Itsajob

Scope is where it is because we negotiated our flying away over the years for various reasons, and of course they would love to be able to outsource more. The problem is that when it comes to the 76 seat rj’s, the horse is already out of the barn. At this point, where is the motivation for the company to put the horse back in the barn when it is cheaper to let someone else feed it? Unless we improve our scope language to further restrict the company, there isn’t that great of a financial argument to bring them in house. Everything United is more expensive.....pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, training, maintenance, etc. I think bringing the flying in house to prevent furloughs would be great for us, and gaining quality control of the product would be good for the company. The problem is that the cost exceed the benefit. If it’s cheaper to furlough and outsource, they have no reason not to follow that path.

LeeFXDWG

Wont hold my breath for bringing the E jets on property. That’s just me despite the fact I wish it would happen.

Now, please remember that every scope protection we have came at a cost. The company and ALPA place a different value on every item in the UPA but suffice it to say the pulling out 6 seats wasn’t for free. And we’ve paid for that decision more or less since it was negotiated.

Really folks, I do hope we avoid CH22 but what we don’t want is so called blocked seats that are available. See First Day Orders as it relates to CH11

Lee

Itsajob

I agree. Everything in the contract comes at a price to both us and the company, the difference being where each places the value. The company was willing to cough up higher compensation in exchange for less restrictive scope language. We valued scope protections more than their money, therefore we have our current contract and not something else. We live and die by the contract, especially when things are bad. I’d like to be able to at least reduce the furlough if we can come to an agreement that leaves the UPA intact, but I’d rather furlough, and even get furloughed, than to change one word in the contract. I don’t want to spend the next 10 years trying to get it back.

LeeFXDWG

I agree. And getting it back always gets valued more by the company when we try to get it back than they value it at when it was given up. Par for the course.

The issue with any give/concessions going forward is the potential for BK. NO MATTER HOW AIRTIGHT WE THINK THE LANGUAGE IS it will more than likely be negated in the First Day Orders process.

Why, if the company goes CH22 they first meet a test of either jeopardy to solvency or that of being a viable ongoing concern to use legal jargon.

Please don’t show your belly to whoever the BK Judge might be.....

Lee

Excargodog

Yet it’s an interesting comparison. United management is doing this during negotiations because they are exercising “the full contractual rights they were allowed” but when the Atlas pilots attempted to ‘just fly the contract’ and not volunteer for premium pay, that was considered to be a violation of the status quo during contract negotiations:


https://www.supplychaindive.com/news...reight/509720/

it would seem like what was sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander...

STXDrew

Bring them in house! We can do it better and more cost effective! We can fly them at 88 seats, we can order E2. ALPA can set a competitive pay rate for Ejets that’s a win win for the company and pilot group.

SK knows we can do it better and cheaper the unfortunate thing is he still believes in the whipsaw and race to the bottom. With regional airlines going out of business now is the perfect time to capitalize.

AxlF16

You can exercise your full contractual rights...as long as you don't change how you do it.... The company would have a decent claim at a status quo violation if everyone started refusing to pick up open time or waive duty limits because they have data that shows what we've historically done. They aren't changing the way they exercise their rights because they haven't had to do this before. We can pursue status quo violations against the., but frankly the bar is much lower for them to prevail in their claims against us.

UAL97

This is likely being proposed by at least one of the UAL ALPA councils. Fingers crossed.

TSRAGR

There is no desire by management to have us fly the 76 seaters. They'd rather furlough. And then remind us it was OUR fault WE were furloughed b/c we didn't give concessions. And then, smile when we come back and welcome us back..."Oh, it's so good of you to come back..., we're glad you're here"

Winston

The goal is to make it increasingly cost prohibitive to furlough pilots.

Are you seriously asking if we can find a way to weaken furlough protections built into the UPA?

Unbelievable.