughly 63% of UAL departures were once outsourced, which in part hampered United Airlines’ post-merger profitability. UALPA pilots and other labor
groups can lose temporary contract improvements and see management walk away from large aircraft orders at the collective cost of thousands of pilot furloughs.

All united regional flying could be in-soursed in the next 15 year period because currency inflation threatens the “regional” airline model. Real inflation remains a constant of indefinite quantitative easing (QE) Federal Reserve policy. World markets dominated by debt and service sectors have little tolerance for an absence of currency inflation. Financial analysts continue to call for QE stimulated GDP growth. United ALPA must recognize that continuous inflation puts the very life or death of every regional business model squarely in the hands of legacy mainline pilots. Current market forces are an opportunity to reduce the quantity of physically outsourced mainline seats. The 50-seat aircraft of the day will soon be obsolete and over the next 15 years, the 76 seat jets of today will become uneconomically equivalent to today's 50-seat jets.

We must not repeat United's history and guard against permanent action incentivized by shortsighted reward. Even notable aviation consultants Mark Swelbar and Michael Boyd believe that mainline pilot unions will not repeat past outsourcing mistakes. We only have two unions left in the country who control this outcome! Have APA and ALPA learned from past outsourcing mistakes?

The most number of UAL flights should simply be operated by actual UAL pilots. Insourcing via up-gauging via Embraer 195-E2 or Bombardier C-Series 100/300 aircraft would help solve the pilot pay shortage and strangle the Regional Airline Association! Otherwise, to relax scope will exacerbate the pilot pay shortage and pressure congress to lower pilot qualification standards and increase the retirement age beyond age 65.

A hypothetical United Express fleet restructuring that reduces counts of 76-seat or smaller aircraft to add 100-150 seat aircraft improves cost efficiency generating modest capacity growth with fewer aircraft, departures, and staff. Lower operational frequency opens both gate & slot space while solving environmental concern with reduced unit carbon emission, unit fuel consumption and lower system-wide rates of air traffic congestion. Ultimately, insourcing coupled with appropriate work rules and employee recognition (ie. profit sharing) drives superior mainline culture and customer experience.
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/a...35919832_n.jpg



Too many generations of pilots have suffered furlough brought by outsourcing—no group suffered more than United pilots victimized by Scope reductions.

“If each pilot makes his or her union decisions based on what’s best for the group [as well as] profession instead of self-interest, we will succeed." Let's leave this industry better than we found it and not repeat the past!

To avoid the "don't negotiate in public" ninnies,

ABSOLUTELY NO ON ANY SCOPE RELIEF.

NOT GONNA DISCUSS IT OR LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT INCLUDES IT.

Not a negotiation. A line in the sand.

The MEC should tell management scope relief is a non-starter so they get the picture!

I’m pretty sure “they get the picture.”

That’s why we are seeing direct appeals to pilots. Kirby has lots on his plate so if he has time to “visit” hubs and talk about scope it means it is important to him.

The only real question: how many will fall for it? (again)

Question for you. I believe most of our pilots would agree our MC easily slants towards the militant side. Our MEC as a whole may not be as militant as our MC, but certainly no push overs.

That being said, how does Kirby bypass our union leadership and negotiate directly with our pilots? With the latest election LEC election cycles complete it would take years for pilots to make significant changes to our ALPA leadership.

If our MEC directs our Negotiating Committee as the NC works for the MEC and our MC is a defacto member of the NC and a voting member of the United Airlines Board of Directors. Again how can Kirby bypass the union and negotiate directly with the pilots,
circumventing our union leadership?

I think what we are seeing is "indirect appeals" to pilots. Just had a line check. Check Airman gave the usual debrief at cruise, very nice stuff, current events, LOSA stuff, hot topics, etc. Then, got a great perspective on Kirby's visit to the check airman's meeting. Basically heard all about how Kirby has a plan and it's centered on RJ scope relief and how Delta is doing this and Delta is doing that and it's all hinged upon scope relief.

I honestly don't think Kirby should be going to check airman's meetings and discussing his scope relief plans. The direct hard-sell to the check airman and instructors translates into strong indirect pressure to line pilots. Furthermore, It is not a check airman's job to come onto the line and sit in the jump seat and keep discussing Kirby this and Kirby that. Let Kirby negotiate with the NC and not our LCA's.

On that note, do we have any weak-arse MEC reps that either need an education, or need to get recalled? The scope issue is so big that if we have any weak animals they need to be culled from the herd. Any weak-kneed reps that don't get it can either resign now, or face recall shortly. This likely needs to be the number one topic of discussion at all LC meetings. Get the reps on the record and then get the NC reps opinions on the record. If the company can negotiate out in the open by using the LCA's, we can negotiate out in the open by getting those in a position of power and influence within ALPA out in the open on the issue.

It's a net positive really. That way Kirby can realize this horse is dead, and he can start to come up with other-more creative ways to make money and compete. In the end, we're doing the company a favor by taking scope off the table early on, instead of late in the game.

^^^
This

Besides, isn’t DAL’s scope essentially similar to ours at this point?

Or do they just have smarter management?