TA Considerations: Sections
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 754
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?
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 552
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.
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.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
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.
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: 18%er but I’ll enforce UPA23 to the last period.
Posts: 439
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.
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.
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 495
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.
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.
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,072
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.
ALPA has gone on record before saying that there is value in feed etc.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,099
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.
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.
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.
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,072
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
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.
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post