horrido27

CRJ900.. under 86K
CRJ1000 (EuroLite).. under 86K
EMB170/175.. under 86K
MRJ70er.. under 86K
SSJ-100.. under 86K

jsled

from the FAQs
■What is the ratio of flying hours between United single aisle narrowbody aircraft and United Express at date of signing (DOS)?
The ratio between United single aisle narrowbody flying and United Express at the DOS will be: 53% United Express and 47% United single aisle narrowbodies.

The above is UNITED single aisle narrowbodies. There is no Continental. You and I work for UNITED.


not concessionary. Allows 76 seats, yes...like Delta for their last 3 contracts. But it limits UAX block hours to narrow body block hours, not all mainline block hours. Also puts flying restrictions and a 255 hard cap on 70+76 seaters unless United buys 100 seat mainline aircraft. If they don't, well I guess Delta is going to have a big RJ advantage. If they do, we have won the 100 seat battle.

Yep. CAL's current book allowes unlimited turbo-props PERIOD. That includes 80 seat Q400s.

FALSE. 255 70+76 seaters (unless United buys and flies 100 seat mainline aircraft)

from the TA:
“70-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft configured with more than fifty (50) passenger seats but no more than seventy (70) passenger seats, and certificated in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds.

So if it has 51 seats, it's a 70 seat aircraft.

Your 50 seat scope is dead. Sorry. Talk to your reps about that. The CO code is gone. THere are 70 seaters flying in and out of EWR and IAH and nothing can be done to stop it. Your scope also allowed unlimited Q400s, they are now included in the count of 70+76 seaters. The US AIr LOA is staus quo. We caved on that in the bankruptcy. AMR will hopefully take care of that for us. Just like United stole CAL from SKy Team.


I have 21 years to go. I give a ****. I believe this scope gives us leverage going forward, certainly better than current book. 255 hard cap on 70+76 seaters when they already have 180+ is HUGE. And tying UAX block hours to narrow body block hours is a big gain as well. No RJ growth when/if the company increases widebody block hours.


Sled

PS. I don't think you're "dense" and I know you give a ****. I just disagree with you.

jsled

From the UAL MEC Pro Statement:

SCOPE

Perhaps the most important gains found in the TA lie in the area of Scope. We firmly believe that the JNC accomplished the primary objective of Scope by protecting and growing quality jobs at the mainline while reducing the overall UAX footprint, which in the end will reduce the amount of outsourced jobs. International Scope now requires metal in the market and has eliminated the possibility of Joint Ventures such as Aer Lingus. Some of the harshest critics at the MEC agree this is Industry Leading.

Highlights of Scope are the tying of a max percentage of UAX block hours to mainline single aisle block hours. If the company wants to expand its fleet of 70/76 seat aircraft beyond a certain fleet size, it must correspondingly purchase Small Narrowbody Aircraft specifically designated by type in the TA while reducing the percentage of UAX block hours. If fully exercised, this provision means that 700-800 more mainline pilots getting paid rates agreed upon in the TA will fly these aircraft. Even if the company chooses not to increase 76 seat aircraft in order to avoid taking delivery of new mainline aircraft, a hard cap remains in place and a block hour limit, more stringent than current contract, attaches immediately. Furthermore, limiting leg length, reducing the percentage of Hub to Hub flying, and requiring that UAX flights either enter or leave a hub or a named market ensures that UAX becomes a true feeder operation instead of our competition.

Sluggo300

Thanks for the info. Are those weights with the 90 seats installed? The reference I went to had most of those airframes over the 86k max certificated weights with the 90 seat package. (I admit I didn't find all of the a/c types you did) Thanks again. Sluggo

jsled

EMB 190....over 86K
EMB 195....over 86K
MRJ90.......over 86K
CS100.......over 86K

horrido27

You forgot to mention a few

A380.. over 86K
B747.. over 86K
B777.. over 86K
B787.. over 86K
A350.. over 86K
A330.. over 86K
B767.. over 86K
B757.. over 86K
A321.. over 86K
B737.. over 86K
A320.. over 86K
A319.. over 86K
MD90.. over 86K
MD88.. over 86K
B717.. over 86K

oh.. and all pay more over at Delta than at UCAL under this TA.. except of course the A380-
yippie~

Motch

horrido27

Con Statements from CAL and UAL MEC No Voters-
UAL-
Scope:

The 2012 TA Scope section represents a major concession by both pilot groups. TA Scope is slightly tighter than Delta Scope, thus it could be argued in that context, that this section is Industry‐Leading. However, it must be said that the UAL MEC direction to the NC was clear: “nothing less than DAL pay for DAL scope.” This TA falls short.

CAL-
SECTION 1- SCOPE
While the language that guides our scope restrictions has been tightened up, the fact that we are moving from 50-seat to 76-seat aircraft with respect to Express Flying carries a huge price tag and moves us further away from our goal of limiting not just the quantity of outsourced flying, but the quality of outsourced flying as well. One of the most consistent expectations we saw from previous polling data of our pilots was to “hold the line” with respect to outsourced flying. This TA does not accomplish that.

Even though there is a hard cap on the number of “regional” aircraft, this new generation of airplanes are no longer merely “feeder” aircraft that provide traffic from smaller outstations to hubs as they were intended to do. They now have the capability of operating segments that are longer than three hours, provide mainline passenger comfort, and first class seating.

It's important to note that while there is a formula that limits the number of 76-seat aircraft (1-C-1-g), this TA still allows the company to operate up to 153 76-seaters at 120% of our mainline single-aisle block hours, should the company elect to not exercise its right to increase 76-seaters. In other words, while most of us look at the grand total (“what's the limit?”), there's no proof that they intend to reach that limit, and if they don't, there's no requirement for them to reduce the block hour ratio.

horrido27

Thank you.. you corrected me.
So, I will adjust my statement and say
"It allows for an unknown amount of 50 seaters"

I will address the rest of your post later. Gotta run~

Motch

PS> have about 17 years left here.. I am worried about myself AND I am worried about the future Airline pilot and also the future United Pilot.

Ottolillienthal

Ding DING DING........We have a winner!

Do you think this scope section is really about the 76 seat RJ?

So, in 10 years we are struggling under this BS contract and unable to negotiate a new one.....and then...........management says (due to circumstances beyond our control) (this is allowed in the TA you know), we are going to reconfigure the RJ's and add seats up to 90 plus seats in them..........then what we gonna do? What's ALPA gonna do? ALPA represents the RJ pilots too ya know. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile management drive a battlship through our contract and our scope sectiona and all those yes voters will be saying "no" "no" "this can't be" we were promised this, and that." But,.......read the fine print.............read it again.

It's in there. Management is: 1. Not bound by this scope language due to the get out jail free cards contained in the language with built in loop holes. and 2, there are no penalties for violating the language.

Asssume that any grievances or issues occuring under this "TA" will be decided by a republican NMB or republican courts, who are management friendly and not labor friendly.

End of the day.......90 plus seat RJ's will be flying the lions share of the domestic market and UAL pilots will have little forward progression in the career path with continued downward pressure being placed on earning potential.

Management wins again.

Thanks Zullo.............you bite.

Ottolillienthal

There is a very natural and real kinship between Jay Pierce and Dave Zullo. Dave Zullo wrote this language, and Jay Pierce is merely repeating the positve spin given to him by Dave Zullo. I wouldn't quote the CAL PRO piece for an actual or factual analysis.

I would find 2 to 3 highly competent lawfirms with expertise in this and solicit their opinions. ALPA should outsource this because ALPA has a conflict of interest in this area. It can't represent mainline and regional carriers witht the same passion and zeal and commitment of financial resources.

900 mile RJ's with 90 seat potential should be a real eye opener here. Funny how that got left out of the Pro analysis by the CAL MEC.