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?

 

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.

 

Nice post. I'm expecting a significant rewrite of Section 1. As it currently exists, it's just a bunch of corks in the dyke representing a piecemeal approach to limiting outsourced small jets. I hope they started with a clean sheet and wrote language that protects our jobs from ALL encroachment while encouraging mainline growth. Since, as you said, management will eventually seek to exploit any language we need to make sure there are guardrails AND red lines to protect us. IMO Kirby will use this agreement to grow UAL to our mutual benefit. But then again a situation might arise that causes him to change strategy....or he leaves and the next CEO has a different, pilot hostile vision.

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.

 

You couldn’t be more in(expletive redacted)correct. Others have explained far more eloquently than I about how, yes, it does matter. It matters a whole ****ing lot. No scope relaxation at all.

 

Let me guess...bottom third two year upgrade?

 

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.

 

Allowing 50 seaters was once "no big deal"

Then the 50 seaters propped the door open for the 70 seaters, and then the same for the 76 seaters.

ALPA realized long ago that they make more money for less effort by keeping the regionals around, which is why ALPA just helped AA save their wholly owned carriers instead of taking this opportunity to kill the regional industry once and for all.

 

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.

 

i really hope you are right

 

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