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 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9816 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 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9861 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, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9884 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, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9855 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, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9851 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, 1543 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9868 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, 9508 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9851 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 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9843 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 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9841 times:

Does anyone know the timeline for the vote?

User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9851 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, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9851 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 onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9854 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, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9840 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 onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9833 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, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9833 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 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9844 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, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9837 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, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9842 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, 6618 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9846 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 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9838 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, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9832 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 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9836 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 onlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9832 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 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9830 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, 1466 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9834 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.


User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10255 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.

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 the joint contract.

From what I've seen, there's a lot of frustration by the pilots and being paid less than Delta pilots isn't going to change that. DL pilots will also benefit as they receive the B717s. Are there more airplanes - GROWTH airplanes - coming to United?

Off the top of my head, it seems that the pay rate increases don't even match inflation, so that's concessionary, too.

Will UA and CO ALPA hold another strike vote if this T.A. fails? As I recall, 99% voted in favor of striking this summer.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10241 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 24):
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.

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"......



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10502 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 25):
Are there more airplanes - GROWTH airplanes - coming to United?

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, which is what we all really want. Hiring after that should be a secondary concern, lets look after our own before we think about those who may join the company at a later date.

With that, I want to say the answer is largely - No, not without another A/C order, at least by the numbers we see today.


User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10513 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
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"......

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 leave the S-UA pilots flying???   

-m

  


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10470 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 27):
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, which is what we all really want. Hiring after that should be a secondary concern, lets look after our own before we think about those who may join the company at a later date.

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, and those positions we offered to sUA furloughees first - a lot of whom took the offer and are now on 737s.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1955 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10470 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):

I suggest the pilots vote this one down. Those are big concessions in scope with really nothing extraordinary in return.


User currently offlinefutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2605 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10453 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 23):
Would you happen to know when the voting period ends?

I believe the voting period is Dec 1 - Dec 15

Quoting neveragain (Reply 23):
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?

I want to say it is a hard cap, but I'm not 100% sure, perhaps a current UA/CO pilot can answer that. (I'm still stuck in the "future" part of my username, working on it though!)

Quoting neveragain (Reply 23):
Although it appears the 153 hard cap goes away, no?

Only if mainline narrow bodies are added and 50 seaters are removed, is how I read it.



Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10497 times:

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 28):
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 leave the S-UA pilots flying???

I've heard & read that the sUA 757 pilots are transitioning to the 737.....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 17
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10503 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
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"......

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 with replacements. That agreement expired last year and they renewed it with ALPA allowing (conceding) S-CO bases in DEN,SFO and ORD and S-UA base in IAH. Nothing the company really needs to extend the next one for. So when the TPA expires they can just push all those NEW 737's to the S-CO side where they have a training program, pay rate, etc, etc, etc in place to fly the airplanes. Absolutely no reason to have the added cost of a separate B737 program on the S-UA side when they can just reduce the fleet with the commensurate number of pilot retirements.

This past week there was a bid for B747 Captains on the S-UA side. In the past this would trigger many additional bids to the airplanes where these B747 Captains were coming from. The telling side of this was that there were ZERO B757/767 bids filled from the movement. The fix is in. We vote yes and we integrate. We vote NO and they operate separately while killing the S-UA side off.

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 28):
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 leave the S-UA pilots flying???   

-m

Absolutely true.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 30):
I suggest the pilots vote this one down. Those are big concessions in scope with really nothing extraordinary in return.

Have you read the entire terms of the SCOPE agreement? The UA scope is as good or better than DL in this contract. The payrates are in the UA contract for E-190, C-Series etc aircraft.


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10482 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):

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 the amendment. Orders to replace aircraft at a subsidiary will be flown by that subsidiary. The only way an sCO pilot will touch the controls of an airplane in that order will be after the ISL after ratification of a JCBA worth voting yes too. This TA ain't it.


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1955 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10460 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
Have you read the entire terms of the SCOPE agreement? The UA scope is as good or better than DL in this contract. The payrates are in the UA contract for E-190, C-Series etc aircraft.

Does UA really want to set DL as the benchmark to beat in scope? That's a very low bar to clear.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10482 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
Absolutely no reason to have the added cost of a separate B737 program on the S-UA side

You don't need a separate 737 program. Just train the sUA pilots to fly the 737. Its not that difficult to do.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
We vote yes and we integrate. We vote NO and they operate separately while killing the S-UA side off.

Well, then vote yes and keep the company going. I would hate to see the sUA pilots out on the street. I hope they see that.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinehhslax2 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2012, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10462 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):
Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
Absolutely no reason to have the added cost of a separate B737 program on the S-UA side

You don't need a separate 737 program. Just train the sUA pilots to fly the 737. Its not that difficult to do.

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 covered because UA flew classics?


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10455 times:

Quoting hhslax2 (Reply 37):
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?

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.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 17
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10472 times:

The previous pay scale for 737 was -309/500 specific. There is no pay rate in current contract for a -900.

User currently offlinesldispatcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10478 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 30):
I suggest the pilots vote this one down. Those are big concessions in scope with really nothing extraordinary in return

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 to the rank and file knowing it would get voted down? From an outsider's perspective, I hope that is not the case. As others have said, the "bonus" payout is probably hush money, and most, if not all, will take that bait everytime.


I know some frequent flyers have defected, how many UAL pilots have defected to Delta for the better contract?


User currently offlinefutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2605 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10460 times:

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 40):
I know some frequent flyers have defected, how many UAL pilots have defected to Delta for the better contract?

Starting over with mileage building, and starting your professional career over is an apples - grenades comparison.



Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10475 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
Those planes are not necessarily going to be flown by S-UA pilots.

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


User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10414 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
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 with replacements. That agreement expired last year and they renewed it with ALPA allowing (conceding) S-CO bases in DEN,SFO and ORD and S-UA base in IAH. Nothing the company really needs to extend the next one for. So when the TPA expires they can just push all those NEW 737's to the S-CO side where they have a training program, pay rate, etc, etc, etc in place to fly the airplanes. Absolutely no reason to have the added cost of a separate B737 program on the S-UA side when they can just reduce the fleet with the commensurate number of pilot retirements.
Quoting mcdu (Reply 33):
We vote yes and we integrate. We vote NO and they operate separately while killing the S-UA side off.

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 very hard time in just the last few years keeping up with recurrent training.

Quoting DualQual (Reply 34):
Those planes are absolutely going to be flown by sUA pilots as they replace sUA 757s. That provision of the TPA did not expire and was not altered by the amendment. Orders to replace aircraft at a subsidiary will be flown by that subsidiary. The only way an sCO pilot will touch the controls of an airplane in that order will be after the ISL after ratification of a JCBA worth voting yes too. This TA ain't it.

I have a copy of the TPA and that's the way I read it, too. So the most recently ordered 737-900ERs will be flown by L-UAL pilots until the seniority lists are integrated.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10386 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 42):
The most recent order of 737-900ERs is entirely destined for S-UA, to be flown and crewed by S-UA.

   That is exactly what was said in employee publications and I believe Smisek has said something about it as well.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 17
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10386 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 42):
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.

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 to defer those planes and keep the S-CO planes coming. Ironic that many that never believe a word spoken by management all of sudden feel airplanes that exist on paper and "promised" would actually take place. If you are S-UA pilot you should know how things play out around here. There are NO guarantees in this business, especially airplanes that we don't have, a pay rate that doesn't exist or a training program. Those cost will be weighed and if we say NO to this TA expect to see rough air ahead on the S-UA pilot side. I wish it wasn't this way but we are at the end of the lever.

After reading the TA myself I am happy with many of the provisions that are added. Most if not all of the S-UA protections were retained and improved upon.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10362 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 45):
However, those airplanes are not on the property to replace the 757's.

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 publications, but I do remember that it was written in there and it was highly talked about in several work groups.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10332 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 45):
The company indicated those are destined for S-UA replacements. However, those airplanes are not on the property to replace the 757's.

Yes, they are. It was clearly stated when the order was announced; they are replacements for the L-UAL 757s.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 45):
There are NO guarantees in this business, especially airplanes that we don't have, a pay rate that doesn't exist or a training program.

True, there are no guarantees, but the pay rate will exist soon enough and the training program already does exist (CO has been flying the -900s for years, eh?).

You seem to fear an "Eastern Airlines" scenario, but IMHO, it's a very flawed comparison. There's NO WAY that both Training Departments, running at maximum capacity, could replace the UA pilots. And then there are the retirements to consider...

Don't vote based on fear. Vote based on a rational analysis. From what I've seen of the T.A., it doesn't even match DL's contract. I have yet to find a UA or CO pilot that's supporting the T.A. (you're the lone exception).

[Edited 2012-11-14 12:37:30]


My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10335 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 46):
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 publications, but I do remember that it was written in there and it was highly talked about in several work groups.

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 of any airplanes. So far all the deliveries to dare are for S-CO. No reason to think that if ALPA balks at the contract and that the company saves money by NOT delivering these to the S-UA side in a divided airline.

They can whittle down our side with retirements. Just look at the latest bud closing. Lots of guys leaving the 757 and NO backfills. If the economy doesn't improve, we continue to merger issues then the divided house will go to the S-CO.


Hossd, I am not voting out of fear. After reading the TA it looks like a decent agreement. What are your complaints? I've spoken to numerous other pilots and they are all in favor of the agreement. My opinion is this contract dollar for dollar is as good or better than the DL agreement and to be quite honest I don't look at DL as the standard. We can continue to wait it out for years looking for the perfect contract that may never come. In the meantime those are dollars gone and never recouped at 100%.

When was the last contract that paid 100% retro in the airline industry? How much time did ALPA waste fighting over banding, MEC recalls and various other infighting issues? Those were all delays imposed by the pur side. We are responsible for much of the time delay.

Guess we will find out when the voting is complete.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10378 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 48):
So far all the deliveries to dare are for S-CO.

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 Operating Certificate now one?

Continental is gone.

[Edited 2012-11-14 13:24:24]


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinesldispatcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10325 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 41):
Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 40):
I know some frequent flyers have defected, how many UAL pilots have defected to Delta for the better contract?

Starting over with mileage building, and starting your professional career over is an apples - grenades comparison.

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 spectacular, why aren't more hitting the door? The answer, is of course, they are not. Precisely because it is not easy.

I'm in healthcare. Change is a monthly occurrence for me and I have no easy way to stop it. I try to adjust and make the best of it. One of those options was indeed a career change. I did. I didn't like the "change" that was and is coming, so I bailed from what I was doing. Turned out it was a great move.

It looks to me, an outsider, that there are mixed reviews over the contract proposal. I think that probably means it will pass. However, from a business perspective, if I were 40 years old and a pilot, I see significant job security ahead and seniority coming quickly with the rapid onslaught of retirements projected.

No one is going to starve to death on this contract.

To use your own words, one can take a bite of this apple, or throw a grenade into it. Which one do you think will result in the biggest mess?


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17544 posts, RR: 46
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10335 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 49):
Continental is gone.

??? The respective labor groups (and representative contracts, work rules, capacity stipulations, etc...) are here and present, and for the most part, still very much separate



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10277 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 48):
What are your complaints? I've spoken to numerous other pilots and they are all in favor of the agreement. My opinion is this contract dollar for dollar is as good or better than the DL agreement

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, DL pilots get a raise January 1, 2013 and you WON'T until a year later. From there on (beginning Jan 1, 2013), you'll be a year behind DL pay.

DL's new contract is for 3 years, the UA T.A. is for 5. The last two years of the UA T.A. are being touted as industry leading, but that's a farce. DL will very likely be onto another contract by then.

Is there some reason that you're worth less than a DL pilot? It's my understanding that the NMB Mediator used DL as the model (thus the Scope concessions), but you're not going to be "on par" with the DL pilots in pay.

If that's fine with you, then maybe you should vote YES. But I firmly believe that you're leaving money on the table and voting out of fear (of a repeat of what Texas Air did to Eastern).

Are you familiar with the various games of poker? Can you recognize a bluff? Or do you fold every time?

Look at the finances. UCH is a 40 billion dollar company. They can afford to match DL pay, IMHO.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10245 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 52):
However, DL pilots get a raise January 1, 2013 and you WON'T until a year later. From there on (beginning Jan 1, 2013), you'll be a year behind DL pay.

What's the annual increase in DL pay?


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1387 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10295 times:

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 in service (per some sketchy website I found). I assume they will want to replace a lot of those with 70 seaters, rather than replace the remaining 737-500s.

So it looks like kind of status quo.

This certainly is not a win for the pilots, but not a giant loss either.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10278 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 51):
The respective labor groups (and representative contracts, work rules, capacity stipulations, etc...) are here and present, and for the most part, still very much separate

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.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10264 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 53):
What's the annual increase in DL pay?

8.something percent, effective 1-1-2013, IIRC (I'm not at my desk right now).



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10248 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 56):
8.something percent, effective 1-1-2013, IIRC (I'm not at my desk right now).

Every year?


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10328 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 55):
There is no more Continental

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 strictly true, the easiest way to think of the situation is as though CO did still exist, just with the wrong name painted on the side.

Until there is an integrated seniority list CO will continue to live on alive and well beneath the surface.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10292 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 58):
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.

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.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10284 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 57):

Every year?
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 atrocious that there is no retro pay in the UA/CO JCBA.

[Edited 2012-11-14 15:28:41]


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10275 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 59):
they are ONE airline but separate pilot groups. Not much different.

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 same idea.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10299 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 60):
DL got 4% on signing July 1 this year... 8.5% Jan 1, 2013...and 3% Jan 1 2014 and 2015.

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....


User currently offlineCONTACREW From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10281 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 55):
UA and CO is now one.... United.

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 only work sCO aircraft, and sUA FAs and pilots can only work sUA aircraft.



Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10287 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 62):
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....

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 legacy UA make on like equipment currently.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10264 times:

Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 63):
For example sCO FAs and pilots can only work sCO aircraft, and sUA FAs and pilots can only work sUA aircraft.

Right. See reply 59.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCONTACREW From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 65):
Right. See reply 59.

Exactly one airline, but separate work groups.



Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10398 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 62):
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....

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 December 2009. Under full retro pay, he would be owed a little over $82,000. This assumes that he has credited the min guarantee of 72 hours per month for the past 35 months.

[Edited 2012-11-14 16:38:57]

User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10302 times:

Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 66):
Exactly one airline, but separate work groups.

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 out which legal entity is written on the contract with Boeing.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10300 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 68):
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 out which legal entity is written on the contract with Boeing.

It's one airline- even down to single operating certificate. Labor groups are still separate.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1543 posts, RR: 12
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10352 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 69):
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 68):
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 out which legal entity is written on the contract with Boeing.

It's one airline- even down to single operating certificate. Labor groups are still separate.

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, UAL, United and Continental had the following commitments to purchase aircraft:
UAL Aircraft Commitments. UAL had firm commitments to purchase 100 new Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft scheduled for delivery from 2018 through 2022.
UAL also had options to purchase an additional 100 Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft. UAL had the right, and intends in the future, to assign its interest under the
purchase agreement for the 737 MAX 9 aircraft with respect to one or more of the aircraft to either United or Continental.
United Aircraft Commitments. United had firm commitments to purchase 100 new aircraft (25 Boeing 787 aircraft, 50 Boeing 737-900ER aircraft and 25
Airbus A350XWB aircraft) scheduled for delivery from 2013 through 2019. United also had options and purchase rights for 164 additional Boeing and Airbus
aircraft.
Continental Aircraft Commitments. Continental had firm commitments to purchase 68 new aircraft (44 Boeing 737 aircraft and 24 Boeing 787 aircraft)
scheduled for delivery from October 1, 2012 through 2016. Continental also had options to purchase 83 Boeing aircraft. From October 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2012, Continental expects to take delivery of six Boeing 737-900ER aircraft and four Boeing 787-8 aircraft.


So I think it's pretty clear that the order for 50 739ER is going to sUA.



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 offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 69):

It's one airline- even down to single operating certificate. Labor groups are still separate.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...000119312512073010/d260625d10k.htm

It's one airline to flying public, operating one one certificate, but it is TWO companies incorporated under United Continental Holdings. The two companies will likely be legally merged (or one eliminated) once all of the joint CBAs have been voted in.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10308 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 71):
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...000119312512073010/d260625d10k.htm

It's one airline to flying public, operating one one certificate, but it is TWO companies incorporated under United Continental Holdings. The two companies will likely be legally merged (or one eliminated) once all of the joint CBAs have been voted in.

Fair enough. The TA is still a crap sandwich.  



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineJerseyguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2002 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N353SK (Reply 67):
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 hourly rate is going up 40%?? Is there something I'm missing??



Frontier Early Returns Ascent Status| Webmaster of an unoffical TTN page see profile for details
User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10276 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 57):
Every year?

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 (to the end of the DL contract). It looks like the UA pay rates are DL minus a year.

From what I've heard about the Mediator, she was supporting/pushing DL as the model, hence a match of DL style Scope. So why the double standard? Are UA pilots worth less than DL pilots? According to the T.A., that's true.

As far as I can tell, it isn't made up in some other area, so I'm left scratching my head about this.

RDH3E, are you worth less than your counterpart at DL?



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10242 times:

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 74):
It looks like the UA pay rates are DL minus a year.

Okay, I understand. I wish the info was more readily accessible I'd love to do some math on it.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 74):

RDH3E, are you worth less than your counterpart at DL?

The beauty of being non-union is I could go to DL if they truly had much better compensation, and possibly get a promotion in the process. The downside being "right to work" where a pink slip is ever around the corner, but I'll take the flexibility of choice every day and twice in the airline industry.

But I do understand what you're saying, I just think there are structural inefficiencies with union agreements that prevent pilots from really gaining great contracts. Such as, if you had no contract at UA but could jump to DL for better pay, then UA would be forced to update their contracts to be competitive or face a potential out-flux of pilots.

The contract structures that are in place isolate both the company and union from market competition, which isn't really good for either. Sometimes its good for one, other times it's good for the other. Hence the combative nature of the relationship.


User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10259 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 75):
The beauty of being non-union is I could go to DL if they truly had much better compensation, and possibly get a promotion in the process. The downside being "right to work" where a pink slip is ever around the corner, but I'll take the flexibility of choice every day and twice in the airline industry.

But I do understand what you're saying, I just think there are structural inefficiencies with union agreements that prevent pilots from really gaining great contracts. Such as, if you had no contract at UA but could jump to DL for better pay, then UA would be forced to update their contracts to be competitive or face a potential out-flux of pilots.

The contract structures that are in place isolate both the company and union from market competition, which isn't really good for either. Sometimes its good for one, other times it's good for the other. Hence the combative nature of the relationship.

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. Although it was decades ago, it had become common practice of the airlines to replace the more experienced and more expensive pilots with less experienced, but cheaper!, ones. Safety suffered (shades of outsoucing there - see Colgan/CO3407).

But you're quite right, there are some real inefficiencies with the current system. But it is what it is, for a reason - and that's most important reason of all.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4281 posts, RR: 6
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10436 times:

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 200 large RJ's in 2016, which could increase if AA adds mainline metal), and the fact that the pay is less than other competitors (Think DL, WN), I would vote not to ratify this deal if I were a UA pilot, and instead try to get something closer to the AA tentative agreement, maybe even taking a page out of the DL Contract and seeing what we can get.

User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10439 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 77):
maybe even taking a page out of the DL Contract and seeing what we can get.

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 execution.

Now, UA taking basically the DL scope with crappier work rules and lower pay.... Not a chance! Not to mention a signing bonus worth wayyy under half of what it should be. (DL didn't have a signing bonus as ours was signed prior to being amendable- UA/CO have working under an amendable contract for 4 years!)



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1572 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10390 times:

Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 63):
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 only work sCO aircraft, and sUA FAs and pilots can only work sUA aircraft.
Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 66):
Exactly one airline, but separate work groups.

Separate contracts, too. Where things like ramp and ticket agent positions were outsourced, each carrier's individual contract is still in force. It's fun enough where one company held ramp contracts (for example) for both, I can't imagine how much of a headache it is where they had separate ramp handling or ticketing.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10139 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 48):
however, s-UA has not taken delivery of any airplanes. So far all the deliveries to dare are for S-CO.

They just ordered them a few months ago, with 2013 deliveries.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 52):
If the T.A. is approved, you'll momentarily (a few weeks) match DL pay. However, DL pilots get a raise January 1, 2013 and you WON'T until a year later. From there on (beginning Jan 1, 2013), you'll be a year behind DL pay.

...go fly for DL?

NS


User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9908 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 77):
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 200 large RJ's in 2016, which could increase if AA adds mainline metal), and the fact that the pay is less than other competitors (Think DL, WN),

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 match required, WN 9.3% match only). The UA contract is actually 2-3% more valuable than the DL contract on a year by year basis when you include all items. The AA TA does not even compare. If you are a L-UAL or a L-CAL pilot then you should go to a Town Hall meeting and not rely on inaccurate information posted on on-line forums.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9647 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 80):

They just ordered them a few months ago, with 2013 deliveries.

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 up a training program for the 737, L-UAL pilots cannot train at the L-CAL training center unless there is a ratified JCBA, and the order could easily be moved over to the L-CAL side.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9493 times:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 82):
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 up a training program for the 737

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 one of the synergies of the merger, eh?



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9296 times:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
L-UAL or a L-CAL

Uh, what's that? That's not the official terms. sUA and sCO still exist and is still used at both subsidiaries today.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9256 times:

Does anyone know when the voting closes?

-m

  


User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9217 times:

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 85):

Does anyone know when the voting closes?

Dec 15th


User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9162 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 83):
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 one of the synergies of the merger, eh?

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.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9120 times:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 87):
a ratified JCBA.

Isn't that what the pilots are voting on right now?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 88):
Isn't that what the pilots are voting on right now?

Yes, but if it doesn't pass then we go back to step one (T&PA).



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 8892 times:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 82):

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 reason to vote yes on this thing.

We have leverage, executive bonuses and performance incentives depend on JCBAs being reached in 2013.

There is no room for fear.


User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8810 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 90):
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 reason to vote yes on this thing.

We have leverage, executive bonuses and performance incentives depend on JCBAs being reached in 2013.

There is no room for fear.

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 of when the corresponding aircraft is retired. 6 months + 1 day means the aircraft can go wherever they want.

I never said anything about fear or about the T&PA expiring, but since you brought it up... You are right, the T&PA agreement lives until there is a ratified JCBA, it does not expire. There are 4 provisions however (Domicile closings, sUAL furlough protection, block hour ratios, and new domiciles) that do expire. There have been letters recently that say that because we have a TA then those provisions will not expire. Those letters are not based in fact. Go to a town hall meeting, you might actually learn something factual, and not just something bloviated on a forum somewhere.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8751 times:

Town hall meetings sold the bill of goods called contract 02.

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 93, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8624 times:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 89):
Yes, but if it doesn't pass then we go back to step one (T&PA).

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.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 94, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8619 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 92):
Town hall meetings sold the bill of goods called contract 02.

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, getting all the information possible before making a decision is a better path than making a rash, uninformed, emotional call. We too got sold a bill of goods in '03, but we have been able to learn from that. I certainly hope the sCAL side has too, but from what I have seen so far I am not so sure.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 94):

So far to a man CAL is no and UAL is a yes.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7975 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 15):
Maximum UAX hard cap of 450 total hulls, from current 588

That's a gap of 138, which would (could) be filled by a C Series order for mainline, mix of C100 and C300.

Quoting neveragain (Reply 23):

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

How many daily flights does 72 RJs equate to?

Quoting ADent (Reply 54):
and replace the 35 Q400s with 70 seaters.

I think the 35 or so Q400s would stay, they are perfect for short (200 mi or less) hops such as:

EWR-ALB, EWR-BWI, EWR-PVD, DEN-COS, IAD-PIT, ORD-MKE etc..



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7571 times:

United pilots ratify agreement.

http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....ix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-news&nyo=0

According to UAL MEC, 97.6% participation with 67% voting to approve.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49093

[Edited 2012-12-15 08:52:46]

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7524 times:

Quoting TWAL1011 (Reply 97):
United pilots ratify agreement.

OUTSTANDING!!!! Congrats to the UA pilots! Any timeline on the intergration process between the two groups now that they have a joint contract??

This, IMO, is a great way to stick it to the HP/US pilots!   This is how business gets done.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7492 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 98):
This, IMO, is a great way to stick it to the HP/US pilots! This is how business gets done.

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 company!

[Edited 2012-12-15 09:33:12]

User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7448 times:

Quoting TWAL1011 (Reply 97):
United pilots ratify agreement

Outstanding, congratulations to both sides. Now the work of realizing the potential of United must be done:

Realizing efficiencies of operations and work groups
replacing 50 seat RJs with 70-75 seaters
new small single aisle aircraft for mainline, C Series etc..



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 99):
Methinks the UA/CO pilots did not vote 'yes' to stick it to HP/US.

I never implied it did. Please, next time, quote my WHOLE sentence next time. I'll do it for you:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 98):
This, IMO, is a great way to stick it to the HP/US pilots!   This is how business gets done.

This is only my opinion, not based off actual facts on why they approved the joint contract. Again, my opinion. I just want to make that well known.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7543 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 101):

I never implied it did. Please, next time, quote my WHOLE sentence next time. I'll do it for you:

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 this is indeed how 'business gets done'. The UA/CO pilots knew that to move forward this needed to be done.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25532 posts, RR: 50
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7447 times:

Congrats to all.

Hopefully everyone can respect the outcome and move forward in integrating the two work groups.


With the agreement, United will be itself be able to move forward with better crew base alignment and subsequent fleet usage plus of course having the benefit of clarity in its future scope capacity buy in options.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

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 process will take?

thanks!

-m

  


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7189 times:

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 need a JCBA for the FAs or any other workgroups?

The FAs are the only ones I could see holding it up, as airport operations don't necessarily need to be combined yet for full-on fleet integration and scheduling to happen.

Hopefully the seniority integration won't be too messy...


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25532 posts, RR: 50
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7050 times:

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 104):
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 process will take?

Since ALPA represented both work groups they already agreed upon the process.

With the approval of the JCBA, most parts will be implemented immediately, compensation, work rules, scope, etc.

For the seniority aspect the groups had previously agreed to basically they will follow the DL-NW template.
They will negotiate for a predefined timeline and absent an agreement after a few months it all goes to binding arbitration by the union to settle any differences.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6968 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 65):
Right. See reply 59.

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 taken the to heart. But internally almost nothing is mergered beyond the changes at PSS.


Anyone who works for sUA or sCO can clearly tell you beyond the paint and the corporate level, we are very seperate still. From payroll, work rules, uniforms, even if I call you from work your caller ID will show "Continental Airlines". As do all our paychecks.

I am sure one day it will all get sorted out, but don't let the paint on the planes fool you.


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6754 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 106):
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 104):
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 process will take?

Since ALPA represented both work groups they already agreed upon the process.

With the approval of the JCBA, most parts will be implemented immediately, compensation, work rules, scope, etc.

For the seniority aspect the groups had previously agreed to basically they will follow the DL-NW template.
They will negotiate for a predefined timeline and absent an agreement after a few months it all goes to binding arbitration by the union to settle any differences.

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 1/3.5 rig not effective until 1 year after SLI. Scope concessions (and they are concessions) are also not immediate and are phased in starting 2014 for 76 seat frames.

SLI work has been ongoing but now will kick into gear with I would guess summertime for a list. I would guess a year from now for the first blended crews in the cockpit at least. FAs are another story.


User currently offlinetoltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3295 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 106):
Since ALPA represented both work groups they already agreed upon the process.

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.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6295 times:

Nope. One was USAPA and now they are USAPA.

NS


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25532 posts, RR: 50
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6283 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 108):
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 1/3.5 rig not effective until 1 year after SLI. Scope concessions (and they are concessions) are also not immediate and are phased in starting 2014 for 76 seat frames.

SLI work has been ongoing but now will kick into gear with I would guess summertime for a list. I would guess a year from now for the first blended crews in the cockpit at least. FAs are another story.


Which all still do not change the fact that the new JCBA is effective immediately.

Its obvious implementing things like schedules rigs cannot be switched from day to day. There are behind the scene details like getting the IT programming done, having the scheduling committee review proposed lines etc...

However both the company and union put out notes on Friday that clearly said the contract was effective immediately.
Here is one:

The ratification of this agreement is an important step forward for our pilots and the company. The agreement, which will be implemented immediately, runs through December 2016. It brings both pilot groups under a single contract, and provides gains in compensation, work rules, job protections and retirement and other benefits.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6245 times:

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 they've been catching up, my guess is that no sUA cockpit crew are current on the 737, nor any sCO on the Airbus. Perhaps they can combine the 767 and 777 fleets right away.... but will they?

NS


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 111):

Semantics. Your original post stated, or at least hinted, that things such as work rules and scope are effective immediately. That is incorrect. The agreement, while effective immediately, only has pay rates effective today. Everything else is on a scale of a few months to, frankly, who knows when.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

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 seeing a new RJ order pretty soon, in order to be able to deploy these new aircraft a little over a year from now they need to make a commitment with a manufacturer. With so many ERJ-145s is it likely the new 70/76 seaters will come from Embraer in some kind of deal where they buy back some of the ERJs in exchange for new orders?

And what about a new narrow body aircraft for mainline, any timetable on when to hear about that?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17544 posts, RR: 46
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 110):
Nope. One was USAPA and now they are USAPA.

Both were ALPA. There was no USAPA until 2007.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Nice that UA is getting it's house in order.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 48):
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 of any airplanes. So far all the deliveries to dare are for S-CO. No reason to think that if ALPA balks at the contract and that the company saves money by NOT delivering these to the S-UA side in a divided airline.

Hard to say at this time. UA has been very secretive of the timeline of the 757 retirements. They are refirbishing quite a few right now but the age of the airplanes in refirbishment is literally all over the place. One would be a 1996 build, the other a 1990 build. Clearly the 739s being added are being used for some expansion as well.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

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


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 117):
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.

Also you are forgetting the 735s? They still have 20-ish of them?



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

Those are being retired by the current order of 739s.

NS


User currently onlinesulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 118):


Also you are forgetting the 735s? They still have 20-ish of them?

It's down to nine frames.



In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting tpaewr (Reply 107):

Um, dude.... I WORK for UA. That should be well known by now.

  

Quoting sulley (Reply 120):
It's down to nine frames.

Thank goodness! I'm starting to hate that fwd pit on the 735's. Ridiculous!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4287 posts, RR: 1
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gigneil (Reply 117):
There isn't going to be a divided airline

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 the current state of CO/UA crew integration?


User currently offlineT5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5192 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 121):

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. Now lets finish everyone else's deals so we can move forward.



A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 123):

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. You can't put big/normal size VIPs in there, only tiny ones.

Great plane, just Bin 1/16ths is a pain.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5067 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 122):
Anyone know the current state of CO/UA crew integration?

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 the integration of the pilot seniority lists and I hope that doesn't turn out to be the fiasco that the HP/US integration has become.

IIRC, there are a small number of L-UAL F.A.s and pilots flying for the L-CAL side of the house.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5981 posts, RR: 9
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 125):
Next will be the integration of the pilot seniority lists and I hope that doesn't turn out to be the fiasco that the HP/US integration has become.

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 an agreement it goes to binding arbitration in front of ALPA. There is no chance it will end up like US/HP.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1093 posts, RR: 1
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 101):

Opinions are like A holes . Everyone has one and they all stink .


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4706 times:

Quoting etops1 (Reply 127):

What's that supposed to mean? I'm an asshole because I have an opinion?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4660 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 126):
There is no chance it will end up like US/HP.

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 given the UA/CO set-up, is that not possible?



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1572 posts, RR: 4
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 124):
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. You can't put big/normal size VIPs in there, only tiny ones.

Great plane, just Bin 1/16ths is a pain.

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 a nice change...



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4380 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 129):
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 given the UA/CO set-up, is that not possible?

They agreed to binding arbitration if they couldn't work it out themselves.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently onlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4352 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 129):
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 given the UA/CO set-up, is that not possible?

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 with each other. I recall the tales of purported fistfights in crew lounges between legacy US and HP crew, but I can't say I've seen much about CO and UA pilots being in open confrontation with each other. Of course there will be some sour grapes on both sides, just like there are among elites under the combined carrier, but I think the pilots want to get this done and get to work.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

From the ALPA:

Quote:
Now that the combined contract has been approved, integrating the seniority lists represents the next major hurdle in combining the two pilot groups into a single, 12,000-member strong unit. The seniority integration process is expected to take several months to complete. The process is independent of airline management and involves negotiations between the two pilot groups. Absent an agreement, binding arbitration will be used to settle any remaining differences. The process follows a predefined timeline following contract ratification that was agreed upon by the two pilot groups shortly after the merger was announced.
https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49093



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 131):
They agreed to binding arbitration if they couldn't work it out themselves.

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 goes well and smoothly for all my friends at CO and UA.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 131):
They agreed to binding arbitration if they couldn't work it out themselves.

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 around 6 months, or some portion of that $400M goes bye bye.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

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, CLE-IAD, CLE-DEN, EWR-IAD, EWR-ORD etc.

If so when will this take place?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5981 posts, RR: 9
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 134):
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?

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 agreement and voted to de-certify ALPA and create their own union USAPA.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 130):
How similar is it to Bin 1 on a 732?

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!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3474 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 136):
up to 5% of hub to hub can now be RJs.


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]

User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 139):
yes, 5% can be outsourced.

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.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4287 posts, RR: 1
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting STT757 (Reply 136):
What about regional operations between hubs? Does this ratification mean they will have to go to all mainline between the sUA and sCO hubs:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 136):
EWR-IAD,

To be honest, after my last cramped, crowded Commutair Q300 flight, I can't wait for this -- even if it loses money.


User currently offlineT5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 142, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 136):
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, CLE-IAD, CLE-DEN, EWR-IAD, EWR-ORD etc.

If so when will this take place?

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. Especially during the afternoon bank. It used to be Q400's on that route, but when the Q's left temporarily, the 145's took up the slack.

Also, it should be more M/L on EWR-ORD anyway, due to connections as well. It has been a mix of mainline and 170's on that route. I think that will go all mainline, like EWR-CLE as well.



A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3317 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 136):
What about regional operations between hubs? Does this ratification mean they will have to go to all mainline between the sUA and sCO hubs:
Quoting DualQual (Reply 139):
My bad. But yes, 5% can be outsourced.
Quoting STT757 (Reply 140):
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.
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 141):
To be honest, after my last cramped, crowded Commutair Q300 flight, I can't wait for this -- even if it loses money.

5% of what though guys? My guess would be 5% of interhub ASM's and not departures.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6818 posts, RR: 34
Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 125):
I hope that doesn't turn out to be the fiasco that the HP/US integration has become.

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 furloughed subsidiary UA pilots that technically have an older hire date than some subsidiary CO pilots that have never been furloughed.

So who gets seniority in those instances? How the sUA furloughees are handled will be a critical point.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 145, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 143):
5% of what though guys? My guess would be 5% of interhub ASM's and not departures.

So throwing in a couple (1 or 2) A320s or domestic 757s on a route like EWR-IAD would be enough?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 146, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 145):
So throwing in a couple (1 or 2) A320s or domestic 757s on a route like EWR-IAD would be enough?

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 is speculation because I don't know what the measure is for the 5%


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 773 posts, RR: 1
Reply 147, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

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 some also between LAX/SFO. That's just a guess though.

User currently offlinestyle From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

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 about anything else in this agreement.

Is it comparable to DL in terms of pay? The Associated Press was quoted as saying pilots from both s-CO and s-UA were looking at an average 43% pay raise along with increased retirement contributions from the company. They also said a pool of 454 million was put to the side in Q3 of this year to be split among pilots.

Anyone with insight care to share or add on this?

[Edited 2012-12-20 13:03:57]

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 149, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2838 times:

I am also interested to hear more details about 100 seat jets as well as the death of 50 seaters.

NS


User currently offlineSHAQ From Panama, joined Jun 2007, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 147):

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.



Studying hard, for flying right!
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 151, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

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. They don't go empty.

NS


User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 152, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting SHAQ (Reply 150):
LAX-SFO is a very high traffic route, so i don't think that they'll fly RJ there.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 151):
Yeah its actually surprising, but LAX-SFO is now largely big Boeing jets

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