Union Email pertaining to UPA extension
10-12-2015 | 08:54 PM
#81
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
From: 756 Left Side
Current Fleet plan (as of 23 July)
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 186
Planned end of 2015
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 229
Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.
Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.
The way I read it- if the company wants to add 26 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 27th, Problem.
Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 108 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 45 aircraft!]
Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?
Always
Motch
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 186
Planned end of 2015
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 229
Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.
Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.
The way I read it- if the company wants to add 26 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 27th, Problem.
Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 108 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 45 aircraft!]
Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?
Always
Motch
10-13-2015 | 02:24 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 100
Current Fleet plan (as of 23 July)
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 186
Planned end of 2015
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 229
Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.
Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.
The way I read it- if the company wants to add 26 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 27th, Problem.
Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 108 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 45 aircraft!]
Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?
Always
Motch
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 186
Planned end of 2015
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 229
Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.
Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.
The way I read it- if the company wants to add 26 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 27th, Problem.
Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 108 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 45 aircraft!]
Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?
Always
Motch
10-13-2015 | 06:27 AM
#84
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
From: 756 Left Side
Correct!
I though there was a cut out for them but it actually only states '37 seat turboprops'~
Therefore-
** REVISED**
Current Fleet plan (as of 23 July)
Q400 (71/74 seats) - 28
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 214
Planned end of 2015
Q400 (71/74 seats) - 20 [reduction of 8]
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 249
Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.
Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.
The way I read it- if the company wants to add 6 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 7th, Problem.
Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 88 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 (71/74?) seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 65 aircraft!]
Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Also, where do those Q400 fit in? 70 seat category or 76 seat? Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?
Always
Motch
PS) We will also sit at 272 small RJ's/TP's. There is another clause in the CBA dealing with those and total number of aircraft, but it seems they are in compliance with that going forward.. so not an issue (yet?!)
I though there was a cut out for them but it actually only states '37 seat turboprops'~
Therefore-
** REVISED**
Current Fleet plan (as of 23 July)
Q400 (71/74 seats) - 28
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 214
Planned end of 2015
Q400 (71/74 seats) - 20 [reduction of 8]
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 249
Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.
Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.
The way I read it- if the company wants to add 6 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 7th, Problem.
Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 88 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 (71/74?) seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 65 aircraft!]
Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Also, where do those Q400 fit in? 70 seat category or 76 seat? Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?
Always
Motch
PS) We will also sit at 272 small RJ's/TP's. There is another clause in the CBA dealing with those and total number of aircraft, but it seems they are in compliance with that going forward.. so not an issue (yet?!)
10-13-2015 | 09:29 AM
#86
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
I get a headache when I try to comprehend all the "ifs/ands/fors" in Horrido's post. (Excellent post; I'm just not a good lawyer).
Can someone give a condensed version, with:
1. The feared LIKELY version the Company would present.
2. The HOPED-FOR optimum version the pilots would want.
Include repercussions, potentials, positives, negatives, and outcomes on each.
Can someone give a condensed version, with:
1. The feared LIKELY version the Company would present.
2. The HOPED-FOR optimum version the pilots would want.
Include repercussions, potentials, positives, negatives, and outcomes on each.
10-13-2015 | 10:12 AM
#87
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
From: 756 Left Side
^ Many will have their own speculations with regard to my post..
But put yourself in Managements shoes for a sec.
A NSNB order allows them to increase the number of 76 seaters which is good in many aspects. Better for the Regionals as far as staffing (park 3 50 seaters, get 2 76 seaters). Allows for us to compete with the likes of AA and DAL, and gets modern (better) fuel efficient aircraft. More Profit overall!
Problem is, they have the issue that they can not put the 76 seater on line without parking the 70 seater at the same time! No one can do a straight swap on a day to day basis when you're dealing with numerous RJ companies. Doesn't work for the Regionals Planning, doesn't work for our Schedule Planning, and there are already (probably) contracts in effect with our Regional Partners that would be tough to change (though, not impossible).
I'm gonna guess that they (the company) would like some relief in the form of allowing a gradual reduction of the 70 seaters down to 102 while increasing the 76 seaters.
New aircraft orders take time so I don't expect this to happen overnight.. probably looking at the latter part of 2016 into 2017.
But I think this discussion is only one of the major issues this extension has.
The company NEEDS relief on FRMS for the ULH flying. That is (probably) what really spurred these talks. Throwing the bait that "We will order a 100 seat aircraft" is there to tease the pilots, while selling it to Wall Str and the Public that it hinges on the "Pilots".
Someone posted that the Union will not discuss Section 1 with regards to these talks. But I have not seen that in any official BlastMail.
I expect this issue will be brought up by the company at some point.
Again, if we have no deal on 1 Jan 2016.. life goes on. Company can STILL order these aircraft and we can still operate them.
If/When that time comes, without a new Payrate for these aircraft.. we will see pilots hired in 2012-2014 becoming Captains. I can not nor will not bid it. Pay cut for me and more work! And almost every FO (Legacy CAL or UAL) has stated the same thing~
Interesting times we are in
Always
Motch
But put yourself in Managements shoes for a sec.
A NSNB order allows them to increase the number of 76 seaters which is good in many aspects. Better for the Regionals as far as staffing (park 3 50 seaters, get 2 76 seaters). Allows for us to compete with the likes of AA and DAL, and gets modern (better) fuel efficient aircraft. More Profit overall!
Problem is, they have the issue that they can not put the 76 seater on line without parking the 70 seater at the same time! No one can do a straight swap on a day to day basis when you're dealing with numerous RJ companies. Doesn't work for the Regionals Planning, doesn't work for our Schedule Planning, and there are already (probably) contracts in effect with our Regional Partners that would be tough to change (though, not impossible).
I'm gonna guess that they (the company) would like some relief in the form of allowing a gradual reduction of the 70 seaters down to 102 while increasing the 76 seaters.
New aircraft orders take time so I don't expect this to happen overnight.. probably looking at the latter part of 2016 into 2017.
But I think this discussion is only one of the major issues this extension has.
The company NEEDS relief on FRMS for the ULH flying. That is (probably) what really spurred these talks. Throwing the bait that "We will order a 100 seat aircraft" is there to tease the pilots, while selling it to Wall Str and the Public that it hinges on the "Pilots".
Someone posted that the Union will not discuss Section 1 with regards to these talks. But I have not seen that in any official BlastMail.
I expect this issue will be brought up by the company at some point.
Again, if we have no deal on 1 Jan 2016.. life goes on. Company can STILL order these aircraft and we can still operate them.
If/When that time comes, without a new Payrate for these aircraft.. we will see pilots hired in 2012-2014 becoming Captains. I can not nor will not bid it. Pay cut for me and more work! And almost every FO (Legacy CAL or UAL) has stated the same thing~
Interesting times we are in
Always
Motch
10-13-2015 | 10:19 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
We might never see what the company offers. I can assume it will not be generous. They have a problem with all these 787's coming online and running out places to fly them, unless we acquiesce. I'm not sure I want to use that leverage for what they are offering to discuss.
As described on the UAL pilots forum the compensation must be "eye watering." The company is eager for this deal, it's going to cost them $. (Anyone remember what Tilton said when we asked for early contract negotiations?) We have future pay raises under the current contract which will cost the company $. The extension itself of the contract and delaying improvements in other areas will cost the company $. Relinquishing our leverage for a contract extension will cost the company $. We are negotiating wages that compared to our peers, are substandard. That will cost the company $.
Does anyone really think we are going to see $$$$$ worth of pay raises or contractual improvements?
Regarding the shiny new jets that the company can buy anytime, does that place any A319's or 737-700's in jeopardy? Does the company intend to grow the airline with a new fleet or will there be reductions to partially counterbalance the SNJ's?
As described on the UAL pilots forum the compensation must be "eye watering." The company is eager for this deal, it's going to cost them $. (Anyone remember what Tilton said when we asked for early contract negotiations?) We have future pay raises under the current contract which will cost the company $. The extension itself of the contract and delaying improvements in other areas will cost the company $. Relinquishing our leverage for a contract extension will cost the company $. We are negotiating wages that compared to our peers, are substandard. That will cost the company $.
Does anyone really think we are going to see $$$$$ worth of pay raises or contractual improvements?
Regarding the shiny new jets that the company can buy anytime, does that place any A319's or 737-700's in jeopardy? Does the company intend to grow the airline with a new fleet or will there be reductions to partially counterbalance the SNJ's?
10-13-2015 | 10:35 AM
#90
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 406
Likes: 5
From: A320 FO
Special:
I don't think anyone really expects much......they might hope but not expecting. I think the direction the NC was giving (not allowed to discuss section 1) is going to make this much ado about nothing. However the new boss might actually be trying (once again hope but not really expecting). This dialogue will more than likely show a lot of the company's cards coming up. The company has well as ALPA know what it takes to get 50+1%. Hence the statement NSNB order will be made upon ratification. 787 while keeping the 763 is the problem they have with lift(I'm pretty sure you already know that). They want to go further. I think that is a dangerous talk to have with Management. I am Jr and will not be bidding b77/78/74 ecause of small kids and a growing family And a desire to be home so any change will not effect me directly but as it was once explained to me on the Jumpseat when I worked for XJT crap flows downhill so I always look up to see what's going on. I will not vote for changes in the FRMS if it is not specific.and easy to understand Also 763 and 787-8 need the same pay now that the 763 is staying.
Any rate I personally don't think anything will pass ratification unless it's cut and dry and favorable terms. And I am thankful that some in the LECs and MEC pushed hard to add no change to section 1. That sends a powerful message to Willis Tower going forward.
I don't think anyone really expects much......they might hope but not expecting. I think the direction the NC was giving (not allowed to discuss section 1) is going to make this much ado about nothing. However the new boss might actually be trying (once again hope but not really expecting). This dialogue will more than likely show a lot of the company's cards coming up. The company has well as ALPA know what it takes to get 50+1%. Hence the statement NSNB order will be made upon ratification. 787 while keeping the 763 is the problem they have with lift(I'm pretty sure you already know that). They want to go further. I think that is a dangerous talk to have with Management. I am Jr and will not be bidding b77/78/74 ecause of small kids and a growing family And a desire to be home so any change will not effect me directly but as it was once explained to me on the Jumpseat when I worked for XJT crap flows downhill so I always look up to see what's going on. I will not vote for changes in the FRMS if it is not specific.and easy to understand Also 763 and 787-8 need the same pay now that the 763 is staying.
Any rate I personally don't think anything will pass ratification unless it's cut and dry and favorable terms. And I am thankful that some in the LECs and MEC pushed hard to add no change to section 1. That sends a powerful message to Willis Tower going forward.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
