100 Seat A/C - Don't Grab For The Carrot!
 

Over at Delta we rejected our TA in July due to a myriad of issues, primarily concessions during positive financial times. We were also dangled a "carrot" in the form of bringing at least 20 EMB jets to the mainline, along with 40 more 737s. The 100 seat pay rates were disproportionally low compared to the rest of our categories. Our smallest A/C, the B-717, pays the same as a DC-9, one iteration of which was a 68 seater not too many years ago, and the backbone of the fleet was at 100 seats. One school of thought dictates that the lowest captain pay rate must exceed the highest F/O pay rate. Even with substandard pay, I expect the EMBs would have been welcomed if the other areas of our TA were not so onerous.

But we all need to remember that the airline will purchase the aircraft required to support their business pursuits. We should never trade away other areas of a contract for the promise of new aircraft. This is especially true in the 100 seat arena. Given the staffing challenges in the regional ranks, there is pressure to operate these aircraft on the main line. Embrace the capture of affiliate flying, but don't pay for it. Get the pay rates right. Take carrots off the menu!

There is not a pilot on property who is reaching for that carrot. We open SEC 6 in MAY. Our contract needs a lot more help then the 5 items being discussed.

If the company doesn't come to the table with a TA that literally blows every airline out of the water then we will be heading to SEC 6.

I expect the MEC to reject the proposal. Then I expect United management to go on an anti pilot/greedy pilot add campaign. They will tell pax and employees that the pilots are keeping us from flying to TLV and AKL and that we are going to have to differ acft orders if the pilots won't allow us to fly them. They will tell the FAs that there will be significant job loss due to no 100 seaters and the possible differing of acft.

Bottom line is I do not believe we will get to vote on anything by NOV 20th and we will spend the next however long being hated by all the employee groups because the pilots are destroying the airline.

Why did UAL "offer" the 100 seat in these talks?

1. Most have pointed out the current contract limits for 76 seats are or have been reached.

2. It is highly likely UAL has already made a contractual commitment to purchase the 100 seat airplanes and now needs an agreement to fly them with UAL pilots.

It's not a carrot because for the most part current UAL pilots are flying what they want to any way. The only thing that will change is the opportunity for many to fly Captain who currently are too junior to do so.

Now back in the day the 747-400 was held up as a carrot in giving away the small jets and the MEC did bite. No one in their right mind would say today's talks are comparable to those of the past.

Personally I believe the UAL MEC did the right thing to enter into these negotiations with UAL. As many have already stated why wait for as long as 3 years when improvements are possibly on the table today.

I agree with all except #2. They already have an agreement with the UAL pilots to fly the 100 seaters. They can order them right now if they want... no new agreement necessary. The pay scale is hideously low, but it is there.

I'll hold judgement until I see an actual proposal. At least wth this there shouldn't be any buried gems in the contract that are either not caught or not understood until after being ratified. At least the DAL guys caught wind of some serious concessions and voted accordingly.
I'm relatively happy with status quo. That being said, growth, reserve rule fixes, pay raises, righting some wrongs for furloughed guys and potential increase in QOL/extra $$ opportunities and I'm open to listening what the offer is.

"They already have an agreement with the UAL pilots to fly the 100 seaters. They can order them right now if they want... no new agreement necessary. The pay scale is hideously low, but it is there."

Only within the scope of the agreement. What if UAL has another idea in mind that's a bit unique (maybe it's not a straight "buy and fly" deal) or outside the current agreement? We'll hear a lot more in then next month and a half about what was proposed and I think you will see why they asked for the negotiations.


"I'm relatively happy with status quo. "

I always want more money and time off. ;)

C-11 had an update detailing some of the discussions and expanded on some of the issues the company is dealing with in regards to our scope. They're in a quandry right now of their own making.

1-C-1-g. The Company is allowed to have 255 total 70/76 seat jets at the feeders. Of those 255, up to 153 may be 76-seat jets. The Company currently has approximately 100 76-seaters and 155 70-seaters. In order to increase the number of 76-seat jets and the total number from 255 in the feeder fleet, the company must first place a NSNA on the mainline. Pay attention here: in order to place a NSNA on the mainline, the Company must have no more than 102 70-seaters.

So they can add the 100 seaters now but they'd have to dump 53 70 seaters before they could add a single 76 seat a/c anyway.

Fortunately the MEC resolution allowing extension talks forbid the NC from talking about Section 1 expressly.

Very interesting.... Thanks for posting. Hadn't seen the C11 update

As it should be!

How much leverage are we giving up in order to get a couple things fixed in a completely substandard contract? Once that leverage is gone, the company will stall the next contract.