TA Considerations: Sections
 

I’m just trying to understand how each one of us considers a Tentative Agreement, and which sections are more important/less important. This is a question for each individual and we all vote for our personal situations. NO FLAMING!!! Just honest and frank discussion. We might learn something???

For me, scope (Section 1) is the section that I read first. That is an up or down vote for me!!! If it is unsat, I stop reading and will vote “NO”. Then I move on to scheduling and hours of service. Then move to R&I.

Again, I would like to have a constructive discussion regarding this!!! Nothing derogatory towards anyone!!!

Top 5 for me are essentially the same:
1) Scope
2) Scheduling of crews
3) Hours of Service
4) R&I
5) Compensation

I can’t wait for people in this thread to start arguing about the “right” way to read a TA.

There is no “right” way!!! Just the right way for each individual‘s life…

I’m so hardcore I don’t even look at section 3

If you’re serious, I applaud you!!!

I have entire Section 3 redacted

Any changes to scope
and I mean any more 70/76 seats allowed than we had at the previous contract
is a BIG NO

Yup, that's an easy BIG NO. Doesn't matter what is in the rest of TA. If the MEC passes anything that relaxes scope, they should be recalled immediately.

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.

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

I have the same feeling
however if 2 years ago 4300 facing furlough did not scared him/her I don’t know what we can say to change his/her thinking
Scope relief should be a big No No

Wasn’t it Whiteferg who said something along the lines of “bring on the RJs it won’t affect me”?

That was my input to my LEC rep. I'm open for a new approach, but the reality is that anything seen as a concession will be a poison pill. If it's not crystal clear, and needs to be explained (ie sold) then it's going to be seen as a concession.

Appreciate the sentiment but United was never that big. Lets look at the actual numbers.

Per the annual reports:

end of year 2000, UAL had 604 aircraft in its fleet.

end of year 2009 it was 360,

end of year 2008 of 409.

that was when United split to 2 different airlines and Unity was destroyed

1) At a minimum but acceptable to me: No changes in Scope
2) Improvements in reserve
3) Significant pay raise
4) Some other improvements particularly non-taxable ones.

"Red line" hahaha now that's funny. Same language used by the MEC just before the company stole our pensions. There is NO red line so stop that nonsensical talk.

Bull**** and you know it. What stopped the company from adding additional 76 seaters?

Cute but this isn’t 20 years ago. You are stuck in the past.

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 workers

This was July 8, 2020. Less than two years ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2492IG

You’re right. History never repeats itself.

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.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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.

I guess that's where we disagree. As long as the total number of express seats allowed go down, I dont care what the jet allocation is.

Isn’t there already an avenue for UA management to get more 175s? Ordering A220s/E195s…

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

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 have amongst the highest CASMs in the industry. It makes financial sense for them to go away. It doesn't make sense for us to pay for them to go away. We've already provided an avenue for UAL to use more 76 seaters. You want to pay for a gain that we already have language for?

The 50 seaters expiring due to life limited parts and they aren’t being made anymore. The 50 seaters will handle themselves.