Sure, Lets Outsource Some More Large "RJs"
11-20-2012 | 01:10 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
While waiting in line for coffee yesterday, I ran into a L-UAL guy at one of their hubs. Here was the conversation:
Me: "How does that new TA look to you"
Him: "Great. I'm voting yes."
Me: "Really? A lot of my CAL friends hate it. Why the enthusiasm to vote yes?"
Him: "They're dumb. If it fails, UAL as we know it will be gone. Management is going to decimate our flying"
Me: "And you don't care that by voting yes you give larger RJs to my company that should be flown by mainline?"
Him: "No, I don't care. I'm outta here in three years. As long as my retirement is intact this place can burn."
Me: (Blank stare at him)
Him: (Blank stare back)
Me: "So lemme get this straight - You are afraid of losing flying while you are here, but once you retire this place 'can burn'?"
Him: (laughing) "Yep. After my last day I don't care anymore"
(Once again for full disclosure, I am an XJT guy, I have ZERO desire to fly larger aircraft here. Please tighten scope)
Me: "How does that new TA look to you"
Him: "Great. I'm voting yes."
Me: "Really? A lot of my CAL friends hate it. Why the enthusiasm to vote yes?"
Him: "They're dumb. If it fails, UAL as we know it will be gone. Management is going to decimate our flying"
Me: "And you don't care that by voting yes you give larger RJs to my company that should be flown by mainline?"
Him: "No, I don't care. I'm outta here in three years. As long as my retirement is intact this place can burn."
Me: (Blank stare at him)
Him: (Blank stare back)
Me: "So lemme get this straight - You are afraid of losing flying while you are here, but once you retire this place 'can burn'?"
Him: (laughing) "Yep. After my last day I don't care anymore"
(Once again for full disclosure, I am an XJT guy, I have ZERO desire to fly larger aircraft here. Please tighten scope)
Are you saying there are some senior guys who are selfish jerks and that they'll sell out the bottom half of the list????
No kidding.
The TA will fail according to about 80% of the UAL pilots I've talked to.
11-20-2012 | 01:18 PM
#12
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: next to chronic complainers...
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 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 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.
11-20-2012 | 01:41 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
24 passenger difference.
Can you say 'career stagnation'?
11-20-2012 | 01:48 PM
#14
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
This thread is a classic example of how misinformation starts. You guys are 100% wrong about the scope issue both at Delta and United.
The Scope clause in the UAL TA is a huge blow to regionals and will result in an enormous reduction of UAX flying, and not gonna get into it, but is anyone following the reality of Delta flying. All the 50 seaters are going or are already gone and there will be a net loss of 5000+ seats for Delta Express whilst Delta ordered 717s and is negotiating for 76 seaters to be used by it's feeders.
But back to the regularly scheduled programming . . . here's how the UAL Scope actually works in the TA.
1) UAX gets a one year gap to prepare. So no change.
2) UAX Block Hours are limited to a ratio of UAX Block Hours versus UA Narrow Body block hours. The cap is 120%.
3) Currently UAX flies 112% of the block hours that UA NB flies so in theory UAX can add 8% BH capacity and swap out 255 50 seaters for 70 seaters.
4) Right now UAX has about 80 76 seaters. In the new TA when UAX reaches 153 76 seaters the ratio of UAX to UA Block Hours goes down.
5) If the company does nothing but buy 76 seaters to replace the 50 seaters this clause quickly becomes overly restrictive so the company is forced to buy and fly 90 seaters to then trigger a clause allowing them to buy more 76 seaters.
6) At the end of the game the ratio of UA BH to UAX BH goes down from it's current 112% to something closer to 30% and even though they add more seats per plane the net reduction in block hours is designed to exceed the increase in RSMs.
There is an analysis flying around that says UAL can add planes without doing anything because the scope clause has no teeth. This is an absolute joke. First, no one wants nor can any company make money with old 50 seat RJs and since Delta already made this move you can rest assured UAX 50 seaters will begin disappearing in the coming years, and UAL will most definitely NOT be adding 488 RJs as was suggested. Second, there are no "70 seaters" to be had. The companies involved would have to order new CRJ705s and that would be a total waste of money when the more flexible and profitable 76 seat turboprops and EMB170 are options. The scope clause also closed the loop hole on turboprops and added a weight measurement to insure capturing the intent of the scope.
I'm no ALPA lover, but you guys have to realize they are not idiots and understood that scope was everything in this round of contract negotiations.
I'll go on record right here and now saying that in 5 years 3 things will be true:
1) UAX will be much smaller relative to UAL.
2) UAX will be flying mostly the EMB170 or similar and the 50 seaters will be nearly gone.
3) UAL will have a 90/100 plane being flown by mainline pilots.
I don't know what the industry trend will be in 20 years, but I can assure all the RJ jockeys of today that they should get their applications polished because there are major layoffs coming at the regionals and major hiring coming at the legacy carriers.
If I'm wrong and you meet me in a bar in 5 years beers for everyone are on me.
Joe Peck
UALFO
The Scope clause in the UAL TA is a huge blow to regionals and will result in an enormous reduction of UAX flying, and not gonna get into it, but is anyone following the reality of Delta flying. All the 50 seaters are going or are already gone and there will be a net loss of 5000+ seats for Delta Express whilst Delta ordered 717s and is negotiating for 76 seaters to be used by it's feeders.
But back to the regularly scheduled programming . . . here's how the UAL Scope actually works in the TA.
1) UAX gets a one year gap to prepare. So no change.
2) UAX Block Hours are limited to a ratio of UAX Block Hours versus UA Narrow Body block hours. The cap is 120%.
3) Currently UAX flies 112% of the block hours that UA NB flies so in theory UAX can add 8% BH capacity and swap out 255 50 seaters for 70 seaters.
4) Right now UAX has about 80 76 seaters. In the new TA when UAX reaches 153 76 seaters the ratio of UAX to UA Block Hours goes down.
5) If the company does nothing but buy 76 seaters to replace the 50 seaters this clause quickly becomes overly restrictive so the company is forced to buy and fly 90 seaters to then trigger a clause allowing them to buy more 76 seaters.
6) At the end of the game the ratio of UA BH to UAX BH goes down from it's current 112% to something closer to 30% and even though they add more seats per plane the net reduction in block hours is designed to exceed the increase in RSMs.
There is an analysis flying around that says UAL can add planes without doing anything because the scope clause has no teeth. This is an absolute joke. First, no one wants nor can any company make money with old 50 seat RJs and since Delta already made this move you can rest assured UAX 50 seaters will begin disappearing in the coming years, and UAL will most definitely NOT be adding 488 RJs as was suggested. Second, there are no "70 seaters" to be had. The companies involved would have to order new CRJ705s and that would be a total waste of money when the more flexible and profitable 76 seat turboprops and EMB170 are options. The scope clause also closed the loop hole on turboprops and added a weight measurement to insure capturing the intent of the scope.
I'm no ALPA lover, but you guys have to realize they are not idiots and understood that scope was everything in this round of contract negotiations.
I'll go on record right here and now saying that in 5 years 3 things will be true:
1) UAX will be much smaller relative to UAL.
2) UAX will be flying mostly the EMB170 or similar and the 50 seaters will be nearly gone.
3) UAL will have a 90/100 plane being flown by mainline pilots.
I don't know what the industry trend will be in 20 years, but I can assure all the RJ jockeys of today that they should get their applications polished because there are major layoffs coming at the regionals and major hiring coming at the legacy carriers.
If I'm wrong and you meet me in a bar in 5 years beers for everyone are on me.
Joe Peck
UALFO
11-20-2012 | 03:05 PM
#15
New Hire
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: 756 FO
This is the biggest reason to vote NO on this TA. Currently the cap is 70 seats (E-170 and 66 in the CRJ-700). To increase to 76 seats, means a larger airframe, which can seat 90 (CRJ-900 and E-190) in a one class configuration. This is letting the proverbial cat out of the bag. Once we move from 70 to 76 seats, you can't go back, and it opens the door to move to 90 seats later on. It doesn't matter that there is the 255 airframe cap. The 50 seaters are going to go away slowly, so there are going to be even more and bigger RJ's flying for UA.
Scope is the biggest issue with this TA. The work rules are worse than what UA currently has, not to mention LOA 25.
Scope is the biggest issue with this TA. The work rules are worse than what UA currently has, not to mention LOA 25.
Still sucks, but just the facts please.
11-20-2012 | 03:14 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,145
Likes: 204
Originally Posted by nwa757:1296370
24 passenger difference.
Can you say 'career stagnation'?
Career stagnation? That is exactly what the age 65 ruling did.
11-20-2012 | 03:43 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
This thread is a classic example of how misinformation starts. You guys are 100% wrong about the scope issue both at Delta and United.
The Scope clause in the UAL TA is a huge blow to regionals and will result in an enormous reduction of UAX flying, and not gonna get into it, but is anyone following the reality of Delta flying. All the 50 seaters are going or are already gone and there will be a net loss of 5000+ seats for Delta Express whilst Delta ordered 717s and is negotiating for 76 seaters to be used by it's feeders.
But back to the regularly scheduled programming . . . here's how the UAL Scope actually works in the TA.
1) UAX gets a one year gap to prepare. So no change.
2) UAX Block Hours are limited to a ratio of UAX Block Hours versus UA Narrow Body block hours. The cap is 120%.
3) Currently UAX flies 112% of the block hours that UA NB flies so in theory UAX can add 8% BH capacity and swap out 255 50 seaters for 70 seaters.
4) Right now UAX has about 80 76 seaters. In the new TA when UAX reaches 153 76 seaters the ratio of UAX to UA Block Hours goes down.
5) If the company does nothing but buy 76 seaters to replace the 50 seaters this clause quickly becomes overly restrictive so the company is forced to buy and fly 90 seaters to then trigger a clause allowing them to buy more 76 seaters.
6) At the end of the game the ratio of UA BH to UAX BH goes down from it's current 112% to something closer to 30% and even though they add more seats per plane the net reduction in block hours is designed to exceed the increase in RSMs.
There is an analysis flying around that says UAL can add planes without doing anything because the scope clause has no teeth. This is an absolute joke. First, no one wants nor can any company make money with old 50 seat RJs and since Delta already made this move you can rest assured UAX 50 seaters will begin disappearing in the coming years, and UAL will most definitely NOT be adding 488 RJs as was suggested. Second, there are no "70 seaters" to be had. The companies involved would have to order new CRJ705s and that would be a total waste of money when the more flexible and profitable 76 seat turboprops and EMB170 are options. The scope clause also closed the loop hole on turboprops and added a weight measurement to insure capturing the intent of the scope.
I'm no ALPA lover, but you guys have to realize they are not idiots and understood that scope was everything in this round of contract negotiations.
I'll go on record right here and now saying that in 5 years 3 things will be true:
1) UAX will be much smaller relative to UAL.
2) UAX will be flying mostly the EMB170 or similar and the 50 seaters will be nearly gone.
3) UAL will have a 90/100 plane being flown by mainline pilots.
I don't know what the industry trend will be in 20 years, but I can assure all the RJ jockeys of today that they should get their applications polished because there are major layoffs coming at the regionals and major hiring coming at the legacy carriers.
If I'm wrong and you meet me in a bar in 5 years beers for everyone are on me.
Joe Peck
UALFO
The Scope clause in the UAL TA is a huge blow to regionals and will result in an enormous reduction of UAX flying, and not gonna get into it, but is anyone following the reality of Delta flying. All the 50 seaters are going or are already gone and there will be a net loss of 5000+ seats for Delta Express whilst Delta ordered 717s and is negotiating for 76 seaters to be used by it's feeders.
But back to the regularly scheduled programming . . . here's how the UAL Scope actually works in the TA.
1) UAX gets a one year gap to prepare. So no change.
2) UAX Block Hours are limited to a ratio of UAX Block Hours versus UA Narrow Body block hours. The cap is 120%.
3) Currently UAX flies 112% of the block hours that UA NB flies so in theory UAX can add 8% BH capacity and swap out 255 50 seaters for 70 seaters.
4) Right now UAX has about 80 76 seaters. In the new TA when UAX reaches 153 76 seaters the ratio of UAX to UA Block Hours goes down.
5) If the company does nothing but buy 76 seaters to replace the 50 seaters this clause quickly becomes overly restrictive so the company is forced to buy and fly 90 seaters to then trigger a clause allowing them to buy more 76 seaters.
6) At the end of the game the ratio of UA BH to UAX BH goes down from it's current 112% to something closer to 30% and even though they add more seats per plane the net reduction in block hours is designed to exceed the increase in RSMs.
There is an analysis flying around that says UAL can add planes without doing anything because the scope clause has no teeth. This is an absolute joke. First, no one wants nor can any company make money with old 50 seat RJs and since Delta already made this move you can rest assured UAX 50 seaters will begin disappearing in the coming years, and UAL will most definitely NOT be adding 488 RJs as was suggested. Second, there are no "70 seaters" to be had. The companies involved would have to order new CRJ705s and that would be a total waste of money when the more flexible and profitable 76 seat turboprops and EMB170 are options. The scope clause also closed the loop hole on turboprops and added a weight measurement to insure capturing the intent of the scope.
I'm no ALPA lover, but you guys have to realize they are not idiots and understood that scope was everything in this round of contract negotiations.
I'll go on record right here and now saying that in 5 years 3 things will be true:
1) UAX will be much smaller relative to UAL.
2) UAX will be flying mostly the EMB170 or similar and the 50 seaters will be nearly gone.
3) UAL will have a 90/100 plane being flown by mainline pilots.
I don't know what the industry trend will be in 20 years, but I can assure all the RJ jockeys of today that they should get their applications polished because there are major layoffs coming at the regionals and major hiring coming at the legacy carriers.
If I'm wrong and you meet me in a bar in 5 years beers for everyone are on me.
Joe Peck
UALFO
11-20-2012 | 03:45 PM
#18
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
Not saying that two wrongs make a right, but what was it when thousands of legacy Pilots were furloughed after 911 and 250 hour guys and girls were replacing them at connection carriers ??
Scoop
Last edited by johnso29; 11-21-2012 at 06:13 AM.
11-20-2012 | 04:46 PM
#19
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
24 seats can easily mean the difference between profit and loss. The economics of the E190 support mainline wages, while the E170 does not. It's a conclusion that is widely accepted around the globe as there are no legacy carriers worldwide that fly the CRJ700 900 or E170 175.
Career stagnation? That is exactly what the age 65 ruling did.
Career stagnation? That is exactly what the age 65 ruling did.
Any swap/drop/trade of RJs that results in more new RJs being bought it a crock and we all know it. Even if 50 seaters are parked, no more 76 seaters should be bought unless they are flown by mainline.
11-20-2012 | 05:04 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,145
Likes: 204
Why don't mainline pilots fly them for regional wages? What's wrong with that?
Any swap/drop/trade of RJs that results in more new RJs being bought it a crock and we all know it. Even if 50 seaters are parked, no more 76 seaters should be bought unless they are flown by mainline.
Any swap/drop/trade of RJs that results in more new RJs being bought it a crock and we all know it. Even if 50 seaters are parked, no more 76 seaters should be bought unless they are flown by mainline.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
