Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Help stamp out Scope Relief Rumors. >

Help stamp out Scope Relief Rumors.

Notices

Help stamp out Scope Relief Rumors.

Old 12-18-2014, 06:34 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hilltopper89's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 737
Posts: 1,061
Default

Originally Posted by Saabs View Post
Thats the dilemma we are having at airways. We have bids where 190 captain is going unfilled. Well, the pay sucks and the schedules aren't anything to write home about with 5 leg shuttle days and only 4 or 5 consistent cities that they layover.
That's what I thought. I flew with an ALPA guy a few months ago and he said that he thought I'd be able to bid 190 CA in a couple years. That's when I looked at the pay charts. I'd just as soon stay a narrow body FO if the pay is similar.
Hilltopper89 is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 06:47 AM
  #12  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Sent a note about this to my LEC last night; reply this morning.

He assured me that JH was no PW, and there would absolutely not be secret backroom deals. It sounded like the MEC had been approached, more than once, but told "no" each time.

His take: our scope is a thorn in UCH's side, and they want it to be more like Delta or American.

He said the entire MEC would have to agree, and if so, would put it to a vote for the membership.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 07:42 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by Shrek View Post
Sunvox- the scope giveaway you are referring to is the E170 side letter and NOT 70 seat scope - that was given away already.

Apart from that - I am 100% behind the sentiment of the post itself.
You are correct, and it seems like 90% of the line pilots don't get that.

1997....RJ LOA that allowed 50 seaters on the property. (they were already at Comair and Eagle)

C2000....expanded the number of 50 seaters allowed, but still capped.

C2003....changed "small jet" definition to 70 seats and 80,000 lbs. Approved by ratification of the pilots...in bankruptcy (Dec 2002 - Feb 2006)

E170 side letter....allowed the EMB 170 to fit the definition of "small jet" as long as they were only operated with 70 seats.

Letter 03-17 Page 483
UNITED AIRLINES REWRITE 2003 ALPA
Let ter 03-17 Embraer 170
Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman
UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association
6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700
Rosemont, IL 60018
Dear Paul,
In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer
170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross
takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would
be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company
further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this
aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy
(70) seats.
If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies
for our file.

Ancient history, I know, but it kills me to hear...."PW gave away scope" or my FAVORITE...."UAL pilots SOLD out scope for pay".

Last edited by jsled; 12-18-2014 at 08:10 AM.
jsled is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 07:49 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Saabs's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,447
Default

Originally Posted by Hilltopper89 View Post
That's what I thought. I flew with an ALPA guy a few months ago and he said that he thought I'd be able to bid 190 CA in a couple years. That's when I looked at the pay charts. I'd just as soon stay a narrow body FO if the pay is similar.
190 captain is down to a late 2013 hire at scareways.
Saabs is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 08:03 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by strfyr51 View Post
************************************************** **********
Now the question is? if the SNB is not announced and the Co leased another 30 737-522's or 524's plus 30 A319-132's would that NOT be the same thing as the SNB??
I know scope is important to you but I heard management is now in a PANIC about getting more airplanes to allow the 76 seat E175's on board. So my question IS? Is there a DIFFERENCE or does the Co HAVE to buy the E190/195? Or? Is this another deal breaker?
I ask because there's no resource to field another Fleet type so it's either more A319's or more 737's. and they're all over the place trying to bring them on Board, I heard China and Russia.
So they seem pretty Desperate. 30 more A319's is going to increase My workload and I could care LESS and the 737's as well.
But I'm not sure any E190/E195 is going to do much for the operation.
And? I question Why the Pilots would specifically demand that fleet?
Especially since it gives us no operational advantage. I've heard guys say they'd rather deal with a petulant "FiFI" (A319) than the E190/195.
Though I in fact have never put a wrench on one of them so I can't say with TRUE knowledge. (As a point of Clarification)
I'm not trying to start a fight though I would like a considered opinion OK??
And By the way, Do you even have a Pay scale FOR a 737-500??
I for one am all for more A320s or 737s, but they do not meet the SNB definition. This has come up more than once in Council 33 meetings. Our reps say bring them on, but it won't change the RJ caps. And yes, we do have a 737-500 pay scale in our contract.

SLed
jsled is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 08:18 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cal73's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 852
Default Help stamp out Scope Relief Rumors.

EMB 195/190

I'd hit it.
Wouldn't kick it out of bed.

Yes it would go junior. DUH!
Yes it pays less. DUH!
But junior folks would enjoy better monthly bidding horsepower, and more desirable vacations etc.. Don't forget about the prestige of all those overnights in Albany....err Okay maybe not so much that. But it would be a great airplane/position to hang your hat on (if you wear it..just an expresson).

United E195 > Chautauqua/Republic/ShuttleAmerica/Skywest/Expressjet/Mesa/TransStates/Gojet/GreatLakes/ 195

Did I miss any?


If we could get those things on property, it would be a big win for us and the profession in general. IMHO.

Last edited by cal73; 12-18-2014 at 09:02 AM.
cal73 is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 10:55 AM
  #17  
Stuck Mic
 
Firsttimeflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Default

No matter what, it would be better to have mainline flying E190 size aircraft instead of the regionals. It is furlough protection, one more aircraft you have the option to bid, gets more guys hired at mainline instead of being stuck at a regional, growth option for the company. They can test routes with the smaller aircraft, if it works then start increasing the size.

Think about the senior bases, would you rather be commuting, or be based at home. Being in denver, I would jump at the opportunity to fly an E190 instead of watching regionals be based there and fly them while I have to commute out of town.

It would be nice to get better pay rates out of them, but I would much rather get the aircraft on mainline certificate first, that way they aren't given away to regionals.
Firsttimeflyer is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 11:00 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by strfyr51 View Post
************************************************** **********
Now the question is? if the SNB is not announced and the Co leased another 30 737-522's or 524's plus 30 A319-132's would that NOT be the same thing as the SNB??
I know scope is important to you but I heard management is now in a PANIC about getting more airplanes to allow the 76 seat E175's on board. So my question IS? Is there a DIFFERENCE or does the Co HAVE to buy the E190/195? Or? Is this another deal breaker?
I ask because there's no resource to field another Fleet type so it's either more A319's or more 737's. and they're all over the place trying to bring them on Board, I heard China and Russia.
So they seem pretty Desperate. 30 more A319's is going to increase My workload and I could care LESS and the 737's as well.
But I'm not sure any E190/E195 is going to do much for the operation.
And? I question Why the Pilots would specifically demand that fleet?
Especially since it gives us no operational advantage. I've heard guys say they'd rather deal with a petulant "FiFI" (A319) than the E190/195.
Though I in fact have never put a wrench on one of them so I can't say with TRUE knowledge. (As a point of Clarification)
I'm not trying to start a fight though I would like a considered opinion OK??
And By the way, Do you even have a Pay scale FOR a 737-500??
We do have a pay scale for a 737-500 and flew them less than 2 years ago. They were all retired. I am not willing to trade scope protection for tired old planes that will be retired soon again. The scope section lists certain aircraft for a reason. We are trying to get the company to put those aircraft on our certificate and not the regionals. While the 195 rates are not nearly as good as that of a 737-500 or A-319 getting the aircraft on our certificate is a Huge step in stopping the loss of flying that we have seen in the last 15 years. Taking the short term increase in pay from old planes that will be retired again soon for the loss of flying in the future is a bad trade. Furloughs will happen again. Sliding down into a 195 on our list beats the crap out of interviewing for a F/O position at some regional to do the same flying.
The company is welcome to bring the 737-500's back. They just should not expect me to give up protection for them to do so.
sleeves is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 11:07 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 624
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
Sent a note about this to my LEC last night; reply this morning.

He assured me that JH was no PW, and there would absolutely not be secret backroom deals. It sounded like the MEC had been approached, more than once, but told "no" each time.

His take: our scope is a thorn in UCH's side, and they want it to be more like Delta or American.

He said the entire MEC would have to agree, and if so, would put it to a vote for the membership.
I'm pretty sure our scope mirrors what Delta's is since they were used as the template for ours. There may be some wording/ratio differences, but the gist is the same.

Following quotes from the Delta Contract (red lined version) and negotiator notepads.

Where Delta is different is that the 717 is considered the new SNB, thus allowing more of the 76 seaters.

43. “New small narrowbody aircraft” means a B-717 or an A-319 aircraft that is not in the Company's fleet as of [DOS].
one of up to 255 jet102 aircraft configured with 51-70 passenger seats and certificated 1 in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds or less 2 (“70-seat jetsaircraft”), and 3 df. one of up to 120 jet153 aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats and certificated 4 in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds or less 5 (“76-seat jets”). The number of 76-seat jets may be increased above 120 by three 76- 6 seat jets for each aircraft above the number of aircraft in the baseline fleet operated by 7 the Company (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares) as of 8 October 30, 2008. The baseline fleet number will be 440+N, in which N is the 9 number of aircraft (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares but not 10 including permitted aircraft types) added to the Company's baseline fleet from NWA. 11 The number and type of all aircraft in the Company's fleet on October 30, 2008 will 12 be provided to the Association. The number of 70-seat jets plus 76-seat jets permitted 13 by Section 1 B. aircraft”).40. may not exceed 255. 14 ExceptionException one: If the Company establishes a fleet of new small 15 narrowbody aircraft, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft may increase on a 16 one 76-seat aircraft for each one and one quarter new small narrowbody aircraft 17 (1:1.25) ratio (rounded to the closest integer) up to a total of 223 76-seat aircraft. 18 In the event more than 153 76-seat aircraft are in category A or C operations, 19 then on January 1, 2014, and each succeeding January 1 thereafter, the 20 Company will implement its plan to reduce the number of 50-seat aircraft in 21 category A or C operations below Y (the number of 50-seat aircraft in category 22 A or C operations as of [DOS]) rounded to the closest integer, as follows: 23 1) 2.7 50-seat aircraft for each of the first additional ten 76-seat aircraft 24 (above 153), 25 2) 2.7 50-seat aircraft for each of the next additional ten 76-seat aircraft 26 (above 163), 27 3) 2.8 50-seat aircraft for each of the next additional ten 76-seat aircraft 28 (above 173), 29 4) 2.9 50-seat aircraft for each of the next additional ten 76-seat aircraft 30 (above 183), 31 5) 3.0 50-seat aircraft for each of the next additional ten 76-seat aircraft 32 (above 193). 33 6) 3.1 50-seat aircraft for each of the next additional ten 76-seat aircraft 34 (above 203), and 35 7) 4.6 50-seat aircraft for each of the next additional ten 76-seat aircraft 36 (above 213). 37 Note one: Upon the delivery of a 223rd 76-seat aircraft, the number of 38 permitted 50-seat aircraft will be 125 regardless of the number otherwise 39 provided in Exception one.


Scope

 Currently, the Company operates 598 regional jets through their DCI partners. This agreement establishes a hard overall cap of 450 DCI aircraft (and now includes large turboprops in that number) when the Company takes delivery of additional 76-seat aircraft

– Includes a hard cap of:

• 125 50-seat aircraft

• 102 70-seat aircraft

• 223 76-seat aircraft

 Minimum required ratio of flying between mainline and DCI

– If mainline block hours decrease beyond threshold in the future, a corresponding decrease in DCI block hours will be required

 Eliminated conversion of 70-seat aircraft to 76-seat aircraft based on mainline growth

– 3:1 conversion to 76-seat aircraft above 767 mainline jets eliminated
C11DCA is offline  
Old 12-18-2014, 12:17 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,009
Default

Originally Posted by Hilltopper89 View Post
That's what I thought. I flew with an ALPA guy a few months ago and he said that he thought I'd be able to bid 190 CA in a couple years. That's when I looked at the pay charts. I'd just as soon stay a narrow body FO if the pay is similar.
There was no reason to negotiate high rates for an aircraft not on property. We did, however, have to get some pay rate to show the company we would/will fly small 100 seat aircraft at UAL.

The pot of money is the same so no reason to pull down current aircraft rates to fund the 190s that aren't here. Once the aircraft arrives we can get higher rates on the following contract. It will suck, and be junior for a couple years, but we will fix it and at least WE are flying the airplane.

I don't think any CA should be paid less than any FO, but I have nothing against paying only $2/hr more than a WB FO.
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAL EWR
United
44
11-26-2012 02:29 PM
CAL EWR
United
67
11-25-2012 04:46 PM
QuagmireGiggity
Major
73
09-10-2011 09:29 PM
B1900YX
Major
50
10-14-2010 07:30 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices