Math in public (SCOPE)
 

Here are the numbers I found on Wikipedia for the UAL/CAL combined RJ feed.

66 50's skw
12 50's chit
17 50's trans
234 50's + 6 135's exjet

175 70's
16 76's (Q400)
336 50's
720 Total

The way I understand, the company can get 64 more 70/76 without consequence. At the 65th 70/76 seater, the 450 hard cap kicks in and they have to park 142 50 seaters. That would leave Expressjet with a 92 aircraft fleet. Or they can decimate the 50's everywhere else and that leaves Expressjet with 187 50's.

From a logical stance the emb is a better aircraft that can carry 50 people 65 bags and go 1200 nm but we all know that uncial is not logical and will probably decimate xjt just because we cost to much.

They WANT to get rid of the 50 seaters. Why help them?

Does not matter once limited to 900nm.

Did they define the powerplant in the scope section? No longer exempting turboprops (and hopefully not geared turbofan)?

Yah, the 50s' are great.....until it is 85 degrees and you wave bye bye....

Can anyone graphics gurus here take a US map and draw 900nm rings around the UCal hubs, please? You'd be stunned to see how much flying that is.

BINGO!
I flew in the JS recently on a 60 min leg. ATC limited them to 14,000'. They told me that it was a typical altitude. That's something like 3000 pounds per hour to haul 50 people! The 50 seat jet is dying on on the vine! It's what killed ACA, or Independence or SkeenCrapAir or whatever it was called. JUNK! EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE JUNK!

Not to mention that limit only applies to 80% of UAX "feed"

Denver is most likely the reason why that was put in there. You basically can't go anywhere east any more.

What I really like about this scope is that it includes the 76 seat turboprop within the 76 limit. Those are the future in a world of high fuel prices, and currently we have no scope restrictions on those.

Depends on the "50". A CRJ200 is not the same as an ERJ145 is not the same as an ERJ145XR.

And yep, they can't go away quick enough. But not all the ZFW, runway, climb, landing structural limitations are the same.

You would hope. But that's not stopping Jeffrey from sending the Q400 DEN-MCI as an example. Well under the 900 limit.

You know what I like about it? Nothin!!

The company made a mistake including the turboprops in the total number and would very much like to revisit that issue.

Here is your map
 

900 NM. Not much of a restriction if you ask me.


http://s15.postimage.org/o88r7f4ij/900_mile_RJ.jpg

That 900nm restriction off the west and east coasts look pretty good to me. I think we should cede the regionals that. In fact, give them more!

Easily done. OP, please add the SFO and SEA LUAL bases.

Does'nt matter what airplane is better CRJ vs EMB.. It's all about the leases and the willingness to play the 2/1 swap out game... And don't get fooled by XTJ's "1 for 1 upgage" SkyWest Inc. has proven that the are willing to "help" there partners out..

XJT already flies 50 seaters further than 900nm and look at some of the routes Skywest and GoJets fly on their 70 seaters they are much longer. So the 900nm is a big increase over what is going on now.

720?! That's a ****load of RJs. *** is going on?

Scope relaxation, that's what WENT on.

Pre 9/11 on the mid term ESOP and contract 2000, as well as during the concessions in BK. Either on the vote, or when the UAL MEC did the "70 seat giveaway".

Remember only 80% of the routes are capped at 900NM 20% of the routes are uncapped.

Years ago people laughed at the notion of having an RJ as a viable player in the market - and they "gave the practice jets to the practice pilots".

But don't worry. Every UAL guy I see has a 'United against outsourcing' sticker on their bag. They will fix this RJ mess and tighten scope.

I mean for years all I've heard was how loosening scope was an automatic no vote, how there will never be another RJ on property, how they were finally gonna get scope right.

Right? Right.

Yeah, and a few years later when I was doing 737 routes in my ERJ I used to hear Cal pilots say "You took our flying!!". To which I would reply "Don't blame me, you gave it away!"

You think they'd learn.....

No, they just get old and confused.

Any guess as to what percent UAX flying is now over 900nm? I bet it's not 20% so most likely they spent negotiating capital one a whole lot of nothing.

I'm just tired of the constant chest thumping on scope. You want to kill the RJs, this is your chance to do it. Quit complaining and tighten scope.

And yes, I am an XJT RJ guy. I have zero desire to fly larger aircraft at this company. And for all of the scope talk I hear from CAL guys its time to act. I also will buy thousands of stickers that say 'You f*cked up' and put them over their "United against outsourcing" sticker if this passes.

Same here, kill the RJ's.

That whole "Operation Orane/United against outsourcing" is a FANTASTIC message.

However, some of the messengers themselves flat out suck at conveying the message. There's a particular ORD based Airbus CA that has no problems walking up to UAX pilots, lecturing them how it's all their fault. Then, stuffs a handful of "Operation Orange" cards at you and tells you put them in your crew room and hand them out to your coworkers. Happened to me, I've seen him do it to other guys as well. All with that "woe is us the mainline and the UAX pilots that took away our flying" mentality.

I'll be the first guy to buy some from you.

To be specific, it is actually 900 statute miles but the point is Wellsley with the graph.

Sadly the DAL contract has 1 15% limit on DCI legs beyond 900 SM. the UCAL TA allows the company to operate 20% of the legs beyond 900SM.

That is moving the scope line backwards....

Isn't it supposed to be a pattern up? :eek:

NO KIDDING!!!!!

It's up to the pilots to vote now... The only one of my buddies at UCAL I've spoken with is a H#LL NO, I'm sure the other one feels similarly though.

The most important "Get" in scope that is industry leading and no one else has is the block hour ratio between all UEX flying (except block hours by 37 seat turbo prop aircraft) and UAL single isle aircraft. This provision starts at DOS. It starts at 120% and if the company exceeds 153 76 seaters after 1/1/16 it can ratchets down to 68%.

What does this mean? While it does provide for upward growth of mainline aircraft if the UEX fleet grows. It's real power and protections of jobs is if there is downsizing at main line. With this provision if UAL delays or cancels 737's they will have to park UEX flying to stay in compliance.

If UAL had this provision in the current contract they couldn't have parked the 737's or furloughed 1437 pilots.

Many think current CAL scope is better because of the 50 seat restriction and that is simply not true. Current CAL scope caps 50 seaters at 274. Above that there is a ratio to provide limited growth to CAL but no downward protection at all. This is exactly what happened after 9/11 (while that was under Contract 97 this scope provision was the same). CAL Mainline shrank significantly and Continental Express grew three fold.

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart. Cells 1 to 8 state the number of 76-Seat Aircraft operated in United Express Flying (cells 2 through 8 show an
TA Page 3
increase in the number of such 76-Seat Aircraft if added under Section 1-C-1-g). Cells 9 through 16 state the Max. % of UAXBH to SBH that the Company must maintain based on the number of 76-Seat Aircraft in cells 1 through 8. The measurement for the twelve (12) months in any Rolling Twelve-Month Period shall be made on a weighted basis by the number of 76-Seat Aircraft in United Express Flying in each month.
Number of 76-Seat Aircraft Operated In United Express Flying


See TA page 4 under 1C1F to view sliding block hour ratio protection. I couldn't copy and paste it wouldn't format correctly.

Remember the Q400's count as 76 seat aircraft.

Jayson Baron
Council 170 Chairman

The 50 is a lead anchor now though. Correction, an orphaned lead anchor. Let them eat 50's.

(jmho, as DL has a tonna 76ers) :(