|
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445170)
Doesn’t really matter. Its going to pass. We are replacing 200-300 50 and 70 seat RJs with mainline planes. We can’t hire pilots fast enough. Adding a few 76 seaters is nothing in my opinion. Certainly not anything that affect my job or yours. I’m not putting off contractual improvement because instead of having 153 76 seaters we have 180 but we have 300 less other RJ’s. A great trade off in my opinion and not really worth voting down the entire agreement.
Thousands of pilots said that over two decades ago. And damn near all of them learned the hard way. Who sent you? It was just two short years ago that we saw 76 seaters parked at mainline gates while mainline was sending out WARN letters. You forgot about that already? |
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445170)
Doesn’t really matter. Its going to pass. We are replacing 200-300 50 and 70 seat RJs with mainline planes. We can’t hire pilots fast enough. Adding a few 76 seaters is nothing in my opinion. Certainly not anything that affect my job or yours. I’m not putting off contractual improvement because instead of having 153 76 seaters we have 180 but we have 300 less other RJ’s. A great trade off in my opinion and not really worth voting down the entire agreement.
I’m not going to give up actual gains because of some dogma about “holding the line” when we will probably hire 10,000 pilots in the next 5 years. |
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 3445201)
This is very short-sighted regarding scope. UAL is hiring every pilot they can find… right up until they aren’t. At some point in the next downturn whoever is CEO will ABSOLUTELY exploit every loophole they can find in scope.I don’t know the UAL scope well enough to know whether a few more 175’s can be given in exchange for better protection somewhere else in the section. Sometimes change isn’t a concession, it’s just a change. That said, NONE of the changes should be made relying on the fact that times are good, so who needs protection in writing.
I also think the remaining RJ feed will somehow be tied into the Aviate program in a way that changes the traditional express model. i can imagine an agreement with sufficient protections and pro-mainline growth incentives that I just might consider a small increase in 76 seaters. |
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445170)
Doesn’t really matter. Its going to pass. We are replacing 200-300 50 and 70 seat RJs with mainline planes. We can’t hire pilots fast enough. Adding a few 76 seaters is nothing in my opinion. Certainly not anything that affect my job or yours. I’m not putting off contractual improvement because instead of having 153 76 seaters we have 180 but we have 300 less other RJ’s. A great trade off in my opinion and not really worth voting down the entire agreement.
I’m not going to give up actual gains because of some dogma about “holding the line” when we will probably hire 10,000 pilots in the next 5 years. |
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445170)
Doesn’t really matter. Its going to pass. We are replacing 200-300 50 and 70 seat RJs with mainline planes. We can’t hire pilots fast enough. Adding a few 76 seaters is nothing in my opinion. Certainly not anything that affect my job or yours. I’m not putting off contractual improvement because instead of having 153 76 seaters we have 180 but we have 300 less other RJ’s. A great trade off in my opinion and not really worth voting down the entire agreement.
I’m not going to give up actual gains because of some dogma about “holding the line” when we will probably hire 10,000 pilots in the next 5 years. |
Unfortunately, I very much expect some language that says “one 76 seater for every x NB (or even WB) aircraft” - essentially allowing more 76 seaters given the massive NB order we have coming.
ALPA has gone on record before saying that there is value in feed etc. |
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445170)
Doesn’t really matter. Its going to pass. We are replacing 200-300 50 and 70 seat RJs with mainline planes. We can’t hire pilots fast enough. Adding a few 76 seaters is nothing in my opinion. Certainly not anything that affect my job or yours. I’m not putting off contractual improvement because instead of having 153 76 seaters we have 180 but we have 300 less other RJ’s. A great trade off in my opinion and not really worth voting down the entire agreement.
I’m not going to give up actual gains because of some dogma about “holding the line” when we will probably hire 10,000 pilots in the next 5 years. Then the 50 seaters propped the door open for the 70 seaters, and then the same for the 76 seaters.
Originally Posted by TFAYD
(Post 3445337)
ALPA has gone on record before saying that there is value in feed etc.
|
I will be shocked if we see any scope give in this TA. Everyone knows that’s the red line that we will never vote in favor for and anyone that presents such a document for us to sign will be shamed for life.
|
Originally Posted by Lenticularis
(Post 3445345)
I will be shocked if we see any scope give in this TA. Everyone knows that’s the red line that we will never vote in favor for and anyone that presents such a document for us to sign will be shamed for life.
|
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445170)
Doesn’t really matter. Its going to pass. We are replacing 200-300 50 and 70 seat RJs with mainline planes. We can’t hire pilots fast enough. Adding a few 76 seaters is nothing in my opinion. Certainly not anything that affect my job or yours. I’m not putting off contractual improvement because instead of having 153 76 seaters we have 180 but we have 300 less other RJ’s. A great trade off in my opinion and not really worth voting down the entire agreement.
I’m not going to give up actual gains because of some dogma about “holding the line” when we will probably hire 10,000 pilots in the next 5 years. history always repeats itself no dogma etc United had almost 1000 aircraft fleet prior to 9/11 and by 2010 had 425 Think about how many jobs were lost |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:32 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands