Self funding TA?
 

I believe if we vote this TA in we are making a mistake. Down at the bottom of the new payscales, there is an entry for the CS100. The pay for this AC is roughly 25% less than the Airbus, the 737 and the 757-200. For 12 year captains that is $50/hr, or $50000/yr. I have a sneaking suspicion that 30 seconds after we vote in this contract, an order for a good number of these will be announced. I also have a feeling that as the 319s in particular get older and are retired, they will be replaced with the CS100 at a vastly lower payscale.

The CS100 holds less people you say, so why shouldn't it pay less? This is true, but the difference between the 320 and the 319 is about 22 seats but only a few dollars an hour. The difference between the 319 and the CS is about 28 seats, why the huge discrepancy in pay?

I know we are supposed to get some used 319s, but I think that is a temporary measure and I cant help but feel that this is the concession....phasing out a decent paying 319 for a substantially less paying CS100.

I have not made up my mind yet, but because of these pay rates, I am leaning heavily toward a no. I think we should start sec 6 and go for all the improvements to make a truly industry leading contract. A union guy told me he thinks that is what the company wants from this TA....to push off the sec 6 until hopefully worse economic times.

The Baby Airbus product will be flying till 2025, according to planning

So

I think we will see 2 contracts signed by then

Think about it

the pilot group has been begging for the CS100 (or similar) to be flown by mainline pilots for years… now that the time is upon us we need to be smart and ensure we don't blow it… there will be plenty of pilots who will fly in the left seat at the rates being advertised… especially pilots with 2-3 years seniority… and some that are more senior who like to do that type of regional flying.

We're not begging for 100 seaters, we're demanding that if the company wants 100 seaters we fly them.

There is no possible way for us to "blow it" because we would have to vote to allow regionals to fly them.

Good reason to vote NO. The company is not giving away money to be benevolent. The company is playing us and the MEC knows it. JH said there was no agreements for the 100 seaters, but the fact that a pay rate for that type aircraft is in the contract will allow the company to play legal games to put them in service. We need to quit adding the company wish list items to our contract.

So you are saying that planning has never changed their mind? I dont really doubt that they will be flying for quite awhile longer, I am saying that as they disappear they will be replaced with something that pays less. Yes we could work to change the payscale in future contracts, but I would rather do it now before the thing is here.

Exactly how long do you think it would take to replace a bunch of A-319s with CS100s?

Let's go over a few numbers:
CS100/CS300s currently on order with airlines other than United:
Firm orders: 53/190
Firm options: 162
Purchase rights: 17
Commitments: 83/27 + 5 TBD
Commitment options: 60
Commitment purchase rights: 6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...liveries_graph

SWISS International Airlines is the launch customer. Bombardier confirms SWISS as CSeries launch customer, first CS100 to enter service in 1H2016 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation


Bombardier is still building the third prototype CS100. They had talked about ramping up to being able to build 10 aircraft per month back in 2012 but I don't think there's been an update on the maximum number of aircraft they can produce monthly. My WAG is that it will be well short of 10 per month. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...amp-up-415924/


Bombardier isn't going to be able to crap out a bunch of CS100s in the next year. Just look at how slow deliveries of 787s are. IF United takes delivery of CS100s, the next contract will be mostly hammered out before the CS100 has a decent presence in the mainline fleet.

To complicate matters further, you haven't calculated out the ratio of CS100s replacing A319s in order to keep the number of available seats neutral. Throw in an increase of ~30% CS100s to equal current A319s and that wage differential rapidly diminishes (in other words, 13 CS100s = 10 A319s).


Let me put a different spin on this - the mainline CS100s will replace a lot of the regional partner 76 seaters. If you look at it in that manner, the CS100 replaces regional flying, not A319 flying. We can discuss whether the airline's upgauging vs downgauging, but if the airline were to downgauge with the current fleet mix, they'd be cutting larger planes than the A319.


If you're looking for a valid reason to vote no on the TA, this isn't it.

Come on now, everyone knows you have to vote no to be a real man.

This is my hang up with the TA as well... B scales suck, that's what this is. The question I keep going over is: Is it better to recapture the flying now (with a B scale), or drag this out and try to eliminate a potential C scale when the company brings these airframes on property? There's is no doubt in my mind that these planes are coming. But do we agree to fly them for a B scale, or do we fly them for a company imposed C scale? Don't think that can happen? Read section 3. Within 6 months of an order being announced there will be a pay scale, and there is no leverage on our part to keep the planes from flying.

Talk about getting lost in the fog. Getting back the 100 seaters on property has been a goal for a long time.

Just curious would you guys complaining about the cs100 rate change your vote if they announced tomorrow they are buying more 319s or 737s?