Ual-alpa t/a leak......

[ualdriver]

The key word there is SOME of them I fly with them on the widebodies and they are not all like that. Folks here like to put pilots in a group and assume thay are all the same.

+1

I fly with widebody Captains as well and they very much seem to "get it" concerning scope. Of course, there are some completely clueless guys, but that's true with any fleet.

 

[StaySeated]

I wouldn't waste any effort on Scope. Scope has never stopped a codeshare, and at least one airline is about to start the mother of all code shares.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

I wouldn't waste any effort on Scope. Scope has never stopped a codeshare, and at least one airline is about to start the mother of all code shares.

What are you talking about????

Yogi

 

[P38JLightning]

I wouldn't waste any effort on Scope. Scope has never stopped a codeshare, and at least one airline is about to start the mother of all code shares.

So you would allow management the ability to outsource unlimited narrowbody and widebody aircraft in exchange for a one cent per hour raise? Because a raise is a raise, but scope is meaningless? Right?

 

[Raoul Duke]

Anything less than 90 seats is meaningless

 

[P38JLightning]

um...

Anything less than 90 seats is meaningless

Run, don't walk...RUN...as far far away from the negoatiating table as fast as you can, as far as you can, as long as you can. When you can't run any more, get in a cab and keep going.

 

[list2002]

At least they got the uniforms figured out. Must be getting serious.

 

[StaySeated]

So you would allow management the ability to outsource unlimited narrowbody and widebody aircraft in exchange for a one cent per hour raise? Because a raise is a raise, but scope is meaningless? Right?

My point is you can't prevent management's ability to outsource. One can trade that negotiating capital for whatever you want, but if you believe that you are actually preventing something that pure economics hasn't prevented on its own then you are fooling yourself.

If it is cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it will happen. If it is not cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it wont happen. Scope has never and will never have any effect on the actual amount of flying done by smaller jets.

 

[skywdriver]

My point is you can't prevent management's ability to outsource. One can trade that negotiating capital for whatever you want, but if you believe that you are actually preventing something that pure economics hasn't prevented on its own then you are fooling yourself.

If it is cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it will happen. If it is not cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it wont happen. Scope has never and will never have any effect on the actual amount of flying done by smaller jets.

not true at all. scope has a much wider relevance than what you are saying. scope has indeed prevented completely free economics from controlling who flies what - otherwise all of the "major" airlines would be utilizing foreign pilots for a quarter of the pay to fly their airplanes.

regarding the point you are trying to make, CAL's scope prevents any jet greater than 50 seats from being flown by a "regional" carrier. if other pilot groups continue to relieve scope, eventually 90-110 seat jets will be flown by "regional" airlines as those airplanes will be newer and more efficient. If CAL holds on to scope, management has the option to compete with 2 50 seat airplanes or one 120 seat airplane. economics of that side with the mainline CAL airplane. therefore scope would prevent those pilots slots from being required at the regional airline. i understand the point you are trying to make, it just isn't valid.

 

[skywdriver]

I wouldn't waste any effort on Scope. Scope has never stopped a codeshare, and at least one airline is about to start the mother of all code shares.

Codesharing is a great thing with one small piece of language needed in the scope section - an airline's ability to profit from a codeshare is limited to the proportion of flying they peform compared to the airline they are codesharing with. If an airline wants to grow by codesharing rather than operating their own flights, it only makes financial sense until the profitability is reduced due to their relative size compared to the codeshare airline. Very simple - a financial motive to operate your own flights and use codeshare to fill seats that would have otherwise gone empty. This does not allow a carrier to outsource all of their flying and generate revenue just by codesharing.

 

[Deerkiller]

My point is you can't prevent management's ability to outsource. One can trade that negotiating capital for whatever you want, but if you believe that you are actually preventing something that pure economics hasn't prevented on its own then you are fooling yourself.

If it is cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it will happen. If it is not cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it wont happen. Scope has never and will never have any effect on the actual amount of flying done by smaller jets.

Hey SS, next time you go to an airport look at the UAL, DAL, AM Eagle, and UsAir 70 seaters sitting in line for takeoff. You will then see the a 50 seat Continental Express RJ. That's scope. It's hard and fast, and our contract has rock solid language regading 50+ seat RJs.

 

[densoo]

Hey SS, next time you go to an airport look at the UAL, DAL, AM Eagle, and UsAir 70 seaters sitting in line for takeoff. You will then see the a 50 seat Continental Express RJ. That's scope. It's hard and fast, and our contract has rock solid language regading 50+ seat RJs.

And a 70-seat prop. Hard, but maybe not so fast.

 

[Deerkiller]

76 seat prop, actually.

If they wanna try and run 76 seat Q400s on a route that a 70-90 seat jet should fly and run off all our passengers, then go ahead. I've got a side business that is starting to gather some momentum.

 

[P38JLightning]

My point is you can't prevent management's ability to outsource. One can trade that negotiating capital for whatever you want, but if you believe that you are actually preventing something that pure economics hasn't prevented on its own then you are fooling yourself.

If it is cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it will happen. If it is not cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it wont happen. Scope has never and will never have any effect on the actual amount of flying done by smaller jets.

You can prevent management's ability to outsource. If you couldn't, then EVERYTHING would be outsourced.

It's cheaper to fly ALL jets for "lower pay" yet it does NOT happen at airlines with scope to prevent it. Scope is THE strongest part of any contract (assuming it's written well) and is the best use for a dollar of "bargaining capital" by far.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Yet as pilots we will gladly take our income to any other industry and embrace outsourcing.....

So why is it ok for us to mess with other professions and jobs, but we want no outsourcing in our profession..... Seems hypocritical....

 

[Deerkiller]

Yet as pilots we will gladly take our income to any other industry and embrace outsourcing.....

So why is it ok for us to mess with other professions and jobs, but we want no outsourcing in our profession..... Seems hypocritical....

That's a bit of a broad stroke, but ok. I personally do what I can to buy products that are made in the good ole U S of A. You're right a lot of products are made in third world countries where labor is cheap and un-organized(read: no unions). However, your comments makes it out that we are advocating and pressing for this outsourcing.

Secondly, just because my neighbor has decided to use illegal people to mow his yard, doesn't mean I have to. Just because other industries have allowed their jobs to be outsourced doesn't mean I'm gonna let my job get sent overseas. It's not hypocritical, it's life. A lot of people fought and lost the outsourcing battle w/ management. Fortunately, our contracts have limited this and we need to make sure those protections remain in place.

 

[Jetjockey]

Thats why this industry and especially UAL are so screwed up, "ME MINE MENTALITY" he is probably the same capt that didn't know UAL had furloughed again. UAL is 2 different companies, wide-bodies(not talking about FA's) and everything else. Wide bodies didn't even know how crappy the lcc rules were, and therefore were wondering why the narrow body guys were complaining so much. Nothing will change until that mentality is changed!

Ultra senior 777 captain who is probably over 60 doesn't care about scope. He's just happy to wake up and pee, preferably not at the same time. That pilot represents 2%, the rest care DEEPLY about scope!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

That's a bit of a broad stroke, but ok. I personally do what I can to buy products that are made in the good ole U S of A. You're right a lot of products are made in third world countries where labor is cheap and un-organized(read: no unions). However, your comments makes it out that we are advocating and pressing for this outsourcing.

Every purchase of a product or service that provides a low price due to outsourcing is a vote for outsourcing.

We go to the Cheesecake Factory Rest. Its good. The illegal labor in the kitchen staff and the illegal labor that picked the tomatoes and lettuce is a vote not only for outsourcing but it is a beacon for any Central or South American who wants to attempt the border crossing.

Secondly, just because my neighbor has decided to use illegal people to mow his yard, doesn't mean I have to.

No, but you still have to support via govt programs the legal American who can't compete with the low wages that the illegal is willing to work. Or do you expect a legal American to work for illegal wages?

So as a consumer base, we pay illegal labors' low wages and we pay welfare, food stamps and child health programs for legal Americans who have decided that govt assistance is a better deal.....

Just because other industries have allowed their jobs to be outsourced doesn't mean I'm gonna let my job get sent overseas. It's not hypocritical, it's life. A lot of people fought and lost the outsourcing battle w/ management. Fortunately, our contracts have limited this and we need to make sure those protections remain in place.

Sorry but it is not this easy....

Just like you don't care if others have fought and lost the outsourcing battle, no one cares if pilots lose the outsourcing battle. Listen to yourself talk in the above quote... basically what you are saying is "I don't care about you, but I care about me...." Problem is, there are 300M consumers that don't care about your pilot job and what the same thing you want in any given industry... low prices....

We can't keep feeding this insatiable machine called The Hyper Consumption Economy... The race to the bottom is designed to get a few people rich as it discards the rest of us.....

Consider this... if every product and service in our economy had a label that said "illegal labor free". First off, if every purchase had a label that said Made with Illegal Labor, many wouldn't care but many would be shocked to see how much of our economy is based up illegal labor.

Are you willing to pay for more for products and services that are illegal labor free? Are you willing to scale back on your consumption? Certainly as pilots we want people to buy a ticket that affords a fair pilot wage....

You can't have your cake and eat it too......

A vast majority of this will be solved when consumers decide to stop voting for outsourcing..... yet it is so engrained into our culture.

Do you even think that most people even consider there is illegal products and services at major corporate restaruant chains?

 

[Nevets]

My point is you can't prevent management's ability to outsource. One can trade that negotiating capital for whatever you want, but if you believe that you are actually preventing something that pure economics hasn't prevented on its own then you are fooling yourself.

If it is cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it will happen. If it is not cheaper to fly smaller jets at lower pay, then it wont happen. Scope has never and will never have any effect on the actual amount of flying done by smaller jets.

Its cheaper to fly 767s at a lower pay as well. Anyways, nothing stops the mainline from using their own pilots to fly 50 seat jets at lower pay.

 

[FlyForFood_NOT]

Bring the 70-90 seat jets on mainline property and we'll be more than glad to fly them here for JetBlue or MidAtlantic E190 payrates.. but give them up to express and we're all screwed for years. Look at Lufthansa.. they just gave up their strongest scope. Still don't know why..