If the mediator did indeed do as you claimed, then why do the proposed pay rates, work rules, and code share protections fall short of DAL pilots contract? And what garbage are you spewing about DC9 size aircraft being given to express? I haven't seen a DC9-10 or equivalent size being flown by UAL or CAL for well over 15 years. And if you're referring to the CRJ900/EMB175, you really have no argument there. You see the 86,000 lbs 76 seat max has been in place for 3 contracts now. It hasn't changed, yet we keep receiving raises. On this last TA DAL management wanted an 82 seat limit, & our negotiating committee said "Yes, but they'll be flown at mainline". Management decided to stay at 76 seats.

Oh, and we are also still flying DC9-50s. And next year we will begin to fly B717's which will have even less seats then the DC9-50 & will result in MORE mainline flying and LESS outsourced jobs. Once you're able to grasp that, maybe you'll start to understand how DAL pilots are creating more mainline jobs in the long run.

It's nice how you like to blame all scope issues on DAL. You never seem to acknowledge the fact that Us Air has outsourced 86 seat scope for years now. Maybe we should blame UAL for crappy pay & pathetic work rules. After all, you've failed to improve them for how long? Been working under BK wages for how long? Good luck on shooting it down & recapturing that scope. I look forward to you proving many of us wrong.

How? Present facts please. The most recent DAL contract resulted in the guaranteed reduction of over 1300 RJ jobs, 88 B717's coming to mainline. At the very least, the transfer of more flying back to mainline was accelerated.

You figure out how to do that, & let us all know. On the latest DAL TA, management wanted 82 seat RJs. Our NC said sure, but they'll be flown at mainline. They quickly redacted that request. They wouldn't budge on recapturing flying.

Decades? 50 seaters haven't been flown for decades yet, & they're already being parked.

I think the 50 seaters had a greater effect then the large RJs. The 50 seaters generally aren't limited, while the 70/76 seaters are.

You are just way more of a man than I will ever be I guess.

Really? You are so far out in left field you need a telescope to see home plate. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant. Oh and next time use all caps so we can all know what you are saying.

Our pay rates actually surpass DAL's by year 3.

Work rules were tough since CAL's were so bad to begin with. We are actually fighting a war on several fronts...one being with management and another with CAL ALPA and their illustrious leader.

I guess I just don't understand why we have to beg for the privilege of flying our own passengers.

When I refer to "DC-9" size airplanes, that's right on the mark. Look at the gross weights of early DC-9's.

So if we get the blame for Scope, does that mean we also get the credit for payrates?

Scoop :rolleyes:

Now you're getting it...we all affect each others contracts. Just like back in 2000 when we raised the bar for the entire industry.

However.....$400 per hour is no good without a job.

Scope is my #1 concern, and those 5 DAL CRJ-900's parked at ORD some nights make me sick. Bill Lumberg swore they would only operate into small markets like Abilene.

Boy was he wrong.

BEWARE: Rj's at 76 seats. However..........word is management is buying the 90ish seat version, and removing some seats.

wanna bet they will come to us, either voluntarilly or behind some veil and start their own plan for 90 something seat RJ flying....

90 seats for 900 miles.

DUDE////////// It was never about the 76 seat RJ............It'a always been about the 90 class seat jet. Beware If we let them buy the big RJ's they will eventually reconfigure them and take 90 pax up to 900 miles.

The language is not tight enough. Too much risk for main line pilots.

It matters not who gets the blame. there is plenty to go around.

Blame it on the rain or milli vanilli if you like.

Right now, the buck stops with us. Blame it on us if we goof this up.

Won't matter who gets proved wrong when we don't move up the ladder due to RJ's taking over ALL domestic flying over the next 10 years at legacy carriers. As soon as they can send an RJ to London they'll go after the long haul stuff too.

Every 10 years, this career goes backwards 30 years in terms of career expectations................

What you gonna do, barbeque, or mildew?

If you are on the bottom one third of either the CAL or UAL seniority lists, this scope language should get your attention, because that's where you'll be for the next 10 years.

Good Luck.

Barbeque or Mildew?

This is genius . . . so what exactly are you complaining about? What line in the TA is upsetting you? What change do you expect in that line in the TA after a "No" vote?

Oh wait that would require thought, time, and research and you don't have any of that, but you do have a lot of vitriol. Oh sorry vitriol is that too big of a word?

It takes until year 3 to pass DAL? Looks like you're not even getting industry standard WRT pay rates then.

And how much can a reserve be flown at UAL? I know CAL can go to FAR max. I thought I heard UAL was around 95 for narrowbody and 92 widebody. That's really not much better then CAL.

76 seat aircraft have been around...what....7 years or so? When was the last time UAL/CAL flew DC9-10's or an equivalent? They've been gone a while. I don't see any regionals flying around for DAL with 100 seats in them. Only 76 seats. I do see them flying around for Us Air with 86 seats though. Darn facts getting in your way again.

Get your facts straight before calling them facts, Regionals were flying CRJ900s, but will not be flying them much longer. 95 hours at UAL, NOT. DC-9 size aircraft. Oh yeah there's the 737-500 and A319 oops not that fact either. Gimmee a break.

going on 6 pages......wonder how the looming pilot shortage figures in to all this.....

Wow....you have no idea what you are talking about. Do yourself a big favor and attend a roadshow.

Whats your angle? I assume you were on the property for the large four engine avro's that hit the property, then the crj 900's and EMB175 pre DAL merger. I agree with you these ac should be flown at mainline but some of your posts seem to forget being part of where this started.:confused:

Never said I was happy with the pay, but we match DAL's pay in December. Neither contract touches SWA rates for "industry leading".

You are wrong again WRT reserve flying. 89 hours max for wide body. Not sure about NB anymore.

We flew the 737-500 a few years ago with about 100 seats in it, so giving express 90 seaters (with 76 temporarily installed) is pretty comparable. Didn't NWA fly some "baby 9's" very recently??

Management demands more scope concessions with every new contract. They either want MORE RJ's, or BIGGER RJ's. They ALWAYS get what they want, and ALPA usually claims victory for every scope concession. Next time around they will want to put 90 seats in the CRJ-900's and we'll be told "come on guys...they already have the airplanes. We're not really giving up anything and there offering a 3% raise!!!

I believe the DL contract matches WNs current payrate (not w2 of course) in 2015, as that was one of the "selling points."

The last NW baby 9 was parked in early 2006.

So far DL hasnt even ordered a single additional jumbo RJ.

Trip your arrogance and constant flame towards UAL pilots in their fight against scope or anyone who disagrees with you for that matter is an embarrassment to ASA. A quick search of the Internet shows SAS flies 900s and LOT flies 175s. Airplanes that should and can be flown for live able wages.

As a 5 year FO at ASA on the 200 with no discernible upgrade in sight please tell me why if you are so economically savvy and have all the answers towards airline protifabitlity and economics, why do you continue to do laps in the loser cruiser for 40k a year when you could get such a better job with your self appointed MBA

That the RJ FO (trip7) even feels that he's the one to lecture UAL and L-CAL pilots on scope after the last 10 plus years is laughable in itself.

You might want to take your own advice. If you're an RJ F/O you'd be unable to attend a road show, so how would you know about their contents?

"Loser Cruiser." Now that's some funny stuff right there.

Lots of misinformation on this thread. Here is how I see it.

Current book: unlimited RJs up to 70 seats limited to 100% of Mainline block hours (A319s - 747s). The Scope Q&A puts our current RJ block hours at 78% of Mainline block hours, meaning growth of 22% in RJ block hours is possible under current book.

TA: RJ block hours limited to 120% of Narrow-body block hours......(A319 - B-757). The Scope Q&A puts our current RJ block hours at 112% of Narrow-body block hours, meaning growth of 8% in RJ block hours is possible. Not 22% as in current book.

255 is hard cap for 70+76 seat aircraft (including turbo-props) IF the company chooses NOT to add 100 seat mainline aircraft. According to the July 2012 Investor Update on UAL's website, we have 115 CRJ700s and 38 EMB170s already, add the Qs and they can add roughly 80 jets to the RJ fleet. BUT, they still must comply with the 120% of n/b block hours! Meaning they will have to park older RJs to reach that 255 (70+76) number. They are only 8% below the cap today.

This 255 is a HARD CAP of Large RJs and TPs (70+76 seaters) UNLESS the company buys 100 seat mainline aircraft! That is the key. 130 of that 255 can be 76 seaters until Jan 2016. Then 153 of that 255 can be 76 seaters. But the 255 does not change UNLESS UAL BUYS AND FLYS 100 SEATERS. If you believe that the 50 seater is dead, then 255 could eventually be the max number of UAX aircraft in the fleet. Down from over 550 today!!!

IF UAL chooses to buy 100 seat mainline aircraft, then just like the DAL scope, Larger RJs may increase proportionately. This option mandates that the 120% of n/b block hour limitation decreases, and the number of 50 seaters decreases. It is on a scale, but if UAL wants to increase that 255 number all the way to a max of 325 with up to 223 76 seaters, they will have to buy 88 100-seaters (1:1.25 ratio), the percent of n/b block hours will have to decrease to a max of 68% (from 120%) and the number of 50 seaters decreases by a formula for each 76 seat aircraft added above 153. If these numbers sound familiar, it is because it is the DAL scope language almost to the letter.

There are also other protections: hub to hub and distance, but this is the meat. This is my understanding only, backed by questions I have had answered by my Reps. I would appreciate ANY feedback. I cannot see how this is not better than current book.

Sled

Is there a MAGTOW limitation in the scope clause along with the 76 seat limit? Or is the seat limit the only restricting factor?

Yes. 76 seats / 86,000 pounds. Just like DAL, and now AMR.

Sled

I'm not certain what you mean by your CRJ900 remark. If this TA is approved, there certainly will be regionals flying CRJ900's. I was uncertain of the reserve max, which is why there was a question mark. WRT the DC9 remark, you should note I mentioned the DC9-10. It held around 90 people in a single class configuration. It was not even close to a A319, B737-500, or 100 people with 1st class & coach class.

I was uncertain of the max reserve, that's why it was a question. ;) A 737-500 held 100 people with 2 class configuration, correct? CRJ900/EMB175 can hold only 76 in a 2 class configuration. Not even close to a 737-500. BTW, they've remained at 76 seats for 3 contracts now. And Delta management asked for a max 82 seats on the last TA. DALPA said that was ok, but they'd be flown at mainline Management quickly redacted their 82 seat request. So you're wrong. Management does NOT always get what they want. Plus, DAL pilots received a lot more then 3%. Heck, we get 8.5 on Jan 1st alone.

johnso: the 82 seat request from mgmt always intrigued me. It was stated to me by several different higher ups as well as a status rep that DL had NOT asked for more seats in the 76 seaters. Only when the uproar and sales job began did they change their story.

I'm still not sure what to believe.

So.. you don't believe that they will park 3 50 seat aircraft (150 seats) and replace them with 2 90 seaters [much more efficient] configured to 76 seats. (152 seats).
3 50 seat aircraft flying 10 hrs a day.. 30 hours.
2 76 seat aircraft flying 12 hrs a day.. 24 hours.

So, they have actually lowered their UAX block hours and increased their avail seats.

Why is our agreement tied to block hours vs. Delta's which (it seems.. hopefully a Delta guy can chime in here~) is tied into ASM/Seats.

Fact is, there is not one 90 seater configured to 76 seats flying, configured with a First Class, flying from Hub to Hub/other destinations, over 900nm away.. flying United Passenger as of right now.
This TA Passes, the above statement will no longer be true.

"United against Outsourcing"

Motch

DL small jet ratios are domestic block hour ratios.

AF code share is Passenger Seat Kilometers.

On January 1, 2013 DAL gets a raise and you wouldn't until 2014.

He's a RJ right seater (or he plays one on VATSIM). He knows everything. :rolleyes:

Well, even if they didn't ask that would still make untied wrong. :D

Your logic in this statement is perplexing. When I supported Obama during the election and used his points during online discussions does that mean I should run for POTUS? Telling a line pilot that their logic regarding scope is flawed is a far cry from me declaring that I can run an airline better than the present management.

Good find on the mainline RJs. A near bankrupt SAS and a very small LOT Polish Airlines which is basically an RJ operation with a handful of 737s and 767s(being replaced by 787) certainly is the definition of a trend in global legacy Airline economics

True... they arent 90 seat airplanes no matter how much he tries to make them. By that logic, the 744 is a 500+ seat airliner while we run them around with 370 or so.

Just because management can put more seats in them, doesn't mean they will. The "70" seat CRJs at DL are equipped with 65 seats... the airlines have realized the value of a premium product instead of packing as many seats as possible in the "RJs." (transcons are now regional flying if they are still RJs).

I still think that a viable economic argument could be made for the jumbo RJs at mainline, though... no matter how much steam our resident RJ know-it-all can blow out of his ears.

The only argument that I heard from our rep was that they didn't want them at mainline if it couldnt support a mainline pay rate. My bloodpressure still rises over that one.

You need to go check out the manufacturers web site bud.

Advertised as a 90 seater.

If it makes you feel better to call it a 76 seater....go ahead and keep kidding yourself.:D

Did you hear about Bombardier's new slogan??

"The CRJ-900....Making outsourcing profitable again!":)

You are correct. But current book allows unlimited 70 seaters, which are also configured with a First Class, AND about 22% growth in block hours. This TA allows 76 seaters but only about 8% growth in block hours. AND the TA caps the 70+76 seaters (including the Qs) at 255 unless they buy mainline 100 seaters, no such cap under current book. I think it's better.

Sled

Not sure which status reps you asked, but the info I've received, from high ups, has been very consistent; the company was asking for 82 seats, ALPA made it clear that wasn't going to happen. The fact that the company wanted to "optimize" the airframe with greater than 76 seats, shouldn't be a surprise. Of course they did.

The 82 seat story didn't start until after the sales job began.

And exactly when was that? The company wanted to add seats, that should really come as no surprise to you.:rolleyes: