UAL to remove seats from RJs
 

Wow, great article. It doesn't even mention what seats are being removed from which aircraft.

(Spoiler: the 76-seat E175s are being reconfigured to match the 70-seat E175s.)

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?

Huggy

It’s in the contract. Period. But you can feel free to contact your reps with the idea. But remember, such clauses exist to make furloughing pilots expensive to the company. The genesis comes from an era where airlines routinely did seasonal furloughs. Hence, items such as this were negotiated. Just like furlough pay. Or do you want to give that provision up too.

Besides, any change to Section 1 would be considered a major change requiring MEMRAT. Snowballs chance of passing IMO.

Section 6 negotiators are obviously on hold for right now. However, nothing prevented the company from completing the process by the amendable date.

Lee

PS.
FWIW, we can’t get the company to consistently block of the proper rest seat on the 777 per the contract. What makes you think a CSR will not use those seats on an oversold flight?????? Pretty sure I know the answer based on the above example.

I get it Lee. And I'm not trying to reduce the effect of the contract to hold the company's feet to the fire.

However, LOA's and the items you refer to seem to be done regularly to clarify or modify parts of the contract.

If it is going to cost $XXX to remove seats... but we can find a solution that only allows them to put 70 people max on an airplane, and provide 50% of $XXX to something the union can actually use, then I would sure like to see it done smarter.

As to whether we can block off 6 seats... if we cannot ensure this were to happen, I would be appalled.

But that's neither here nor there. We have negotiated something valuable to the company. Let's monetize it and still get the desired effect. Win-win.

Again, scope is an item for Section 6 negations not LOAs. Those negotiations are on hold. See Todd’s video.

Frats,
Lee

I would trust management on this about as far as I could throw Glen Tilton ... those management bastards almost always have an ulterior motive. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them showed up on this site advocating such.

Be warned.

Yeah... because we know that some random gate agent won’t fill those 6 seats whenever some Instagram celeb goes crazy because they’re being denied boarding on an airplane with open seats... and then it becomes another media circus... and then the company responds along the lines of “sorry, but our greedy pilots union forces us to operate inefficiently and reduce travel options for all you hard working people...”

Rip the damn seats out. Set them on fire.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Your asking to a pilot to make a business minded decision? On a forum? These guys are truckers. They would die by the contract.

I personally have no doubt the company has started some discussion with ALPA on this. Based on Nocellas response regarding seat removal during the recent IR conference call, I’d say he’s been given an answer......

Lee