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.