A strike over scope
12-05-2012 | 02:39 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: seated beer curl
Is it any different?
12-05-2012 | 02:51 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,201
Likes: 32
From: 4A2FU
That was the 767, not the A300. A300 didn't have the FF option until the B4 edition. The A310 was introduced as two pilot, but like the early 767, the unions initially mandated the presence of an FE station.
12-05-2012 | 02:55 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: seated beer curl
12-05-2012 | 03:59 PM
#14
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
Not bad--for clerks!
According to the MIT Airline Data Project, that's more than the average UAL or CAL pilot makes. In fact, only AA is (was) better.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...Equivalent.htm
According to the MIT Airline Data Project, that's more than the average UAL or CAL pilot makes. In fact, only AA is (was) better.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...Equivalent.htm
12-05-2012 | 05:32 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
In fact, one of the UAL 767-300 sims was originally a 3-man 767 cockpit. It was rebuilt to the 300. Not a real good sim. It's nick name to go along with 767-300 nose number 6666, no kidding, is Christine..
12-05-2012 | 05:45 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Funny. At LCAL our old 737-3 EFIS sim was known as Christine. I think it began life as a round dial. Apparently sims don't take well to after-market mods.
12-06-2012 | 07:34 AM
#17
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
It applies in the fact that they are willing to strike for Scope. I guess we are not if we vote yes to this JCBA!
Yes you are correct that our jobs have been outsourced. So the question is, why do we UAL pilots have to compromise on our work rules to get closer to CAL's work rules but the Company didn't have to compromise and give us some scope that is somehwere in between CAL's (NO RJ's over 50 seats) and UAL's (some RJ's but limited to 70 seats)?
Instead we got more RJ's certificated to 90 seats but configured to 76 seats. I'd rather have our current scope that limits the 70 seats to the current L-UAL block hours!
You state that "Sadly, we have dragged your scope at L-CAL down with us, so that is already gone." That is only the case if the JCBA TA passes!
Yes you are correct that our jobs have been outsourced. So the question is, why do we UAL pilots have to compromise on our work rules to get closer to CAL's work rules but the Company didn't have to compromise and give us some scope that is somehwere in between CAL's (NO RJ's over 50 seats) and UAL's (some RJ's but limited to 70 seats)?
Instead we got more RJ's certificated to 90 seats but configured to 76 seats. I'd rather have our current scope that limits the 70 seats to the current L-UAL block hours!
You state that "Sadly, we have dragged your scope at L-CAL down with us, so that is already gone." That is only the case if the JCBA TA passes!
· 1-F-1 provides no practical limits on the company because 1-F-2 immediately below it allows the company to reduce the 1-F-1 block hours drastically unless profits are a “home run” each year (>8.1 operating margin). Consider that the “protection” of 1-F-1 did nothing to prevent the grounding of the entire 737 fleet at UAL in 2008.
· This reduction has been invoked four times in the last 6 years, and will be applicable again this year. The 1.6M block hour number currently in the book has already been reduced to 1.3M via the provisions in 1-F2.
· Instead, the TA strengthened language to prevent outsourcing, and in Section 1-E, Other Labor Protections, added tighter restrictions to the company if they transfer assets.
CAL and DAL have no 1-F-1 type provision. The value of a block hour restriction like 1-F-1 is dubious because in an economic downturn, as we have seen, force majeure language makes these protections worthless. The JCBA attacks the problem differently: Instead of mandating minimum block hours we increase career security by restricting the outsourcing of pilot jobs from the mainline with block hour ratios, code share restrictions, and revenue share restrictions.
Insulating pilots from drastic economic cycles has proven to be nearly impossible; protecting pilots from outsourcing is a more valuable approach and more likely to sustain economic
The MEC put out a document last night going further into Scope, so I won't bother to repost as it's available for your viewing if you care.
12-06-2012 | 09:51 AM
#18
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
You are assuming that we all feel that the TA Scope is a concession! I disagree with your assessment. Our Scope now is right amongst the bottom of the industry in my opinion. It's not just RJ's. The company is free to continue any Aer Lingus type operation they want at any point. I personally feel that the new Scope is MUCH better than we have now, and ahead of DAL's. For me, going from 70 to 76's seats is a "forest from the trees" issue. Certainly, it's a "give", but what did we GET for that give?
He was VERY passionate about how strong the scope protections were and addressed each of the people who asked questions about scope.
He stated that the new SCOPE provisions were "industry leading".
None of us can predict what the company might or might not do in the future, but at least now we have contractual protections that preserve jobs and incentive the company to add more pilot jobs and punish them if they try to furlough in the future.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
