Indeed, quite enjoyable... here's a question... are there any restrictions about who can visit a cockpit before takeoff, or is that purely at the discretion of the crew onboard? What about sitting in one of the seats?
I ask because I had a flight within the past couple of years where I wanted to snag a look at the nose cone number for my tracking. I asked the purser if I could pop my head up front before the flight and was given the thumbs-up. I popped in and asked if they had the number - which they offered and commented that I must be a tracker. I acknowledged that indeed I was and then the captain offered to take my photo in the left seat. Of course, I still have that photo, from N522UA
Now I could see this happening for a kid, but I'm almost 30 and was surprised that I'd be offered such an opportunity in the "security" era in which we're living.
...I don't know the UA system all that well, but I find it curious that a route could fall from a widebody to an RJ. Do you have examples?
LAX-SEA, ORD-DTW, ORD-CLE are a few that come to mind off the top of my head. You can poke around departedflights.com to find some more. LAX-SEA is now all RJ and ORD-DTW is down to one mainline a day. I remember flying that one in stretch DC8s and DC10s. What's more disturbing is that the RJs themselves are shrinking on some of these routes. I flew ORD-DTW a few years ago on an E175. Now, it's all CR7s except for a lone 757. Domestically, UA mainline is a shell of its former self; it's really just a mixture of various regional carriers flying under the UA name.
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?
Several airlines fly E-Jet sized aircraft etc at mainline. JetBlue, USAirways, Air Canada, Delta (courtesy of NWA and the DC-9). Like I said in my post the E-190/195 is the roughly same seat count as our 737's. The cost to operate the E Jets is cheaper than what they would be replacing (discounting the initial purchase cost) due to better fuel burn/newer so requiring less maintenance, etc.....So there is no reason why they shouldn't be flown by mainline pilots.
The reason USAirways is considering selling their E-190's has nothing to do with the economics of those aircraft, but more with contractual limits for minimum fleet counts that they are bumping up against. USAirways would like to cut more aircraft and the E-190's are the only option since they are not part of the scope provisions contained within the east or west pilots contract.
Several airlines fly E-Jet sized aircraft etc at mainline. JetBlue, USAirways, Air Canada, Delta (courtesy of NWA and the DC-9). Like I said in my post the E-190/195 is the roughly same seat count as our 737's. The cost to operate the E Jets is cheaper than what they would be replacing (discounting the initial purchase cost) due to better fuel burn/newer so requiring less maintenance, etc.....So there is no reason why they shouldn't be flown by mainline pilots.
Yes, and add the 100-seat Fokker 100s AA used to fly to your list also. I'm certainly not saying there isn't precedent for it, what I'm saying is that if UAUA can pay a UAX carrier 80% of the cost to operate it as mainline, then that's what they're going to want to do in the interests of cutting costs so long as they're not able to sell tickets at a higher fare.
I stand by my point that if UA can make the case to the public that mainline operated flights, with a higher fare, are worth it, then that's great. I'm entirely in favor of abandoning UAX entirely and operating as much with mainline as possible and, also as I've said before, I would *love* E-Jets in the UA mainline fleet. Unfortunatly, the question isn't whether I'd prefer it - the question is whether the market will bear the added cost. Most FTers would probably pay extra to never fly _____ (fill in your least favorite UAX "partner" here), but as ConciergeMike said above, FTers aren't average pax, and making the case to most of the non-status friends/family I have would be hard.
I hate to say this again, but the UAUA team has to work together to make the case that mainline=better for real financial, service, safety or other reasons. Pax need to know why they should spend 20% more on a UA mainline ticket instead of an AA RJ ticket from BNA to ORD.
A) In some cities, this is simply not possible. There are many city pairs at all carriers that have Express divisions where a mainline jet does not see the light of day on that given route. If your Point A and Point B happen to be one of those city pairs, there's nothing you can do. The average consumer is going to take the RJ or prop job and suck it up, because society has not advanced to the point of having the FTer mindset that you can connect in six different places to get to a city not too far away. Most people would think that such an idea is nuts.
B) You answered your own question. Again, the average consumer is something that the average FTer is not, and when FTers attempt to relate their travel knowledge to that of someone that doesn't possess such knowledge, they often end up giving their hypothetical average person way too much credit. The average person is happy if they look out the airport window and see the correct paint job on the plane, and that the plane has wings and engines.
I don't know the UA system all that well, but I find it curious that a route could fall from a widebody to an RJ. Do you have examples?
I do. I remember flying a 767 from Miami to O'Hare, and Miami to Dulles a few years back.
Freshairborne
__________________
These are my own observations and/or opinions, and not necessarily those of the Air Line Pilots Association or UAL Corp.
Few and far between, but you're right. WAS-CHS is a good example of an RJ only market. But as a Chicago flyer, as I look at a sampling of RJ routes, more than 50% have some "mainline" alternative, usually on Southwest.
I think that was my point. I have endless respect for pilots, but ALPA needs to accept the reality that they need to convince customers to prefer them to "sub-industry" paid regional pilots. Management isn't all roses (or really even a couple), but I don't buy the argument that they mistreat employees to get their jollies. The fight between ALPA and management is all about $$$ and only about $$$. Both groups need to either focus on getting customers to show a preference (with their wallets) for mainline operated flights, or accept that flying will continue to be outsourced to cheaper regionals. I do think that both management and employees need to work toward this goal, which means my mainline flying experience needs to be better than an RJ experience. This includes ground staff, cockpit crew and cabin crew. Right now, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that I'd be better off with UA mainline staff over Skywest staff. However, I'd take mainline over messy any day. United as a company comprised of employees (ops and management together) need to make a unified effort or we won't see an end to outsourcing.
We can all agree (I hope) that UAUA's *SOLE* responsibility as a publicly traded corporation is to make money. Everything else they do is operational, in support of that responsibility. However much I would prefer mainline service and mainline staff everywhere, I'll bet that if starting tomorrow they operated all routes with mainline aircraft, they'd enter Chapter 7 by the end of the year. How would they support it? Where would the additional $$$ come from?
I'm going to give you an example of what else this is about. I am on my 3rd of 3 back-to-back 4 day trips right now.
Today is my 11th straight day of flying. I begin my 11 hour, 22 minute duty day in a couple hours, and I will finally be home tomorrow night. We are required by FAR to have 24 hours free of duty at least once in 7 days. Getting home at 11 AM one day and leaving at 11:30 the next qualifies, but you don't get much done around the house in those hours, especially after flying 7 hours from Hawaii to Denver, taking off at 11 PM and then wearing your sunglasses for the last 2 and a half hours of the flight.
I have been at the controls of 757's and 767's 25 times in the last 10 days. I have logged more night flight in the past week than most private pilots log in their life. I haven't had a decent night sleep, uninterrupted by Circadian Desynchronosis, since last month sometime. I have been flying for this company for 23 years, and that seniority got me this schedule. I did not bid it, the company's Preferential Bidding System did. I can say that against a lot of odds, I can safely operate my aircraft through it. But what if I didn't think that, and called in sick from fatigue?
Our Flight Ops VP sent us all a sweet little message recently regarding sick leave usage, saying 'we've been down this path before', and 'it leads to actions that are distasteful to pilots', and 'if this trend does not change these actions will need to be used to protect our business'.
We recently got another e-message from above that stated "Of all the stress relievers and worry reducers, having a "PLAN B" is the best one. Very inspiring, don't you think?
Freshairborne
__________________
These are my own observations and/or opinions, and not necessarily those of the Air Line Pilots Association or UAL Corp.
I'm going to give you an example of what else this is about. I am on my 3rd of 3 back-to-back 4 day trips right now.
Today is my 11th straight day of flying. I begin my 11 hour, 22 minute duty day in a couple hours, and I will finally be home tomorrow night. We are required by FAR to have 24 hours free of duty at least once in 7 days. Getting home at 11 AM one day and leaving at 11:30 the next qualifies, but you don't get much done around the house in those hours, especially after flying 7 hours from Hawaii to Denver, taking off at 11 PM and then wearing your sunglasses for the last 2 and a half hours of the flight.
I have been at the controls of 757's and 767's 25 times in the last 10 days. I have logged more night flight in the past week than most private pilots log in their life. I haven't had a decent night sleep, uninterrupted by Circadian Desynchronosis, since last month sometime. I have been flying for this company for 23 years, and that seniority got me this schedule. I did not bid it, the company's Preferential Bidding System did. I can say that against a lot of odds, I can safely operate my aircraft through it. But what if I didn't think that, and called in sick from fatigue?
Our Flight Ops VP sent us all a sweet little message recently regarding sick leave usage, saying 'we've been down this path before', and 'it leads to actions that are distasteful to pilots', and 'if this trend does not change these actions will need to be used to protect our business'.
We recently got another e-message from above that stated "Of all the stress relievers and worry reducers, having a "PLAN B" is the best one. Very inspiring, don't you think?
Freshairborne
Wow. That's a lot of flying in a short period. That is stretching the capacity of any pilot, no matter how skilled, healthy or energetic they may be. It's also an accident waiting to happen. I be concerned about one's ability to cope with a major emergency at the end of a schedule like that; there's pretty substantial evidence that fatigue degrades performance regardless of skill level. Frankly, I don't know how you do it: I'd be utterly exhaused after that much flying over that timeframe and that amount of flight time would definitely exceed my personal comfort level. Thanks for the post; it was really informative. I wish you an uneventful remainder of your trip.
Wow. That's a lot of flying in a short period. That is stretching the capacity of any pilot, no matter how skilled, healthy or energetic they may be. It's also an accident waiting to happen. I be concerned about one's ability to cope with a major emergency at the end of a schedule like that; there's pretty substantial evidence that fatigue degrades performance regardless of skill level. Frankly, I don't know how you do it: I'd be utterly exhaused after that much flying over that timeframe and that amount of flight time would definitely exceed my personal comfort level. Thanks for the post; it was really informative. I wish you an uneventful remainder of your trip.
We are responsible for determining our own fitness to fly. Despite the veiled threats from managers regarding improper use of sick leave, if I didn't think I was fit to fly, I'd walk off the plane in Timbuktu (oh, wait; that's Express or *A now) rather than jeopardize my own safety, and by default, my crew and passengers.
But, I'd better be ready to justify it at "the Mahogany Table", and hope that I'm not a defendant at the next law suit against the pilots for abuse of sick leave.
It can be a wee bit of a sticky wicket.
Freshairborne
__________________
These are my own observations and/or opinions, and not necessarily those of the Air Line Pilots Association or UAL Corp.
I'm going to give you an example of what else this is about.
First, you indeed may have logged more night hours in this one trip than I have in my entire flying career (not really a career, though, more of a hobby).
Second, I feel obliged to say that I trust United's mainline pilots to keep me safe and make the right decisions about their capacity to fly, or not fly. I don't share the *same* level of trust with all pilots, and my personal safety is important to me.
It sounds like you're making three perfectly reasonable points, but I'm not sure what they have to do with the "fight" about what routes can be outsourced to regional carriers.
All of that said, aluminumdriver politely suggested that we not get too OT here. If anyone's interested in continuing (in a new thread) a discussion about unique approaches to solving the challanges that UAUA, mgmt and the employees face, I'd be interested.
Indeed, quite enjoyable... here's a question... are there any restrictions about who can visit a cockpit before takeoff, or is that purely at the discretion of the crew onboard? What about sitting in one of the seats?
I ask because I had a flight within the past couple of years where I wanted to snag a look at the nose cone number for my tracking. I asked the purser if I could pop my head up front before the flight and was given the thumbs-up. I popped in and asked if they had the number - which they offered and commented that I must be a tracker. I acknowledged that indeed I was and then the captain offered to take my photo in the left seat. Of course, I still have that photo, from N522UA
Now I could see this happening for a kid, but I'm almost 30 and was surprised that I'd be offered such an opportunity in the "security" era in which we're living.
No problem visiting the cockpit. As long as it's not in the last 10-15 prior to departure time, we usually have time to talk and answer any questions. You can also have your picture taken, I just took a 50+ guys picture in the seat this week, so it's not unusual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 000123UA
Yes, and add the 100-seat Fokker 100s AA used to fly to your list also. I'm certainly not saying there isn't precedent for it, what I'm saying is that if UAUA can pay a UAX carrier 80% of the cost to operate it as mainline, then that's what they're going to want to do in the interests of cutting costs so long as they're not able to sell tickets at a higher fare.
I stand by my point that if UA can make the case to the public that mainline operated flights, with a higher fare, are worth it, then that's great. I'm entirely in favor of abandoning UAX entirely and operating as much with mainline as possible and, also as I've said before, I would *love* E-Jets in the UA mainline fleet. Unfortunatly, the question isn't whether I'd prefer it - the question is whether the market will bear the added cost. Most FTers would probably pay extra to never fly _____ (fill in your least favorite UAX "partner" here), but as ConciergeMike said above, FTers aren't average pax, and making the case to most of the non-status friends/family I have would be hard.
I hate to say this again, but the UAUA team has to work together to make the case that mainline=better for real financial, service, safety or other reasons. Pax need to know why they should spend 20% more on a UA mainline ticket instead of an AA RJ ticket from BNA to ORD.
Negotiations only work when both sides are wanting to negotiate though. I read an interesting tidbit today about this whole E190 thing. Seems a United FO worked at Republic during his furlough. He stated that the CEO of Republic wants to grow Republic into a larger airline, and is attempting to buy other airlines for their operating certificates because it's much easier and cheaper to grow an airline that way. He attempted to do it with Airtran (that was defeated) but did acquire Midwest Airlines, and is now trying to get Frontier. I was wondering why United wasn't screaming about one of their UAX partners using money United pays them, to try and buy a competitor like Frontier and then compete against United. Now I think I know why.
E-190's are not allowed to be flown by UAX due to the United pilot's scope clause. What this FO said is happening is Republic is trying to grow into a larger carrier to then request enty into the *A. If they can get entry into the *A as a standalone carrier, like CAL or AAA, then they can buy as many E-190's as possible and then fly United flying through codesharing, thus getting around the United pilot scope clause.
That makes sense on why United refuses to discuss E-190 flying for mainline, and Republic's surprise bid for Frontier. Wouldn't surprise me at all unfortunately, since I've never worked for a company before that dislikes its own employees as much as United management does
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
