Until someone stretches another corporate jet or tosses turboprops on a shrunken 170. short sighted to leave the 50 seat genie uncorked. I’d rather see the total number of frames shrink even if it means a few more 70/76 seaters in the interim. Maybe like a 1 70 seater for every 4 50 seaters trade. This is a career long issue and I think assuming the 50 seat concept is permanently dead will come back to bite people down the road.

Our current 'scope choke' simply limits the number of 70/76 seaters unless the company buys the a220/e190/e195. It stemmed from UALs argument to the mediator that they should have 325 airplanes to match Delta. ALPA argued that Delta had just brought on a fleet of B717s and that they should match that in order to get the additional 70 RJs. Here's some math... 88 Delta B717s ÷ additional 70 UAL RJs = 1.25. See if you find that number in Sec1.

The ultimate goal was to compel UAL to buy a fleet of mainline 100 seat airplanes to fill a gap they desperately wanted to fill. Then it turned out that Kirby has a different idea of aircraft size needed at UAL. His first move was to cancel the 737-700 order and buy larger planes. The United Next order is convincing evidence that he's NOT Jeff Smisek or Brian Znotins. We ordered the largest of thr available narrowbodies.

So what do we do with scope choke if UAL doesn’t want to buy 100 seat aircraft? Remember, we already had/have scope language preventing those aircraft from flying at express. Scope choke was an attempt to bring them to mainline and end the ongoing pressure/threat from UAL to erode our scope language. The reality is that Scott Kirby's fleet vision and strategy is 180⁰ from Jeff Smisek.

It's reasonable to explore releasing scope choke in exchange for other contractual gains WHILE LEAVING CURRENT SIZE/OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS IN PLACE. Let them come to 325 parity with Delta but tighten up how they use them (range, markets, economic downturn, etc...). Depending on how the protections are written and what we gain this might not be seen as a concession. It's a fine line to walk for sure!

I'm actually expecting to spend most of my time pondering this sectionsection no/yes decision.

Scott Kirby ran AAs Highly profitable domestic RJ network before going to United. That network allegedly accounts for 50% of revenue dollars generated by AA.

AA scope allows 75% narrowbody fleet size of RJs with 40% being larger RJs (66-76 seat) and 60% smaller RJs (less than 65 seat) plus an additional 10% of narrowbody fleet size of Turboprops less than 50 seat.

I don't want to model our scope language after American 😯

We've been saying this for well over a decade.

So you'd be cool if they gave up 150 50-seat aircraft at express (7500 seats total) and replaced them with 74 100-seat aircraft and one more 76 seat aircraft (total of 7476 seats) at express for a net reduction of 24 seats? Yikes.

No. More 76 seaters is a scope loss.

Everyone thinking that 50 seaters will go away anyway should check out the latest application by SKYW.

they plan to fly CRJ with only 30 seats under 135 operations to circumvent the ATP rule.

https://downloads.regulations.gov/DO...tachment_1.pdf

Sunvox,

I agree with your list above except there is no mention of a vastly improved LTD to at least match DAL’s. 8K to 11K (in the Covid LOA) was a step in the right direction but still woefully inadequate.

DAL has no CAP, we cap at 11K. DAL gets a 32% B fund contribution on LTD (so they get a normal 16% B) we get 0 percent. They don’t use 1026 hours times pay rate (or blended rate as appropriate) to calculate pay total for the 50% (before cap). They use an actual average of pay hours the previous several years (don’t remember the time frame).

The only part of our LTD that is better is ours is tax free and DAL’s is taxable. This is be because DAL is paying 100% of the premiums (pilots pay 0). We pay a small portion of the premium (company pays the rest) with after tax dollars so our LTD benefit is tax free. If we’re smart we will still pay a small portion for LTD premium for the tax free benefit. DAL’s LTD tax free would truly be industry leading!

DAL type LTD is a hard line for me. No reason you should take a massive pay cut (and no retirement) if you go on LTD.

ummm no. Aircraft weight and Capacity limits remain per the current contract.

well you said you don't care what the jet allocation is, so make up your mind.

Will those be done under the UAX brand?

thats cute. Any increase in Capacity or Weight limit is a scope give.

Exactly... even one more 76 seater is a scope give.

yes

filler

Remove 4 50-seats for 2 76-seat. If it’s all 70-76 seat replacing the 50’s equaling no more lift capability then they currently have, what’s the argument?

That’s your opinion and feel free to vote that way. I still feel if we reduce the UAX footprint on a total seat basis, it’s an improvement.

The 50 seaters are going away anyway due to poor economics, so why give management more 76 seaters as sympathetic bonus? It's not like they're gonna keep the 50 seaters if you don't give them more 76 seaters.

A 76 seater can do DEN-CHS, DEN-SYR, DEN-DTW, DEN-RIC, DEN-ATL, etc... flights that can and should be done on a 319... a 50 seater can't do that. Why give them more opportunities to use E175s and CRJ7s instead of A319s/737-700s?

Also, replacing four 50 seaters that are doing short haul flying with 30-40% load factors and replacing them with two 76 seaters that will be doing what should be mainline flying does actually give more lift capability since the 76 seaters will have more than double the load factor.

1. This has been said multiple times before and here we are.

2. Embraer is already talking about a clean sheet 50 seat turboprop or possibly shrinking the 170.

Assuming the 50 seaters are dead is short sighted. They will, like the bedbugs they are, lie dormant until the economics get better or a more economical one is built. It’s not for me to suggest you all vote one way or the other but I’d be careful basing your vote on the death of the 50 seat airplane if an opportunity presents itself to shrink the total number of express frames.

Okay, but now you need to actually think critically about what you're saying and fully develop that thought...

Under the current scope clause:

If Embraer actually builds a 50 seat turbo prop or 50 seat 175, it would be better to have more of those than more 76 aircraft that have more weight/range.

Here's why:

1. A 50 seat 175 would still have to meet the weight requirement of the scope clause just like the CRJ 550, which would significantly limit its range.
2. A 50 seat turboprop isn't going to have the range for DEN-CHS, DEN-SYR, DEN-DTW, DEN-RIC, DEN-ATL. Nor would anyone book a flight on one when the competition is running A320s and A319s.

1.They aren’t talking about a 175 with 50 seats. They’re talking about *shrinking* the 175, a la the 320 to the 319.

2. Turboprops are more fuel efficient, although they would be limited by speed in that case. They’re already using the bigger RJ’s on those routes, the vast majority of -200/145 flights are less than two hour flights. SBN-ORD 5x a day, CHO-IAD, CRW-ORD/IAD, etc. People are already buying tickets on clapped out 200’s, a clean sheet turboprop would be far more comfortable and most of the flying public under 40 have no preconceived notion of a turboprop. If it weren’t possible for them to make a turboprop that the public finds safe and comfortable they wouldn’t have sold thousands of kingairs and Pilatuses to the 1%rs of the world. For many of these markets it’s a 50 seat aircraft or withdrawing service.

I hate RJ’s, which is precisely why I won’t count out a replacement for the -200. It doesn’t even have to be w turboprop or a shrunken 170. If there is a market left, and scope left open for it, someone will build a viable replacement. Short term you’re right, which is why I think it makes sense to kill off as many 50 seat jets as possible before something better than the 550 rears it’s ugly head.

when I was at JetBlue, ltd was 100% company paid up to $13k and was also tax free. So company can pay it all and it still be tax free. They also could up it to $15k by paying the difference and buy a short term plan that started at 7 days.

Yeah but when you start shrinking big planes to smaller, they don't get lighter by the same percentage of seats you took out. It would be extremely difficult to create a 50 seat E175 that would fit under the 65,000lb MTOW limit in the UPA and still have range comparable to a CRJ700 or E175.

Wow I had no idea... :rolleyes:

So instead of recapturing the less than two hour flights with A319s, you want to lose MORE of those longer routes to bigger RJs...? because that's the argument you're making here.

1. Who's gonna fly that clean sheet 50 seat turboprop? Can't even find people to fly the 50 seat jets. Can barely find mechanics to keep them running these days either.
2. Who says that SBN-ORD 5x a day on a CRJ2 can't be replaced by SBN-ORD 2x a day on an A319? Or they could do what they do in DEN and just switch it to a bus. Either of those would free up a lot of space in ORD and save a lot of money on fuel/labor.

The issue here is that you don't want to lose MORE routes to RJs like the 175 with longer (3-4) range... but for some reason you're arguing that it's actually a good idea to let them have more 175s to do this.

Im told that there will be no major changes to scope, but major work rule improvements.

We're not losing routes to the 175. Exactly the opposite is happening. 175s are getting parked (Mesa) because there aren't enough pilots to fly them. The reason you see a 175 on a DEN-RIC turn is not because the 175 is so much cheaper to operate, its because mainline doesn't have a spare A/C. 175s will take over 50 seat routes and mainline will take over 76 seat routes. This has already been happening.

No need to get so hostile amigo, I’m just pointing out a different perspective on it. Maybe there will be no 50 seat jets in 20 years and the residents of Lincoln, NE or South Bend, IN will be satisfied with once or twice a day 319 service, you’ll be totally right and it would’ve been stupid to worry about them. Maybe someone else starts running 6x a day service on a whisper quiet fuel efficient turboprop with legroom and all of a sudden 200 fifty seat aircraft are now being flown by express pilots because scope didn’t get tightened. I personally think any reduction in total frames is a good outcome. You don’t, for solid reasons. Hope you all get a great contract either way.

cheers

If that's true, and 175 will take over 50 seat routes as 50 seaters go away, why should scope be relaxed to allow more 175s? Still not a win for UA pilots...

Those extra 175s could later be used to take mainline routes if the economy tanks too.

Allowing more 76 seaters is not a win in either case.

Times seem pretty good at the moment. They won't be good indefinitely.

Amazing how quickly people forget how fast things can go south. It's like they were asleep for all of 2020.

It is not a win, but it's not a loss either. The total footprint of UAX gets smaller and we continue to serve smaller cities, or we do as you say and maintain current E175 cap and pull out of more markets simply because we don't have the resources to fly them ourselves.

The former solution you offered trades the short range 50 seat planes serving the small cities for long range 76 planes that may or may not be used to fly to those small cities.

The latter is the clear solution. It's a management problem. You're not management. You're a pilot. Stop trying to help them.

What happens when you give management the 76 seat planes that they want in exchange for 2x 50 seat planes being removed? Management goes and replaces those 50 seat planes with bus service like they already operate in DEN. That's what happens. Then they use the extra 76 seat planes that you gave them to do stuff that should be done by a mainline A220, E190, or A319. That right there is a quantifiable loss for UA pilots.

Dude is either a management troll or clueless nube. Either way, this line of thinking is a cancer to our profession. Hope the wiser pilots among us see the bigger picture.

for now - can easily change in the next down turn

I look at the index first to see which page section 3 starts on…


SHOW ME THE MONNNEEYYYYYYYYYYYY.

so short sighted. I don’t give an eff if they set pay scales at 1000$ per hour. If there’s no job because boneheads like this vote to relax scope, then it doesn’t matter what the job pays.

Right!! I’m with you. Just give me minimum wage, as long as work rules and scope are rock solid!! Sarcasm. I think the last guys post was a bit sarcastic too.

if that’s the case, my apologies.

I truly wonder what some of these guys backgrounds are who even have the faintest receptivity to relaxing scope in any way shape or form. Can someone possibly slug it out through the regionals for any amount of time and still hold this view? Are they prior military? Corporate? On another note, turboprops aren’t coming back. Pax hate em. I hope the regional model crumbles and dies a quick death.

That is exactly what most pilots will do. Just look at Section 3. if you doubt this, look at the outrage on this forum over the rumored pay increase. And now I get to read on here how much other sections are more important than Section 3. BS. The same guys talking about all of the other sections will go to Section 3 and place the greatest weight on Section 3.

Let's go with a hypothetical: the other sections in the contract meet all requirements but Section 3 has a less than 10% immediate pay raise. I can guarantee that there will be huge uproar on these forums. But anyone who's read these forums for any length of time should realize that the posts on this forum do not represent the rank and file. If the inevitable forum poll on this TA comes in at or above 20%, the TA will likely pass.

NO TO ANY SCOPE RELAXATION-PERIOD !!
No matter how sweet it may seem . It will always come back to bite you in the A$$$ sooner or later.

Because how many were sitting around getting paid to not fly? 2020 was a blessing for thousands of pilots, so to them no harm no foul I suppose…