United to reduce regional flying
10-30-2024 | 05:04 PM
#61
Line Holder
Joined: May 2022
Posts: 646
Likes: 3
From: Clappin' Rip Bombs
For one, please provide a case that mainline pilots cannot operate smaller aircraft profitably. Generally, our pay rates increase with aircraft size. It stands to reason that mainline rates for 50 or 76 seat jets would be lower than those of the 737. What, in your opinion, makes the magic line of mainline profitably be drawn below 100 or 120 seats? Where, exactly, is that line?
Regarding your question of takeoff weights on the 550, management came up with the idea for removing seats from 700s to make 550s because they hit the 70/76 seat limit of our scope clause. You now want the union to grant relief on MTOW to allow them to make their end-around decision more profitable? And you think this weight limitation takes money out of your pocket? I'm stunned. Think of all the money "you" could make if we removed scope language altogether! We could do unlimited regional flying and have Skywest perform 100 seat or possibly 737/320 flying at a more profitable level. Heck, think about the profit potential of no restrictions on international revenue/code sharing! We could probably serve "our" passengers more profitably by putting all of them on ANA, Lufthansa, or Air New Zealand.
So again, please back up your claims that our scope clause takes money out of "our" pockets, or that the mainline cannot fly something smaller than a 737 profitably.
Regarding your question of takeoff weights on the 550, management came up with the idea for removing seats from 700s to make 550s because they hit the 70/76 seat limit of our scope clause. You now want the union to grant relief on MTOW to allow them to make their end-around decision more profitable? And you think this weight limitation takes money out of your pocket? I'm stunned. Think of all the money "you" could make if we removed scope language altogether! We could do unlimited regional flying and have Skywest perform 100 seat or possibly 737/320 flying at a more profitable level. Heck, think about the profit potential of no restrictions on international revenue/code sharing! We could probably serve "our" passengers more profitably by putting all of them on ANA, Lufthansa, or Air New Zealand.
So again, please back up your claims that our scope clause takes money out of "our" pockets, or that the mainline cannot fly something smaller than a 737 profitably.
I already explained why it takes money out of your pocket. If mainline cannot fly without making a profit, there is no sense in doing it. If a regional can fly it and make a profit, then there is sense in doing it. Then to throw restrictions into the mix that limit the amount of revenue that can be generated is pointless.
10-30-2024 | 05:09 PM
#62
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 153
From: 787 FO
We didn't "throw restrictions into the mix." The MTOGW limit has been in Delta's and United pilots' scope clause way before the 550s existed. It was UA management who wanted to change it. The pilots said no.
10-30-2024 | 05:09 PM
#63
Line Holder
Joined: May 2022
Posts: 646
Likes: 3
From: Clappin' Rip Bombs
Scope relief doesn't mean squat to me personally. So, if you think that flexing scope and all that mumbo jumbo means anything to me, it doesn't. I find it actually quite amusing how it makes people behave.
10-30-2024 | 05:11 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 510
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Pointless? So the company tries to end run our scope clause by creating a Frankensteinian 50 Seater and you want ALPA to agree to make it more operationally capable by waiving the contractual MTOGW? That's rich. Should we have given UAX 303 more 76 Seaters also?
Whose pocket and what money?
Whose pocket and what money?
10-30-2024 | 05:14 PM
#66
Line Holder
Joined: May 2022
Posts: 646
Likes: 3
From: Clappin' Rip Bombs
Um ok, so you just said it was in your scope clause agreement, so its a restriction the pilots set. So, back again. Why say no when management wanted to change it? What threat did it pose to the pilot group. And you said you have answered this, but you have not. This is a simple question that can have a simple answer. Is it nothing more to make a point? Show who is in control? What is it?
10-30-2024 | 05:14 PM
#67
Now Old
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 108
Likes: 59
From: Bent
Well, because CASM isn't just based on a pilots wage. Other labor groups figure into that CASM, that per hour on average are compensated at a much higher level. Then, we can talk about benefits, insurance, etc etc etc. If mainline could operate smaller aircraft at an equal profit margin as a CPA with a regional, they would do it.
I already explained why it takes money out of your pocket. If mainline cannot fly without making a profit, there is no sense in doing it. If a regional can fly it and make a profit, then there is sense in doing it. Then to throw restrictions into the mix that limit the amount of revenue that can be generated is pointless.
I already explained why it takes money out of your pocket. If mainline cannot fly without making a profit, there is no sense in doing it. If a regional can fly it and make a profit, then there is sense in doing it. Then to throw restrictions into the mix that limit the amount of revenue that can be generated is pointless.
By your logic, United would outsource anything that could be flown more profitably by another carrier. No kidding. That's why we have scope language in our contract.
10-30-2024 | 05:16 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 510
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
If you honestly think you're going to come on a mainline forum and try to persuade pilots here that we should relax scope restrictions, you're barking up the wrong tree. We all know exactly what scope relaxation over the past couple decades has done for mainline career progression. That mistake will never be made again by mainline pilots.
10-30-2024 | 05:20 PM
#70
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 153
From: 787 FO
Asked & answered and it has worked great. The company also asked for 303 more UAX 76 Seaters. No thanks. Since then mainline aircraft have grown from 770 to 972 and UAX RJs have decreased from 584 to 413 all the while UAL profitability has soared and our pilot contract added $10B in value. Now that is pay in our pockets.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fireman0174
Major
4
02-20-2007 11:27 AM
