United Reaches Tentative Labor Pact with Pilots

[737nCH11]

iflyjetz,

I was also thinking about the increased number of furloughs due to higher pilot productivity. I wonder if Tilton was serious about taking back some of the flying that we have given to UAX over the past couple of years and giving it to the low cost operation. If so, then the increased flying might keep quite a few guys and gals on the property. Any thoughts?

 

[ZMAN777]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 3:01:24 AM ozstamps wrote:

Do you guys who have yet to vote on this have a feeling this will be voted in by your colleagues?

----------------​

Oz,

Obviously all employees lament the situation we're in, but, are willing to go the distance to insure the company survives. If this wasn't the case I don't think we'd be seeing the operational performance stats we are. Bottom line...it'll pass by a fairly comfortable margin.

We (the pilots) have given the Company a lot of tools and maneuvering room to run a very credible and competitive operation vs. the competition whether it be LCC or other Network carriers. Only time will tell if our management team is up to the task.

The biggest surprise guys are talking about (in a positive way) is that the retirement plans (A & B Funds) were pretty much kept intact. Other than that there's enough sacrifice to go around at all levels of the pilot group.

Other than the obvious huge sacrifice many will be making as a result of furloughs, most of the other stuff will be shared fairly equally. Which is a very good thing. I predict the ones who will be whining the most will be those who have been "milking the system" while the vast majority have been doing their most to make the system work. Pretty typical of any carrier/industry.

The time for laggards is over. Time for everyone to pull their fair share. Right now there isn't too much sympathy for whining about having to work a full schedule and not getting the days off you thought you'd get when you bid a piece of equipment way out of seniority.

Cheers,
Z

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 231 PM 737nCH11 wrote:

iflyjetz,

I was also thinking about the increased number of furloughs due to higher pilot productivity. I wonder if Tilton was serious about taking back some of the flying that we have given to UAX over the past couple of years and giving it to the low cost operation. If so, then the increased flying might keep quite a few guys and gals on the property. Any thoughts?

----------------​

With the new rates and work rules, I expect Tilton to get rid of a lot of UAX flying. The savings are probably mitigated with this new TA, and UAX tarnishes the franchise. How? Flying in an RJ is a cramped experience. Forget about carry on luggage; the overhead bins can barely fit winter coats.
Frequent flyers hate RJs (go to www.flyertalk.com to get a feeling of what bothers FFs). Sidebar: Ozstamps is often on flyertalk; Ozstamps, I hope that you''ve decided to come back to UAL; your business is appreciated. Adding RJs to routes is starting to chase away frequent flyers, our bread and butter.

Do I think that this will keep a lot of pilots on property? Maybe, but the new work rules instantly puts us at 1000 pilots fat. It''ll take a lot of RJ routes to keep them employed.

One other reason why Tilton will probably replace some UAX with LCC is that the UAX carriers are fighting to not have their contracts voided. Those contracts were/are expensive, set up at a time when there was little or no excess capacity.

I''ll also toss in this point ... with the new contract, UAL is instantly overmanned by 1000 pilots. It would take a series of bumps and training to wring the excesses out of the system. A faster solution would be to increase block hours. That increase of block hours would come out of UAX''s hide.

I know that I''ve been rambling here and dancing around the question. Bottom line is that I think that the LCO will take some of UAX''s routes. It may save a few hundred jobs; I''ll make no prediction on a specific number.

 

[767jetz]

I agree with the sentiment that any concessionary contract sucks, however this is not as bad as I was expecting. The biggest suprise to me was the 9% B Fund, (I thought that was gone) the remaining A Fund, and no IRP position. I am relieved to see that any LCC flying will be done by UA pilots within this CBA.

The big question will be furloughs. I know that there have been many early retirements, and probably more to come. That should offset some of the over staffing. I honestly don''t think it will go to 1000 more. My guess is 500-700 over the next year or so as well as the retirements.

Now here''s a question for those of you who want to venture a guess. How do you think the LCC captains will pan out, seniority wise? With 12th year 777 F/O making $138.54 and a 737/A320 Capt making $146.50 at the LCC, it could be a difficult choice.

Also, if I''m not mistaken, the common 737/A320 pay only applies to the LCC. Mainline A320 pilots still make their 2002 pay -30%. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[ZMAN777]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 7:40:29 PM Cosmo wrote:

ZMAN777/iflyjetz/767jetz:

Do any of you know if United has (or will have) enough aircraft to take back a significant amount of the current UAX flying into the new LCC? While I agree that it would be a good idea, especially in many markets that have been downgraded from mainline to RJs in the last year or two (like ORD-MEM or IAD-ATL), it appears that United doesn''t have a whole lot of spare aircraft other than some of the 747-400s.

Am I missing something? Any insight that one or more of you could offer would be appreciated.

----------------​

----------------

Cosmo,

Good question. I don''t think anyone at this point would dare hazard a guess as to what the answer is. Basically I''d say it''s totally dependent on the economy. With greater efficiencies in workrules, aircraft utilization, etc. I''d have to say it''s possible. Moreover, I believe UAL planners are thinking beyond typical UAX destinations with those popular with the leisure traveler (Cancun has been mentioned amongst others) as a way to broaden the revenue base.

As far as aircraft go there''s plenty of availability should UAL decide to go in either direction. I think you''ll see ORD-HNL again soon after exiting that market for the past several years. Similar routes are on the table. But before we start salivating over what could be we need to get our ducks in a row, lower our costs, save every nickle, and start competing for each customer by giving them perceived value at a price they are willing to pay.

Hope that helps answer your question. Good hearing from you. Been a while!

Cheers,
Z

 

[Cosmo]

ZMAN777/iflyjetz/767jetz:

Do any of you know if United has (or will have) enough aircraft to take back a significant amount of the current UAX flying into the new LCC? While I agree that it would be a good idea, especially in many markets that have been downgraded from mainline to RJs in the last year or two (like ORD-MEM or IAD-ATL), it appears that United doesn''t have a whole lot of spare aircraft other than some of the 747-400s. In addition, United might lose some of its current fleet in the bankruptcy process, which could offset the expected increase in daily aircraft utilization.

Am I missing something? Any insight that one or more of you could offer would be appreciated.

 

[frequent_flyer]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 9:41:42 PM ZMAN777 wrote:

Here''s a few major points if/when ratified:

>Snip...

As you can imagine there''s a lot else but those are the big ticket items. No mention of number of furloughs likely to occur due to the increase in
productivity. Not great but more than likely a whole lot better than you could expect from "da judge"!

Cheers,
Z

P.S. Here''s wishing our friends at AMR the best. We really don''t want to see you also end up here with us in BK. Best wishes!

----------------​

Any updates on the number of furloughs to be expected?

FF