![Contract 202[?]](/iconimages/united/contract-202-a_ltr.gif)
Contract 202[?]
09-05-2019, 07:45 PM
#111
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Because most pilots refuse to acknowledge that they are just part of the machinery. They insist on believing that their input is essential and that they're smarter than (most) management. Which, in many cases, they are but that doesn't matter one whit. Our white collars are truly blue and that's why we have a union.
We fly. They manage. It was true when I was at my first airline and it's just as true today. Try as we might, we're not going to save the airline no matter what. One stupid procedure or decision in HQ can whizz away years of fuel savings in less than a quarter. Or, the savings can be used for a stock buy-back, an investment in a South American airline or to buy RJ's. I don't lose sleep over any of it. We have the luxury of working for a phenomenally profitable company. We should be very well compensated.
Once mastered, our job is not all that difficult. Show up, cool the jet, don't be a dick, have fun and go home.
Anything less than full retro is an automatic no.
We fly. They manage. It was true when I was at my first airline and it's just as true today. Try as we might, we're not going to save the airline no matter what. One stupid procedure or decision in HQ can whizz away years of fuel savings in less than a quarter. Or, the savings can be used for a stock buy-back, an investment in a South American airline or to buy RJ's. I don't lose sleep over any of it. We have the luxury of working for a phenomenally profitable company. We should be very well compensated.
Once mastered, our job is not all that difficult. Show up, cool the jet, don't be a dick, have fun and go home.
Anything less than full retro is an automatic no.
Well put. Most discussions around here are simply cognitive self stimulation. I’m going to just wait for a TA, read it, and then vote accordingly.
09-05-2019, 09:20 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Because most pilots refuse to acknowledge that they are just part of the machinery. They insist on believing that their input is essential and that they're smarter than (most) management. Which, in many cases, they are but that doesn't matter one whit. Our white collars are truly blue and that's why we have a union.
We fly. They manage. It was true when I was at my first airline and it's just as true today. Try as we might, we're not going to save the airline no matter what. One stupid procedure or decision in HQ can whizz away years of fuel savings in less than a quarter. Or, the savings can be used for a stock buy-back, an investment in a South American airline or to buy RJ's. I don't lose sleep over any of it. We have the luxury of working for a phenomenally profitable company. We should be very well compensated.
Once mastered, our job is not all that difficult. Show up, cool the jet, don't be a dick, have fun and go home.
Anything less than full retro is an automatic no.
We fly. They manage. It was true when I was at my first airline and it's just as true today. Try as we might, we're not going to save the airline no matter what. One stupid procedure or decision in HQ can whizz away years of fuel savings in less than a quarter. Or, the savings can be used for a stock buy-back, an investment in a South American airline or to buy RJ's. I don't lose sleep over any of it. We have the luxury of working for a phenomenally profitable company. We should be very well compensated.
Once mastered, our job is not all that difficult. Show up, cool the jet, don't be a dick, have fun and go home.
Anything less than full retro is an automatic no.
Mako, Mako, Mako,
You sell yourself FAR TOO SHORT
1) UPS tried to make all their truck drivers pilots. Nope.
2) Ain't no Blue Collar dude I know that breaks a cool $300k on their W2.
Sadly, I agree that management can pi$$ away everything in a single quarter, but that to me has nothing to do with our current negotiations except that it should make all of us a little more "antsy" and desirous of getting the most we can while the gettin' is good.
09-05-2019, 09:49 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: 737/FO
Posts: 195
It may be what they (I.e. SK and his people) are trying for, but if I recall his first order of business was to defer 65 - 737-7s to MAX orders. He never wanted the 700s doing what a 76 seater can do at a regional. First he wants more 76 seaters obvious (front door) And second to that he wants to instead now, for lack of a better way to say it “give back or undue the -700 deferral” vs a NSNB 100 seater and in exchange he gets a diluted version of scope relief as you detailed. Maybe I’m paranoid but I’ve read numerous people say he and his folks are smart and may be looking for just a side or back door for some form of scope relief since the front door is barricaded shut. Your post may be an idea to their way for the end around on scope.
Preface- I am not for ya'll "relaxing" scope.
just thinking out loud, haven't thought of implications of anything just facilitating discussion because i'm bored. I wonder if ALPA and mgmt are getting creative trying to think of an out of the box way to satisfy the intent of the NSNB clause. Mgmt wants 70 more 76 seaters, but would have to buy 50 NSNB (making up numbers for sake of discussion) but doesn't want to because of high cost of starting a new fleet. So if the current number of active mainline narrow bodies is 700 on DOS of the contract, the company can have their extra 70 - large 76seaters when the mainline narrow body count hits 750. And you put in a clause that if the active number of mainline narrow bodies drops below 750, they have to park all 70 large 76 seaters or park them on a 2,3,4,5 to one basis or something. You could also figure out a way to tie block hours not just airframes to it. Then management is happy they have the same number of large rj's as delta and didn't have to add an extra fleet type. Then ALPA says, in exchange for us giving you that competitive advantage, we also have to tie it to the number of wide body airframes to account for that statement about them being able to park the entire wide body fleet +160 narrow bodies without parking a single current RJ (which is shocking if true).
Seems like a win-win to me. I don't really see the benefit in forcing them to add a fleet type when the real intention of the pilots is to just preserve the number of airframes(and therefore pilot jobs) on mainline property. Forcing them to add a new fleet type is a good bargaining chip to protect the wide body airframes which UA crushes DL in, but isn't contractually required to. Maybe also throw in a clause that says if mgmt violates the new scope clause, the old scope clause immediately becomes effective? Side benefit, UA would probably then be even more profitable than DL (mgmt and wall street happy) and your profit sharing check would be much bigger
just thinking out loud, haven't thought of implications of anything just facilitating discussion because i'm bored. I wonder if ALPA and mgmt are getting creative trying to think of an out of the box way to satisfy the intent of the NSNB clause. Mgmt wants 70 more 76 seaters, but would have to buy 50 NSNB (making up numbers for sake of discussion) but doesn't want to because of high cost of starting a new fleet. So if the current number of active mainline narrow bodies is 700 on DOS of the contract, the company can have their extra 70 - large 76seaters when the mainline narrow body count hits 750. And you put in a clause that if the active number of mainline narrow bodies drops below 750, they have to park all 70 large 76 seaters or park them on a 2,3,4,5 to one basis or something. You could also figure out a way to tie block hours not just airframes to it. Then management is happy they have the same number of large rj's as delta and didn't have to add an extra fleet type. Then ALPA says, in exchange for us giving you that competitive advantage, we also have to tie it to the number of wide body airframes to account for that statement about them being able to park the entire wide body fleet +160 narrow bodies without parking a single current RJ (which is shocking if true).
Seems like a win-win to me. I don't really see the benefit in forcing them to add a fleet type when the real intention of the pilots is to just preserve the number of airframes(and therefore pilot jobs) on mainline property. Forcing them to add a new fleet type is a good bargaining chip to protect the wide body airframes which UA crushes DL in, but isn't contractually required to. Maybe also throw in a clause that says if mgmt violates the new scope clause, the old scope clause immediately becomes effective? Side benefit, UA would probably then be even more profitable than DL (mgmt and wall street happy) and your profit sharing check would be much bigger
09-05-2019, 10:30 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 869
sorry, not my intent. It was to get people to think outside the box, anticipate what kind of things may be coming down the pipe. Maybe someone on here inadvertently comes up with an idea that could work.
Good thoughts so far everyone, just trying to think of possibilities mgmt could be kicking around. They want more large rj's, is there anything preventing them from saying ok- we'll give you your new 100 seater, get our large rj's, and then we're going to park the entire 757/767 fleet, shift the domestic 777's to international to cover some of that international flying and JV/Codeshare out the rest of the international flying (becoming more like DL- a domestic-ish airline). Drinking beer and watching football that workaround took 10 seconds to think of, imagine what MBA’s and lawyers who get paid to do this can think of. So the unintended consequence of forcing them to buy a NSNB, (maybe during the next downturn, maybe before) is all of those 756 guys bump down to the 737 & airbus and the 737/airbus guys get bumped to the NSNB. In this scenario, the unintended consequence of protecting your pilot job is that you are stuck in a much lower paying job now. So now do you wish you had created some outside the box solution to protect the total number of mainline airframes/widebody airframes/narrowbody airframes...etc. that let mgmt use 700's&319's instead of forcing a NSNB on them? I'm not saying anyone on here knows for sure if this kind of thing is going on, but i'd bet my 401K that mgmt has multiple of these type of options mapped out at their disposal. Don't want anyone to fall for some heads I win, tails you loose shenanigans.
I guess my overarching point is that if you're not thinking ahead, you're already behind........ or whatever chess vs. checkers, where'd my wallet go? saying you like
Good thoughts so far everyone, just trying to think of possibilities mgmt could be kicking around. They want more large rj's, is there anything preventing them from saying ok- we'll give you your new 100 seater, get our large rj's, and then we're going to park the entire 757/767 fleet, shift the domestic 777's to international to cover some of that international flying and JV/Codeshare out the rest of the international flying (becoming more like DL- a domestic-ish airline). Drinking beer and watching football that workaround took 10 seconds to think of, imagine what MBA’s and lawyers who get paid to do this can think of. So the unintended consequence of forcing them to buy a NSNB, (maybe during the next downturn, maybe before) is all of those 756 guys bump down to the 737 & airbus and the 737/airbus guys get bumped to the NSNB. In this scenario, the unintended consequence of protecting your pilot job is that you are stuck in a much lower paying job now. So now do you wish you had created some outside the box solution to protect the total number of mainline airframes/widebody airframes/narrowbody airframes...etc. that let mgmt use 700's&319's instead of forcing a NSNB on them? I'm not saying anyone on here knows for sure if this kind of thing is going on, but i'd bet my 401K that mgmt has multiple of these type of options mapped out at their disposal. Don't want anyone to fall for some heads I win, tails you loose shenanigans.
I guess my overarching point is that if you're not thinking ahead, you're already behind........ or whatever chess vs. checkers, where'd my wallet go? saying you like
Last edited by spaaks; 09-05-2019 at 11:08 PM.
09-05-2019, 11:11 PM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 432
https://thepointsguy.com/news/americ...th-mitsubishi/
Just saw this on The Points Guy about Mesa signing an MOU with Mistubishi for a bunch of MRJ’s. They of course are “in talks” with us and AA to find a home for these planes. Good luck with that Jonny O.
Just saw this on The Points Guy about Mesa signing an MOU with Mistubishi for a bunch of MRJ’s. They of course are “in talks” with us and AA to find a home for these planes. Good luck with that Jonny O.
09-06-2019, 04:22 AM
#117
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 69
[QUOTE=JimLaheyTPS;2882228]https://thepointsguy.com/news/americ...th-mitsubishi/
Do our other works groups (flight attendants, mechanics) have scope clauses like ours? Wondering if United could try something like flying 100 seaters with United Pilots but Mesa FA’s in the back or something. Can’t see that going well.
Do our other works groups (flight attendants, mechanics) have scope clauses like ours? Wondering if United could try something like flying 100 seaters with United Pilots but Mesa FA’s in the back or something. Can’t see that going well.
09-06-2019, 05:43 AM
#118
Pilot Response
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 479
Mako, Mako, Mako,
You sell yourself FAR TOO SHORT
1) UPS tried to make all their truck drivers pilots. Nope.
2) Ain't no Blue Collar dude I know that breaks a cool $300k on their W2.
Sadly, I agree that management can pi$$ away everything in a single quarter, but that to me has nothing to do with our current negotiations except that it should make all of us a little more "antsy" and desirous of getting the most we can while the gettin' is good.
You sell yourself FAR TOO SHORT
1) UPS tried to make all their truck drivers pilots. Nope.
2) Ain't no Blue Collar dude I know that breaks a cool $300k on their W2.
Sadly, I agree that management can pi$$ away everything in a single quarter, but that to me has nothing to do with our current negotiations except that it should make all of us a little more "antsy" and desirous of getting the most we can while the gettin' is good.
09-06-2019, 06:38 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 281
I want changes to our current scope language! ... all united flying done by united pilots ... I would consider any proposal that gets us there however incremental that change is ... since the genie is already out of the bottle, I personally don’t care what type of airplane (50, 70 or 76 seat only) is outsourced, but this contract should start the process of shrinking outsourcing not expanding it (i.e. more total outsourced airplanes via unlocking with a 100 seater) and protect all current and future mainline flying, especially Widebody flying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
