Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA/CO Pilots Ratify New Contract  
User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9848 times:

OK any UA pilots out there want to shed some details on scope?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united...mecs-send-tentative-031500642.html

-m

  

152 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9893 times:

Lets hope they put this to bed and finish the merger. Hopefully this sets an example for the folks over at HP/US that this is it gets done.

Best of luck to the work group.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9916 times:

Quoting UnitedTristar (Thread starter):
OK any UA pilots out there want to shed some details on scope?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united...mecs-send-tentative-031500642.html

-m

I've received an email with some of the information and if I understand what I read, it's a MAJOR concession on Scope; up to 325 aircraft (includes the Q400s) with 76 seats in a couple of years.

It was my understanding that the mediator was pushing for "the Delta model," but this appears to be worse for the UA pilots and the pay is year behind Delta's, too.

At the moment, I'm waiting for a phone call from the email's sender to discuss if my understanding regarding Scope is correct.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4108 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9887 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 2):
I've received an email with some of the information and if I understand what I read, it's a MAJOR concession on Scope; up to 325 aircraft (includes the Q400s) with 76 seats in a couple of years.

Does that also include 50 seaters? As in up to 325 aircraft less than or equal to 76 seats? If so that's more or less status quo, and actually a reduction I believe.

I'm also curious if it's tied to any requirements for a % of total flights operated by mainline or something.

Either way, I hope this gets approved so they can really start to integrate the two carriers. If they can get a JCBA done quickly with the FA's then I think we'll start to see a lot more fleet integration around the hubs and some shifts on overseas flights (2 vs 3 class, etc).


User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9883 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 3):
Does that also include 50 seaters? As in up to 325 aircraft less than or equal to 76 seats? If so that's more or less status quo, and actually a reduction I believe.

I've only read the material once, but it appeared to me that it was up to 325 aircraft (jet or prop) with 70-76 seats PLUS others (50 seat RJs, 37 seat props). I'll read it again in a bit.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9900 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 2):
I've received an email with some of the information and if I understand what I read, it's a MAJOR concession on Scope; up to 325 aircraft (includes the Q400s) with 76 seats in a couple of years.

It was my understanding that the mediator was pushing for "the Delta model," but this appears to be worse for the UA pilots and the pay is year behind Delta's, too.

Scope wise, 325 70-76 seaters is actually exactly the same as DL's new contract. Of course in the case of DL, they are adding 717s and parking CR2s in exchange so I would think UA pilots should receive some sort of incentive as well.



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9555 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9883 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 3):

Does that also include 50 seaters? As in up to 325 aircraft less than or equal to 76 seats? If so that's more or less status quo, and actually a reduction I believe.

Normally that number would be 325 big RJs (so 70/76 seaters)

putting a hard cap on 50 seaters these days is worthless. That model is taking it self out of the market.

Quoting FL787 (Reply 5):
they are adding 717s

Truly hope that if UAL offers a carrot like the 717 their membership isn't stupid enough to bite.



yep.
User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9875 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6):
putting a hard cap on 50 seaters these days is worthless. That model is taking it self out of the market.

Contractually defining something is never worthless to either side. It clears up a gray area. The 50-seat market is dead now but it doesn't need to be forever. The 50-seaters that are around now are old tech, especially the CRJs. They are basically mid-80s technology with mid-80s costs. Leave a gap there worth unlimited 50-seaters (or whatever else) and don't think it won't be exploited by one side or the other. Clearly defined contracts are better than vague ones.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

Does anyone know the timeline for the vote?

User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1716 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9883 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 3):
If so that's more or less status quo, and actually a reduction I believe.

UAX (combined) is over 600 aircraft currently, with about 180ish 70-76 seaters (once YX is ramped up with all their Q's). I would imagine that the increase in large RJ's would be at minimum 1-1 with removals of smaller jets, or probably more. My question is, where do they source another 180 large RJs?

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6):
Truly hope that if UAL offers a carrot like the 717 their membership isn't stupid enough to bite.

Not sure if you saw the UCH Q3 earnings release, but from the release:

"The company recorded $454 million of expense in the third quarter associated with lump sum cash payments that would be made in conjunction with the ratification of the contract and the completion of the integrated pilot seniority list."

Divide that by the 9,796 pilots listed as employed on United.com and you get a little over 46k per pilot. Is that enough of a carrot? (Yes, it's less if you include those still on furlough)



[Edited 2012-11-13 07:08:05]

[Edited 2012-11-13 07:10:33]

User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9883 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 9):
Not sure if you saw the UCH Q3 earnings release, but from the release:

"The company recorded $454 million of expense in the third quarter associated with lump sum cash payments that would be made in conjunction with the ratification of the contract and the completion of the integrated pilot seniority list."

It's my understanding that $400 million is for "retro pay" - the money not paid by UA and CO for operations past the the amendable dates of the two contracts. The remaining value is for changes to the disability plan.

By many estimates, the $400 million is about a BILLION short of the difference between the new pay rates and the old (end of contract) ones. In other words, the retro pay is paying about 28 cents on the dollar (owed).

UA pilots are nearly 3 years past the "amendable" date of their contract, CO pilots are nearly 4 years past the end of theirs.

From the perspective on this former line pilot, the details that I have seen fall well short of the "Delta model" the NMB Mediator has reportedly been espousing.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1716 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9886 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 10):
"retro pay"
Quoting flyhossd (Reply 10):
(owed).

They are not "owed" anything. The pilots union is equally responsible as is management to not getting an agreement done earlier. We can call it back pay, but it's really a bribe to take push through a new contract, it's hard to walk away when someone dangles stacks of cash like that in front of your face.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 10):
By many estimates,

By many Union centric estimates (Fixed it for you)  

[Edited 2012-11-13 08:19:13]

User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9872 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 11):
They are not "owed" anything. The pilots union is equally responsible as is management to not getting an agreement done earlier. We can call it back pay, but it's really a bribe to take push through a new contract, it's hard to walk away when someone dangles stacks of cash like that in front of your face.

You just illustrated why the pilots want "retro pay." That is, if the company doesn't pay the difference between the new and old rates, then the company is encouraged to drag out the negotiations.

So, if the company agrees to the new rates, the difference is indeed, "owed."



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1716 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9865 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 12):
So, if the company agrees to the new rates, the difference is indeed, "owed."

But the pilots also drag them out when they perceive a disadvantage as well, aka when all their peer groups are allowing more large RJ's and they feel threatened. Perceived job security vs. Dollar Pay, it's an age old struggle. The difference indeed is not "owed" because the new contract isn't backdated to the previous amenable date. Note that it's not a contract "expiration" date, it's an amenable date. If the contract expired, then there would be a stronger argument. There is really no legal or necessarily moral obligation (unless previously promised) to give back pay to a previous amenable date. That might be a provision that the union and company can work out in future contracts though.

Either way, anyone know where UA could even get ~140 Large RJ's and/or Large T-Props to get to that 325 cap? Would they have to either directly place an order or work with the regionals to make an order? How much availability is there in the second-hand market?


User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9865 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 13):
But the pilots also drag them out when they perceive a disadvantage as well, aka when all their peer groups are allowing more large RJ's and they feel threatened. Perceived job security vs. Dollar Pay, it's an age old struggle. The difference indeed is not "owed" because the new contract isn't backdated to the previous amenable date. Note that it's not a contract "expiration" date, it's an amenable date. If the contract expired, then there would be a stronger argument. There is really no legal or necessarily moral obligation (unless previously promised) to give back pay to a previous amenable date. That might be a provision that the union and company can work out in future contracts though.

That doesn't change the basic fact that dragging out the contract - without retro pay - just incentives the employer to not reach an agreement. Spin it any way you want, but CO's 4 year contract has lasted (very) nearly 8 years.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 13):
Either way, anyone know where UA could even get ~140 Large RJ's and/or Large T-Props to get to that 325 cap? Would they have to either directly place an order or work with the regionals to make an order? How much availability is there in the second-hand market?

SkyWest would be big a winner, I'd guess. In any case, happy days are ahead for Bombardier and Embraer if the Tentative Agreement passes.

Assuming it passes, I wonder how many pilots UA will furlough...?



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinefutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2605 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9876 times:

Some of the details on scope from another forum:

No 76-seat aircraft until Jan. 1, 2014; current legacy United 70-seat and turboprop limits until then
- After Jan 1, 2014: Cap 70-/76-seat aircraft at 255 hulls; no more than 130 76-seat aircraft
- Q400 included in 76-seat aircraft count limits (currently no limit in legacy Continental contract)
- UAL currently has 148 70-seat aircraft and 35 Q400s
- Under United Pilot Agreement definitions, UAL currently has 183 of the 255 70/76-seat aircraft
• After Jan. 1, 2016: Cap 76-seat aircraft at 153
• Can only go above 153 76-seat aircraft if new small narrowbody aircraft added to UAL fleet and forces reduction of 70-seat aircraft from 148 to 102 cap
• Must park 50-seat aircraft if going above 153 76-seat aircraft
• Maximum UAX hard cap of 450 total hulls, from current 588
• All 76-seat aircraft downgraded to 70-seats (remove seats) if furlough
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly it, forces reduction in UAX block hour ratio limit and number of 50- seat aircraft

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 14):
Assuming it passes, I wonder how many pilots UA will furlough...?

Given the proposed scope, and the retirement numbers UA will be looking at, I'm guessing 0 additional furloughs.



Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4108 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9869 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):
Some of the details on scope from another forum:

So, who said this was a "huge concession" on scope again? It looks pretty good to me, but I'm not management or a pilot. I read this as the pmUA scope with a lot more restrictions.


User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9874 times:

Giving up 76 seats RJs is a concession. The UA current Scope limit is 70 seats and the CO Scope limit is 50 (for jets).

IMHO, that's a large concession. Given that DL already set the "model," it is probably considered inevitable by many.

However, the UA Tentative Agreement appears to fall short of the DL model in other areas. The pilots I've talked to consider the T.A. to be concessionary.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6623 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9878 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 16):
So, who said this was a "huge concession" on scope again? It looks pretty good to me, but I'm not management or a pilot. I read this as the pmUA scope with a lot more restrictions.

Which to all the former CO pilots is a huge concession....even many of the UA pilots wanted to get the 70+ seaters moved to mainline. Of course, realistically that was never going to happen given the scope clauses in play at DL/US.


User currently offlinefutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2605 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9870 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 16):
So, who said this was a "huge concession" on scope again? It looks pretty good to me, but I'm not management or a pilot. I read this as the pmUA scope with a lot more restrictions.

Or pmCO scope relaxed quite a bit. It could be a lot worse in terms of how many are allowed or how large the UAX airplanes can be, but it isn't great. It more or less parrots what DL got.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 17):
Giving up 76 seats RJs is a concession. The UA current Scope limit is 70 seats and the CO Scope limit is 50 (for jets).
Quoting flyhossd (Reply 17):
IMHO, that's a large concession. Given that DL already set the "model," it is probably considered inevitable by many.

   Pretty well sums it up. Still a concession but it seems this will be the new "industry standard"



Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9864 times:

It's a huge concession in scope for no equity stake and Delta -8% pay rates. On paper it evens out in 2015 but that is DALs amendable date. Given the last DAL contract was achieved AHEAD of that date and this UAL stinker runs 2 years past that and it took 4 years to get this, major NO vote. If 76 seat scope is inevitable than DAL + it must be.

User currently offlinesldispatcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9868 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):
Can only go above 153 76-seat aircraft if new small narrowbody aircraft added to UAL fleet and forces reduction of 70-seat aircraft from 148 to 102 cap
• Must park 50-seat aircraft if going above 153 76-seat aircraft
• Maximum UAX hard cap of 450 total hulls, from current 588
• All 76-seat aircraft downgraded to 70-seats (remove seats) if furlough
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly it, forces reduction in UAX block hour ratio limit and number of 50- seat aircraft

This smells like a C-Series order on the horizon
Parking 50 seaters was inevitable; so that is going to happen
I sort of like the poison pill for the furlough in terms of seat count, I think that is good for the pilots.
I like the increase in 70/76 seaters for some of us frequent flyers, with the decrease in 50 seaters; I think some of the frequencies out there area bit much

I'd like to see UAL move to more in house operations across the board...much more product control, but that does require some give on the part of employee groups to keep the spokes profitable.

Some of the existing routes need upgauging and/or frequency reduction anyway. The C-series or C-series like aircraft should do well in the UAL system.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Its your classic case of carrots and sticks. UA is conceding on some points but is taking a line which I see as "harder" than DL on many points. From the company perspective, it keeps them above "par" economically with DL which is the name of the game with the majors now.

User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9862 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):
Some of the details on scope from another forum:

Would you happen to know when the voting period ends?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):
No 76-seat aircraft until Jan. 1, 2014; current legacy United 70-seat and turboprop limits until then

Forgive my ignorance, but is the current number of CR7/E70 aircraft a hard cap, or will it increase by bringing the ex-CO mainline aircraft into the fleet?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):
- After Jan 1, 2014: Cap 70-/76-seat aircraft at 255 hulls; no more than 130 76-seat aircraft
- Q400 included in 76-seat aircraft count limits (currently no limit in legacy Continental contract)
- UAL currently has 148 70-seat aircraft and 35 Q400s
- Under United Pilot Agreement definitions, UAL currently has 183 of the 255 70/76-seat aircraft
• After Jan. 1, 2016: Cap 76-seat aircraft at 153
• Can only go above 153 76-seat aircraft if new small narrowbody aircraft added to UAL fleet and forces reduction of 70-seat aircraft from 148 to 102 cap
• Must park 50-seat aircraft if going above 153 76-seat aircraft
• Maximum UAX hard cap of 450 total hulls, from current 588

[/quote]

So there would be the flexibility to add 72 large RJs, net.

Assuming UA wanted the maximum, that would mean:

-130 76-seat aircraft

-125 70-seat, a reduction of 58 aircraft

-195 50-seat or smaller

In 2016, assuming the maximum and no new narrowbody aircraft:

-153 76-seat aircraft

-102 70-seat aircraft, a further reduction of 23 aircraft

-195 50-seat or smaller

Although it appears the 153 hard cap goes away, no?

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 21):
This smells like a C-Series order on the horizon

As a mainline-operated aircraft, right?

Well, from a passenger's perspective, I certainly hope it passes. But I don't think I'd ever want my customers voting on the terms of my employment contract. So my opinion is probably irrelevant.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1473 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9866 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 20):

It's a huge concession in scope for no equity stake and Delta -8% pay rates. On paper it evens out in 2015 but that is DALs amendable date. Given the last DAL contract was achieved AHEAD of that date and this UAL stinker runs 2 years past that and it took 4 years to get this, major NO vote. If 76 seat scope is inevitable than DAL + it must be.

Equity stake? We were given equity stake at BK exit, just like AA will and DL did. This contract overall has many better items in it than the previous contract and should pass the majority of pilots. Failure to accept this contract would be a huge mistake for the UAL pilots IMHO. The terms of our transition agreement expire in the spring and the company could significantly downsize the S-UA ops with parking of B757's that are getting long in the tooth with no required replacement with the expired TPA. The S-UA pilots have a great deal to lose by voting down this agreement.

Garnering billions in pay and work rules, vacation and other improvements should be something to say "yes" to.


25 flyhossd : Good post. IIRC, CO pilots have been negotiating for nearly 5 years, UA pilots nearly 4. Then after the merger was announced, they started over for t
26 AirframeAS : I thought the sUA 757's were already on the way out of the fleet anyway with the incoming new build 737's as "replacements"......
27 RDH3E : To be fair, we don't really need GROWTH airplanes, we need growth in Aircraft per Pilot, in order to bring back those men and women from furlough, wh
28 Post contains images UnitedTristar : yea but from what I recall, the S-CO crews are on them, so if the S-UA crews loose the planes and the S-CO group picks them up, then what does that l
29 RyanairGuru : From what I understand there aren't many furloughs left, and those that are will be drawn back in when the 65 cap hits. sCO is hiring off the street,
30 MSPNWA : I suggest the pilots vote this one down. Those are big concessions in scope with really nothing extraordinary in return.
31 futureualpilot : I believe the voting period is Dec 1 - Dec 15 I want to say it is a hard cap, but I'm not 100% sure, perhaps a current UA/CO pilot can answer that. (
32 AirframeAS : I've heard & read that the sUA 757 pilots are transitioning to the 737.....
33 mcdu : Those planes are not necessarily going to be flown by S-UA pilots. The TPA agreement we have would force the company to replace the S-UA fleet count
34 DualQual : Those planes are absolutely going to be flown by sUA pilots as they replace sUA 757s. That provision often TPA did not expire and was not altered by
35 MSPNWA : Does UA really want to set DL as the benchmark to beat in scope? That's a very low bar to clear.
36 AirframeAS : You don't need a separate 737 program. Just train the sUA pilots to fly the 737. Its not that difficult to do. Well, then vote yes and keep the compa
37 hhslax2 : Wouldn't sUA already have a pay scale for 737 in the last agreement, since they retired their last 737 in the Fall of 2009? Or would the NG not be co
38 AirframeAS : I think that covers the classics, not sure if there is a provision in the contract that talks about "in case the 737NG enters the fleet" clause.
39 mcdu : The previous pay scale for 737 was -309/500 specific. There is no pay rate in current contract for a -900.
40 sldispatcher : After all of this time and effort by the union reps and management to come to this agreement? Do you think the union chiefs would deliver something t
41 futureualpilot : Starting over with mileage building, and starting your professional career over is an apples - grenades comparison.
42 gigneil : Let's be clear on this. The most recent order of 737-900ERs is entirely destined for S-UA, to be flown and crewed by S-UA. NS
43 flyhossd : You GROSSLY overestimate the ability of the Training Departments! That is, there's no way they can replace that many pilots, they've been having a ve
44 Post contains images AirframeAS : That is exactly what was said in employee publications and I believe Smisek has said something about it as well.
45 mcdu : The company indicated those are destined for S-UA replacements. However, those airplanes are not on the property to replace the 757's. Just as easy t
46 AirframeAS : I think you need to go back and look at the employee publications because it was explicitly written in there about that. I don't recall which publica
47 flyhossd : Yes, they are. It was clearly stated when the order was announced; they are replacements for the L-UAL 757s. True, there are no guarantees, but the p
48 mcdu : You don't seem to understand what I was saying. Yes, I agree they said those were S-UA replacements for 757's. however, s-UA has not taken delivery o
49 AirframeAS : I hope you realize that UA and CO is now one company, there is no more Continental. The planes are being delivered saying "UNITED" on them. Isn't the
50 sldispatcher : Not always easy to tell from pure text, but I think you might have missed the irony in what I was saying. The point was if the Delta contract was so
51 MaverickM11 : ??? The respective labor groups (and representative contracts, work rules, capacity stipulations, etc...) are here and present, and for the most part
52 flyhossd : You say you've read the agreement??? Then you'd best read it again. If the T.A. is approved, you'll momentarily (a few weeks) match DL pay. However,
53 RDH3E : What's the annual increase in DL pay?
54 ADent : It looks like UA can add 75 70/76 seaters and replace the 35 Q400s with 70 seaters. Not too bad as there are currently 57 ERJ-135/145 and 72 CRJ-200 i
55 AirframeAS : There is no more Continental. Isn't the single operating certificate that the new UA is using now CAL014A?? UA and CO is now one.... United.
56 flyhossd : 8.something percent, effective 1-1-2013, IIRC (I'm not at my desk right now).
57 RDH3E : Every year?
58 RyanairGuru : But the UA and CO crews still fly as if it was too completely separate airlines, they are not even allowed to touch the other side's metal. While not
59 AirframeAS : True, but you are forgetting that US is doing the exact same thing, and yet, they are ONE airline but separate pilot groups. Not much different.
60 XFSUgimpLB41X : DL got 4% on signing July 1 this year (6 months prior to the contract becoming amendable)... 8.5% Jan 1, 2013...and 3% Jan 1 2014 and 2015. Absolutely
61 RyanairGuru : Sure, but every time a new aircraft is added to the fleet it either goes to East or West. United and Continental are just convenient terms for the sa
62 RDH3E : So if you count he 40k/pilot signing bonus for UA folks.... Where does that get you in comparisons? Especially if you Future Value those dollars....
63 CONTACREW : To the flying public it's considered one airline, however internally most of the work groups are still separate. For example sCO FAs and pilots can o
64 XFSUgimpLB41X : Light years ahead of them considering they have been in negotiations for 4 years with the company stalling. As an FO at DL, I make about what CA's at
65 AirframeAS : Right. See reply 59.
66 CONTACREW : Exactly one airline, but separate work groups.
67 N353SK : Well, let's take a 5th year Continental 737-800 FO. His pay rate would go from about $82/hr to 114.78/hr. The Continental TA has been amendable since
68 FriendlySkies : I believe legally they are still separate companies - Continental Airlines, Inc and United Air Lines, Inc. In that case, all one needs to do is find
69 XFSUgimpLB41X : It's one airline- even down to single operating certificate. Labor groups are still separate.
70 FL787 : Hopefully I can settle this whole 739ER debate. This is straight from UAL's 10-Q from only a couple weeks ago: Commitments. As of September 30, 2012,
71 Post contains links FriendlySkies : http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...000119312512073010/d260625d10k.htm It's one airline to flying public, operating one one certificate, but it is
72 Post contains images XFSUgimpLB41X : Fair enough. The TA is still a crap sandwich.
73 Jerseyguy : The hourly rate is going up 40%?? Is there something I'm missing??
74 flyhossd : No. But there are more (smaller) increases in the future years. However, in each case, the UA pilots will be paid less than there counterparts at DL
75 RDH3E : Okay, I understand. I wish the info was more readily accessible I'd love to do some math on it. The beauty of being non-union is I could go to DL if
76 flyhossd : Nice post. When questioning the existence of unions and the seniority system, it helps to know why they were formed in the first place - safety. Alth
77 apodino : Given the fact that the AA Tentative Agreement actually has tougher scope based on fleet size (With the current size of the AA mainline fleet, it is 2
78 Post contains images XFSUgimpLB41X : The scope on the UA contract is very similar to DL. I was very displeased with the scope on the new DL contract... I liked the concept, not the execu
79 Antoniemey : Separate contracts, too. Where things like ramp and ticket agent positions were outsourced, each carrier's individual contract is still in force. It'
80 gigneil : They just ordered them a few months ago, with 2013 deliveries. ...go fly for DL? NS
81 tozairport : UA scope is actually more restrictive if you read the language and UA narrowbody pay is actually higher than WN if you include DC plans (UA 16% no ma
82 tozairport : There were 50 737-900ER's ordered for the L-UAL side to be used as replacements for the L-UAL 757-200's. However, L-UAL has not started to even set u
83 FlyHossD : There is NO NEED for a L-UAL 737 training program - the training program for 737s is already in place and has been for years - in Houston. This is on
84 AirframeAS : Uh, what's that? That's not the official terms. sUA and sCO still exist and is still used at both subsidiaries today.
85 Post contains images UnitedTristar : Does anyone know when the voting closes? -m
86 ORDBOSEWR : Dec 15th
87 tozairport : L-UAL (sUAL) crews can only train at DENTK. That is part of the T&PA. The only way sUAL pilots could train in IAHTK would be with a ratified JCBA
88 AirframeAS : Isn't that what the pilots are voting on right now?
89 tozairport : Yes, but if it doesn't pass then we go back to step one (T&PA).
90 DualQual : No the order can't. And the TPA now DOES NOT expire so this fear of shrinkage on the UAL side is not based in reality. Fear is not an acceptable reas
91 tozairport : The 737-900ER order CAN be transferred to the sCAL side. The T&PA only says that replacement aircraft have to come on line withing +/- 6 months o
92 DualQual : Town hall meetings sold the bill of goods called contract 02.
93 AirframeAS : Well then it better pass. It would be great to stick it to US to show how to get stuff done! I'm hopeful this can be resolved once or all.
94 tozairport : Well then you (and all UAL pilots) should be able to sit through one with a jaded eye and know right away if they are trying to snow you. For me, get
95 DualQual : So far to a man CAL is no and UAL is a yes.
96 STT757 : That's a gap of 138, which would (could) be filled by a C Series order for mainline, mix of C100 and C300. How many daily flights does 72 RJs equate
97 Post contains links TWAL1011 : United pilots ratify agreement. http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....ix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-news&nyo=0 According to UAL MEC, 97.6% particip
98 Post contains images AirframeAS : OUTSTANDING!!!! Congrats to the UA pilots! Any timeline on the intergration process between the two groups now that they have a joint contract?? This
99 akelley728 : Methinks the UA/CO pilots did not vote 'yes' to stick it to HP/US. Rather they want to move forward in the merger process and work UNITED for the new
100 STT757 : Outstanding, congratulations to both sides. Now the work of realizing the potential of United must be done: Realizing efficiencies of operations and
101 Post contains images AirframeAS : I never implied it did. Please, next time, quote my WHOLE sentence next time. I'll do it for you: This is only my opinion, not based off actual facts
102 Post contains images akelley728 : You are right, you were stating your opinion (and I corrected my post with your entire quote), and I countered with mine. I wholeheartedly agree that
103 LAXintl : Congrats to all. Hopefully everyone can respect the outcome and move forward in integrating the two work groups. With the agreement, United will be it
104 Post contains images UnitedTristar : does anyone know how the seniority integration process works, once its agreed upon, does it also have to be voted on? how long do they think the proce
105 FriendlySkies : This is great news! Does anyone know what else (besides seniority integration) needs to be done before the two operations can be fully merged? Do they
106 LAXintl : Since ALPA represented both work groups they already agreed upon the process. With the approval of the JCBA, most parts will be implemented immediate
107 tpaewr : The CO *brand* is retired, beyond everything is still sCO and sUA. The public facing part of the UCH carefully mutes this fact which you clearly have
108 DualQual : Incorrect. Pay rates are effective retroactive to Nov 30. Work rules will be implemented in stages (3 bid periods from now for some items) with the 1
109 toltommy : Weren't HP and US both ALPA as well? As long as the sUA group doesn't feel slighted by this process, it should all moved towards a single list easily
110 gigneil : Nope. One was USAPA and now they are USAPA. NS
111 LAXintl : Which all still do not change the fact that the new JCBA is effective immediately. Its obvious implementing things like schedules rigs cannot be swit
112 gigneil : So now that there's a JCBA, that doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna immediately start crossflying each others fleets... ...does it? I mean, unless
113 DualQual : Semantics. Your original post stated, or at least hinted, that things such as work rules and scope are effective immediately. That is incorrect. The
114 STT757 : Reading further back in the thread someone mentioned the RJ changes are effective after January 1, 2014. Doesn't that mean we will be hearing of or se
115 MaverickM11 : Both were ALPA. There was no USAPA until 2007.
116 tommy767 : Nice that UA is getting it's house in order. Hard to say at this time. UA has been very secretive of the timeline of the 757 retirements. They are ref
117 gigneil : Little late for that post. There isn't going to be a divided airline, and we know - for certain - that 50 739s were ordered to retire sUA 757s. NS
118 tommy767 : Also you are forgetting the 735s? They still have 20-ish of them?
119 gigneil : Those are being retired by the current order of 739s. NS
120 sulley : It's down to nine frames.
121 Post contains images AirframeAS : Um, dude.... I WORK for UA. That should be well known by now. Thank goodness! I'm starting to hate that fwd pit on the 735's. Ridiculous!
122 kgaiflyer : Speaking of which -- I'd swear the FAs I flew with yesterday on UA658 (an A320) were folks I'd flown with previously on a pmCO flights. Anyone know t
123 T5towbar : The 500 isn't that bad. Beats loading the front bin (I just can't bring myself to call it "pit") of an E170. Good that the pilots got their deal done
124 AirframeAS : The thing that I hate about the 735 bins is pit 1. That's NOT a pit. That's a 1/16ths of a pit. That damn box at the door is sure annoying as hell. Y
125 FlyHossD : So far, there is no integration of crews. Given the ratification of the joint pilot contract, the pilots are probably the closest to it. Next will be
126 United1 : If I read right both sides of the pilots unions have a predetermined amount of time to negotiate with each other on senority...if they cant come to a
127 etops1 : Opinions are like A holes . Everyone has one and they all stink .
128 AirframeAS : What's that supposed to mean? I'm an asshole because I have an opinion?
129 FlyHossD : I really hope you're right. But what if one side or the other doesn't like the final list? Isn't that where the train left the tracks at US/HP? Or gi
130 Antoniemey : How similar is it to Bin 1 on a 732? I remember hating those when DL still ran a few out of Cincy... These days all I work is ERJs... a 737 would be
131 STT757 : They agreed to binding arbitration if they couldn't work it out themselves.
132 LHCVG : I could be wrong since I don't work for either, but my impression has been that overall both groups have more of a beef with management here than wit
133 Post contains links STT757 : From the ALPA: https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49093
134 FlyHossD : As I recall, US ALPA also had agreed to the arbitration and it was (also) binding. Yet, we know what happened next, don't we? Nevertheless, I hope it
135 RDH3E : Correct, also at least part of that lump sum payment that UA accrued to pay is contingent on a Joint List within a certain time-frame. I believe it's
136 STT757 : What about regional operations between hubs? Does this ratification mean they will have to go to all mainline between the sUA and sCO hubs: CLE-ORD, C
137 United1 : IIRC US ALPAs members never ratified the contract however....they didn't like the seniority list proposal that was created as part of the transition
138 AirframeAS : I honestly don't remember. The last time I ever touched a pit on a 732 was my days at AS...... 13 years ago!!!! Long time ago, wow!
139 DualQual : Sorry STT, didn't mean to attribute the answer to you. My bad. But yes, 5% can be outsourced.[Edited 2012-12-18 23:02:32]
140 STT757 : So we should still see some big changes as almost all the flights that operate between CLE-IAD, CLE-ORD, EWR-IAD are on RJs/props.
141 kgaiflyer : To be honest, after my last cramped, crowded Commutair Q300 flight, I can't wait for this -- even if it loses money.
142 T5towbar : I think they should be at least putting on a few 170's especially on EWR-IAD. The 145's have been extra heavier due to connectors and commuters. Espe
143 RDH3E : 5% of what though guys? My guess would be 5% of interhub ASM's and not departures.
144 slider : To the point that's already been made, binding arbitration will clean up any disagreements, however, the only hot spot I can see is that there may be
145 STT757 : So throwing in a couple (1 or 2) A320s or domestic 757s on a route like EWR-IAD would be enough?
146 RDH3E : I'm thinking that that trans-con ASMs from EWR-SFO/LAX and IAD-SFO/LAX probably more than outweigh having all express on CLEORD and EWRIAD. But that
147 DualQual : I was to lazy to look this up last night. The 5% is 5% of all express block hours. My guess is you will see the bulk of it between EWR/IAD/CLE with so
148 style : Does anyone have any specific details on the financial side of this agreement. I have heard a lot about the scope and regional flying but not much abo
149 gigneil : I am also interested to hear more details about 100 seat jets as well as the death of 50 seaters. NS
150 SHAQ : LAX-SFO is a very high traffic route, so i don't think that they'll fly RJ there. Congratulations to the Management and Pilots for this achievement.
151 gigneil : Yeah its actually surprising, but LAX-SFO is now largely big Boeing jets - I've been on a 739, 752s, and a few 738s lately. They need those seats. The
152 RDH3E : They use the route to reposition planes for Hawaii flying which is part of the reasoning here.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lost Mainline Flights For UA/CO At CLE posted Tue Jan 24 2012 09:39:59 by TOMMY767
For UA/CO Is EWR A Plus/minus Vs JFK? posted Fri Nov 11 2011 20:58:52 by VC10er
OAG Changes 10/15/2010:AA/CO/DL/FL/NK/TA/UA/US/WN posted Wed Oct 13 2010 06:46:42 by enilria
UA/CO Merger And Pilot Negotiations - Scope? posted Fri Jun 25 2010 21:31:29 by point2point
OAG Changes 8/28/09:AS/CO/DL/LA/NW/TA/UA/US posted Thu Aug 27 2009 20:53:17 by Enilria
UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op posted Tue May 19 2009 20:22:34 by Olympic472
Could Oil Be The Knock-out Blow For AA And UA... posted Thu Mar 6 2003 03:11:29 by Businessflyer
Why Did DL/NW Merger Work In Comparison To UA/CO? posted Fri Jul 27 2012 22:04:26 by bestwestern
UA+CO Stats Focus City Stats 8/2011 posted Sun Apr 15 2012 09:09:34 by knope2001
YV Entering Hawaii Worked Out Excellently For HA posted Mon Mar 19 2012 23:38:48 by HNLPointShoot