United Orders 4 Boeing 787-9's and 25 EMB-175
#161
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.
“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 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
#162
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
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
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
#163
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,754
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.
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.
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?
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
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?
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?
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.
#165
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,754
And while the current contract needs improvement, it’s better than either ual or cal enjoyed pre-merger.
If it were the case, we’d be seeing the rates I posted previous, as well as other things.
#167
Number Last
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
Posts: 442
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
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aircraft-types
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
We are killing the company and need to relax ... I mean RELAX ... scope.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aircraft-types
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aircraft-types
#169
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
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.
#170
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,754
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.
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.
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.....