United Airlines reaches new contract deal with pilots' union

STT757 · Fri May 13, 2022 1:49 pm

Can any of the UA pilots on here give any insight to any changes, scope etc..

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-airlines-reaches-contract-deal-132435270.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/united-airlines-pilots-union-reach-contract-agreement.html

bigb · Fri May 13, 2022 1:54 pm

It hasn’t been put out to the Union yet…. currently in the hands of the Negotiating Committee….

Acey559 · Fri May 13, 2022 2:08 pm

Very premature. It's only an Agreement in Principle at this point. It'll take a few weeks to be put into contract language and at that point it'll go to the MEC. They are required to review it for seven days and only then would it go to membership for a vote, assuming the MEC sends it out for ratification.

If guess it'll be at least 6 to 8 weeks before we'd see anything to vote on assuming it even gets to that point.

panam330 · Fri May 13, 2022 2:39 pm

STT757 wrote:
Can any of the UA pilots on here give any insight to any changes, scope etc..

As mentioned above, details haven't been released yet; it'll likely be a month or two before they are.

Additionally, in this environment I highly doubt management would even think about trying to loosen scope - and ALPA certainly wouldn't agree to it.

Babyshark · Fri May 13, 2022 2:41 pm

Airlines are competing very hard for pilots, interesting times that airlines who were losing $100M a day 2 years ago are looking at big contracts just to attract a very dwindling supply of pilots.

intotheair · Fri May 13, 2022 5:16 pm

Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.

ScorpioMC3 · Fri May 13, 2022 6:38 pm

intotheair wrote:
Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.

I don't know why United would even want scope concessions when they just ordered hundreds of new narrowbodies....

MIflyer12 · Fri May 13, 2022 6:49 pm

The last Annual Report shows the Pilots' amendable date as January 2019, for those who don't follow UA labor negotiations closely.

mcdu · Sat May 14, 2022 1:46 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
The last Annual Report shows the Pilots' amendable date as January 2019, for those who don't follow UA labor negotiations closely.

How is the amendable date a factor in this topic. I can not remember any airline getting a contract before an amendable date.

With the two year Covid timeout to achieve a AIP is quiet a feat. The details will be interesting but to compare what has and is taking place at the other carriers with amendable contracts the UA situation is enviable. You have AA with no progress reports and AK taking a strike vote.

intotheair · Sat May 14, 2022 2:42 am

ScorpioMC3 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.

I don't know why United would even want scope concessions when they just ordered hundreds of new narrowbodies....

Might be nice to get the E175SC’s up to 76 seats at the very least. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that though.

NLINK · Sat May 14, 2022 2:45 am

intotheair wrote:
ScorpioMC3 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.

I don't know why United would even want scope concessions when they just ordered hundreds of new narrowbodies....

Might be nice to get the E175SC’s up to 76 seats at the very least. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that though.

They already can do that they just have to let Mainline fly them and not the lowest bidder.

scottyraven · Sat May 14, 2022 3:25 am

intotheair wrote:
Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.

sorry for my ignorance, but I'm not aware of what the term "scope" refers to?

UA444 · Sat May 14, 2022 5:50 am

scottyraven wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.
sorry for my ignorance, but I'm not aware of what the term "scope" refers to?

Basically covers what is flown by United and what is flown by United Express - ie not United and contracted out (Skywest, Mesa, Air Wisconsin, etc). United pilots don't want more of the smaller plane flying outsourced.

USAirKid · Sat May 14, 2022 7:17 am

NLINK wrote:
intotheair wrote:
ScorpioMC3 wrote:

I don't know why United would even want scope concessions when they just ordered hundreds of new narrowbodies....

Might be nice to get the E175SC’s up to 76 seats at the very least. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that though.

They already can do that they just have to let Mainline fly them and not the lowest bidder.

Of course, but i'm sure intotheair was referring to scope changes to allow express carriers fly 76 seat E175s

Cmac787 · Sat May 14, 2022 12:36 pm

With all the 175’s parked right now. The pilots have all the leverage. It will be interesting to see the highlights of this agreement

Acey559 · Sat May 14, 2022 1:57 pm

scottyraven wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Should be interesting to find out what’s in it. I’m guessing scope doesn’t move an inch.
sorry for my ignorance, but I'm not aware of what the term "scope" refers to?

As mentioned, it controls how much flying non-United pilots are able to perform and what equipment they utilize on behalf of United. That includes our Express partners. It also limits the amount of joint venture and alliance flying United is able to enter into.

It prevents the company from forming a spin-off airline to perform our flying for cheaper and it controls how much flying, for instance, Lufthansa is able to perform relative to us. Delta pilots are learning this right now. Rather than performing most of their own international flying on Delta metal, they allow Korean or Virgin Atlantic to fly a big chunk of their international passenger volume. Those scope protections are just as important as regional scope protections and are all covered under our respective pilot contracts.

frmrCapCadet · Sat May 14, 2022 3:03 pm

Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

DashTrash · Sat May 14, 2022 3:52 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

You’re clearly unfamiliar with the Railway Labor Act and how that is abused by management. Case is point, AA and AS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MIflyer12 · Sat May 14, 2022 3:57 pm

Acey559 wrote:
It prevents the company from forming a spin-off airline to perform our flying for cheaper and it controls how much flying, for instance, Lufthansa is able to perform relative to us. Delta pilots are learning this right now. Rather than performing most of their own international flying on Delta metal, they allow Korean or Virgin Atlantic to fly a big chunk of their international passenger volume. Those scope protections are just as important as regional scope protections and are all covered under our respective pilot contracts.

It's funny you think that the present DL contract lacks scope provisions. Where do you think UA's 70/76 seat scope language came from? DL's 2012 PWA - the one ratified six months before the amendable date.

https://crankyflier.com/2012/11/26/look ... d-express/

DL also has limits on partner flying by hub for both domestic and foreign carriers, limits on 5th freedom codeshares, limits on TPAC foreign carrier block hours both as % and total hours, caps on revenue from foreign carrier flying in JVs, and limits on EASKs (equivalent available seat kilometers, which also takes in cargo capacity) in intl JVs.

These are protections approved by DL pilots in the 2016 PWA.

LCDFlight · Sat May 14, 2022 3:59 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

I mean, it is what it is. Airline pilot unions essentially own the companies. The companies primarily exist to benefit the pilots and their families. It has been that way for many decades.

The law actually exacerbated this by introducing the 1500 hour rule, which was just a straightforward certification racket. One among many... why do you think dermatologists make 400k a year... certification racket. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are not paid so much.

Acey559 · Sat May 14, 2022 4:18 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Acey559 wrote:
It prevents the company from forming a spin-off airline to perform our flying for cheaper and it controls how much flying, for instance, Lufthansa is able to perform relative to us. Delta pilots are learning this right now. Rather than performing most of their own international flying on Delta metal, they allow Korean or Virgin Atlantic to fly a big chunk of their international passenger volume. Those scope protections are just as important as regional scope protections and are all covered under our respective pilot contracts.

It's funny you think that the present DL contract lacks scope provisions. Where do you think UA's 70/76 seat scope language came from? DL's 2012 PWA - the one ratified six months before the amendable date.

https://crankyflier.com/2012/11/26/look ... d-express/

DL also has limits on partner flying by hub for both domestic and foreign carriers, limits on 5th freedom codeshares, limits on TPAC foreign carrier block hours both as % and total hours, caps on revenue from foreign carrier flying in JVs, and limits on EASKs (equivalent available seat kilometers, which also takes in cargo capacity) in intl JVs.

These are protections approved by DL pilots in the 2016 PWA.

I'm not saying Delta doesn't have any protections and I'm certainly not saying our UPA protections are terrific, I was simply referring to a couple of my DL friends that have complained about the aforementioned JV flying. Also, it was pretty well documented back before COVID that many more were unhappy as well.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... ilots-say/

My intent was not to get into a pissing contest about it, but to simply say that regional scope is only one facet of the overall picture. I hope we all are able to tighten things up and maximize good, stable (if that's even a thing) flying jobs at mainline carriers. The DL JV scope complaints were just an example from recent memory and not any attempt to single anyone out. As you noted, we certainly have had our own scope issues at UA over the years. Hopefully that will be changing soon, though.

frmrCapCadet · Sat May 14, 2022 4:40 pm

DashTrash wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

You’re clearly unfamiliar with the Railway Labor Act and how that is abused by management. Case is point, AA and AS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't doubt at all the management abuses the powers it has.

MDC862 · Sat May 14, 2022 5:03 pm

Every restriction placed in the contracts for all carriers is a additional cost that the company and consumers will pay for. UA estimates each new hire FO will cost the company $9M over their employment. Enjoy it while it is available. The day of pilot-less flying is coming in our lifetime. We have fought two wars without it and continue to do so. No matter how much unions, pilots, and paid political contacts deny or fight it, it is on the horizon.

As one of the UA Chief pilots said when the 777 entered service, "This is such a techonogically advanced airplane, what role will pilots have in the future? Reminds me of turn of century in 1900s where everyone needed a blacksmith. Look around today, you can't find one."

ScorpioMC3 · Sat May 14, 2022 7:50 pm

MDC862 wrote:
Every restriction placed in the contracts for all carriers is a additional cost that the company and consumers will pay for. UA estimates each new hire FO will cost the company $9M over their employment. Enjoy it while it is available. The day of pilot-less flying is coming in our lifetime. We have fought two wars without it and continue to do so. No matter how much unions, pilots, and paid political contacts deny or fight it, it is on the horizon.

As one of the UA Chief pilots said when the 777 entered service, "This is such a techonogically advanced airplane, what role will pilots have in the future? Reminds me of turn of century in 1900s where everyone needed a blacksmith. Look around today, you can't find one."

I disagree. Even if pilotless passenger flying becomes a reality in our lifetimes (another thing I doubt since we can't even get pilotless cars right), the amount of red tape for something like that to get through in one of the most heavily regulated industries would be astronomical. Not just pilot unions, but governments all over the world. I just don't see that happening, but what do I know.

Cactusjuba · Sat May 14, 2022 8:34 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

I mean, it is what it is. Airline pilot unions essentially own the companies. The companies primarily exist to benefit the pilots and their families. It has been that way for many decades.

The law actually exacerbated this by introducing the 1500 hour rule, which was just a straightforward certification racket. One among many... why do you think dermatologists make 400k a year... certification racket. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are not paid so much.

Airlines exist to benefit pilots and families? :rotfl:

I thought it was the owners/shareholders? So the C-suite is entitled to 10s to 100s of millions, but the pilots demanding less outsourcing is where the greed lies? :scratchchin:

What ratio of CEO to pilot compensation is fair to you? Today, mainline pilots make about 1-3% per year vs their CEO. And they are the highest compensated frontline employees. Still too high I guess, should be 0.5% like at outsourced carriers. Those increased profits would definitely go straight to the consumer via lower ticket prices and not towards C-suite compensation or stock buybacks. :liar:

LCDFlight · Sat May 14, 2022 9:21 pm

Cactusjuba wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

I mean, it is what it is. Airline pilot unions essentially own the companies. The companies primarily exist to benefit the pilots and their families. It has been that way for many decades.

The law actually exacerbated this by introducing the 1500 hour rule, which was just a straightforward certification racket. One among many... why do you think dermatologists make 400k a year... certification racket. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are not paid so much.

Airlines exist to benefit pilots and families? I thought it was the owners/shareholders? So the C-suite is entitled to 10s to 100s of millions, but the pilots demanding less outsourcing is where the greed lies? What ratio of CEO to pilot compensation is fair to you? Today, mainline pilots make about 1-3% per year vs their CEO. And they are the highest compensated frontline employees. Still too high I guess, should be 0.5% like at outsourced carriers. Those increased profits would definitely go straight to the consumer via lower ticket prices and not towards C-suite compensation or stock buybacks.

The shareholders... oh, you mean the shareholders that are totally cleaned out every 8-11 years? :rotfl:

Generally speaking, if you look up the Fortune 500 (500 largest US companies by revenue)... rank them by CEO pay... the major airlines populate #490-500. And again... it has been that way for decades.

Clue alert... normal companies aren't held hostage by a bunch of guys with union jobs making $200-400k per year. Airlines are the only place where certain professionals have the company by the balls like that.

MohawkWeekend · Sat May 14, 2022 10:21 pm

Owners/Shareholders? Really not sure why anyone would buy airline stocks.

"The worst sort of business is one that grows rapidly, requires significant capital to engender the growth, and then earns little or no money. Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers. Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down."
-- Warren Buffett, in the 2007 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter

https://www.businessinsider.com/warren- ... -it-2017-3

That changed when the government allowed major consolidation (almost a oligopoly) in the industry around 2008. For about 10 years they were decent investments. Since 2020 they have reverted back into a great place to see your money disappear.

In my opinion, the winners in the airline industry are the C-Suites and the Pilots. The rest don't get paid anywhere near what they are worth. And the shareholders are recently the biggest losers.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat May 14, 2022 10:25 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Cactusjuba wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

I mean, it is what it is. Airline pilot unions essentially own the companies. The companies primarily exist to benefit the pilots and their families. It has been that way for many decades.

The law actually exacerbated this by introducing the 1500 hour rule, which was just a straightforward certification racket. One among many... why do you think dermatologists make 400k a year... certification racket. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are not paid so much.

Airlines exist to benefit pilots and families? I thought it was the owners/shareholders? So the C-suite is entitled to 10s to 100s of millions, but the pilots demanding less outsourcing is where the greed lies? What ratio of CEO to pilot compensation is fair to you? Today, mainline pilots make about 1-3% per year vs their CEO. And they are the highest compensated frontline employees. Still too high I guess, should be 0.5% like at outsourced carriers. Those increased profits would definitely go straight to the consumer via lower ticket prices and not towards C-suite compensation or stock buybacks.

The shareholders... oh, you mean the shareholders that are totally cleaned out every 8-11 years?

Generally speaking, if you look up the Fortune 500 (500 largest US companies by revenue)... rank them by CEO pay... the major airlines populate #490-500. And again... it has been that way for decades.

Clue alert... normal companies aren't held hostage by a bunch of guys with union jobs making $200-400k per year. Airlines are the only place where certain professionals have the company by the balls like that.

I take it you’re not a pilot or an ALPA member by your posts. ALPA does NOT own or control any Union airline any more than the IAM or UAW owns the auto industry. I’ve been there and participated in ALPA, it has far less power than you’d guess. Having a unique skill set, gained by limited numbers is their power. Just as it is for all pilots. Corporate pilots today earn more than many company senior managers, simply because that’s what the market for pilots requires. BTW, 200k-400k is low.

bigb · Sat May 14, 2022 11:26 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Cactusjuba wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

Clue alert... normal companies aren't held hostage by a bunch of guys with union jobs making $200-400k per year. Airlines are the only place where certain professionals have the company by the balls like that.

In what ways does ALPA, IBT, SWAPA, APA have airlines by the “balls”? You think pilot unions have historically have leverage when the RLA tilts the playing field to the management side with the inability to strike without the President’s approval? Unlike other industries where Labor Relations between management and unions are governed by the NLRA.

And don’t say scope, after what industry witnessed was a huge expansion of RJs flying sectors that normally were covered by mainline jets. I am not talking your traditional hub to small town runs, I am talking routes like LGA to CLE….

The main factored that worked into the Unions favor was the fact that 1)The Retirement wave can that was supposed to happen back around 2008 finally showed up 5 years later 2) the supply of pilots (civilian) entering into the industry and pilots coming out of the military have significantly decreased 3) Early retirements from Covid 4)Management lack of foresight to have a plan in place to increase their pilot force…

Velocirapture · Mon May 16, 2022 1:41 am

LCDFlight wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Scope needs to be greatly limited by law. It is a restraint on trade which is tolerated in almost no other industry. (and I am pro union - was as a kid and still am). Police, pilots, and West Coast longshore men unions have way to much power, and they abuse it. Nor do their members support other less powerful workers, in fact way too many are anti-union except for theirs.

I mean, it is what it is. Airline pilot unions essentially own the companies. The companies primarily exist to benefit the pilots and their families. It has been that way for many decades...

THANK YOU! I haven't laughed that hard out loud in ages!

Okcflyer · Mon May 16, 2022 1:50 am

Have any details leaked? For us outsiders, it'll be interesting to see if there are major changes to the fundamental structure of the contract or if it's just some pay rate changes. Always interesting to see the areas where compromises were made...

Acey559 · Mon May 16, 2022 2:04 am

Okcflyer wrote:
Have any details leaked? For us outsiders, it'll be interesting to see if there are major changes to the fundamental structure of the contract or if it's just some pay rate changes. Always interesting to see the areas where compromises were made...

Not yet. It's very early in the process; the actual contractual language is being crafted now. My guess is we may start to see some "unofficial" details in maybe 6 weeks as the document is disseminated throught the union before being sent to the members, assuming it's ratified by the MEC. I personally believe it will be.

Rumors are floating around now but I wouldn't put any credence to them just yet, it's still too early.

sldispatcher · Mon May 16, 2022 3:04 am

Acey559 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Have any details leaked? For us outsiders, it'll be interesting to see if there are major changes to the fundamental structure of the contract or if it's just some pay rate changes. Always interesting to see the areas where compromises were made...

Not yet. It's very early in the process; the actual contractual language is being crafted now. My guess is we may start to see some "unofficial" details in maybe 6 weeks as the document is disseminated throught the union before being sent to the members, assuming it's ratified by the MEC. I personally believe it will be.

Rumors are floating around now but I wouldn't put any credence to them just yet, it's still too early.

I hope there are some long term protections in for mainline balanced with some flexibility on the regional side. I, for one, wish they would just start folding things back into mainline across the board regardless of aircraft size. Heck, bring the catering up to mainline standard and I’d pick an E175 over any of the narrowbodies from Boeing or Airbus any day of the week.

FlyingElvii · Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 am

Making the “Regionals” actual regionals again, instead of fee-per-Deparure lowest bidding contractors, would go a LONG way to fixing a lot of the current problems.

SFOtoORD · Mon May 16, 2022 4:59 am

FlyingElvii wrote:
Making the “Regionals” actual regionals again, instead of fee-per-Deparure lowest bidding contractors, would go a LONG way to fixing a lot of the current problems.

Agree. If regionals only flew < 800 miles UA would be a much better airline. Even if some routes had to be dropped.

INFINITI329 · Mon May 16, 2022 6:03 am

Has any major ever released what it cost them to bring the e175/cr9 under mainline operation?

FiscAutTecGarte · Mon May 16, 2022 6:11 am

Would a contract like this also have to specify that the pilots agree to fly MAX7 aircraft if eventually United orders those to replace the 73Gs? Are they that specific?

codc10 · Mon May 16, 2022 7:02 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Would a contract like this also have to specify that the pilots agree to fly MAX7 aircraft if eventually United orders those to replace the 73Gs? Are they that specific?

The current UPA and it’s predecessor agreements provide that mainline pilots will fly aircraft in the MAX7 category (size, weight). That’s essentially the scope provision. My expectation on scope is no change from the current. Pilots won’t concede any ground on it, nor should they, and there’s not great incentive for the company to walk it back, either. Likelihood is a stalemate.

32andBelow · Mon May 16, 2022 7:36 am

codc10 wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Would a contract like this also have to specify that the pilots agree to fly MAX7 aircraft if eventually United orders those to replace the 73Gs? Are they that specific?

The current UPA and it’s predecessor agreements provide that mainline pilots will fly aircraft in the MAX7 category (size, weight). That’s essentially the scope provision. My expectation on scope is no change from the current. Pilots won’t concede any ground on it, nor should they, and there’s not great incentive for the company to walk it back, either. Likelihood is a stalemate.

They should change it to be based on number of seats. The current scopes are based on airplanes that aren’t even being created anymore. So something is going to have to give.

codc10 · Mon May 16, 2022 9:26 am

32andBelow wrote:
codc10 wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Would a contract like this also have to specify that the pilots agree to fly MAX7 aircraft if eventually United orders those to replace the 73Gs? Are they that specific?

The current UPA and it’s predecessor agreements provide that mainline pilots will fly aircraft in the MAX7 category (size, weight). That’s essentially the scope provision. My expectation on scope is no change from the current. Pilots won’t concede any ground on it, nor should they, and there’s not great incentive for the company to walk it back, either. Likelihood is a stalemate.

They should change it to be based on number of seats. The current scopes are based on airplanes that aren’t even being created anymore. So something is going to have to give.

Not necessarily… airlines don’t HAVE to outsource flying. Revision of scope language to strictly # of seats would enable larger aircraft to be flown by contractors (E2) which runs counter to the interest of the pilot union, and at the moment I would posit that the unions have comparatively better leverage.

NLINK · Mon May 16, 2022 11:34 am

32andBelow wrote:
codc10 wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Would a contract like this also have to specify that the pilots agree to fly MAX7 aircraft if eventually United orders those to replace the 73Gs? Are they that specific?

The current UPA and it’s predecessor agreements provide that mainline pilots will fly aircraft in the MAX7 category (size, weight). That’s essentially the scope provision. My expectation on scope is no change from the current. Pilots won’t concede any ground on it, nor should they, and there’s not great incentive for the company to walk it back, either. Likelihood is a stalemate.

They should change it to be based on number of seats. The current scopes are based on airplanes that aren’t even being created anymore. So something is going to have to give.

I'm not sure where you got that. The Embraer 175 still has 147 airplanes on order and is still in production. If United deems they need a higher weight plane they can still fly it with United pilots easily.

sldispatcher · Mon May 16, 2022 12:03 pm

codc10 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
codc10 wrote:

The current UPA and it’s predecessor agreements provide that mainline pilots will fly aircraft in the MAX7 category (size, weight). That’s essentially the scope provision. My expectation on scope is no change from the current. Pilots won’t concede any ground on it, nor should they, and there’s not great incentive for the company to walk it back, either. Likelihood is a stalemate.

They should change it to be based on number of seats. The current scopes are based on airplanes that aren’t even being created anymore. So something is going to have to give.

Not necessarily… airlines don’t HAVE to outsource flying. Revision of scope language to strictly # of seats would enable larger aircraft to be flown by contractors (E2) which runs counter to the interest of the pilot union, and at the moment I would posit that the unions have comparatively better leverage.

Exactly.
I believe United could be in such a better position if it did limit 50 seaters to 100-150 or so planes by Regionals and then any and everything above that in the Mainline category. From onboard experience to being able to bring on E2 generation aircraft of two different sizes for more fleet flexibility in route planning.

challeygat300 · Mon May 16, 2022 1:52 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Cactusjuba wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

I mean, it is what it is. Airline pilot unions essentially own the companies. The companies primarily exist to benefit the pilots and their families. It has been that way for many decades.

The law actually exacerbated this by introducing the 1500 hour rule, which was just a straightforward certification racket. One among many... why do you think dermatologists make 400k a year... certification racket. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are not paid so much.

Airlines exist to benefit pilots and families? I thought it was the owners/shareholders? So the C-suite is entitled to 10s to 100s of millions, but the pilots demanding less outsourcing is where the greed lies? What ratio of CEO to pilot compensation is fair to you? Today, mainline pilots make about 1-3% per year vs their CEO. And they are the highest compensated frontline employees. Still too high I guess, should be 0.5% like at outsourced carriers. Those increased profits would definitely go straight to the consumer via lower ticket prices and not towards C-suite compensation or stock buybacks.

The shareholders... oh, you mean the shareholders that are totally cleaned out every 8-11 years?

Generally speaking, if you look up the Fortune 500 (500 largest US companies by revenue)... rank them by CEO pay... the major airlines populate #490-500. And again... it has been that way for decades.

Clue alert... normal companies aren't held hostage by a bunch of guys with union jobs making $200-400k per year. Airlines are the only place where certain professionals have the company by the balls like that.

So you have an issue with the fact that a large group of revenue producing individuals are well paid?? And you also have a problem that their CEOs are paid a closer-to-reasonable ratio of the profits? This is that crab mentality!

Every company should be held directly by the balls by the people, the work groups, that actually great the revenue. Every. “Held hostage”? Wow. If ensuring that they have job security and that the respective companies’ growth includes the work group(s) at is holding the company hostage then, again, eh-ver-eeeeeee company should be like this.

LCDFlight · Mon May 16, 2022 2:55 pm

challeygat300 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
Cactusjuba wrote:

Airlines exist to benefit pilots and families? I thought it was the owners/shareholders? So the C-suite is entitled to 10s to 100s of millions, but the pilots demanding less outsourcing is where the greed lies? What ratio of CEO to pilot compensation is fair to you? Today, mainline pilots make about 1-3% per year vs their CEO. And they are the highest compensated frontline employees. Still too high I guess, should be 0.5% like at outsourced carriers. Those increased profits would definitely go straight to the consumer via lower ticket prices and not towards C-suite compensation or stock buybacks.

The shareholders... oh, you mean the shareholders that are totally cleaned out every 8-11 years?

Generally speaking, if you look up the Fortune 500 (500 largest US companies by revenue)... rank them by CEO pay... the major airlines populate #490-500. And again... it has been that way for decades.

Clue alert... normal companies aren't held hostage by a bunch of guys with union jobs making $200-400k per year. Airlines are the only place where certain professionals have the company by the balls like that.

So you have an issue with the fact that a large group of revenue producing individuals are well paid?? And you also have a problem that their CEOs are paid a closer-to-reasonable ratio of the profits? This is that crab mentality!

Every company should be held directly by the balls by the people, the work groups, that actually great the revenue. Every. “Held hostage”? Wow. If ensuring that they have job security and that the respective companies’ growth includes the work group(s) at is holding the company hostage then, again, eh-ver-eeeeeee company should be like this.

I don’t really have a problem with anything. I don’t work for the airlines anymore.

What I did was point out the huge leverage that pilots, especially unionized pilots, have over commercial airline treasury balances. I notice that pilots often tell themselves it is a “free marketplace” while having ironclad seniority lists, closed shop status, etc. Nowhere was I complaining. I am just quoting the facts about where the money is going. Pilots have a lot of responsibility, and a good amount of market power.

As consolidation has occurred in the US, pricing has been healthier, and pilots have benefitted. More than you see in most industries. I’m sorry people think it is a conspiracy theory that pilot unions have a lot of leverage. They always prefer the explanation that they have rare and exceptional talent and training. Think what you like. The end result is, we have very good, professional pilots and safe airlines. I’m glad!

Velocirapture · Tue May 17, 2022 12:47 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
challeygat300 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

The shareholders... oh, you mean the shareholders that are totally cleaned out every 8-11 years?

Generally speaking, if you look up the Fortune 500 (500 largest US companies by revenue)... rank them by CEO pay... the major airlines populate #490-500. And again... it has been that way for decades.

Clue alert... normal companies aren't held hostage by a bunch of guys with union jobs making $200-400k per year. Airlines are the only place where certain professionals have the company by the balls like that.

So you have an issue with the fact that a large group of revenue producing individuals are well paid?? And you also have a problem that their CEOs are paid a closer-to-reasonable ratio of the profits? This is that crab mentality!

Every company should be held directly by the balls by the people, the work groups, that actually great the revenue. Every. “Held hostage”? Wow. If ensuring that they have job security and that the respective companies’ growth includes the work group(s) at is holding the company hostage then, again, eh-ver-eeeeeee company should be like this.

I don’t really have a problem with anything. I don’t work for the airlines anymore.

What I did was point out the huge leverage that pilots, especially unionized pilots, have over commercial airline treasury balances. I notice that pilots often tell themselves it is a “free marketplace” while having ironclad seniority lists, closed shop status, etc. Nowhere was I complaining. I am just quoting the facts about where the money is going. Pilots have a lot of responsibility, and a good amount of market power.

As consolidation has occurred in the US, pricing has been healthier, and pilots have benefitted. More than you see in most industries. I’m sorry people think it is a conspiracy theory that pilot unions have a lot of leverage. They always prefer the explanation that they have rare and exceptional talent and training. Think what you like. The end result is, we have very good, professional pilots and safe airlines. I’m glad!

Have you ever heard of the Railway Labor Act? Please educate yourself and read it. Rail and airline labor groups don’t have near the leverage you think they do.

Further, recent gains in pilot contracts still fall short of previous concessions when adjusted for inflation. Not to mention the time/value of the money lost, furloughs and lost pensions.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net