Clear scope breakdown
 

Looking to see if some one can give some clear/straightforward numbers pertaining to current Scope at L-UAL and L-CAL vs. the TA scope allowances.

Appreciate special attention to the 70'sh seat market!

Just curious what this could mean for future Legacy hiring and the coming landscape of the industry.

I know there are some other threads on this, but I think a lot of us on the outside looking in with anticipation could really benefit from some clearly presented data.

Thanks to whoever chooses to break it down!

Without the company doing ANYTHING.. we give the company the approval to-
1) Have 255 70/76 seat Aircaft. (An increase of roughly 87 airframes. Of which, ALL {of the 87} can be 90 seaters configured to 76 seats with a First Class, some flying Hub to Hub, the rest to other destinations, 20% to destinations beyond 900nm)
1-C-1-a-(2)-(c) Up to a total of 255 76-Seat Aircraft plus 70-Seat Aircraft (“76/70- Seat Aircraft”), of which up to 130 may be 76-Seat Aircraft, and then, on or after January 1, 2016, up to 153 76-Seat Aircraft.
1-C-1-d Hubs
In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period, the number of block hours of United Express Flying operated by United Express Carriers as a group non-stop between current or future Company Hubs may not exceed five percent (5%) of all United Express Flying as a percentage of the total block hours of United Express Flying. A pair of Flights by a United Express Carrier operated under a single flight number in which one Flight is scheduled to originate at a Company Hub and the second Flight is scheduled to terminate at a second Company Hub shall be included within the five percent (5%) limitation, unless the Company imposes an IATA Standard Schedules Information Manual Type “A” Traffic Restriction Code on the through itinerary that shall suppress the display of such itinerary.
1-C-1-b At least eighty percent (80%) of all United Express Flights each month shall be under 900 statute miles.

2) Aprrox 488 50 seat Aircraft. (An increase of roughly 106 airframes)
1-C-1-a-(2)-(b) 50-Seat Aircraft, provided that such aircraft do not number more than ninety percent (90%) of the number of single aisle aircraft in the Company Fleet; and

3) Unlimited 37 seat TurboProps.
1-C-1-a-(2)-(a) 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft; and

4) Fly those 50-76 seat Aircraft up to 120% of our TOTAL Single Aisle Aircraft Hours (Not Domestic Hours.. ALL Hours).
1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart. Cells 1 to 8 state the number of 76-Seat Aircraft operated in United Express Flying (cells 2 through 8 show an increase in the number of such 76-Seat Aircraft if added under Section 1-C-1-g). Cells 9 through 16 state the Max. % of UAXBH to SBH that the Company must maintain based on the number of 76-Seat Aircraft in cells 1 through 8. The measurement for the twelve (12) months in any Rolling Twelve-Month Period shall be made on a weighted basis by the number of 76-Seat Aircraft in United Express Flying in each month.
# of 76-Seat Aircraft Operated UAX/ Max. % of UAXBH to SBH
1. Zero to 153 / 120%

5) Fly those 37 seat TurboProps to unlimited hours.
See above in Red

What is the rj cap if we DON'T go past 153 70/76 seaters?

I always crack up at the "Calculus" breakdown on the scope. Why do you care. ANY RJ'S FLYING YOUR ROUTES are there to whipsaw and eventually take your job!

The opposite of complex is simple but it may be hard. The opposite of hard is easy but it may not be simple.

90 seaters
 

I am not sure Ill say this correctly, but if I read the scope on 90 seaters they can not be over a maximum certificated weight of 86000 lbs. All of the 90 seaters I saw all weigh significantly more than 86k. I don't believe the 90 seaters can be used. I was told that was one of the sticking points during the contractual writing. The company claimed it was a 96 k lbs. weight limit, the union claimed 86 k and the mediator agreed with the union. R/..... Sluggo :cool:

Thanks for laying out!


So the biggest issue in terms of industry landscape is a total FAIL. Great...


Looks like I'm stuck at the regional another 10 years. :(

255- 70+76 seaters (including Qs) and 120% of narrow body block hours. If you believe the 50 seater is dead, then 255 could eventually be the max number of UAX aircraft in the fleet. A 54% reduction from today.

Wow. I feel like I keep repeating myself. We are at 112% of narrow body block hours now, so just like at DAL, the 50 seaters will be hitting the desert to make room under the 120% cap for the 76 seaters.
Current scope allows UAX to fly 100% of Total Mainline Block hours (747s,777s, 767s,all narrow bodies) so this scope curtails the potential growth of UAX significantly compared to current book.

Wow.. how dense can you be?!
First of all, where are you getting this "112%" number. My Rep told me we hover between 114 to 118% percent?!
Problem is, I don't know what that includes and means. Does it include Total (UAL & CAL Single Aisle Flying vs RJ's), Partial (one side or the other), 37 seat turbo props? United's mainline to RJ Ratio? what?!

No matter how you slice it. This TA is concessionary. It allows for 90 seaters configured to 76 seaters. Currently there are none.
It allows for a carve out of 37 seaters.
It allows for an unknown amount of 50 to 66 seaters.

You say it curtails the potential growth of UAX significantly compared to current book. Who's book?
Cause for the Continental Pilot Group, this Scope Section with regards to RJ Flying is Concessionary.
And I'm not even going into the LOA that allows USAir to get a large share of Code Share Flying.

You're Voting YES.. keep trying to justify it. If this POS TA Passes, we'll see what you have to say in 2014, 2015 and 2016 with regards to Scope.

Then again, my gut feeling is you don't give a ****~

Motch

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah. Just wait till they farm out the 737s and A320s to Skywest and wet lease A380s from Emirates to fly our passengers. What will we do then?

Sled

Not exactly true. Our pay banding has some paid less and some paid more. Try not to be so selective with the facts.

Propeller Planes Come Back Amid High Fuel Prices : NPR

A good reason to include turboprops in scope coverage.

Per September 2012 Check Airman meeting, all the 'Busses will be parked by 2015.

That was before the new plan was announced at the October 2012 Check Airman meeting. :rolleyes:

Sled

Quite possible given unpredictable economic events. Did hear that leases were extended on the 320 fleet (not sure how many and if 319s were even included) as far as 2020. Given that the MAX airplanes start showing up I believe in 2017, that could be about right. But the days of a civilized narrowbody cockpit in which to sit through a long westbound transcon will no doubt be over.

Delta 2013 12yr Capt - JCBA 2013 yr Capt

A380.. over 86K no pay scale / $330.20
B747.. over 86K $254.74 / $234.78
B777.. over 86K $254.74 / $234.78
B787.. over 86K $244.04 / $234.78
A350.. over 86K no pay scale / $234.78
A330.. over 86K $240.62 / $234.78
B767.. over 86K $240.62-$213.22 / $234.78-$195.82
B757.. over 86K $213.22 / $195.82-$188.97
A321.. over 86K no pay scale / $188.97
B737.. over 86K $205.53-$204.47 / $188.97-$181.24
A320.. over 86K $197.29 / $188.97
A319.. over 86K $197.29 / $181.24
MD90.. over 86K $193.76 / $188.97
MD88.. over 86K $193.76 / $188.97
B717.. over 86K $183.98 / no pay scale

Um.. ok. So, tell me why a United Pilot would make a post like you did yet not back it up with "Facts"?

In 2014, our pay goes up but still lags Delta. Also, Delta (I believe..) goes to 15% B Fund Contribution.
In 2015 we get closer to Delta again.
In 2016 we finally surpass Delta. Oh, but wait. Delta's PWA in amendable in 2015 so by 2016 Delta may (probably) will have a new PWA with payscales that are higher than ours.
Of course, that would mean that 2016 we trail Delta (again).
Same with 2017.. 2018.. 2019.

Only good thing is that we'll probably have a new CBA sometime in 2019. Bad thing is, we'll get pennies to the the dollar in Retro.. and we'll still be behind Delta~ But we'll be getting closer!
:rolleyes:

Seriously, it's gotten to the point that it's ****ing sad that the UAL Airbus guys (mostly) are doing anything and everything they can to justify their "Yes" Vote.

Motch

PS> You are TECHNICALLY Correct. We are paid more than Delta in some categories. A380, A350 and A321.
You win.

So the total value of the contract each year is calculated by considering only pay rates and B-fund contributions?

^ No Sir..
It's the value of the whole. But that was not the question. A UAL 320 Pilot stated that my post was incorrect. So I posted the payscales.

So let me ask you this-
Do we agree that the pay is behind Delta? Simple Yes or No.

To me (a CAL Pilot) Pay was one of the CornerStones. It has failed.

This thread was about Scope. If you believe that Scope has Passed the CornerStone Test.. ok. To me, it has not.
It is concessionary from a Continental CBA Standpoint.
Is it better than United.. that is questionable.
It is better than Delta.. that is questionable.

One thing is for sure. At Delta, their Scope is tied in with the B717, which pays a decent rate. Our Scope is tied into a "mystery aircraft".
That will pay less than Delta's B717.
Unacceptable.

Work Rules- A few good things, many bad things and a few neutral. CornerStone.. Fail.
From many United guys I've spoken too, they are not too happy with the work rules either.

Last is Retirement and Insurance.
My Opinion, it is one area where the CornerStone was met. But then again, I do not have a frozen A Plan so I can not say if every CAL Pilot agrees on this CornerStone.

So..
After the 4 CornerStones, what do we have left.
LOA25- NO
LOA26- NO
Retro/Signing Bonus- NO

And all the little "gotcha's".
What I don't understand is this. We had Rally's, Picketing Events, a 99% Strike Vote.
"The Loan is Due"
"United Against Outsourcing"

What happened?!

Motch

The total value of the contract as a whole lags Delta next year and exceeds it each year thereafter. If you really think that you can get a better deal by sending this thing back to the company and the NMB, go ahead. Thus far, UCH has been a tremendous disappointment in terms of financial and operational performance. If you think this outfit will do fine going forward with a cost structure significantly higher that that of the competition, good luck. I for one have little faith in any management ability to execute in this industry with a significant cost disadvantage in any area. The margins simply aren't there. IF we get a bunch more money injected into this thing to complete the cornerstones to your satisfaction, we can watch this outfit become an even slower and more lethargic competitor than it is now. I sure enjoyed UAL under the ESOP contract far more than I did under Contract 2000 (which lasted all of 2 years). I'll take a strong, competitive company with lots of movement over a weak, shrinking one any day. People forget than in the days before 9/11 UAL's loss estimates for 2001 were on track to exceed a billion dollars that year. 9/11 was simply a catalyst for the inevitable. If you believe this outfit can generate the "synergies" required to pay super premium contracts reference the competition, all I can say is been there done that. Good luck.

Exactly how many years will it take Skywest to get a 737 training center spooled up?

In the mean time we'll each collect at least 4 1/2 months FULL pay then saunter on down to IAH to get qualified to fly the guppy at a rate of pay HIGHER than we now make. I figure that if they pull that stunt their training department will get SO jacked up that it will take each of us at least two to three months to get fully qualled. That's a LOT of hotels and per diem! I wonder if they have to give the furloughed flight attendants and mechanics any furlough pay?

And since they cant even seem to man the airline in normal ops it will be great fun to watch! If this happens in a few months, we're into next summer and their habitual chronic under staffing. Not to mention they'll have to staff for retirements which start in two weeks. So, several months later (and each of us double dipping for the first 4 and a half) we may get to fly again.

Meanwhile the shifted flying will cost hundreds of millions due to the lost revenue and pax sent scurrying to other airlines. The press will have a field day and CHASE will go beserk.

I'm sure that would make tons of sense. Meanwhile UAL will have to continue payments to the lessors on the downed planes and pay to store them in the desert. And exactly how are they going to get around the T&PA restrictions on block hour flying at LUAL?

"You're being very un-Dude" How do you ever cross a street?

Got it. The United pilots should work for less money than the Delta pilots to make up for bad United management.

Relax James. My post was tongue in cheek. The argument made that I was responding to was about the company violating the contract at will. My post was mocking that. I should have put a :rolleyes: after it.

Sled

I don't think that you should vote "Yes" because you don't think the company can "afford" an industry leading contract.

I do believe, after careful analysis, that this contract is more expensive to management than DAL's, beginning in 2014. The LTD along with the health insurance capped at 20% and the B fund + 1% combine to account for most of the hourly pay differential between JCBA and DAL.

I firmly believe that if this is sent back, you will eventually see parity with the DAL rates , however the total cost of the contract will not increase.

Ad to this the fact that the scope is tighter than DAL's and I feel this is a better overall deal than DAL's. If you question my analysis of the scope section, ask the IAH Capt Rep (who voted "No") what he thinks of the scope section.