This isn’t posturing. This isn’t rhetoric. This isn’t a scare tactic. This is not a bluff. This is real.

United is spending lots of money to remove these seats, and will lose millions in revenue for removing these seats. But it’s still much cheaper than staying so fat on pilots when demand is so low.

This also tells me United won’t just furlough a little past 2250 pilots. United will furlough a lot past 2250 pilots. The only reason they are doing this is because they need to cut so deep into the list to furlough.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/a3zqvrH40Cdhu/giphy.gif

I totally agree!!! This is not a tactic by management to get a concessionary contract or givebacks. This shows us that they cannot see a path to protect those seats. Hopefully CARES 2 will eventually get passed and we’ll have some more time!?!?

I wouldn't put much stock into it until there is confirmation from ALPA that it's actually physically happening.

FWIW - Mesa has no aircraft down for seat removal. None have been reconfigured.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but wasn’t UA 76 seat constrained even BEFORE COVID-19? It would seem like any reduction in mainline narrow body flying, with or without furloughs, would trigger a subsequent 76 seat reduction. And COVID has certainly caused that.

The new maps are an easy back of the plane 6 seat removal. Simple. Easy. No overhead changes. Just a lot of room to congregate in with social distancing while waiting to use the aft lav.

Several different interconnected constraints. It is hard to keep them all straight without a spreadsheet. Perhaps some kind soul will scour the data and make one.

The number of 70/76 seat airframes was already at the limit based on total narrowbody airframes.

The 'poison pill' clause requires elimination of all 76 seat airframes in the event of a furlough but the total limit of over 50 seat airframes remains the same.

The real fireworks should be the block hour restrictions from the lookback period. It is hard to envision how that gets dealt with.

Please correct me if I am inaccurate. I don't have the contract in front of me.

Yeah, the block hours YTD already suck, for everybody (excepting maybe QX, because one “legacy” doesn’t have any scope restriction), and they are likely to get worse before they get better. Scope built with a restriction on previous domestic Block hour flying ought to be awful tight next year systemwide.

almost correct.

there are a couple of limits:

total hulls being operated by UAX as percentage of single aisle mainline aircraft. That limit applies to the total of small and larger RJ and has never been reached.

total number of 70/76 seaters. That is an absolute limit and not a function of NB count. That limit has been reached a long time ago.

total UAX block hours as a percentage of single aisle mainline block hours. That will be interesting to see as covid schedule reductions creep into the 12 month look back. I don’t think that limit was ever reached Pre-covid. That limit also doesnt differentiate between small and large RJ. You can expect 70/76 seaters to fly according to the absolute limit and 50 seater to go away.

and then there is a the furlough provision. No 76 seater at UAX are allowed if furloughed deeper than x. This is not subject to block hour or hull limitations or ratios.