UAL to remove seats from RJs
#11
and plan on more than 2300 gone in October....simple as that.
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
They speak 'words' and they do 'deeds'. Words are cheap. Deeds will show you their intentions.
They have some finite decision points when they will be forced to show their hands. Things like furlough notification, fleet retirements, removal of seats from RJs, displacement of PIs from 777 or 757/767 fleets to the 737/320, etc... Someone smarter and more motivated than me can map those out.
#13
It’s also very likely that the company wants to hedge all their bets for maximum flexibility. Nobody, including the company, knows how all this will play out. The company was fine buying brand new 70-seat E175s prior to Covid, so removing seats on the other 175s is pretty low hanging fruit to maintain flexibility. If they make the decision later to furlough more than 2300 it could be too late to start removing seats in time.
It’s also posturing on the part of the company. The labor strategy folks always love using FUD when they want concessions and removing seats is small potatoes compared to some of the stuff they’ve pulled over the years.
#14
There has got to be a smarter answer than requiring 6 seats to be pulled off of 76 seaters. The same goal of having only 70 available seats can be done cheaper and easier... and the cost savings can be quantified.
How about if the union agrees to simply block off the seats... split the savings with the company... and put that money in to the furlough fund?
How about if the union agrees to simply block off the seats... split the savings with the company... and put that money in to the furlough fund?
There is a smarter answer than requiring 6 seats to be pulled off of 76 seat aircraft: Put United Pilots back in the front 2 seats.
United Airlines would rather pull those seats and furlough pilots than let them fly any United's 76 seat aircraft. Insourcing is the smarter answer, pulling the seats and furloughing pilots is the refusal to accept that answer.
SP
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
HuggyU2,
There is a smarter answer than requiring 6 seats to be pulled off of 76 seat aircraft: Put United Pilots back in the front 2 seats.
United Airlines would rather pull those seats and furlough pilots than let them fly any United's 76 seat aircraft. Insourcing is the smarter answer, pulling the seats and furloughing pilots is the refusal to accept that answer.
SP
There is a smarter answer than requiring 6 seats to be pulled off of 76 seat aircraft: Put United Pilots back in the front 2 seats.
United Airlines would rather pull those seats and furlough pilots than let them fly any United's 76 seat aircraft. Insourcing is the smarter answer, pulling the seats and furloughing pilots is the refusal to accept that answer.
SP
#16
Why not wait until they start taking seats out of the planes before we start 'planning' on specific number of furloughs?
They speak 'words' and they do 'deeds'. Words are cheap. Deeds will show you their intentions.
They have some finite decision points when they will be forced to show their hands. Things like furlough notification, fleet retirements, removal of seats from RJs, displacement of PIs from 777 or 757/767 fleets to the 737/320, etc... Someone smarter and more motivated than me can map those out.
They speak 'words' and they do 'deeds'. Words are cheap. Deeds will show you their intentions.
They have some finite decision points when they will be forced to show their hands. Things like furlough notification, fleet retirements, removal of seats from RJs, displacement of PIs from 777 or 757/767 fleets to the 737/320, etc... Someone smarter and more motivated than me can map those out.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 693
I don't think Nocella's wording means it's a done deal - though in my useless opinion I'd still put it past 50%. It seems more like them saying "yeah we've got a plan in place ready to execute by 1 OCT to remove seats" and they'd be negligent not to have a plan for that. Still 4+ months for things to turn one way or the other.
#18
I’d love to see that, but if it made financial sense for us to fly 76 seaters rather than farming it out, we’d have hundreds of them running around right now. With all of the associated cost of operating them on the United certificate, farming them out within the limitations of our contract is still cheaper.
So is farming out the 737 and 320 flying for that matter; the company would do that it a heartbeat if we let them.
Itsajob we traded away for promises not kept.
SP
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,128
Article is poorly titled and misleading - no official decision has been announced on this (but I'd bet on it happening). From the article:
In the meantime we can expect United to remove seats from regional jets to comply with their pilots contract as they move to furlough large numbers of employees effective October 1.
No duh. They're making plans to remove 6 seats. That is one row of coach seats.
The seats are all on a track system. It's probably not that hard to remove one row of seats and move the rest of the coach seats to give a bit more legroom.
In the meantime we can expect United to remove seats from regional jets to comply with their pilots contract as they move to furlough large numbers of employees effective October 1.
No duh. They're making plans to remove 6 seats. That is one row of coach seats.
The seats are all on a track system. It's probably not that hard to remove one row of seats and move the rest of the coach seats to give a bit more legroom.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post