Sure, Lets Outsource Some More Large "RJs"
11-20-2012 | 05:29 PM
#21
I'd rather be hunting
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
76 seaters being flown by mainline is not economically feasible when all your competitors worldwide are flying those aircraft at the regional level. You could strike to your hearts content and mainline will not get he 76 seater. Mainline flying 76 seaters for regional wages won't work either, because payrates are only part of the mainline cost structure.
Just trying to think outside the box here. Why would flying RJs at mainline have to be a regional wages? Could not mainline fly these aircarft but at a lower profit margin? The company then could include this in the JCBA and scope would be moot. Would this not be a win/win for both sides?
11-20-2012 | 05:55 PM
#22
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
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.
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.
Remember, 50 seaters are uneconomical, unpopular and unwanted. 76 seaters on the other hand are more economical, more popular and wanted.
So on our TA instead of making the company choke on 50 seaters and holding the line on 76 seaters we bought into a TA where DAL said 50 seaters will go away in mass and we'll buy all the 717s SWA never wanted anyways IF you allow us to have 70 more jumbo RJs (325 total).
and btw it's "the only way" to get rid of 50 seaters and get 717s. Plus we'll add a ratio to protect you.
Problem is that ratio might not be where it needs to be to protect pilots. See in the previous contract we had a requirement that in order to increase 76 seaters the mainline fleet had to grow to equal NWA+DAL in 2008. We struck that requirement out and went with a straight ratio under the guise that it'd increase our share of our NB domestic block hour flying from around 51% to 63% or something. But, there's your problem, 63% of what? The min ratio does not take into account the addition of 717s. Rather, as long as DCI drops from 600 or so planes to 450 (max per the TA once additional 76 seaters are added) the min ratio is met. The 717s just push us way above the min ratio, which is good, but staying that far above it is certainly not a requirement. Thus, we left ourselves exposed to having our side cut first in a way the hull requirement or a block hour requirement would not have.
You'll see people counter that argument by saying they could've pump n dumped with the old contract. Meaning, they could have increased from 722 or so planes to nearly 800 airplanes so as to increase 76 seaters to be 100% of all 255 51+ seaters and then dumped back to where we are. It's a nonsensical strategy because it'd cost a fortune to pull it off. Instead what Delta got was the removal of the pump language and added the ability to dump planes now if they want plus they got that cap raised from 255 to 325.
Also, now there are rumors we might add additional Airbi' to the fleet and in that deal Airbus will supposedly take some of the remaining 50 seaters off our hands. So there are ways to get rid of 50 seaters without adding 76 seaters and raising caps. I don't know. I think the most important thing is that pilots stay out of the mainline aircraft acquisition business. We shouldn't be buying our own jets via scope sales. Ratios are good but they have to be a complement to hull requirements. And I could care less how many seats are cut out of DCI, the most important thing to me is shift the flying back to mainline and get regionals back to being "regional". Dash 8-100s are fine, EMB-175s are not.
Just my two cents but when it comes to increasing the size of the 51+ seat outsourced flying...
Last edited by forgot to bid; 11-20-2012 at 06:37 PM.
11-20-2012 | 06:53 PM
#26
Widebody
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: 777 CAP
You know how you have to assume the dealer is holding a 10 in blackjack?
Can we assume that the UAX path that this management will take is the least advantageous to United pilots? Is that a fair assumption?
Can we assume that the UAX path that this management will take is the least advantageous to United pilots? Is that a fair assumption?
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.
Please compare the prime feeder's route maps prior to Delta's agreement: Comair vs. Skywest & Assoc. Then look for our 717-equivalent 100 seat aircraft order.
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.
Just how fast would a CRJ900, MJ70, EMB175 appear on property anyway?
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.
Going with our assumptions, we can assume 8% growth for UAX. And with bigger, more comfortable and capable planes. Thats 8% more hours with 52% more seats per plane. That's a lot more ASMs in UAX.
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.
Yes. If if if! and only if they exceed this number. Is there any evidence this management will voluntarily expand our flying at the expense of UAX?
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.
This would be great if the company did the right thing by us, its customers and the profession. Do you trust them to do this?
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.
Again, this relies on the company to add 76 seaters to the max; Delta's management at least showed their willingness to park 50 seat and add 717s; can you give an actual example of our management making such a good faith effort?
BTW, the UAL fleet plan shows a loss of 4 CRJ200 and a gain of 14 ERJs in 2012 for a net gain of 10. Not exactly following Delta's lead.
UALFO
Please compare the prime feeder's route maps prior to Delta's agreement: Comair vs. Skywest & Assoc. Then look for our 717-equivalent 100 seat aircraft order.
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.
Just how fast would a CRJ900, MJ70, EMB175 appear on property anyway?
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.
Going with our assumptions, we can assume 8% growth for UAX. And with bigger, more comfortable and capable planes. Thats 8% more hours with 52% more seats per plane. That's a lot more ASMs in UAX.
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.
Yes. If if if! and only if they exceed this number. Is there any evidence this management will voluntarily expand our flying at the expense of UAX?
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.
This would be great if the company did the right thing by us, its customers and the profession. Do you trust them to do this?
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.
Again, this relies on the company to add 76 seaters to the max; Delta's management at least showed their willingness to park 50 seat and add 717s; can you give an actual example of our management making such a good faith effort?
BTW, the UAL fleet plan shows a loss of 4 CRJ200 and a gain of 14 ERJs in 2012 for a net gain of 10. Not exactly following Delta's lead.
UALFO
11-20-2012 | 08:43 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,145
Likes: 204
Fixed it for ya. it didnt work out too well for them. Nice try.
Air Canada to transfer Embraer fleet to Sky Regional | Reuters
Air Canada to transfer Embraer fleet to Sky Regional | Reuters
11-20-2012 | 08:53 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,145
Likes: 204
Just trying to think outside the box here. Why would flying RJs at mainline have to be a regional wages? Could not mainline fly these aircarft but at a lower profit margin? The company then could include this in the JCBA and scope would be moot. Would this not be a win/win for both sides?
When UAL is the only Legacy carrier in the US, with little or no competition, then that unicorn of an idea might be possible
11-21-2012 | 05:29 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
From: A320
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.
Last edited by Gunga Galunga; 11-21-2012 at 05:34 AM. Reason: not worth it
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
