Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

UAL Scope: Checkmate

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

100/hour/5y

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Posts
188
Scope: Checkmate

There seems to be a letter circulating around the L-UAL side that was forwarded to me by a buddy of mine over there that I found interesting. Scope is one of the most important sections we have in any contract and it seems there's a gaping hole in that section. We're so focused on 76 seaters and thinking that's the threat, but what about SNB as replacement a/c? I never even thought of it to be honest with you. Managment has made it known that they're wanting to replace the Airbus's and the 737-500's. So if you read this letter below, it sets up a senario that we might find ourselves in with big pay cuts and loss of seat, not to mention stagnation. Anyhow, worth the read and at the very least, should be brought up during the roadshows.

SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED UNITED CONTINENTAL PILOT'S TENTATIVE AGREEMENT

1. There is nothing in the current TA preventing the Company from replacing current aircraft types with lower paying single narrow bodies (SNB).

2. This would be an enormous cost savings for the Company to the estimate of $685,000,000 over the 5 year term of the contract. This estimate ONLY includes known crew costs and does not factor in unknown variables such as lease deferments, improved maintenance costs, etc.

3. The estimates below are based on the pay scales published in the TA.

4. I would be remiss to omit that there is a certain amount of speculation. However, examining the facts, listening to union representatives on how the pay scales for the SNB came to fruition, and knowing how our management team operates, the following is completely plausible.

Facts:

The more conservative pay of the 319, 737-700, and 737-500 were used for this exercise. All references to pay will be based on 12 years of service.

Captain

A319, 700-500 $181.24

EMB-195 $142.38 ($38.86)

EMB-190 $121.12 ($60.02)


First Officers

A319, 700-500 $123.79

EMB-195 $97.24 ($26.55)

EMB-190 $82.72 ($41.07)

The figures referenced above are the pay rates from the TA. The numbers in () are the differences between the rates from the A319, 737-700, 500 and the published rates for the SNB aircraft. These figures are used in the calculations below.

We have all heard that the company wants to get rid of the Airbus aircraft due to age, reliability, maintenance cost, etc. Additionally, it is known that the 737-500 will be gone prior to mid year 2013. Currently, United has a total of 203 aircraft that are either A320, A319, B737-700 or B737-500. The industry average of 6 crews per aircraft equates to 1218 Captains and an equal amount of First Officers. Assume an average of 80 hours of flight pay time per month for each of the mentioned pilots. Considering the above points and the figures from the pay rates, the following multiples are the staggering results which would support the Company's motivation to move high paying jobs from the current fleets to the lower paying jobs in the SNB's. Please keep in mind this is BASIC crew savings. Subject the same, the following calculations are on a PER YEAR based and SNB specific.

Captains

EMB 195 $45,438,220

EMB 190 $70,180,185


First Officers

EMB 195 $31,044,384

EMB 190 $48,022,329


Total pilot savings

EMB 195 $76,482,604

EMB 190 $118,202,514

Additional Savings--B plan contribution

EMB 195 $12,237,216

EMB 190 $18,912,402


TOTAL CREW COST SAVINGS PER YEAR

EMB 195 $88,721,820

EMB 190 $137,114,916


Note: An additional crew savings of $7-8,000,000 per year is realized with the reduction of the third flight attendant in the EMB 190 and 195.

The potential savings for the Company is HUGE. Additionally, the Company will be allowed to take advantage of the scope provision that allows them to increase the number of 76 seat RJ's by simply adding new SNB aircraft. Contractually, the Company must adhere to the 1:1.25 ratio if they increase the number of 76 seat aircraft above 153. In order to maximize the number of allowable 76 seat aircraft, 325 allowed under the T/A, they must add 215 SNB aircraft (total 76 seat hulls allowed=325, minus 153, 76 seat hulls currently allowed = 172 x 1.25= 215. The current combined number of A320, A319, B737-500, and 737-700 is 203, difference of 12 hulls.​
 
How are you going to stop the company from operating airplanes they want to operate on your certificate with your pilots? If the company is going to use 100 seat airplanes don't you want them flown by mainline pilots? As a union we've always tied pay to aircraft size to justify more pay for larger planes, this makes it hard to argue against lower pay for smaller planes.

What do you suggest as a solution here?
 
How are you going to stop the company from operating airplanes they want to operate on your certificate with your pilots? If the company is going to use 100 seat airplanes don't you want them flown by mainline pilots? As a union we've always tied pay to aircraft size to justify more pay for larger planes, this makes it hard to argue against lower pay for smaller planes.

What do you suggest as a solution here?

At CAL we used to had 100 seats airplanes they were called DC-9's...
 
Did this bean counter figure out how much lost revenue there will be with fewer seats on these smaller planes?

They reduced pitch another 3" in first, 6" in couch, and introduced a standing only zone with over head handgrips to replace the last 8 rows.
 
So to follow this logic, the company should get rid of the 787/777's and replace them with 767-300's. Then they should find a regional to undercut the current 70 seat rj's with some dirt cheap 50 seaters. Then they should round up a bunch of beech 1900's and replace the q400.
 
How are you going to stop the company from operating airplanes they want to operate on your certificate with your pilots? If the company is going to use 100 seat airplanes don't you want them flown by mainline pilots? As a union we've always tied pay to aircraft size to justify more pay for larger planes, this makes it hard to argue against lower pay for smaller planes.

What do you suggest as a solution here?

Paybanding! :beer:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top