![]() |
This is without a doubt SK with two fingers up at our MEC. SK has not changed his playbook for 20 years. On the plus side we now know the plan. They should not be stuck on scope anymore. A new UPA by this summer :D
|
Originally Posted by BMEP100
(Post 2760401)
From what I’ve read on the Gojet forum, no agreement has been reached with their pilots as to pay rates. My understanding is their rates are based on number of seats. That will be interesting, watching Go convince their pilots to accept 50 seat pay for a 70 seat.....
Apparently, the rate UA will pay has already been agreed. Go has a problem with pilot retentions and sounds like pilot relations are already strained. |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 2760276)
If a 50 seater is used to open new markets..
And then they upgrade to a 70/76 seater.. Till they start adding a mix of 70/76 seaters and 50 seaters. It should be pretty simple for the marketing folks. I really don't think there are any "new" markets..... Likely some unserved for a reason, and some under served for a reason. |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 2759931)
The fact that we have NO 100 seater is killing us.. slowly.
I also find it (sadly) humorous that it will be staffed by a single flight attendant but still have a first and a premium economy class. Service?! Don't run the APU! Result: we save money, and then we have the money to burn on the lack of a 100 seat airplane. Reduce staffing on the FA side! Result: we save money, and then we have the money to burn by buying a 70 seat jet and flying it with 50 people. I see how this works.....We rob peter and then pay paul. We just do it internally. Rob one department and pay another. The balance sheets don't care as long as the final balance sheet is squared away. |
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2760623)
It is my theory that we are subsidizing Kirby's silly thought process and economic plans.
Don't run the APU! Result: we save money, and then we have the money to burn on the lack of a 100 seat airplane. Reduce staffing on the FA side! Result: we save money, and then we have the money to burn by buying a 70 seat jet and flying it with 50 people. I see how this works.....We rob peter and then pay paul. We just do it internally. Rob one department and pay another. The balance sheets don't care as long as the final balance sheet is squared away. |
Originally Posted by Zenofzin
(Post 2760656)
Our scope love it or not ultimately affects our profitability...I personally would be fine with replacing more 50 seaters with 70 seats at the regional level. I think we are cutting our own necks. The same guys that beeyatch about DAL profit sharing don’t seem open minded to any changes that might increase our profitability....I hope our union knows what it’s doing
|
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2760668)
The UPA RJ scope clause is essentially the same as Delta's. It is United management who doesn't want to compete on that basis. Thankfully our union is holding the line. Some pilots never learn.
This Sometimes I’m amazed that pilots are our own worst enemy. But mostly, I’m not. |
Originally Posted by Zenofzin
(Post 2760656)
We are trying to fill planes and connect to mainline with the high yield passengers, it’s our union blocking the company from selling more seats. Our scope love it or not ultimately affects our profitability. I’m not advocating selling out, but I do know out of a lot of cities we have lost global service and higher paying customers do to our inferior 50 seat product. That’s life. I personally would be fine with replacing more 50 seaters with 70 seats at the regional level. I think we are cutting our own necks. The same guys that beeyatch about DAL profit sharing don’t seem open minded to any changes that might increase our profitability. Yes single engine taxi helps and when even employees like myself BUY tickets for their families rather then use the UAL discount because you have to travel on a crap 50 seat RJ THERE IS AN ISSUE. I hope our union knows what it’s doing
|
Originally Posted by Zenofzin
(Post 2760656)
We are trying to fill planes and connect to mainline with the high yield passengers, it’s our union blocking the company from selling more seats. Our scope love it or not ultimately affects our profitability. I’m not advocating selling out, but I do know out of a lot of cities we have lost global service and higher paying customers do to our inferior 50 seat product. That’s life. I personally would be fine with replacing more 50 seaters with 70 seats at the regional level. I think we are cutting our own necks. The same guys that beeyatch about DAL profit sharing don’t seem open minded to any changes that might increase our profitability. Yes single engine taxi helps and when even employees like myself BUY tickets for their families rather then use the UAL discount because you have to travel on a crap 50 seat RJ THERE IS AN ISSUE. I hope our union knows what it’s doing
|
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2760668)
The UPA RJ scope clause is essentially the same as Delta's. It is United management who doesn't want to compete on that basis. Thankfully our union is holding the line. Some pilots never learn.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:40 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands