Scope Block Hour Ratio
11-19-2012, 08:20 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
That is an excellent breakdown and summary. I think there is one datapoint that should be tweaked, however. What is the lowest monthly snb hour in the last year? That could make a significant difference as the rj hours are adjusted monthly. In other words, January block hours are historically much less that June. How does the snb ration to rj ratio compare January. I don't have the data but my guess is the it is closer to the 120 percent ratio. Hopefully someone can shed some light on that data
11-19-2012, 09:36 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by texaspilot76
CAL EWR, maybe you can answer this:
Why wasn't it negotiated for mainline pilots to fly the 76 seat aircraft instead of releasing scope? If they wanted RJ's, fine, but let mainline pilots fly them.
At least at my regional, they are crapping their pants about the 1500 hour rule and how they will not have qualified applicants. The regionals will have a huge staffing shortage soon. If RJ's were at a major, then they would easily be able to staff them.
Why wasn't it negotiated for mainline pilots to fly the 76 seat aircraft instead of releasing scope? If they wanted RJ's, fine, but let mainline pilots fly them.
At least at my regional, they are crapping their pants about the 1500 hour rule and how they will not have qualified applicants. The regionals will have a huge staffing shortage soon. If RJ's were at a major, then they would easily be able to staff them.
Because they are not really wanted at mainline despite all the hyperbole you hear from mainliner's.
11-19-2012, 10:01 AM
#43
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by texaspilot76
CAL EWR, maybe you can answer this:
Why wasn't it negotiated for mainline pilots to fly the 76 seat aircraft instead of releasing scope? If they wanted RJ's, fine, but let mainline pilots fly them.
At least at my regional, they are crapping their pants about the 1500 hour rule and how they will not have qualified applicants. The regionals will have a huge staffing shortage soon. If RJ's were at a major, then they would easily be able to staff them.
Why wasn't it negotiated for mainline pilots to fly the 76 seat aircraft instead of releasing scope? If they wanted RJ's, fine, but let mainline pilots fly them.
At least at my regional, they are crapping their pants about the 1500 hour rule and how they will not have qualified applicants. The regionals will have a huge staffing shortage soon. If RJ's were at a major, then they would easily be able to staff them.
11-19-2012, 10:12 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by trip
Because they are not really wanted at mainline despite all the hyperbole you hear from mainliner's.
Bull. Ask a furloughed pilot if they'd rather work at Home Depot or fly a 70 mseater RJ at Mainline. Ask a junior reserve pilot if they'd rather be a 70 seat Captain or a reserve FO at a crashpad.
Only people who want thee things outsourced are management and senior pilots who think it won't affect them.
11-19-2012, 11:10 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 996
I just don't understand why the scope section would basically incentivize the company to NOT get new SNB aircraft. Sounds to me like the union is betting that the need for SNB will be so great that they will have to order them. I just don't see that happening especially because they would be punished with a much stricter scope section. Delta opens up a little on scope from past practice and they get 88 717's. United opens the flood gates and doesn't get anything in return except a few hundred more rj's.
11-20-2012, 01:21 PM
#46
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: next to chronic complainers...
Posts: 364
This TA actually reduces RJs and protects UAL pilots better then what is in place in CAL and especially UA right now.
Some of you forget, that new TA includes entire UAL not only CAL or UA.
Today UA flies more then 550 RJs and turboprops system wide with no restrictions on large turboprops like Q400s
153 - large SNB E170 CRJ700, 345 - ERJ145, and CRJ200, 45 - turboprops, and others.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTU5MDg3fENoaWxkSUQ 9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1Take[/URL] a look at the language again, in order to grow Express side, UAL has to increase UAL mainline fleet. If any of the airframes are parked or pilots get furlough, UAL has to reduce capacity on Express and shrink is proportionally. There are no more loopholes about jet and turboprops just seats and ration of A/C to mainline A/Cs, no more ambiguity about jet, turboprops, ductless jet / high efficiency direct prop propulsions
I believe this TA actually gives more protection then existing CAL 50 seat jets and unlimited large turboprops, and gives UAL competitive flexibility on the market. We all know 50 seat jets flying 1.5 hours in mid 20s burn more fuel and are no longer economical, they have to fly for over 2 hours in upper 30s to break even on seat mile in current fuel market. Just my opinion after reading TA.
Some of you forget, that new TA includes entire UAL not only CAL or UA.
Today UA flies more then 550 RJs and turboprops system wide with no restrictions on large turboprops like Q400s
153 - large SNB E170 CRJ700, 345 - ERJ145, and CRJ200, 45 - turboprops, and others.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTU5MDg3fENoaWxkSUQ 9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1Take[/URL] a look at the language again, in order to grow Express side, UAL has to increase UAL mainline fleet. If any of the airframes are parked or pilots get furlough, UAL has to reduce capacity on Express and shrink is proportionally. There are no more loopholes about jet and turboprops just seats and ration of A/C to mainline A/Cs, no more ambiguity about jet, turboprops, ductless jet / high efficiency direct prop propulsions
I believe this TA actually gives more protection then existing CAL 50 seat jets and unlimited large turboprops, and gives UAL competitive flexibility on the market. We all know 50 seat jets flying 1.5 hours in mid 20s burn more fuel and are no longer economical, they have to fly for over 2 hours in upper 30s to break even on seat mile in current fuel market. Just my opinion after reading TA.
11-21-2012, 02:50 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 258
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
This is from our current contract:
"The difference is that DALs ratio is event driven. IOW, their ratio begins at the arrival of their 154th 76 seat aircraft which is tied up to their B717s arrival. While DAL has apparently signed a purchase contract for those 717s, their BH ratio is not in effect until then, whereas ours is not event driven but rather in effect at DOS.
If one looks at their table grid, you'll see that it says N/A for 153 or fewer aircraft. Ours says Zero to 153 and 120% on the right. We aren't dependent on any event to trigger the added job protection. It is true that once their 154th 76 seat aircraft arrives, only then, their BH ratio works in the same manner as ours.
Hope this helps."
11-21-2012, 04:55 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by CAL EWR
Sorry about my tardy response it's been a very busy time period. I forwarded your question to our Scope guru. Here is his reply:
"The difference is that DALs ratio is event driven. IOW, their ratio begins at the arrival of their 154th 76 seat aircraft which is tied up to their B717s arrival. While DAL has apparently signed a purchase contract for those 717s, their BH ratio is not in effect until then, whereas ours is not event driven but rather in effect at DOS.
If one looks at their table grid, you'll see that it says N/A for 153 or fewer aircraft. Ours says Zero to 153 and 120% on the right. We aren't dependent on any event to trigger the added job protection. It is true that once their 154th 76 seat aircraft arrives, only then, their BH ratio works in the same manner as ours.
Hope this helps."
"The difference is that DALs ratio is event driven. IOW, their ratio begins at the arrival of their 154th 76 seat aircraft which is tied up to their B717s arrival. While DAL has apparently signed a purchase contract for those 717s, their BH ratio is not in effect until then, whereas ours is not event driven but rather in effect at DOS.
If one looks at their table grid, you'll see that it says N/A for 153 or fewer aircraft. Ours says Zero to 153 and 120% on the right. We aren't dependent on any event to trigger the added job protection. It is true that once their 154th 76 seat aircraft arrives, only then, their BH ratio works in the same manner as ours.
Hope this helps."
The ALPA negotiators knew full well that the future of the industry hung on scope, and the internet is not giving the negotiators full credit for their efforts. I have said it before, but if I'm wrong and you meet me in a bar in 5 years, beers for everyone are on me.
Joe Peck
UALFO
11-21-2012, 05:09 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
THe ALPA bag tags I got say NO to OUTSOURCING.
WTheck is ALPA doing allowing more outsourcing.
Talk about mixed messages.
ALPA is out of sync with ALPA.
WTheck is ALPA doing allowing more outsourcing.
Talk about mixed messages.
ALPA is out of sync with ALPA.
In what political reality could ALPA demand the elimination of Regionals.
The best option on the table is a slow transfer of seats from regionals to mainline. Asking for this to get done in a single contract is impossible. DAL was an improvement and the UAL TA scope carries the torch one step closer to the day when all flying is done at the mainline. The ALPA negotiators were not stupid, they knew full well that scope was THE single most important issue facing pilots today, and the scope clause reflects that understanding.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
