Originally Posted by baseball

Originally Posted by O2pilot

Because Southwest is a point-to-point airline. They get most of their revenue from people flying direct flights.

United is a hub-and-spoke airline. We get most of our revenue from the network effect of connecting people. We literally have 100X possible flight combinations compared to Southwest. If you want to go from Chicago Dallas, you can go on United or Southwest. If you want to go from Madison to Paris, etc. you can't do that on Southwest. Multiply every International destination we have times the number of cities we serve domestically and it starts to make sense.

For the network effect to work, you need feed. Southwest doesn't need it. The cost of a feeder network doesn't make sense for their business model, just like Jet Blue, because they aren't big enough. Far smaller than Southwest.

We need an express operation. The added benefit is tremendous. Kirby wants to build out the network. He needs feed to do that. We need that feed too. So we are in a precarious position. Unfortunately, we were burned previously, so we aren't going to budge one inch.

Bottom line is I will keep an open mind when we get a TA, but I won't make blanket comparisons to airlines like SWA or JB because they aren't the same animal.

But I will just ask people to think about this....if ALPA could wave a wand and wipe out 1/2 of the UEX operation, would management try to fly A-319s and guppies on those routes, or are they not economical for larger planes. If we wiped out that flying, would we gain more flying? Or would we just lose out on connecting passengers and maybe lose some other flights because we don't need as many hub-to-hub flights.

If we added more regional flying (to cities we'd never fly to on mainline) does the mainline grow and does that benefit us, knowing it is entirely possible its not economically feasible to do that flying in-house without a b-scale.

How do we add flying that we would never do on the mainline, that grows the mainline, keeps our profit sharing checks high, and keeps the profit level at the airline sufficient to pay our industry leading contract? Because I believe what most of you believe. I don't want to give on scope, but I also want the company to be so profitable, we get a much better contract.

So how do we do that?

Originally Posted by KonaJoe

This right here is the dilemma. We need the feed, and unfortunately now that the cat's out of the bag with RJs, we can't put it back in. We can't be profitable by flying 170s in house. It's not defeatism. It's math.

The question is how will the MEC frame the subject to ensure that the pilots of United don't get burned from scope relief this time around because reading in between the lines from their emails, it seems like it's coming.

Originally Posted by baseball

Instructor pilots and LCA's are suck-ups. I don't have a problem saying that, and if they were being honest they would tell you they are careful as to what they say in these LCA meetings and in front of management, and I've been doing this 30 years, and I've never seen one "rock the boat." Cooperate and graduate is how I see them. They keep saying..."we're doing X because this is what we're doing." Never challenge management.

OK, here's the deal. If Kirby wants to get a standing ovation from the pilots he's gonna have to say this: " I promise not to attempt to attack scope language." I know it's a sacred cow, and I am not going to try and sacrifice it, not on my watch." He says that, and I'll stand and clap.

If he won't protect my sacred cow, then I may not want to protect his.

Originally Posted by guppie

https://seekingalpha.com/news/304234...40-boeing-737s


Jan 2016 "The planes will replace a portion of the capacity currently operated by the regional partners, as the company reduces more than half the number of 50-seat aircraft in its fleet by 2019."

Year end 2016 50 seat aircraft: 238
Year end 2019 50 seat aircraft: 325

What changed since 2016? Scott "RJ" Kirby

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed.../#153144cf6bd0

Originally Posted by RJDio

I’m curious how you come to your conclusion?

I’ve asked someone on the MEC directly if the company has shared their data showing the RJ’s being unprofitable at mainline. Their answer was definitive No, and they have no plans of doing so in the future.

Second, we wouldn’t be flying 170’s. It would be 175’s in a higher density configuration than 76 seats.

Third, we buy most of the airplanes and pay for all the infrastructure express uses to operate in. So it comes down to compensation. Compensation at most express carriers is now only fractionally less than our book rates for 175’s/900’s. In the latest CPA with Skywest, our management has agreed to subsidize/absorb the increases in wages (outside of COLA) and bonuses to keep recruitment going.

Fourth, when one express carrier can’t fulfill their schedule, the block hours have to be covered by another express carrier at a premium (like our senior manning). How much is that costing on an annual level? Again, something the company is unwilling to share with the union to truly audit the cost of the RJ.

Lastly, what’s the true cost of helping support the 8 different: training departments, maintenance operations, dispatchers, etc?

Originally Posted by AxlF16

If we're being intellectually honest, we'd see that your argument can work for AND against us.

When you ask "What changed since 2016" then answer with simply "Scott RJ Kirby", you're being far too simplistic. Can you tell me what else changed? Has UAL grown? Have we grown our RPMs and ASMs? What about throughput in our hubs? Unfortunately for your (apparent) argument, the growth of the RJ fleet is tied DIRECTLY to the growth of UAL.

The REAL question is whether we could've/would've grown WITHOUT the increase in the size fo the 50 seat RJ fleet. While I don't like that fact that he RJ fleet has increased, I'll freely admit that I'm happy with the growth of the mainline. It's all contractually compliant.

Originally Posted by KonaJoe

You just answered your own question. MGMT is willing to do all that because it is NOT profitable to do it here. Period. End of story. And no it's not just compensation.

We can do it, but we will not be profitable at it.

The guys beating their chest over bringing back 76 seater flying are living in a dream world. I would LOVE to see this flying here, are you kidding me? It would be incredible. But that ship sailed long ago. I've moved onto hoping we can work with what we have and protect our jobs in the current, real world environment. Not some fantasy world.

Originally Posted by RJDio

You call it unprofitable, I call it whipsaw. The MEC has stated they believe it is viable through their analysis (with no data from the company). Why is management so afraid to show them the data and prove the compelling argument that it’s unprofitable at mainline?

Again, I ask how do you come to that conclusion? is just because you and the company say so?