Probe

Here is a short history of mainline bankruptcies in the last 15 years:

1. USAIR ALPA pilots voted yes for multiple paycuts.
2. UAL ALPA pilots voted yes for multiple paycuts.
3. DAL ALPA pilots voted yes for multiple payouts.
4. AMR APA pilots voted no. The judge at the 1113 hearing told AMR to go pack sand over cutting the pay of the pilots. A few months later, a pay RAISE was negotiated coming out of bankruptcy.

UAL pilots spent 9 years making half of what they should have. USAIR pilots spent, I can't remember, 12-14 years doing the same.

American pilots, with different union leadership, stood their ground and voted no.

I was willing to risk my job at United. Unfortunately I was outvoted by the majority who were not. The job became so bad, I voted with my feet, and left on a voluntary furlough. I have no faith in us as a group, or our union leadership, to effect a different outcome the next time the bully comes for our lunch money.

animation

A good start would be a pay scale at mainline for all the types currently at United Express. Then absorb those airframes. Then they can order as many planes of whatever size to be flown under 1 contract and 1 seniority list.

DashTrash

As someone who spent 10 years in regional pilot purgatory, I can say that most, if not all of us, would gladly vote NO on any relaxation of our scope language. We all need to contact our reps and make sure that they understand where we stand.

XHooker

Sled, then that's my bad. I'm LCAL and while I've seen some of the C2000 language and many if not most LUAL pilots I've heard opine on it claim it offered scope relief for cash, without being there and seeing all of the language, I don't have your insider's view, so I have to defer. Nevertheless, RJs wound up at the majors somehow, and somewhere along the way, choices were made by mainline pilots that allowed it, whether in bankruptcy, negotiating for $$$, or some combination of both.

duvie

I don't think Kirby loves RJs or lusts over scope language, I think he is a numbers dude and wants expansion that can't be had *profitably* with mainline jets. The big caveat there, is that although a specific flight segment might not make money, the connections and growth may. So, him lamenting the margins we can't compete with, but ignoring the downstream effects (which he touts in other videos when discussing re-banking hubs, etc.) may be a nice buzz line for some employee groups, but obviously the pilots aren't going to bite.

I'd say its pretty obvious Mr. Kirby is super sharp and very competitive and will work within what parameters he has. Can't blame him for trying to make his job easier. I think he would grow mainline with relaxed scope, but obviously we have no guarantees and then the next COO/CEO may not have the same vision.

Its possible I've been hood-winked, but it seems that Mr. Munoz/Kirby want to build a better (not more profitable) airline, so us standing strong on scope isn't going to cause them to give up. Don't sell what he's buying and I think he and Mr. Munoz will find another solution to some of the in-between markets.

DashTrash

One thing to remember about an issue such as scope, is that once you lose it, you can't get it back!!! At least for the foreseeable future...

89Pistons

The real story is that we had two contracts that we ratified that relaxed RJ scope prior to 2003.

89Pistons

You're making a lot of guesses when all you have to do is see how he maneuvered at American. And ask their pilots. You're on this board pipe dreaming. You've got evidence but would rather guess that he's different now.

Sniper66

Very well said
All Legacies should do that

jsled

RJ LOA ('97ish) and Contract 2000? Limited to 50 seats and 60,000 lbs. I wish we had that scope now.