United's problems are far more endemic than the Bloomberg article suggests.

Meet the new United, same as the old United.

 

Read and saw a few things this weekend.

First, E175 taking off from SFO in front of me going to OKC. Scope is life.

Second reading some research that touched on things from other sources and observations. Legacy UAL has a lot of bloated overhead costs. Legacy Cal Management was willing to shrink to profitability after merger and gave away market share, when we already are not dominant in any one market. New United is most seasonal of any airline.

Happy to see Management going against Wall Street desires for us to limit capacity.

And encourage them to buy some 100 seat jets. Because Scope is a nonstarter for this 50+ year old ex mil guy.

 

Hmmmm, go reread my post. I never said you were.


Word.

 

If you would read and think critically you would see there is a fair amount of criticism toward this management and plan. However most of us have cautious optimism that the plan will work. We all see what Kirby is saying and we are all willing to work to make United successful however we are not willing to give on scope so well see what Kirby has to offer. If Kirby won't budge on anything but less scope and more CPA flying then his plan will fail and so will United. The pilots are done giving away jobs to other airlines.

Instead of being argumentative and wanting to bet money on everything how about you try to make your self smarter so you can be apart of a constructive conversation instead of just an antagonist. Not all of your points are bad points but if someone disagrees don't just try and shove the point down their throat and get upset when people call you out for what you are, an uneducated poster with talking points.

 

Maybe we can get inventive on scope, test the “we need feeders” line. Lets start with no regional flights to or from a Class B airport unless it is a United hub.

 

Politely written, but I think you give him too much credit. In fact, I'd bet you millions he's 100% trolling lol

 

I like that. Or, in between two Class B airports.

Another possibility is no or limited outsourced flying in high frequency markets.

 

I just posted this on the vacancy bid thread.


That being said we finally have a management team that wants to run an airline and exploit the best hubs and overall route network in the business.

I’ve posted this before and I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me. I believe we have approximately 220 & 185 less mainline narrowbody vs. AA and DAL, however our Widebody flying is significantly bigger then both.

I’m going to make a bold prediction that on our new contract we are going to be the first Legacy to fly 70/76 seater. I also believe we will buy 100 seaters.

My sources tell me both the company and union are motivated to get a deal completed this year. I don’t see the union agreeing to scope concessions. The company wants and needs to grow and wants more 76 seaters. Sure they could order SNB but that would take beyond 2020 to take delivery and grow more 70/76 seaters allowed by Scope choke. They wouldn’t be able to make the recently reported growth targets. The only way to do this is by having mainline fly 70/76 seaters and a mix of new SNB.

 

There is one problem that I foresee with your sanguine view of what's coming. Our numbers stink relative to our peers. I imagine there is significant pressure on our management team to fix this and of course, costs will always be the first thing attacked. We are costs.

I hope you're right and they take the airline in a new direction with us flying the larger next-gen RJ's (and whatever else is on the horizon). But as always, I remain skeptronic. Time will tell.

 

Why is there no distance limit on scope outsourcing? So-called "regionals" routinely fly 1500+ miles. This isn't merely "connecting passengers into the hub." It has literally replaced mainline flying.

Any further scope concessions would further erode the career.