Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 3,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
There is no fee to ride the jumpseat. Depending on the airline, if they take unlimited jumpseaters then there is no cost to ride in the back.
No longer 100% true. Ask any UAX pilot what it now costs them to OMC on UA/UAX. This changed a few months age. I don't know their "scale" but they now pay, and pay more f they sit in open F seats vs Y vs the flight deck. Another revenue enhancing opportunity for UA.
No longer 100% true. Ask any UAX pilot what it now costs them to OMC on UA/UAX. This changed a few months age. I don't know their "scale" but they now pay, and pay more f they sit in open F seats vs Y vs the flight deck. Another revenue enhancing opportunity for UA.
Does the GA have to process the fee/collect funds or is that done elsewhere in the system, e.g. a credit card is already associated with the passenger and ticket before they clear?
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 3,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoingAway
Does the GA have to process the fee/collect funds or is that done elsewhere in the system, e.g. a credit card is already associated with the passenger and ticket before they clear?
No, UA does it automatically, similar to if you list on a flight and check in (online...no zed/id90 required,) it is done behind the scenes. I hav seen many UAX pilots request Y when the cockpit is full, then when I close the plane door, they are in F. While I may not be for the fees, if you reseat yourself in F after requesting Y, that is the same as a revenue self upgrader. When I close out the flight, I will move that person in the computer to F. As long as UA charges a different price for the product, if one is going to use it, one should pay the going rate and not try to get away with the small theft (maybe $20 is my guess.) If you want to pay for Y, than sit in it, if you want to sit in F, than pay for it.
No longer 100% true. Ask any UAX pilot what it now costs them to OMC on UA/UAX. This changed a few months age. I don't know their "scale" but they now pay, and pay more f they sit in open F seats vs Y vs the flight deck. Another revenue enhancing opportunity for UA.
United will find itself in BIG trouble with the Feds if they try to charge for the jumpseat. The pilot Jumpseat is a crew position, so they can't charge someone to actual sit in a seat and work. They can charge for sitting in the back, and so if someone from UAX wants to JS and there are seats in the back, they are supposed to sit back there, thus get charged. However, until this is sorted out, I tell them to request the JS and take the JS if it's available, don't sit in back.
According to ALPA, they are talking with United about this, since it is once again a short sighted (read Tilton stupid) idea that will bite them in the rear.
UAX Pilots and Pass Charges
United Airlines and all UAX managements have signed an agreement whereby all UAX employees that occupy a cabin seat on any UAX flight will be charged an associated fee. It is also expected, but not written in this agreement, that UAX pilots would also be charged for a seat while traveling under the provisions of unlimited jumpseat travel on their own carrier, as well as other UAX flights.
Needless to say, the UAX pilots are outraged with this agreement. The UAL-MEC Jumpseat Committee is also in agreement that there be no charges levied for a jumpseat, flight deck or cabin. UAX pilots jumpseat agreements allow for unlimited jumpseats to all offline carriers as well as their own pilots. We fully support these UAX carriers in their efforts to exercise their agreements to their fullest .However, we cannot negotiate on their behalf, nor can we represent them in discussions with their respective managements. We will do everything we can to support these UAX pilots with their endeavors.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
What is your opinion on the airline retiring the entire 737 fleet? Do you feel it would've been a better decision if planes were coming online to replace these older, less fuel efficent planes? Do you think the new plane order if it goes through will grow the fleet somewhat past the 360 it will become soon?
Also, what was your favorite United livery? And what seems to be a general concensus among your peers for these questions. Thanks!
What is your opinion on the airline retiring the entire 737 fleet? Do you feel it would've been a better decision if planes were coming online to replace these older, less fuel efficent planes? Do you think the new plane order if it goes through will grow the fleet somewhat past the 360 it will become soon?
Also, what was your favorite United livery? And what seems to be a general concensus among your peers for these questions. Thanks!
I was against the grounding of the 737 fleet. They were not that old, or inefficient, especially compared to the regional jets that are replacing them. NWA continued to use their DC-9 fleet for decades just fixing up the interiors of the cabins to keep them fresh. The 737 was a great jet, and did a nice job. The problem was that once United decided they wanted to ground them, they stopped putting any care into them, from maintenance to cleanliness to fixing up the interiors, so they were always broken and smelly. Pulling down capacity appears to have been a proper call with the economy, but in my opinion the smarter call is using larger jets with less frequency (ie 3 737 flts a day) versus more frequency with less efficient planes (4-5 RJ flts a day).
I would definitely like to see newer planes coming onboard to replace them, but I don't expect to see any new planes for quite a while. There is no plane order, the RFP from Tilton is a red herring and wall street knows it. I don't see Boeing or Airbus rushing to do anything for Tilton since I think even they know United is just doing the typical "buy new planes" carrot during contract negotiations. I think what United really wants is E190's at UAX, but the pilots have already said we will shut United down over that issue. The United pilots want to fly the E190's at industry standard rates (ie Jetblue) but management is already balking. They want them at UAX where they can pay substandard rates. So I don't expect any plane orders for several years in my opinion.
As for livery, really don't care personally. I liked the old Blue/Grey paint scheme because that at least represented Wolfe trying to remake United and grow it, representing a better time at United. I've always liked our old paint scheme, with the white body, and orange,red and blue stripe. I just found that one classy. The new paint scheme? It's ok. My problem with the new paint scheme is that it goes with Tilton and his team, they seem to want nothing to do with United history or legacy, no red or orange colors that have always been United.
That said, the new paint scheme is better than the old Grey one since the older paint was peeling off and just looking beat up and old. I can't answer for the general consensus of my peers since I don't really know.
Thanks for the question.
AD
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Last edited by aluminumdriver; Aug 11, 09 at 8:07 am.
If the contract were changed to allow E190s to be mainline and only mainline pilots would be able to fly them, do you think that would be a legitimate compromise? It seems that planes around that size are needed from a route/capacity perspective but each party at the table is holding something back to be able to reach an agreement.
If the contract were changed to allow E190s to be mainline and only mainline pilots would be able to fly them, do you think that would be a legitimate compromise? It seems that planes around that size are needed from a route/capacity perspective but each party at the table is holding something back to be able to reach an agreement.
We could fly the EMB190 tomorrow. Nothing in our contract to prevent that.
Our contract stipulates that anything over 70 seats WILL be flown by UAL ALPA pilots. And that is something that WILL NOT change during contract negotiations. We have seen too much of the mainline flying already transferred to United Express as a result of allowing the 70 seaters. So while UAL parks the entire 737 fleet, United Express is growing by ~13.5-14.5% in the 3rd Qtr 2009 and over 10% for the entire year.
Our contract stipulates that anything over 70 seats WILL be flown by UAL ALPA pilots. And that is something that WILL NOT change during contract negotiations. We have seen too much of the mainline flying already transferred to United Express as a result of allowing the 70 seaters. So while UAL parks the entire 737 fleet, United Express is growing by ~13.5-14.5% in the 3rd Qtr 2009 and over 10% for the entire year.
DC
So it sounds as though nothing needs to change about the contract (from a # of seats perspective) to bring E190s on board, simply that there needs to be an agreeable pay rate for this work, correct?
If the contract were changed to allow E190s to be mainline and only mainline pilots would be able to fly them, do you think that would be a legitimate compromise? It seems that planes around that size are needed from a route/capacity perspective but each party at the table is holding something back to be able to reach an agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
So it sounds as though nothing needs to change about the contract (from a # of seats perspective) to bring E190s on board, simply that there needs to be an agreeable pay rate for this work, correct?
That is correct, but the problem lies with TILTON!! He does not appear to want to grow United mainline, he continues to want to shrink it, while growing UAX and *A. Bringing on E190's to mainline flying makes sense, but does not accomplish the goal of fewer people/planes and parts for United. From what I hear the company continues to make a circular argument.
Company: We need E190's.
ALPA: Fine but we fly them.
Company: We don't have pay rates negotiated for E190's.
ALPA: Fine, here is what we will fly the E190's for.
Company: We can't negotiate payrates when we don't even own E190's.
ALPA: Fine, buy some E190's for mainline and we'll negotiate payrates.
Company: If you want E190's, you will have to get industry standard E190 pay rates.
ALPA: Jetblue just signed E190 payrates, we can go off of that, here you go.
Company: SILENCE......(chirp chirp chirp chirp)
It's pretty apparent they don't want United mainline growing at all, even with small E190's. But if the Company wants E190's, and the only way they can get them without shutting the company down for good is to negotiate with mainline pilots for them, maybe eventually something will get done.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Last edited by aluminumdriver; Aug 11, 09 at 10:24 am.
I would LOVE to see mainline E-Jets, but hasn't that proven generally unworkable by legacies? What would *really* happen to the cost structure of those flights if they were mainline operated? Isn't US Airways considering selling their mainline E-Jets fleet due to economic un-viability and outsourcing the work to a regional?
I definitely appreciate the bind that is created by regional jet ops for both management and employees. Management can't just "create" demand for routes and they know that reducing frequency is an extremely slippery slope when it comes to running a large, hub-spoke network that depends on connecting traffic to full long-haul flights.
There are plenty of sound-bites flying back and forth on this issue, but they're all absent any real, concrete answer to this question: how can you maintain frequency/convenience (which is what drives high-revenue business travel), while also keeping capacity low *without* dramatically increasing the cost of serving a given city?
I would LOVE to see mainline E-Jets, but hasn't that proven generally unworkable by legacies? What would *really* happen to the cost structure of those flights if they were mainline operated? Isn't US Airways considering selling their mainline E-Jets fleet due to economic un-viability and outsourcing the work to a regional?
I definitely appreciate the bind that is created by regional jet ops for both management and employees. Management can't just "create" demand for routes and they know that reducing frequency is an extremely slippery slope when it comes to running a large, hub-spoke network that depends on connecting traffic to full long-haul flights.
There are plenty of sound-bites flying back and forth on this issue, but they're all absent any real, concrete answer to this question: how can you maintain frequency/convenience (which is what drives high-revenue business travel), while also keeping capacity low *without* dramatically increasing the cost of serving a given city?
I don't see why it wouldn't work with legacies if they are paid industry standard wages. It's better IMO for a company to keep work inhouse than keep farming it out to others that put forth an inferior product. E190's are essentially small 737's in size, so they should be flown by mainline pilots and grow United again into a major airline, not keep shrinking it to another Pan Am. United cannot survive with UAX providing all feed, and *A providing most of the international lift. That's why it's the line in the sand for the pilots, if we give away the E190, then United will cease as a real airline in the near future.
Frequency is one issue, but so is comfort and product. If UAX can supply 5 CRJ-200's a day to a station, or Mainline can provide 3 E-190's or 3 airbus, then I think the better product wins out over frequency. That is why Independence Air and other regional carriers that tried to go on their own by providing small jet, heavy frequency service, did not survive.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Location: Nearly equidistant from EWR and PHL. Stranger in a strange land - a Devils fan in Phlyers country.
Programs: PWP Chief of Les Clefs d':rolleyes:, Sarcasm Diamond, Stupidity Hater Titanium, CO Silver
Posts: 14,024
Many business travelers would disagree about product vs. frequency. IMO, they would accept a crap product if it meant that their time was less impacted.
__________________
The UDU is an African drum originated by the Igbo people of Nigeria. An EUA is an upgrade.|My FM|Our FM
Location: Below the approach path to either runway 19 @ DCA or 28 @ ORD
Programs: UA 1K, NW Gold
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
Frequency is one issue, but so is comfort and product. If UAX can supply 5 CRJ-200's a day to a station, or Mainline can provide 3 E-190's or 3 airbus, then I think the better product wins out over frequency. That is why Independence Air and other regional carriers that tried to go on their own by providing small jet, heavy frequency service, did not survive.
With all due respect, I disagree with your assertion that Independence Air failed due to a public perception that their CRJ fleet was substandard in terms of comfort. The principal problem with FlyI, in my opinion, is that they expanded too fast, increasing their costs, without first building their brand and customer levels to a sufficient degree. A significant contribution to this failure was the lack of a compelling customer incentive program, particularly in the face of aggressive responses from Mileage Plus. Furthermore, FlyI's costs per ASM with the CRJ were higher than those of the competition (i.e. UA). I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the demise of Independence Air was caused in significant part by a perceived inferiority of the CRJ product.
__________________
Curious about LO transatlantic C? Check out my trip report!
I don't see why it wouldn't work with legacies if they are paid industry standard wages. It's better IMO for a company to keep work inhouse than keep farming it out to others that put forth an inferior product.
Maybe that's part of what I'm asking. Would the cost to United be the same for operating an E190 in-house or having TCF operate it?
BNA-ORD is $49 one way in L for next week and $153 for tomorrow. There's 50+ open seats on the combined AA/UA regional jets. On these routes I would personally pay as much as a 25% premium to fly a mainline operated E190 instead of a CR7 or an ER4, but I don't know if I'm normal. If UA's expenses for flying 3 E190s (instead of 4 CR7s) went up by 15%, wouldn't UA lose money to people choosing from any of AAs 7 ER4s a day? AA offers lower fares and more frequency - I don't think the average customer will pay more for an E190, especially if their connection time to LHR or NRT is now 4 hours instead of 80 mins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
not keep shrinking it to another Pan Am.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
Frequency is one issue, but so is comfort and product. If UAX can supply 5 CRJ-200's a day to a station, or Mainline can provide 3 E-190's or 3 airbus, then I think the better product wins out over frequency. That is why Independence Air and other regional carriers that tried to go on their own by providing small jet, heavy frequency service, did not survive.
Comfort/product is important to me, but it isn't everything. This is a marketing question. "Back in the day" (gotta be 2001-ish) I remember AA ran a massive marketing campaign in Chicago - "Nothing But Jets" - they upgraded the G terminal and AA dumped the Saabs and ATRs at ORD. They flew all E-135/140/145s and we were all psyched. Times have changed, but I wonder how successful that campaign was. I wonder if they were able to measurably increase their market share and profit around RJ ops as a result. If so, that would be good evidence that UA could do the same around flying mainline E-Jets.
I would argue that Independence (and others) fail(ed) because they don't have a network, not because of a lack of comfort. In contrast, UA survives because of the network. Arguments about alliances aside, United operates the largest fleet of 747-400s in North America, and operates over 100 int'l config widebody aircraft. This is in contrast with 115 for AA, 95 for DL and 47 for NWA. They fill those planes with people that arrive on RJs that lose money on their own. United can afford to lose money on those flights, but Independence couldn't.
I think the real interesting point of this E-Jets discussion is forcing United to get creative and bring the issues of safety and comfort to their marketing. Timing is good with all the discussions on the subject of safety (Colgan, US1549 and AF447), and maybe UA can get innovative about offering safety as a competitive advantage. "United's E-Jets are flown by United's own pilots, trained at our world renowned training center, blah blah, and are maintained by, blah blah - we don't outsource your safety blah blah" - if that message could convince people to pay a price premium to choose UA E-Jets, that would be great.
However, on my flights this weekend I was astonished to see two sets of parents let their kids walk to the lav during a descent through the anvil of a major storm flying into O'Hare (see UA256 Sunday night). Flight crew had asked cabin crew to be seated as they expected moderate turbulence through the descent. We encountered only light turbulence. Those kids would have had broken necks (or worse) if we had hit turbulence like CO128 last week. Despite the melodramatic media, safety remains a low concern for the traveling public. (it is amazing what you see when you're in 51B instead of 1B, )
Agreed
)
