The Flight plan
 

The Flight Plan October 2012
Upcoming Planned Changes From Crew Resources
Winter International Schedule 2012/2013 - Redeployment
As a result of reliability issues on the 747-400, we intend to consolidate the ORD 400 flying into SFO. We have issued a Notice of Proposed Decision Making (NPDM) as outlined by the contract and will work with the ALPA System Scheduling Committee (SSC) to formulate a plan for the ORD 400 base. After the NPDM process is complete, my expectation is that we will need to surplus ORD 400 pilots.
Here are the planned changes.
 ORD/NRT will move from an s-UA 400 to an s-UA 777 in January
 ORD/HKG/SIN will move from an s-UA 400 to an s-UA 777 at the end of
March
 SFO/KIX will move from an s-UA 777 to an s-UA 400
 SFO/LHR#1 will move from an s-UA 777 to an s-UA 400
 SFO/FRA#2 will move from an s-UA 777 to an s-UA 400
 NRT/HNL will move from an s-UA 777 to an s-UA 400
As previously announced, the LAX base will lose two thirds of its 777 flying.
 LAX/NRT will move from an s-UA 777 to an s-CO 787 in January
 LAX/PVG will move from an s-UA 777 to an s-CO 787 in March
These changes are long term. The transition agreement prohibits us from involuntarily reducing the size of the LAX base. Therefore, we are looking into additional 777 flying for LAX pilots. A final plan has not yet been formulated. However, we are looking at “W” flying utilizing the LAX/LHR flight, deadheading to another base/station to cover flying and potentially utilizing TDYs from LAX to other 777 bases.
2013 Summer Schedule/Vacancy Bids
Based on preliminary planning, we expect summer 2013 flying levels to be similar to summer 2012. The exception to this is the 767 will be down summer 2013 vs. 2012. As previously announced, 50 737-900ERs will replace the less fuel efficient 757s. Delivery of the 737s is expected to commence after the 2013 summer peak.
We are evaluating the impact of the reduced 767 flying in the summer of 2013 and the arrival of the 737’s. From a basing perspective, we will continue to evaluate the need to grow the 320 IAH and JFK bases. We expect to complete domestic aircraft redeployment by February 2013.
To prepare for 2013 pilot retirements, we just issued vacancy bids to take advantage of available training slots in December. We have posted bids for 744 CA/FO, 777 FO and 320 FO. While more analysis needs to be done the current plan does include recalls. Watch for more details in the coming months.
Retirements
Commencing in December of 2012, mandatory retirements will again be a reality. Below is a snapshot of the retirements. The “Total Active Pilot Retirements “ column excludes those pilots who are on extend leaves and are not deemed a flyer for staffing purposes. As pilots come on/off active status, the numbers will change.
Year
Total Pilot Retirements
Total Active Pilot Retirements
Active Pilot Retirements by Fleet/Seat
2012
5
4
320CA-2
767CA-1
777CA-1
2013
174
171
320CA-26 320FO-3
767CA-38 767FO-3
777CA-45 777FO-17
747CA- 28 747FO-11
2014
182
143
320CA-22 320FO-1
767CA-30 767FO-4
777CA-43 777FO-9
744CA-23 744FO-11
2015
169
129
320CA-33 320FO-3
767CA-8 767FO-6
777CA-32 777FO-10
744CA-27 744FO-10
2016
142
136
320CA-25 320FO-10
767CA-36 767FO-10
777CA-24 777FO-7
744CA-12 744FO-12
2
10/30/12

About 'effin time.

The Flight plan
 

Translation. We are building a case to park the 400.

Yep.

Standard CAL flt ops mentality, shrink to profitability.

These people can't leave soon enough.

Who says they are leaving? I wouldn't. Until there is some major shake up, it's gonna be status quo. Maybe a resounding NO vote would be a start.

They're not leaving. That's the problem. Phred has his merry band of losers groomed and ready to go after he pushes this latest pile of dung on the pilots and rides off with his millions.

Voting no.

I will take a look at the final document....leaning so far to a NO..if we even get the opportunity to vote.

How many 400's does UAL have?

Airfleets.net says 24 active.

At our peak (2000), we had 44, plus 2 classics. (-200s).

Must have downsized the 767 fleet for the merger.

Pan AM had 226 airplanes at their peak.

Loss of scope = Downsizing. This is as true today as it was when UAL got rid of all their 737's.

Keep that in mind when it's time to vote.

The Flight plan
 

RJs didn't replace the 737s at UAL, check the facts.
CAL 737s however DID replace them.

You go ahead and keep believing that dog....

Look at the city pairs that our 737's used to serve. Most are served by 70 seat RJ's now. Case in point...DFW, where I've been commuting from for over 15 years. One UA A320/day and one CO 737/day and FIVE 70 seat RJ's. Used to be eight 737's/320's a day. Our 737's were indeed parked to "rightsize" no doubt. But, RJ's DID replace the 737s at UAL...PERIOD.

Really looking forward to hearing this one for the next 30 years.

Okay, folks. Why the hell hasn't anybody questioned the rationale for shutting down the ORD -400 domicile? The official explanation: "reliability issues".

So...because s-UA -400 pilots based at ORD write up APUs and #4 generators and call in fatigued, it's that big of a problem?

Sounds more like acting like a "C"aptain. Methinks it's punitive. Welcome to the way s-UA pilots fly, Phred. I guess some just don't like flying garbage or working tired. The culture at ORD is a little different.

SCR

There are many more examples of this, not just DFW. So I find your conclusion that 70 seaters didn't lead to the sale of the UAl 737's. They were older than the airbuses, more costly to operate than the RJ's, so they went.

As far as right sizing for the merger, I don't know. It seems that Tilton wanted to merge with anyone, even US Air. So I guess, if there was right sizing, it was for that merger.

CAL employees did not want a merger, we seemed to be doing just fine on our own. Smisek's ego and the CAL's greedy BOD saw the dollar signs and Tilton just wanted his check and get out.

If lowering costs by moving flying to RJ's, putting UAL pilots on the street and selling Older 737's to put a fresh coat of lipstick on UAL is right sizing for a merger, then I guess I would agree with you.

Somehow, I don't think we will ever see this the same way, we're just on different sides of the same fence.

The Flight plan
 

Then why did the CAL CEO say that CAL wouldn't survive without the merger?

And why was Tilton quoted on CNBC crowing about "right-sizing" the company to make the merger happen?

Yes, this happened.

SCR

You must love and respect Jeffy to believe everything he says. Do you think he was trying to sell the idea of a merger? Think.

And you give credence to that??? Any such muttering's happened to be the very some CEO that been jerking your crank through this whole Merger. In case you don't have a flare for the obvious, there's NOT a lot of solace to be had there, nor in any of his profound promise's thus far dawg-digity-dawg.

Maybe he'll grant you more "facts" to be facts in the coming months. After all, he "said it", so it must be true......appears to be nothing less than ease prey unto the CEO.

I don't argue that it wasn't made more attractive for a merger by reducing costs. I'm saying it happened through loss of scope. That is what lies ahead if we cave on scope again.

I hope I am wrong.

Tilton called it "Right Sizing". He could just as easily said "Downsizing, Outsourcing, Reducing" I'm not arguing semantics, just saying how you got there was the loss of scope.

Smisek, as I believe you are now painfully aware, would have said anything to get this merger to happen. Not for the good of either company or it's employees, solely to feed his ego and bank account. I don't believe ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth now, and that applies to all his previous statements as well.

Let's hope our MEC's find the wisdom to do the right thing ( Whatever you think that is ) and we can move closer to paying Smisek off and hopefully find someone with VISION that wants to run a real airline.

When was the CAL CEO ever credible? He would say anything he needed to for the $14.4M.

It's interesting how there are a lot of people down on Mr. Smisek. It seem to me that just before the merger there were a lot more people that would have sold their souls to get rid of Mr. Tilton. Many of which were saying "we just want your management". Mr. Smisek was the CEO for a few month at CAL before the merger. I think the person most people wanted was Bethune. He was gone, so be carful what you wish for.

I've been following or working in the industry since the mid-1960's and child-like whining about the guy(s) at the top is pretty standard. The managerial "grass" is always greener elsewhere.

The only exception I've observed over the last 46 years was the tenure of Gordon Bethune and Greg Brenneman at LCAL. However, even with a couple of the best there were still detractors who would occasionally surface. It's the "norm" for the industry.

This United thing sort of does take it to a new level relative to everyone else. I would surmise that even if Herb Kelleher (LUV), Gordon Bethune (CAL), and Greg Brenneman (CAL) were all "tag-teaming" at the top of the new United, there would still be individuals whining about it somewhere in the United system.

Old ucal

"I've been following or working in the industry since the mid-1960's"

If this is true then you are currently retired and have been for awhile. The most senior pilots at UAL and CAL were hired in the mid-late 70s. There aren't anymore 60s hired pilots left on the list. The age 65 rule alone would have sent you into retirement years ago.

So your stake in this merger JCBA is what?

Old ucal

According to your profile your 62. If you were hired in the 60s you'd gave still been in high school or a late teen. Dude I smell a bit if bs here.

High school, flight training, college, more flight training...all in the 1960's/early '70's. That's called "following." FBO instructing, charter, corporate, small regional, large airline...all in the mid-1970's and on. That's called "following" and "working."

Furloughed?...yes, once.

Retired?...very close, financially set, mentally prepped, playing the part through my schedule, just not quite yet...:)

Defending the current regime? Sounds like a SCAB to me.

Huh? There's a strike? Wow, probably the fastest that a strike has ever been organized in airline history!

Age 65 hasn't sent a single pilot into retirement. Thats the problem.

Old UCal

In my background I got my pilot license in high school when renting an airplane cost less than $10.00 an hour wet, but I would never make the statement you did about being in the industry since I was 16. So the BS flag about your post went up big time.

The question about retirement and 65 was based on this, had you been hired by a major in the 60s you would have been 60 prior to the change to 65 (12-14-2007) and thus already retired. Of course that is unless you were one of the sneaky ones who went inactive and then restated after the age 65 law kicked in. But of course you'd again be retired unless your birthdate was later than 12-14.

All is mute here because your profile says your 62 (1950). I hope you aren't one of those who took advantage of the 1983 debacle?

lolwut

I hope you get my point, had this pilot been hired in the 60s they would not have made the 65 age group cut.

You sure talk alot about your money.
voodiloquist

The Flight plan
 

That's because he understands that money is freedom in our country. Freedom to donate, freedom to send your kids to school, freedom live the life YOU want
That's how this country was built. YOU create your path! And get to walk down it

46 years...

barf.

gag.

'scuse me....can I get a paper bag?

The Flight plan
 

Fly Reserve at CAL like I used to do and many still are. Then tell me about being at the top.
Worst job I ever had.

Copy that, thanks. So, since you answered for him you're either his mother or domestic partner. I'd say the latter.

voodiloquist

>>>All is mute <<< Did you mean moot?

A little over 5 weeks to go....