|
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445539)
Cute but this isn’t 20 years ago. You are stuck in the past.
|
I hear a lot of..... "No changes to scope." It's pretty much a guarantee that Scope is going to change, it does every cycle. Im of the opinion that as long as there is a reduction in the number of total seats allowed in the Express operation, the makeup of how many 50 seat vs 76 jets matters much less. Most likely we will see a smaller Express operation with more 76 seat jets tied to mainline growth. That would still be a win in my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by Chuck D
(Post 3445042)
I’m so hardcore I don’t even look at section 3
https://media2.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Bluewaffle
(Post 3445598)
I hear a lot of..... "No changes to scope." It's pretty much a guarantee that Scope is going to change, it does every cycle. Im of the opinion that as long as there is a reduction in the number of total seats allowed in the Express operation, the makeup of how many 50 seat vs 76 jets matters much less. Most likely we will see a smaller Express operation with more 76 seat jets tied to mainline growth. That would still be a win in my opinion.
Every time scope was relaxed, this is how to was sold. And we're still buying it? Mainline grows because it's good business. Not because we buy it by giving away parts of our contract. |
Originally Posted by 89Pistons
(Post 3445616)
Every time scope was relaxed, this is how to was sold. And we're still buying it? Mainline grows because it's good business. Not because we buy it by giving away parts of our contract.
|
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.
|
For me,
1. Scope (if the company wants to reduce the number of 50 seaters and wants some more 70-76 seaters, I'd consider it to a point...not to exceed any more RJs than we have now.) 2. QOL things (vacation, sick leave, training pay, min day credit, rigs) 3. Reserve rules (never know when you'll return to reserve) 4. Compensation |
Originally Posted by 89Pistons
(Post 3445545)
Did you miss the part about two short years ago? Your blind eye won't benefit you.
United Airlines sending 'gut punch' furlough warnings to 36,000 workersThis was July 8, 2020. Less than two years ago.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2492IG |
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3445691)
So you’re deciding this based on a pandemic? Even with 0 RJs they’d have tried to furlough the pilots. What makes you think that no RJ’s means the company can’t furlough? They’d have still furloughed. Vote how you want, but flying a few more 76 seaters and getting rid of 200 50 seaters is a massive scope gain. Massive.
|
The 50 seaters expiring due to life limited parts and they aren’t being made anymore. The 50 seaters will handle themselves.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:32 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands