New 767-300 coming?
11-06-2017, 07:45 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
United ALPA pilots do not need to lose scope to secure orders of aircraft which UAL already needs. UAL can currently outsource 504 regional aircraft equivalent to 90% of UAL's mainline count of narrow-body fleet. This equates to a max potential outsourcing of over 31,218 physical seats! 255 of the 504 aircraft (45.5% of narrow-body fleet) are larger 70/76 airframes (18,768+ physical seats) which UAL may outsource. Kirby does not need outsourcing, he simply wants it to keep ALPA and the piloting profession from growing more unified.
United gorged itself on regional flying to the point that outsourced flying became a financial liability. At one point roughly 63% of UAL departures were once outsourced, which in part hampered United Airlines’ post-merger profitability. UALPA pilots and other labor
groups can lose temporary contract improvements and see management walk away from large aircraft orders at the collective cost of thousands of pilot furloughs.
All united regional flying could be in-soursed in the next 15 year period because currency inflation threatens the “regional” airline model. Real inflation remains a constant of indefinite quantitative easing (QE) Federal Reserve policy. World markets dominated by debt and service sectors have little tolerance for an absence of currency inflation. Financial analysts continue to call for QE stimulated GDP growth. United ALPA must recognize that continuous inflation puts the very life or death of every regional business model squarely in the hands of legacy mainline pilots. Current market forces are an opportunity to reduce the quantity of physically outsourced mainline seats. The 50-seat aircraft of the day will soon be obsolete and over the next 15 years, the 76 seat jets of today will become uneconomically equivalent to today's 50-seat jets.
We must not repeat United's history and guard against permanent action incentivized by shortsighted reward. Even notable aviation consultants Mark Swelbar and Michael Boyd believe that mainline pilot unions will not repeat past outsourcing mistakes. We only have two unions left in the country who control this outcome! Have APA and ALPA learned from past outsourcing mistakes?
The most number of UAL flights should simply be operated by actual UAL pilots. Insourcing via up-gauging via Embraer 195-E2 or Bombardier C-Series 100/300 aircraft would help solve the pilot pay shortage and strangle the Regional Airline Association! Otherwise, to relax scope will exacerbate the pilot pay shortage and pressure congress to lower pilot qualification standards and increase the retirement age beyond age 65.
A hypothetical United Express fleet restructuring that reduces counts of 76-seat or smaller aircraft to add 100-150 seat aircraft improves cost efficiency generating modest capacity growth with fewer aircraft, departures, and staff. Lower operational frequency opens both gate & slot space while solving environmental concern with reduced unit carbon emission, unit fuel consumption and lower system-wide rates of air traffic congestion. Ultimately, insourcing coupled with appropriate work rules and employee recognition (ie. profit sharing) drives superior mainline culture and customer experience.
Too many generations of pilots have suffered furlough brought by outsourcing—no group suffered more than United pilots victimized by Scope reductions.
“If each pilot makes his or her union decisions based on what’s best for the group [as well as] profession instead of self-interest, we will succeed." Let's leave this industry better than we found it and not repeat the past!
United gorged itself on regional flying to the point that outsourced flying became a financial liability. At one point roughly 63% of UAL departures were once outsourced, which in part hampered United Airlines’ post-merger profitability. UALPA pilots and other labor
groups can lose temporary contract improvements and see management walk away from large aircraft orders at the collective cost of thousands of pilot furloughs.
All united regional flying could be in-soursed in the next 15 year period because currency inflation threatens the “regional” airline model. Real inflation remains a constant of indefinite quantitative easing (QE) Federal Reserve policy. World markets dominated by debt and service sectors have little tolerance for an absence of currency inflation. Financial analysts continue to call for QE stimulated GDP growth. United ALPA must recognize that continuous inflation puts the very life or death of every regional business model squarely in the hands of legacy mainline pilots. Current market forces are an opportunity to reduce the quantity of physically outsourced mainline seats. The 50-seat aircraft of the day will soon be obsolete and over the next 15 years, the 76 seat jets of today will become uneconomically equivalent to today's 50-seat jets.
We must not repeat United's history and guard against permanent action incentivized by shortsighted reward. Even notable aviation consultants Mark Swelbar and Michael Boyd believe that mainline pilot unions will not repeat past outsourcing mistakes. We only have two unions left in the country who control this outcome! Have APA and ALPA learned from past outsourcing mistakes?
The most number of UAL flights should simply be operated by actual UAL pilots. Insourcing via up-gauging via Embraer 195-E2 or Bombardier C-Series 100/300 aircraft would help solve the pilot pay shortage and strangle the Regional Airline Association! Otherwise, to relax scope will exacerbate the pilot pay shortage and pressure congress to lower pilot qualification standards and increase the retirement age beyond age 65.
A hypothetical United Express fleet restructuring that reduces counts of 76-seat or smaller aircraft to add 100-150 seat aircraft improves cost efficiency generating modest capacity growth with fewer aircraft, departures, and staff. Lower operational frequency opens both gate & slot space while solving environmental concern with reduced unit carbon emission, unit fuel consumption and lower system-wide rates of air traffic congestion. Ultimately, insourcing coupled with appropriate work rules and employee recognition (ie. profit sharing) drives superior mainline culture and customer experience.
Too many generations of pilots have suffered furlough brought by outsourcing—no group suffered more than United pilots victimized by Scope reductions.
“If each pilot makes his or her union decisions based on what’s best for the group [as well as] profession instead of self-interest, we will succeed." Let's leave this industry better than we found it and not repeat the past!
Bingo!!!!
Say no to drugs
Sorry meant Scope relief
11-06-2017, 07:49 AM
#12
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
The -300ER with the Cf-6 engines and 777 displays is an awesome machine. Think 767-400 with better performance and range.
They need to do something about the current -300 fleet. They are pretty tired and Honeywell is no longer making CRT dislplays, so the panels in the current fleet will need upgrading pretty soon. Rumor is that DAL has bought all spares available on the market.
Excuse me if I don't see the scope bogeyman under every rock.
They need to do something about the current -300 fleet. They are pretty tired and Honeywell is no longer making CRT dislplays, so the panels in the current fleet will need upgrading pretty soon. Rumor is that DAL has bought all spares available on the market.
Excuse me if I don't see the scope bogeyman under every rock.
11-06-2017, 09:15 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
It'll get corrected sooner or later.
11-06-2017, 12:05 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
The Scope Discussion Thread
Anyways, if the CO wants to buy some shiny new jets on their own merit that's great. If they want something from us in return, the answer is no - now and forever.
Anyone want to start a pool to guess how many we ultimately buy? I'll wager a cup of CPO coffee on two dozen new and a dozen used to replace our absolute oldest 756s.
11-06-2017, 12:37 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
763 is perfect for ORD/IAH East to Europe. If this order comes to pass I wouldn’t be shocked if they replaced 752s.
11-06-2017, 01:08 PM
#17
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
I dismissed this rumor initially, but now wonder.....
Problem: the MoM/797 is still not a sure thing. Boeing is waffling on a production decision due to development cost, market definition of what they want in a new MoM, and according to some trade journals, a fear that the A-321NEO/ER has already taken a significant portion of that market.
And...if Boeing decided today to build it, the first jets would have not have passengers for nine years. Given the slips in the 787, there may be industry doubt about Boeing's proposed timeline. Twelve years for a new jet?
I could see this as a short-term fix to the MoM. While a 767 is not as efficient as the 787 or even a NEO-Bus, it has some financial advantages:
1. One less airplane in the logistics pipeline for spares. That is significant.
2. One less training pipeline, including cascading backfills when there are vacancies. Also significant.
3. Available delivery dates? And possibly much cheaper purchase price?
4. As someone else noted, used 767s would probably be an easy sell to freight carriers 10 years down the road.
5. Known commodity. No surprises like the battery fires in Sparky. Goes a long way, can carry a Lamborgini or Ferrari from Europe (have heard anecdotal stories of both as palletized freight from Munich), and is rarely limited by load, fuel, or other considerations.
6. Mechs already familiar, so no learning curve to keep dispatch rates high (excepting new glass, or possible engine swap to CF6).
If rumors of getting used 767s/757s fall through....I would not be surprised to see this happen.
Problem: the MoM/797 is still not a sure thing. Boeing is waffling on a production decision due to development cost, market definition of what they want in a new MoM, and according to some trade journals, a fear that the A-321NEO/ER has already taken a significant portion of that market.
And...if Boeing decided today to build it, the first jets would have not have passengers for nine years. Given the slips in the 787, there may be industry doubt about Boeing's proposed timeline. Twelve years for a new jet?
I could see this as a short-term fix to the MoM. While a 767 is not as efficient as the 787 or even a NEO-Bus, it has some financial advantages:
1. One less airplane in the logistics pipeline for spares. That is significant.
2. One less training pipeline, including cascading backfills when there are vacancies. Also significant.
3. Available delivery dates? And possibly much cheaper purchase price?
4. As someone else noted, used 767s would probably be an easy sell to freight carriers 10 years down the road.
5. Known commodity. No surprises like the battery fires in Sparky. Goes a long way, can carry a Lamborgini or Ferrari from Europe (have heard anecdotal stories of both as palletized freight from Munich), and is rarely limited by load, fuel, or other considerations.
6. Mechs already familiar, so no learning curve to keep dispatch rates high (excepting new glass, or possible engine swap to CF6).
If rumors of getting used 767s/757s fall through....I would not be surprised to see this happen.
11-06-2017, 01:12 PM
#18
Banned
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 163
It wouldn't surprise me if they would be a newer version. The FedEx version--only with seats. New engines, and cockpit. Much like what the 757 update should have been.
Otherwise, it's the same argument for the cancelation of the 737-700's. Why buy an older generation of plane that will be with us for 20 years? Or, we could order them, then indefinitely defer that same order 6 months later. Use 767-300's make much more sense, unless they can't find any.
Otherwise, it's the same argument for the cancelation of the 737-700's. Why buy an older generation of plane that will be with us for 20 years? Or, we could order them, then indefinitely defer that same order 6 months later. Use 767-300's make much more sense, unless they can't find any.
11-06-2017, 06:17 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
When I began my journey as a "big-jet" pilot those who were my captains (think 50 years old and no 60+) transitioned from DC-3s to DC-10s and B747s. What a huge change they experienced over their 25-35 year careers.
I began mine as a lowly S/O on the panel of the first B727 (yes number airframe 1) and UAL was taking delivery of brand new "advanced" models of the same airframe. Jump almost 40 years later and I'll be retiring off the B787, Boeing's most advanced and automated airplane.
My career, when compared to those who sat in the left seat when I started, has seen very little change in real jet technology. Yes we now have computers, better autoflight, navigation, materials and such, but largely I still fly the same kind of airplanes (these days I don't "hand fly" up to cruise or the entire descent anymore).
What I'm trying to write is this, what's wrong with an updated B767? Is it worth Boeing designing and spending trillions of dollars to provide an airframe only marginally better than the B767? The days of huge leaps and bounds of technology seen by those who came before me/us are gone and done.
Besides which, as one of those long retired and gone Captains said to me, "These are the good old days. The cockpit is cool in the summer, warm in the winter and we get to go fast everywhere."
May your soul rest in peace Captain Bump!
I began mine as a lowly S/O on the panel of the first B727 (yes number airframe 1) and UAL was taking delivery of brand new "advanced" models of the same airframe. Jump almost 40 years later and I'll be retiring off the B787, Boeing's most advanced and automated airplane.
My career, when compared to those who sat in the left seat when I started, has seen very little change in real jet technology. Yes we now have computers, better autoflight, navigation, materials and such, but largely I still fly the same kind of airplanes (these days I don't "hand fly" up to cruise or the entire descent anymore).
What I'm trying to write is this, what's wrong with an updated B767? Is it worth Boeing designing and spending trillions of dollars to provide an airframe only marginally better than the B767? The days of huge leaps and bounds of technology seen by those who came before me/us are gone and done.
Besides which, as one of those long retired and gone Captains said to me, "These are the good old days. The cockpit is cool in the summer, warm in the winter and we get to go fast everywhere."
May your soul rest in peace Captain Bump!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
