UniCal and the future of RJs
05-23-2012, 12:10 PM
#52
Gets Summer Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: AA
Posts: 667
Both restrictions are important.
05-23-2012, 12:16 PM
#53
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
No, you are so blind by emotional reaction from scope you keep stepping over dollars searching for pennies. The Delta TA news dropped regional airline stock prices. Why? Because they will have much less business in the future. DCI currently flies about 40% of Delta's total block hours. That stands to drop to around 25% and contractually protected. If mainline flying decreases so will regional. Delta is protected to add over 800 pilot jobs to mainline because of the 717 deal. Add in the upcoming retirements, there will be plenty of movement to mainline.
70-seat or pound sand? They indeed will pound sand and continue to let you fly under a bankruptcy contract while Delta pilots enjoy upgrades, movement, and 50% better pay and benefits than UniCal pilots all because you want the all or nothing home run on scope.
Eventually you will tire of pounding your fist on the table and agree to a reasonable scope deal. But the money you could have made had you been reasonable earlier, you will never get back. Time value of money, this is something management understands, and pilots do to. And you wonder why they keep winning
Once again, good luck fellas
70-seat or pound sand? They indeed will pound sand and continue to let you fly under a bankruptcy contract while Delta pilots enjoy upgrades, movement, and 50% better pay and benefits than UniCal pilots all because you want the all or nothing home run on scope.
Eventually you will tire of pounding your fist on the table and agree to a reasonable scope deal. But the money you could have made had you been reasonable earlier, you will never get back. Time value of money, this is something management understands, and pilots do to. And you wonder why they keep winning
Once again, good luck fellas
Your data is wrong on the RJ hours reduction- It is currently 54/46% split mainline domestic to DCI.
The TA changes that to 61/39% at a minimum.
05-23-2012, 12:54 PM
#54
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Because aircraft size does not require more or less pilots. Block hours does.
I would be absolutely fine with a contract that allow unlimited outsourcing of any aircraft limited to 1% of total block hours vs any current scope agreement out there anywhere. Only thing better than that is 0 outsourcing allowed but that is unreasonable at this time.
I would be absolutely fine with a contract that allow unlimited outsourcing of any aircraft limited to 1% of total block hours vs any current scope agreement out there anywhere. Only thing better than that is 0 outsourcing allowed but that is unreasonable at this time.
You continue to omit the elephant in the room....Aircraft SIZE. The ONLY part your correct on, a CR7, and B757 BOTH require the same amount of Pilots, TWO.
A real "case-n-point" using YOUR RULES/Rational:
UCH's will/does fly B757's (200-300s) from IAH-AUS....The same segment that SkyWest/Colgan planes fly inconcert outside of Mainline Segments. If we use ONLY B.H. Ratio, and omit the airframe size on outsourced iron, what stops SkyWest from flying that same B757 at "cut-rate" wages in place of Mainline B757's Crews/Pay? That small B.H. Ratio of :45 is the ONLY item figured into SCOPE equation, but per your rules/world, Airframe Size is NOT a factor in the SCOPE protection. If size is NOT a player, what prevents this on the SCOPE Scale that you advocate??
To make it a bit more clear, I guarentee you that a majority of L-UA/CO Pilots will NOT settle on only B.H. Ratio/Size. You can also count on those Mainline Pilots advocating no "Hub/Hub", Stage Length Limits, Outsourced RJ size/weight/ect.....and a whole gaggle of JV/Foreign Protections.
I would bet that you have read several of the DAL Threads dealing with their potential TA. In doing so, may have noticed one DAL-Pilot inparticular...."Carl Spackler". In reading what he wrote after consulting with a legal firm on SCOPE vs REgaining Outsourced Flying (paraphrasing):
Mainline Pilot Groups have a heck of a hard time reviving lost/outsourced flying, and having a legal leg to stand on in doing so is tough at best. Once the Mainline conceeds the flying, their legal recourse to revive/recover is slim to none.....In that case, the line is drawn HERE.
With the above being the case, and L-UA already loosing the B-737 flying to "RJ" galore, don't expect ANY concessions/or turning a blind eye to "Airframe Size". If Jeffery/Freddy/Howey want BIGGER, they got it.....It will be on OUR PAYSCALES and RULES while Mainline flys them.
Don't know about other carrier's current/potential TA's, but in our case, SECTION 1 "IS" the JCBA.
05-23-2012, 02:01 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,369
I thinkje disturbing part isn't an RJ FO looking to continue outsourcing. The disturbing part is that is he parroting an ALPA EVP. Everyone turn to the back of your ALPA rags and look for ATN_Pilot, aka TO.
Trip: you appear to be slightly business savvy. What would it take to bring all flying in house? I would go ahead and concede a "D" scale, ie regional wages, on all equipment flown by regionals. How is it physically possible that with the D scale rates (and mainline work rules / benefits) that it is cheaper to let 7 different airlines pretend to be Delta? Isn't there a business term... Synergy, that comes from wrapping operations into 1, vs 7 plus? 1+1=3; 1+7=???
The point is, we need to figure out where the jobs can all be back at mainline such that it saves the parent, DL, UA, etc., money. It can't be good that people think that CAL put one into BUF, when it was us (PCL Corp).
Trip: you appear to be slightly business savvy. What would it take to bring all flying in house? I would go ahead and concede a "D" scale, ie regional wages, on all equipment flown by regionals. How is it physically possible that with the D scale rates (and mainline work rules / benefits) that it is cheaper to let 7 different airlines pretend to be Delta? Isn't there a business term... Synergy, that comes from wrapping operations into 1, vs 7 plus? 1+1=3; 1+7=???
The point is, we need to figure out where the jobs can all be back at mainline such that it saves the parent, DL, UA, etc., money. It can't be good that people think that CAL put one into BUF, when it was us (PCL Corp).
05-23-2012, 08:18 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
I don't think you "get it."
We need firm caps on who can fly the routes, when they can fly them, and what they can use on them, and what those pay rates will be.
We can't have RJ pilots prostituting themselves on our routes undercutting our payrates, and therefore nullifying our intrinsic value to our famalies.
Just say no to whoring onseself out to the lowest bidder.
Every ten years the definition of an RJ changes. It used to be "regional jet." as in about 300 miles.
Now the darn RJ can fly from Houston to Toronto without aerial refueling. Just exactly what "region" is the RJ limited to????
11-13-2012, 07:15 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
The answer is easy. This is Pfrends of Pfred 101 folks.
The senior bubbas and the grey beards at CAL (Old CAL Captains) nearly universally voted YES for POS 02. Why? Because they got to keep their A funds at the expnse of everyone else who lost time (time is money). We lost 5 years off our careers, 5 years of reduced earnings, and we lost our pensions due to a threat of a liquidity short fall. The only people who benefited from POS 02 were the senior grey-beards who froze their A funds and had their annuity or lump sum totally preserved with zero risk.
The senior guys want us junior guys to vote YES for anything that gives them more money on their way out the door. They would sell their grandmother's funeral dress if it got them a few more dollars at our expense.
I had one old CAL Captain tell me "screw scope" I am so senior scope won't bother me one bit. My response: "how many Airbus 330's would it take to get your attention being flown by offshored-outsourced labor? That doesn't bother me he says. Why not? I think once Jeffey sees the green light, he will expand his littler Aer Lingus Air Force and start taking out some real jobs and killing some real careers, Captains and Co-pilots alike will get hurt if the Aer Lingus thing is not killed.
The senior bubbas and the grey beards at CAL (Old CAL Captains) nearly universally voted YES for POS 02. Why? Because they got to keep their A funds at the expnse of everyone else who lost time (time is money). We lost 5 years off our careers, 5 years of reduced earnings, and we lost our pensions due to a threat of a liquidity short fall. The only people who benefited from POS 02 were the senior grey-beards who froze their A funds and had their annuity or lump sum totally preserved with zero risk.
The senior guys want us junior guys to vote YES for anything that gives them more money on their way out the door. They would sell their grandmother's funeral dress if it got them a few more dollars at our expense.
I had one old CAL Captain tell me "screw scope" I am so senior scope won't bother me one bit. My response: "how many Airbus 330's would it take to get your attention being flown by offshored-outsourced labor? That doesn't bother me he says. Why not? I think once Jeffey sees the green light, he will expand his littler Aer Lingus Air Force and start taking out some real jobs and killing some real careers, Captains and Co-pilots alike will get hurt if the Aer Lingus thing is not killed.
TA 22-B-2 Filing of Request for IRS Ruling
Within ninety (90) days following the effective date of this Agreement, the Company shall file a request with the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether, and under what terms and conditions, airline frozen plan funding relief with respect to the CPRP may be voluntarily revoked. The Association shall have the right to review and comment upon the letter at least thirty (30) days prior to its delivery to the Internal Revenue Service and to participate in any resulting telephonic or in-person meetings with the Internal Revenue Service. The Company shall provide the Association with copies of any correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service relating to the request. If the Internal Revenue Service issues a favorable ruling, then the Company and the Association shall, within sixty (60) days following the issuance of such ruling, meet and agree regarding whether developing a cost-neutral defined benefit plan is practical. Neither party is under any obligation to agree to the implementation of such a plan.
Last edited by APC225; 11-13-2012 at 07:56 AM.
