CAL EWR

Put this in another thread. It's important so I decided to start a new thread so it doesn't get lost in the other scope thread.

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

CAL EWR

From the Scope Crew News:

United Express Flying Block Hour Limitations (1-C-1-f)
• Block-hour ratio of Express flying to Company flying on single-aisle aircraft – based on the number of
76-seat aircraft in UAX operations; the ratio begins at 120 percent at date-of-signing (DOS) and is
reduced down to 68 percent
• This ratio accomplishes one of the main goals in Scope: assuring a balance between our narrowbody
flying and United Express flying
• As a result of this ratio, if our single-aisle block hours diminish, then so do those of the UAX carriers
• Under the ratio, if United mainline single-aisle aircraft flying grows, then United Express flying may
expand -- but only within the limits of the ratio
These provisions help protect United mainline single-aisle flying and are significant when considering that in the legacy
Continental contract, protections were limited to a top-end aircraft hull count based on the overall fleet size (and size of
small jet to be operated). Even with these protections, we never flew nor provided an incentive for the Company to
operate 76-seat or 70-seat regional jets at mainline. In effect, one could argue we only prevented the Company from being
able to utilize them. Additionally, the cap on hull count was not a hard cap, but a variable one based on new aircraft added
to mainline operations. With the legacy United contract, the ratio is currently 100 percent, measured against all mainline
Company flying and measured once per calendar year. As further clarification, had provisions from existing contracts (in
particular, United) been retained for the TA, United Express flying at DOS could have grown as much as 22 percent
without any growth for mainline flying, merely because of the difference in network size following the merger.
Exploring the block-hour ratio in greater detail, this ratio is important in that it joins different protections of the
Scope section together. First, it specifically ties block hours of United Express flying to United mainline single-aisle * * *
4
block hours. Any reduction of mainline single-aisle narrowbody flying (minus the small buffer contained within the
120 percent ratio) will trigger an equal reduction in UAX flying. The buffer, which is not a mechanism to grow
United Express flying, is needed to allow for the anticipated slight dip in mainline single-aisle aircraft hulls resulting
from expected fleet plan changes over the next few years (differences in aircraft deliveries and aircraft retirements).
The ratio also acts as a collar for the transition period in the first year of the contract. There are two areas where this is
important. One, a provision exists whereby the Company can use additional 50-seat aircraft, up to 90 percent of the
number of mainline single-aisle aircraft. While on the surface this seems like an opportunity for the Company to slightly
expand Express flying, in reality the ratio will quickly delay any UAX expansion − unless we grow our single-aisle flying
proportionally. Two, as the Company begins to plan the deployment of any potential new UAX aircraft afforded in this
section, it yet again limits their ability to expand any new UAX flying due to block hour constraints. Despite several
benefits of having this Scope provision starting at DOS, the primary objective of negotiating a block-hour ratio of UAX to
our single-aisle aircraft flying was to ensure protections for our narrowbody flying in the event of an economic downturn
that causes an overall reduction in flying. To put it simply, we were not interested in allowing the Company to expand
UAX flying if our narrowbody flying hours are reduced (as was experienced at legacy United). Ultimately, this ensures a
reduction in narrowbody flying will trigger at least an equal reduction of flying at our UAX partners.
It should be noted that this ratio protection, taking effect on DOS and tied to our single-aisle block hours, is not
found in any other legacy carrier contract and is a protection that will be unique to United pilots.
Additionally, when you look at anticipated new aircraft deliveries over the next few years, the bulk of block-hour
growth will likely be generated from international flying on widebody aircraft. The new block-hour ratio
provisions with regard to single-aisle aircraft ensure that additional hours we anticipate are through growth at the
mainline carrier and are not available to further expand flying at the Express carriers. We prefer that feed for those
flights come from organically generated growth of our own flying.
The table below is from Section 1-C-1-f and sets forth the allowable block-hour ratios, in conjunction with the 76-
seat aircraft hull count. The ratio begins immediately upon DOS at 120 percent of United Express flying
compared to our mainline single-aisle block-hour flying. As the contract matures and the mix of aircraft begins to
change at our regional partners, this ratio tightens. The reason for the reduction in the ratio is to eliminate a buffer
and clearly account for the effect of growing mainline aircraft hulls while UAX hull count is reduced (even as the
number of 76-seat aircraft increases). Eventually, depending on the 76-seat aircraft fleet count (on a weighted
basis), the ratio could dwindle to 68 percent, a 56-percent decrease in block hours that can be outsourced in
relationship to our own flying. Ultimately, what this ratio percentage means is an increase in mainline block hours
(in relation to UAX) and corresponding job opportunities that will transfer to mainline.

pilotgolfer

Jayson,

Can you explain LOA 25 and how it ended up in the TA? It is extremely divisive and appears to be an obvious attempt to influence the SLI. How do you justify giving the CAL pilots full credit for time on furlough while discriminating against the 99-01 hires?

I'm dying to hear your justification for this.

mossimo

As am I.....

tsquare

Ummmmm we also have that at DAL. BLH ratio was a big get in our scope. Just FYI. Not trying to sway ya'll one way or the other. Good luck.

CAL EWR

It was in the TA when we received it and were subsequently briefed. Other then when our MEC was giving direction to the JNC in preparation for the JCBA to attempt to gain longevity for pay purposes for furloughed pilots we had no involvement of how it was negotiated by the JNC.

CAL EWR

I am not familiar with the specifics of the DAL new contract. We were told by our subject matter experts that no one else has it and the DAL MEC contacted our MEC to say thanks for raising the scope bar.

pilotgolfer

So whose idea was the carve out..limiting the longevity credit to the junior CAL pilot? Certainly, that was not from the UAL side.

CAL EWR

That was decided by JNC.

skippy

How about explaining why we can allow up to 750 rjs and props.
Complete crap