Sure, Lets Outsource Some More Large "RJs"
 

One generation selling out another. When will it end? How can any pilot with a conscience put a price on creating more low paying regional jobs?

United pilot agreement allows for up to 255 large RJs

Don't blame them... blame 60% of our (DL) pilot group for doing the same.

So if delta pilots jumped of a bridge u going??

You do realize that United has to bring a SNB on property flown by UAL pilots before getting remotely close to 255 large RJs right?

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.

For the ENTIRE industry's sake, can we all PLEASE agree this sort of scope is bad??? Nothing good can come out of this for pilots other than lower wages and more career setbacks. These aircraft should be flown by mainline pilots with mainline seniority numbers. Please.

Is there no magtow limitation in the scope clause? I heard something about the actual size of the rj's being in the definition section

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)

The federal mediator told our guys that Delta's scope disaster is now "industry standard".

So, yeah.....the DAL contract DOES affect the rest of the industry and it hurts our efforts to improve scope.

DAL continues to screw over the rest of the industry with their scope concessions. It's been going on for about 17 years now.

Wait a minute.....

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.

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.

Can you explain the justification why a E175 can be outsourced and an E190 has to be "on property" !?

24 passenger difference.

Can you say 'career stagnation'?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-195-line2.gif

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

Aircraft are limited to 86,000 lbs, can't fly anything larger than an EMB-175, don't know the max certified weight of the CRJ-900.

Still sucks, but just the facts please.

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.

Great post, thanks for summarizing. Hopefully you are correct with all of this, but worst case scenario is free beer!!!

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 :confused:

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.

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?

Sorry for the intrusion, I'm a DAL guy.

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).
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.
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...

http://www.southbaycarpetcare.com/cm...og%20sorry.jpg

Air Canada flies 170's and 175's. Next argument?

Just make this the only outsourced aircraft allowed... then cap the number and range...

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/1867580.jpg

Wonder why the new block hour ratio wasn't the norm years ago?

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?

Fixed it for ya. it didnt work out too well for them. Nice try.

Air Canada to transfer Embraer fleet to Sky Regional | Reuters

It's doubtful mainline could fly these aircraft at a profit at all, especially with the competition worldwide flying the same aircraft at the regional level. Ask your union reps on how well that pitch went to management. They simply will not entertain the idea. It's an unviable economic model from day one.

When UAL is the only Legacy carrier in the US, with little or no competition, then that unicorn of an idea might be possible

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...Bid/Temp11.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/temp10-7.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/temp2-32.png


Like I said, when it comes to our contract, here's to hoping that what we allowed to happen with large RJ scope doesn't actually come to fruition.

...............

Fixed it for ya. it didnt work out too well for them. Nice try.

Air Canada to transfer Embraer fleet to Sky Regional | Reuters

Oh hell no.... you have your own group to blame if your TA passes. You came over to our thread for weeks and bloviated your unsolicited opinion, and now it is YOUR turn. It matters not what the mediator thinks.. show some backbone. Let's see those big stones you talked so much about showing. Come on untied... Vote it down... Raise the bar. Show us all the way things are done. And as far as YOUR particular badmouthing of my company, you can .........

Note: This is not intended as any opinion of the TA as it pertains to the rest of the UCal group. You guys do what you think is best for you. This was solely aimed at the jackass that spent weeks interjecting his opinion into my group. I wish the rest of you luck.

Lol. I guess that's why Us Air allows 86 seats in their outsourced RJs. Because of Delta's disaster of 76 seats(for the last 3 contracts) now being industry standard. BTW, DAL scope is resulting in mainline growth, reduction in outsourced jobs, protections for mainline flying, & better Joint Venture/Codeshare protections. Dang facts getting in your way again.

Not anymore. An arbitrator recently awarded Air Canada management permission to senrecents aircraft to a regional and Airbus & B767's to a low cost subsidiary of Air Canada. :eek: Lower paid pilots flying airplanes Air Canada pilots used to fly.

Not that I follow the latest and greatest on Air Canada, but...

7/30/2012: 7/31/2012So now Air Canada's E175s are off property and that is seen as a blow to the pilots and a win for the company. We should view it the same here.

Most ignorant and ill-informed post! Untied, it is one thing to read the USA today for bullet point information and watch "Fixed" news network to develop "un-biased" opinions but to be totally blind to the facts and language in our contract, "much less your own TA language" and blame other groups for your perceived problems does convey your stupid statement in a positive way. Our TA addressed our pilot groups concerns (is it perfect? not even close) and reduce DCI carrier footprint at DAL. LESS seats and LESS DCI pilots and more main line flying. Those are facts and in a short 2 years from now we will begin negotiating another contract that will hopefully reduce and restrict more DCI flying and increasing pay rates and improve our QOL.... Just 2 years

That is the reality for DAL pilots, I hope you guys get the best deal possible so we can start openers from an even stronger position based on your industry leading contract. Best of luck and stick with the facts it will serve you and your group much better.

You should view it as reality, so stop chasing unicorns and use these facts to your advantage, which is reducing UAX feed. That's what DAL did, and that is what the UAL MECs are trying to do.

Newsgroup policy? Are those things still around?

This TA won't pass.

Our contract talks are overseen by what's called a "federal mediator". You need to educate yourself on the process. They DID put DAL's contract on the table and told us we were unreasonable to not accept the new "industry standard" that 60% of your brethren accepted so stupidly.

Delta has always led the charge in outsourced flying. Now they give DC-9 size aircraft to express and proudly proclaim how that HELPS the fight for scope!

I guess you couldn't say "well, we wanted a raise so bad we gave up jobs again."

You will see managements plan in the long run. For a couple years you will think the protections on block hours mean something, but those will be quickly retracted once management offers you a 3% raise next time.