Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Alias1024
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:01 pm

southwestguru wrote:
Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals


I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.


Ask the people that have been at your regional a few years longer what they started at. Good starting pay at regionals is a very recent phenomenon. One that may reverse soon as well as regionals won’t need signing bonuses to attract pilots.

When I started at my last regional almost 13 years ago minimum guarantee would have paid me $17,118 per year plus per-diem. Part way through that first year we secured a raise that raised minimum guarantee to $20,700. Technically neither was minimum wage but it’s pretty close.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
southwestguru
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:09 pm

My pay amount has never had a sign on bonus attached to it, and I've found most all sign-up offers have shady operations attached to them...

The OP made it sound as though minimum wage is still the norm. Its not... Nor will it be again in the future. I'm simply trying to dispel this myth that exists still today that we regional pilots live on food stamps. We haven't been close to that for about a decade.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:55 pm

Alias1024 wrote:
southwestguru wrote:
Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals


I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.


Ask the people that have been at your regional a few years longer what they started at. Good starting pay at regionals is a very recent phenomenon. One that may reverse soon as well as regionals won’t need signing bonuses to attract pilots.

When I started at my last regional almost 13 years ago minimum guarantee would have paid me $17,118 per year plus per-diem. Part way through that first year we secured a raise that raised minimum guarantee to $20,700. Technically neither was minimum wage but it’s pretty close.

Dependent on the carrier, many did away with signing bonuses and improved hourly rates/rigs. Smart move knowing things can change on a dime and it’s better to have locked in rates than a time dependent bonus.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:41 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
IAH901RT wrote:
This was strictly a business decision. Right now, UAL is doing everything they can to cut their "daily cash burn." The decision had nothing to do with reliability, performance or who was the better choice to run an operation. I'm sure that UAL knows they will have to take some hits on performance and reliability with this decision but it is what will save them the most money for now...


I hope UAL reviewed C5's record on safety, too. Do you remember what Smisek said to Congress about the Colgan Q400 tragedy?

I've been on EV flights, but never C5. Last year's C5 accident in Maine didn't make any more confident in C5: https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68&opt=0


I’m confused by your second paragraph. Doesn’t any accident make you less confident in the involved carrier’s safety? I mean, by the same logic shouldn’t we question UA’s safety because of the 737 they trashed in the snow at DEN a decade ago or so, an accident that IIRC was pretty much exclusively a result of pilot error?


There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
xdlx
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:58 pm

This will not end well......
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14473
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:13 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

I hope UAL reviewed C5's record on safety, too. Do you remember what Smisek said to Congress about the Colgan Q400 tragedy?

I've been on EV flights, but never C5. Last year's C5 accident in Maine didn't make any more confident in C5: https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68&opt=0


I’m confused by your second paragraph. Doesn’t any accident make you less confident in the involved carrier’s safety? I mean, by the same logic shouldn’t we question UA’s safety because of the 737 they trashed in the snow at DEN a decade ago or so, an accident that IIRC was pretty much exclusively a result of pilot error?


There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.


This seems like classic recency bias, no? Expressjet's corporate constituents have had many more (and many just as egregious or more egregious) accidents as has Commutair. We can't live in a world where the most recent carrier to have had an accident that meets your or my definition of "bad" is the least safe.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
patdt146
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:49 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:57 pm

southwestguru wrote:
Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals


I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.


I certainly am not an insider on the issue, and my apologies. I was going by a governmental study (https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/f ... 3-2-17.pdf). What is unclear is whether signing bonuses and the like were excluded from these figures. I am not a pilot and therefore have no expertise in the area. What I can say is that I don't feel that pilots have been paid what they should. Perhaps I'm digging my grave deeper here, as I am simply an enthusiast, but I DO feel for the people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort and who are in this position. In other words, I was going by information from what I would consider an official source, but I am far from an expert, that is for sure!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6164
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:18 pm

Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
alasizon
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:53 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?


Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.

EssentialBusDC wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
QueenoftheSkies wrote:

They can’t even protect their very own mainline employees. You think they care much about these non-UA people? HA!

Even worse, because of scope rules, UA must be extra brutal with the regionals to get the flights break even.

Lightsaber


This should be good.

Please explain how scope rules relates to break even profitability with the regionals?


While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
southwestguru
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:55 pm

I certainly am not an insider on the issue, and my apologies. I was going by a governmental study (https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/f ... 3-2-17.pdf). What is unclear is whether signing bonuses and the like were excluded from these figures. I am not a pilot and therefore have no expertise in the area. What I can say is that I don't feel that pilots have been paid what they should. Perhaps I'm digging my grave deeper here, as I am simply an enthusiast, but I DO feel for the people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort and who are in this position. In other words, I was going by information from what I would consider an official source, but I am far from an expert, that is for sure!


No problem! I, and I’m sure many of my colleagues out there are grateful for your words. It’s people like you (and others) that have improved our situation over the last decade. I completely agree- pay equal to the skill required for a profession equals an output of safety and quality equal to what the laborer is being paid.

That study is interesting. Based on the numbers presented, I would say not everything in a pilots paycheck is represented there. Some companies pay sign on bonuses for several years of a pilots career. Others, like mine, have operational and performance financial rewards, as well as profit sharing checks that are cut quarterly. At my company, this easily paid out an additional $10K+ a year. That is, before COVID hit....

The truth is, an airline pilots salary is more confusing than filing taxes. Getting a loan for something like a home or car is very frustrating, as I usually find myself having have to sit down with the loan department and explain how an airline pilots pay works.... :banghead:
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:12 pm

PowerJet wrote:
toltommy wrote:
PowerJet wrote:
I Certainly do NOT think that is an ignorant statement. ExpressJet at one time flew nearly 5,000 flights daily. It was one of the largest airlines in the world based on departures The ONLY hull loss accident ExpressJet had was in the 90's, while they were TRAINING on it and that aircraft is even still being used as an emergency trainer in Houston.


I stand by my statement. And you are being selective in what you choose to include. Today's Expressjet is made up of multiple carriers including ASA and Britt. Both of whom had substantial accidents.


Sure, if you wish to go all the way back to every accident at every airline that came together to make these current airlines, then yes. However, I'm talking about this current airline, which only flew Embraer jets and later Canadair jets, under its current name, and another that transitioned from propeller planes to ERJ-145s. I once flew on a CommutAir 145, and for whatever reason, they left the flaps down the entire flight. The flight between Newark and Washington D.C. took nearly 2 hours. I will forever say this wasn't the best decision by United to keep a less experienced carrier to do ALL their ERJ flying


WOW you aren’t even a pilot yet you know SOPs, Maintenance and ATC procedures!!! Impressive!
 
PowerJet
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:17 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:27 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
PowerJet wrote:
toltommy wrote:

I stand by my statement. And you are being selective in what you choose to include. Today's Expressjet is made up of multiple carriers including ASA and Britt. Both of whom had substantial accidents.


Sure, if you wish to go all the way back to every accident at every airline that came together to make these current airlines, then yes. However, I'm talking about this current airline, which only flew Embraer jets and later Canadair jets, under its current name, and another that transitioned from propeller planes to ERJ-145s. I once flew on a CommutAir 145, and for whatever reason, they left the flaps down the entire flight. The flight between Newark and Washington D.C. took nearly 2 hours. I will forever say this wasn't the best decision by United to keep a less experienced carrier to do ALL their ERJ flying


WOW you aren’t even a pilot yet you know SOPs, Maintenance and ATC procedures!!! Impressive!


How do you know about my personal life? How do you know what I do? Please don't make assumptions. I AM a pilot, thank you very much, I have just a right to post my opinion as everyone else.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:43 pm

PowerJet wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
PowerJet wrote:

Sure, if you wish to go all the way back to every accident at every airline that came together to make these current airlines, then yes. However, I'm talking about this current airline, which only flew Embraer jets and later Canadair jets, under its current name, and another that transitioned from propeller planes to ERJ-145s. I once flew on a CommutAir 145, and for whatever reason, they left the flaps down the entire flight. The flight between Newark and Washington D.C. took nearly 2 hours. I will forever say this wasn't the best decision by United to keep a less experienced carrier to do ALL their ERJ flying


WOW you aren’t even a pilot yet you know SOPs, Maintenance and ATC procedures!!! Impressive!


How do you know about my personal life? How do you know what I do? Please don't make assumptions. I AM a pilot, thank you very much, I have just a right to post my opinion as everyone else.


Because a pilot would not question another pilot for flying with the flaps down. A pilot would trust that a pilot is operating within the parameters of their aircraft. A pilot would not base their assumption of safety on what you do.

You maybe a GA pilot but you don’t know anything about 121 or the ERJ 145.

I’m sure you would say that airbus pilots are unsafe if they left the gear down for the first 5 minutes of the flight. Because I’m sure you know that that is done for brake cooling.

I’m sure you would call a 787 pilot unsafe for flying with the gear down for several minutes after takeoff. With your massive experience I’m sure you know this is due to a brake MEL.

I remamber a long time ago a plane that had pressurization issues that they couldn’t get fixed. They flew it for 3 straight days between DEN and COS at 9000 feet. Perfectly legal. I’m sure you know all about dispatch procedures and how sometimes a plane that is broken will still be flown and sometimes will just be flown on the shortest flights.

You can have an opinion but make sure it’s atleast based on some fact.
 
11C
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:44 pm

southwestguru wrote:
Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals


I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.


You started at a regional “at no less than $60k a year.” Better than most majors for starting pay.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:49 pm

11C wrote:
southwestguru wrote:
Bear in mind that pilots incur huge amounts of debt just to get their practically-minimum-wage salaries at the regionals


I started 4 years ago at my regional at no less than $60k a year. As a captain, I make six figures. Hardly minimum wage.

I know you're trying to be sympathetic, but don't talk about things you know nothing about unless you list a source.


You started at a regional “at no less than $60k a year.” Better than most majors for starting pay.

Easily possible to make that at a regional last year. Republic, Skywest, Endeavor, offered that thereabouts. Major starting pay for probationary year is now somewhere around 80-90k, and usually makes a decent jump for year two. Looking at JetBlue, American, Southwest it broadly lines up.

Since 2015, regional pay went up sharply. Only at the handful of truly poor operations were the once-typical pitiful paychecks still seen.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:56 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

I’m confused by your second paragraph. Doesn’t any accident make you less confident in the involved carrier’s safety? I mean, by the same logic shouldn’t we question UA’s safety because of the 737 they trashed in the snow at DEN a decade ago or so, an accident that IIRC was pretty much exclusively a result of pilot error?


There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.


This seems like classic recency bias, no? Expressjet's corporate constituents have had many more (and many just as egregious or more egregious) accidents as has Commutair. We can't live in a world where the most recent carrier to have had an accident that meets your or my definition of "bad" is the least safe.


So you admit that you haven't read the final report on CO1404 or studied the C5 massive screw-up last year..? "Massive shortcomings" is the expression I've heard people use to describe the training program at C5. Care to wager if training flaws and/or failures is mentioned in the final report?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:33 pm

alasizon wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?


Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.

EssentialBusDC wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Even worse, because of scope rules, UA must be extra brutal with the regionals to get the flights break even.

Lightsaber


This should be good.

Please explain how scope rules relates to break even profitability with the regionals?


While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.


They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:35 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
alasizon wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Im guessing C5 will have to open bases in Denver, Houston, and Chicago then?


Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

This should be good.

Please explain how scope rules relates to break even profitability with the regionals?


While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.


They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14473
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:11 am

FlyHossD wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

There's a big difference between last year and 12 years ago. There's an even bigger difference between not even finding the runway (and trying to land anyway) and starting on the runway and being blasted by a huge crosswind. It's clear you haven't read the accident reports and/or data. Go ahead, it won't take too long.


This seems like classic recency bias, no? Expressjet's corporate constituents have had many more (and many just as egregious or more egregious) accidents as has Commutair. We can't live in a world where the most recent carrier to have had an accident that meets your or my definition of "bad" is the least safe.


So you admit that you haven't read the final report on CO1404 or studied the C5 massive screw-up last year..? "Massive shortcomings" is the expression I've heard people use to describe the training program at C5. Care to wager if training flaws and/or failures is mentioned in the final report?


I study transport accidents for a living (I spent an unfortunately large portion of my day today reading about allisions on the Lower Mississippi). I cannot think of an NTSB report on a Part 121 accident in the past decade that I haven’t read cover to cover.

The problem with judging carriers based on isolated accidents is that they are generally (with a few exceptions, like all of the EMB-120 prop loss accidents 20 in the 90s) sufficiently infrequent that they aren’t useful for drawing broader conclusions about relative safety. Virtually no one will say that WN has a training problem even though they had an accident where a deficiency in their training program was a clear causal factor.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4974
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: The whipsaw is starting back up

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:44 am

Tailwinds wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Independence Air did that to themselves!! Atlantic Coast was the original name and they were the United Darling out of IAD. United hit hard times and did a LOT of cutting in our OWN house so they HAD to do some external cutting or WE might have rebelled as well.


The speed with which United employees went from calling me and us a Piece of Excrement for undercutting them with low wages to being a Piece of Excrement for not taking a pay cut on their behalf astonishes me to this day/post.

Nobody I remember EVER called Atlantic Coast or independence air employees "Excrement" ! Now their Management? I don't hold them any Ill will and never did BUT? Senior management at United at the time? I'll bet sure as hell did and I know quite a few Ex Atlantic Coasters working for United At IAD and DCA. And? they're pretty Senior by now. At least one of my Cohorts wg=ho worked in Maintenance Control with me was a hard down Independence Air type and wore his jacket regularly. He was shocked to see me wear my Brown United Jacket as well. Their management? Made a calculated Gamble and Paid the price for it. .
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:51 am

TonyClifton wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
alasizon wrote:

Doubtful - UA will likely re-focus their ER4 flying back east while moving more CR2s out west to fill the void from AX being shutdown. IAH will be a hodgepodge and really the only base I could see C5 opening if they are able to build some substantial flow through from the rest of the network.



While Lightsaber is the one who made the original comment, I would say UA has a much harder time making the regional side profitable due to their specific scope clause. They are the ones with the smallest number of 65/70/76 seat jets and biggest batch of 50-seaters. That makes cost that much more important. That doesn't impact DL or AA to nearly the same impact.


They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.
 
dstblj52
Topic Author
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:30 am

EssentialBusDC wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.

UA and Delta have very similar scope clauses largely because UA copied delta scope in contract 2012 and scope has essentially not changed for any airline since then except united never bought the small mainline jet so they still have limited 76 and 70 seat jets but unlimited 50 seaters (basically no meaningful limit)
 
drdisque
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:31 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:

They are only sized that way because they have decided to be sized that way. The UALPA scope section with regards to outsourced Regionals is practically word for word a copy of Delta’s. UAL just never exercised the option to buy a NSNB (C series or EMB) that would unlock additional 76 seaters, and also mandate a drawdown of the 50 seaters. If they had, the end result would have matched the number of 76 seaters and 50 seaters that Delta has.

So again, how exactly did scope mean “UAL has to be extra brutal with regionals to get the flights break even” when the scope is the same as Delta’s? It is not scope’s fault, but due to management decisions if UAL regionals are more expensive then Delta’s. (A fact I’m not sure is actually true)

United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.


The United language regarding "single aisle" is interesting. Makes me wonder if they'll replace the 772A's, 787s, and 767's operating domestic flights with wingtip 737's or Airbii to buff up "single hour" block hours. With the August schedule, while UA did keep the bank structure relatively the same from July and reintroduced very few routes, they did reinstate additional mainline frequencies on longer routes that were only being served 1x (like SEA-ORD) and also reintroduced mainline to some outstations (like ORD-PIT, EWR-ATL, ORD-ATL).
 
dstblj52
Topic Author
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Updated: United selects CommutAir as sole E145 operator

Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:20 pm

drdisque wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
United scope is different from Delta. United’s will shrink with a reduction of mainline block hours, so getting the cheapest cost for whatever jets are allowed to fly is the key.

Is it?

Here is DALPA’s section regarding mainline to Regional flying:

“The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:


The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.”


Here is UALPA’s relevant section:

1-C-1-f Scheduled Aircraft Block Hours of United Express Flying as Percentage of Block Hours of Company Flying on Single-Aisle Aircraft

1-C-1-f-(1) In any Rolling Twelve-Month Period ending the first full calendar month following date of signing of this Agreement or later, the Company shall not Schedule or permit the Scheduling of aircraft block hours of United Express Flying (excluding block hours operated by 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft) exceeding the maximum percentage of Scheduled aircraft block hours of Company Flying on single-aisle Company Aircraft (“Max. % of UAXBH to SBH”) set forth in the following chart.


The United language regarding "single aisle" is interesting. Makes me wonder if they'll replace the 772A's, 787s, and 767's operating domestic flights with wingtip 737's or Airbii to buff up "single hour" block hours. With the August schedule, while UA did keep the bank structure relatively the same from July and reintroduced very few routes, they did reinstate additional mainline frequencies on longer routes that were only being served 1x (like SEA-ORD) and also reintroduced mainline to some outstations (like ORD-PIT, EWR-ATL, ORD-ATL).

Certainly possible it will be interesting
 
IAH901RT
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:06 am

ExpressJet says goodbye

Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:29 pm

ExpressJet announced on Sunday that they will cease flying for UAL after Sept. 30th.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: ExpressJet says goodbye

Mon Aug 24, 2020 3:04 pm

Here's the requisite link:

https://paxex.aero/2020/08/expressjet-t ... september/

On July 30, United Airlines selected CommutAir as its sole ERJ145 operator, and asked ExpressJet Airlines to wind-down flying as a United Express regional carrier. Due to the uncertainty of airline passenger travel as a result of the continuing pandemic, all ExpressJet flying for United Airlines will end on September 30, 2020. In addition, with the termination of the CARES Act payroll support funding at that time, ExpressJet also will terminate or furlough most of its workforce on September 30, 2020, other than limited staff needed in connection with the wind-down of operations and the review of future business opportunities.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos