More Small Narrow Body talk
11-15-2015, 05:38 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Cessna 150
Posts: 655
Perhaps what the company wants is to create future brand reliability by assuming control of airplanes with United paint jobs. Getting early orders in for these aircraft, while United has money in the bank, would give United unprecedented industry leverage in the future when regional airlines are completely unreliable. Instead of trying to deplete the bank account, maybe we should be looking at what's best for the future as a whole.
11-15-2015, 06:14 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Perhaps what the company wants is to create future brand reliability by assuming control of airplanes with United paint jobs. Getting early orders in for these aircraft, while United has money in the bank, would give United unprecedented industry leverage in the future when regional airlines are completely unreliable. Instead of trying to deplete the bank account, maybe we should be looking at what's best for the future as a whole.
Show me the money.
Sled
11-15-2015, 06:19 AM
#43
Squawking 2000
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: Skeptical
Posts: 737
Sounds like a Hail Mary play by Bombardier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries
Having EXTENSIVE experience operating Bombardier products in an earlier life, I would not expect much in the way of product support if United bites off on this, especially when the program is never expected to make a profit. Why would they give a damn about customer service when they lose money with every sale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries
In October 2015 Airbus confirmed that they had turned down Bombardier's offer to sell a majority share of the CSeries to them. Bombardier then said they would explore alternatives. Just days before, the government of Québec reiterated that it would be willing to provide Bombardier with financial aid, should the company request it. Richard Aboulafia, Teal Group vice president of analysis, and a long-time critic of the CSeries,[95] indicated that the cancellation of the program and coverage of losses by the Canadian federal government were both likely.[96][97] On the other hand, Bombardier said it was fully committed to the CSeries and had the financial resources in place to support the program.[98]
On 14 October 2015, Bombardier disclosed it had completed over 90% of the required certification tests for the CS100 and the first production CS100 aircraft will soon commence function and reliability tests.[99]
On 29 October 2015, Bombardier took a $3.2 billion writedown on the CSeries.[100] On the same day, the Quebec government announced that it would invest $1 billion in the company to save the struggling programme.[101] The incoming federal Canadian government also indicated that it would reply to Bombardier's request for $350 million in assistance after the new Liberal government takes power in early November.[100]
A Scotiabank report in early November 2015 indicated that the company and the program would probably need a second bail out and that even then the C Series will probably not make money. Scotiabank analyst Turan Quettawala said, "we believe that the writedown corroborates our long-held view that the CSeries is not going to be value accretive under any scenario."[102]
On 14 October 2015, Bombardier disclosed it had completed over 90% of the required certification tests for the CS100 and the first production CS100 aircraft will soon commence function and reliability tests.[99]
On 29 October 2015, Bombardier took a $3.2 billion writedown on the CSeries.[100] On the same day, the Quebec government announced that it would invest $1 billion in the company to save the struggling programme.[101] The incoming federal Canadian government also indicated that it would reply to Bombardier's request for $350 million in assistance after the new Liberal government takes power in early November.[100]
A Scotiabank report in early November 2015 indicated that the company and the program would probably need a second bail out and that even then the C Series will probably not make money. Scotiabank analyst Turan Quettawala said, "we believe that the writedown corroborates our long-held view that the CSeries is not going to be value accretive under any scenario."[102]
11-15-2015, 08:21 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Your last sentence reads like a Kumbaya love fest. Many of us have been around. The last time things were this good....low oil prices, strong hiring, ect., was 2000. United furloughed 2172 guys starting in the Fall of 2001. The rest of us took 28% pay rate cuts, then another 12% plus pension termination and various quality of life hits FOR TEN YEARS. There were personal bankruptcies, divorces, suicides. When times got better for United, we tried to exercise a little muscle for an early contract and got a court injunction imposed on us. United recalled and hired some guys in 2007, only to re-furlough in 2009. After the merger, the games continued by dragging out the contract and prolonging our POS bankruptcy contract (unlike how the DAL/NWA merger went down). Some, including myself, will never forget or forgive. So with all that in mind....I'll just keep trying to deplete the bank account.
Show me the money.
Sled
Show me the money.
Sled
Agree, show me the money. This whole extension is a horrible idea. We finally have leverage in the form of something the company wants...
Scott
11-15-2015, 08:53 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
Couldn't agree more. Then we merged with a company that completely staffed bases in ours and us in theirs where we couldn't exercise said seniority and many of us are (still) stuck commuting and will be for the foreseeable future while significantly more junior pilots drive to work. Not that I'm bitter.
Agree, show me the money. This whole extension is a horrible idea. We finally have leverage in the form of something the company wants...
Scott
Agree, show me the money. This whole extension is a horrible idea. We finally have leverage in the form of something the company wants...
Scott
11-15-2015, 09:06 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
To forego real contractual improvements that are, in my eyes, absolutely necessary, the pay has to be huge. Personally, that likely won't be enough. We have leverage to dramatically improve the QOL for the entire pilot group, yet many I talk to are pretty much only concerned with w2. Very short sighted IMHO.
Scott
11-15-2015, 10:10 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
My point is this - it should have to be eye watering for us to even consider extending a very average contract that the company already refuses to comply with.
To forego real contractual improvements that are, in my eyes, absolutely necessary, the pay has to be huge. Personally, that likely won't be enough. We have leverage to dramatically improve the QOL for the entire pilot group, yet many I talk to are pretty much only concerned with w2. Very short sighted IMHO.
Scott
To forego real contractual improvements that are, in my eyes, absolutely necessary, the pay has to be huge. Personally, that likely won't be enough. We have leverage to dramatically improve the QOL for the entire pilot group, yet many I talk to are pretty much only concerned with w2. Very short sighted IMHO.
Scott
Or
Contract 2000 plus 5 percent every January 1st , every year till the next contract signed
That will motivate them to not delay the next contract or we will be getting 5 percent every January
No scope relief what s ever though !!!!
11-15-2015, 10:35 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
The TPA allowed nothing that couldn't have happened anyway. Our POS bankruptcy contract contained almost no merger protections. The TPA was negotiated with no leverage. At least it gave us SOMETHING. Which was better than nothing. Totally different deal today. Look at Howard's message. FRMS. It's what's for dinner!
11-16-2015, 02:54 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
SWA has been in Sect 6 for 3 years during some of the best times in aviation. Now they just turned down their TA. And ya'll think Sect 6 early openers will yield a quick agreement? On the bright side....SWA management did say they will resume talks NEXT SPRING! They're going for 4 years baby!! Why shouldn't we expect the same? Show me the money now...and it better be good.
PS. Aircraft manufacturers displaying their aircraft to prospective buyers is nothing new. Especially aircraft that aren't selling well. It's usually quite an event for the suits.
Sled
PS. Aircraft manufacturers displaying their aircraft to prospective buyers is nothing new. Especially aircraft that aren't selling well. It's usually quite an event for the suits.
Sled
May be another 3 to 5 years in negotiating. Pilots don't care, and neither does management. both sides dug in.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
