Originally Posted by Grumble

I’ll buy that. Say like a 10:1 50 seater to 76 seater conversion?

Originally Posted by RJDio

I would say patience is in order. The 50 seater has its days numbered. The company doesn’t like it ( they’ve said so publicly), the crj cycles out at 40k cycles ( many have already), and pax hate them.

The long threat is the jumbo rj. They are the threat to the NB operation when the next downturn hits. What do you (not you specifically) think will be easier to park? Used/old airbuses/guppies or new contractually obligated jumbo rj’s? We’ve seen the movie before.

IMO, the options on the table are buy a NSB and unlock more rj’s, keep the status quo (which will probably not play out well fiscally for anyone), or hold firm and bring on the 190/175e2 on property configured to its optimal configuration and start the reversal of outsourcing.

Would you rather be negotiating against an anxious management or a pacified one? The choke is working.

Originally Posted by baseball

I don't think the political make up of the white house or the 3 member panel (2 majority members) makes much of a difference. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, nor Barack Obama were very friendly to the airline industry.

President's don't really view us as "labor." They view us on par with white collar professionals. If the white house feels joe six pack isn't going to go from Chicago to Orlando on their family vacation due to an impending organized job action then and only then will the white house pay attention to pilot-land.

Getting a release under any administration is somewhere between a long shot and a moon shot. You'd have to have years of well documented, bad faith, downtrodden, down-and-out below the belt negotiations for that to happen.

I wouldn't call the previous administration pro-labor. They were just big government and anti-business. I think of this current government is pro-US economy and less government regulation. In both scenarios labor is simply labor. with 2.5% unemployment I would argue that the current climate is pro labor simply by providing a climate in which companies can survive and thrive.

Whatever gains we as a pilot group hope to gain, we should be looking at ourselves to provide the leverage in order to do the heavy lifting. I wouldn't count on this NMB, our future NMB's to do it for you.

Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald

Possibly. We were asked specifically why we have not gone the NMB route yet. I agree, it is too early to go there, as was stated, we are making progress, just not much.

However my point is that if we were to get to that point, because of the White House, the NMB option is not currently a viable avenue for realistic contractual gains we are looking for.

However, with the announcement of Kirby this morning, I have pretty much lost any hope of getting a contract this next decade--making the NMB argument possibly a bit stronger, but also further off in the future. Scope was being scrutinized before, now it will be under full assault.

Originally Posted by da42pilot

I’d say the option to buy a NSNB to unlock more 175s isn’t very likely. Delta did it, but they did it with a $500 million subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer. They have to contend paying delta pilots mainline pay rates, but they have a very low costs basis built in the aircraft thanks to Canada.

Originally Posted by Andy

No, Delta has A220s because they're better management than UAL. Delta was able to make a new SNB work where United's management is unable to make it work. United's management is worse than DAL management.

United's management is also worse than Southwest's management because they don't even fly RJs.

If United's management can't figure out how to do it without pilot scope concessions, then United's management needs to be replaced.

Let's stop making excuses for United management's incompetence on being able to profitably fly with a cap on RJs.

Originally Posted by Itsajob

Delta has the A220 because they got a great deal and they think that it fits their network. United has said that they don’t fit ours. Each airline has different hubs, route structure, cost structure, revenue generating ability, etc. Delta seems to think that they will work for them, American is wanting to get rid of them, and United isn’t even interested. It isn’t always about better management. It’s possible that they could work here, but it’s also possible that just adding more little 737’s or 319’s would work better. We only get to set the hourly rate, we have no control over what the company decides to buy.

Originally Posted by Andy

Actually, we do have some control over what they buy. And my vote is that they don't buy another 76 seater for UAX until they buy some SNBs.

You're also making excuses for UAL management. During contract negotiations. You may be correct, but it's irrelevant during contract negotiations.

Originally Posted by Itsajob

Yes we do have some control in that our scope language has them to the point where they can’t get more 76 seat jets unless they buy some SNB’s under our current language, or negotiate a different policy. Personally I’d love to see them show up and take an ax to UAX, but line pilots don’t make those decisions. I don’t see how I’m making excuses for the company. If they think that a SNB is a fit, they’ll buy them. Obviously they don’t at this time. As far as being correct, but irrelevant during contract negotiations, I find that a little strange. Are we supposed to run around like Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity reciting a one sided story while ignoring any information that may not fit our narrative simply because we’re in contract negotiations?

Originally Posted by Andy

Absolutely! You're negotiating in public ...