Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
United Orders 4 Boeing 787-9's and 25 EMB-175 >

United Orders 4 Boeing 787-9's and 25 EMB-175

Search

Notices

United Orders 4 Boeing 787-9's and 25 EMB-175

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-19-2018, 04:27 AM
  #161  
Gets Weekends Off
 
joepilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 806
Default

Originally Posted by Flytolive
Not if you only put 70 seats on them.

“70-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft configured with more than fifty (50) passenger seats but no more than seventy (70) passenger seats, and certificated in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds.
I fully agree that this (certificated grow weight of 89,000 lb.) violates our current scope agreement. I see two ways for UAL to circumvent this: First, I was on two different United aircraft when the changed max certificated gross weight. There was nothing done to the aircraft or engines, United just paid Boeing for the paperwork saying that the A/C was certificated to a higher gross weight.

I don't know why United bought the lower weight version initially, perhaps they saved money in landing fees, or? If they can so easily increase the weight of an existing A/C, then it must be even easier to decrease the certificated gross weight so that it fits under scope. This would be nice for passengers because it would allow room for First Class and expanded Econ Plus. I'm sure the plan would be to later up the gross allowed to fit more seats on the A/C, and squeeze the seats closer together.

Joe
joepilot is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 04:53 AM
  #162  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
Default

Originally Posted by joepilot
I fully agree that this (certificated grow weight of 89,000 lb.) violates our current scope agreement. I see two ways for UAL to circumvent this: First, I was on two different United aircraft when the changed max certificated gross weight. There was nothing done to the aircraft or engines, United just paid Boeing for the paperwork saying that the A/C was certificated to a higher gross weight.

I don't know why United bought the lower weight version initially, perhaps they saved money in landing fees, or? If they can so easily increase the weight of an existing A/C, then it must be even easier to decrease the certificated gross weight so that it fits under scope. This would be nice for passengers because it would allow room for First Class and expanded Econ Plus. I'm sure the plan would be to later up the gross allowed to fit more seats on the A/C, and squeeze the seats closer together.

Joe
The EMB-175 only has an MTOW of 86,000 pounds. You can get the 89,000 MTOW if you pay for it. That's what I flew at Compass. Those 36 airplanes have a special carve out in the Delta CBA. At 86K, they are not a violation of our UPA. The Company cannot buy the 89K MTOW unless we allow them to do it. Scope is ours to give and hopefully we are smart enough to just say NO!!!
DashTrash is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 07:43 AM
  #163  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,754
Default

Originally Posted by CALFO
So management will say no to your proposal because it costs money? Why did this hypothetical union enter into Section 6 negotiations if they don’t plan on leveraging what they can to make gains?.

Also, don’t open your negotiations by conceding one item (bonuses) for another (pay rates). This makes you look like you don’t know what you are doing. Perhaps ask for both.

Oh, and be sure to ask for more than just pay rates. Things like work rules.
If it's all as easy as you say, then why aren't our WB CA's at over $435/hr, WB FO's 295, NB CA's 339 and NB FO's 232, where's vacation override, and whole slew of other things

Originally Posted by CALFO
Honestly, I don’t keep too current on regional section 6 negotiations, but I do believe that both republic and endeavor have made significant gains in the current environment.
So you're basically ignorant of how it all works on that removed/tiered level.

RAH, sure, only took 10 years......

Endeavor? Compared to what? After Ch.11 BK and a concessions and then Momma DAL taking over? Significant gains over what? What they had before the BK? Compared to after the BK?
John Carr is online now  
Old 07-19-2018, 08:24 AM
  #164  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Default

Originally Posted by John Carr
If it's all as easy as you say, then why aren't our WB CA's at over $435/hr, WB FO's 295, NB CA's 339 and NB FO's 232, where's vacation override, and whole slew of other things



So you're basically ignorant of how it all works on that removed/tiered level.

RAH, sure, only took 10 years......

Endeavor? Compared to what? After Ch.11 BK and a concessions and then Momma DAL taking over? Significant gains over what? What they had before the BK? Compared to after the BK?
The following is copied from an article about Endeavor’s last contract. I guess the MEC chairman forgot to consult you on the perils of using leverage to improve qol and pay rates.

With regard to ual’s Current contract, if we can’t get $435/hr should we just say “screw it” and not negotiate all. That is a strange position. And while the current contract needs improvement, it’s better than either ual or cal enjoyed pre-merger. Btw- one of the biggest improvement was a doubling of first year pay (should still be higher). You’re welcome 😉


This agreement is the culmination of an initiative to take advantage of a positive bargaining cycle,” said Capt. Jim Johnson, chairman of the ALPA Endeavor Master Executive Council. The new wage rates—unprecedented in the fee-for-departure industry—convert what were temporary retention bonuses into permanent wage scales that greatly exceed industry average rates.

“Our first officers will see hourly wage rates 40 to 50 percent above industry average, and the majority of our captain wage rates will be 20 to 25 percent above industry average,” said Johnson
.
CALFO is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:00 AM
  #165  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,754
Default

Originally Posted by CALFO
With regard to ual’s Current contract, if we can’t get $435/hr should we just say “screw it” and not negotiate all. That is a strange position.
Where was that EVER STATED?

And while the current contract needs improvement, it’s better than either ual or cal enjoyed pre-merger.
There are many that would disagree with the bold.

If it were the case, we’d be seeing the rates I posted previous, as well as other things.
John Carr is online now  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:16 AM
  #166  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Default

Originally Posted by John Carr
There are many that would disagree with the bold.

If it were the case, we’d be seeing the rates I posted previous, as well as other things.
Omg! I’ve been debating Donald trump.
CALFO is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:48 AM
  #167  
Number Last
 
PowderFinger's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
Posts: 442
Default Scooter has me convinced !

We are killing the company and need to relax ... I mean RELAX ... scope.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aircraft-types
PowderFinger is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:55 AM
  #168  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Default

Originally Posted by PowderFinger
We are killing the company and need to relax ... I mean RELAX ... scope.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aircraft-types
It’s a strange argument for management to make when they continually shift airplanes between regionals. Management didn’t seem too concerned with the costs associated with absorbing a new fleet when the took e-145 from ExpressJet and gave them to Commutair. Nor did they seem that concerned when Mesa began flying e-175. Somehow these regional airlines have absorbed the costs and passed them along to United.
CALFO is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:12 AM
  #169  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Default

Originally Posted by John Carr
Where was that EVER STATED?



There are many that would disagree with the bold.

If it were the case, we’d be seeing the rates I posted previous, as well as other things.
Quickly. The contract you are referencing is ual 2000. Ual Pilots used leverage to get an industry leading contract. Due to 9/11, recession, sars, and a pilot glut management exerted it’s leverage (through bankruptcy) to decimate pay, retirement, and some work rules. After merger with cal, union exerted its leverage to improve the contract significantly.

Much like Endeavor used its leverage (pilot shortage) to get its contract.

So to review, a pilot shortage in a strong economy is leverage. Regardless of whipsaws, regional airline management would like their airline to exist. In order to that they need pilots. Again, leverage.
CALFO is offline  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:21 AM
  #170  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,754
Default

Originally Posted by CALFO
Quickly. The contract you are referencing is ual 2000. Ual Pilots used leverage to get an industry leading contract. Due to 9/11, recession, sars, and a pilot glut management exerted it’s leverage (through bankruptcy) to decimate pay, retirement, and some work rules. After merger with cal, union exerted its leverage to improve the contract significantly.

Much like Endeavor used its leverage (pilot shortage) to get its contract.

So to review, a pilot shortage in a strong economy is leverage. Regardless of whipsaws, regional airline management would like their airline to exist. In order to that they need pilots. Again, leverage.
Excellent deflection and dancing around the issue with how easy it is at the regional level to just get what they want.

If that were the case, XJT would have have a deal long long ago. As opposed to just having their planes transferred to cheaper reginaols that’s more cost controllable. Whether the ERJ side or CRJ.

But you’re still clueless, sorry, but you are.

Good day, fly safe, and make sure the NC is FULLY AWARE of everything you/we want. They’ll simply just hand it over like candy.....
John Carr is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices