golfingboy

Have you ever tried to fire*/layoff/furlough an union employee? It is not easy.

And you wonder why airlines goes through bankruptcy protection

*Without any gross misconduct involved.

GoAmtrak

I wonder if UA could go with the AC rouge model and launch a Ted 2.0 sub-carrier using entirely new, low-cost workgroups. Would that violate the existing union CBAs, even if the new airline was technically a separate carrier? (I'm not advocating for this at all, just curious.)

mre5765

I am sure there are. And how many have the skills and aptitude to do so?

Keep in mind that $60 an hour isn't $120K per year. Mandatory rest and such mean it is much less.

Yes, and even it it didn't, pilots would strike when the CBA was up for re-negotiation until it was.

FWAAA

The Railway Labor Act (US federal labor law that also applies to airlines) and the contracts those high-cost employees have with UA.

If it was possible for UA to hire pilots to fly mainline planes for $60/hr, dontcha think UA would have done it a long time ago? The fact that it's not been done should be your first clue that it's legally and practically impossible to do what you've asked.

Take the pilots, for example. Their contract provides that they own all flying performed on behalf of UA (or its successors). The pilots have granted some exceptions, of course, the biggest one being that UA can outsources planes having no more than 76 seats and weighing no more than 86,000 pounds (MTOW).

The high-cost UA pilots own everything else. Their contract (with their high costs) governs the flying of everything bigger at UA. The only way to accomplish what you've asked is if UA were to shut down (liquidate) and then start a new airline. Meanwhile, DL, AA and US would capture almost all of the former UA customers and new UA would be no more likely to succeed than is VX.

GoAmtrak

So how did AC get away with it? Were their union protections that weak? Is there something in Canadian law that would preclude a retaliatory strike in a way that US law wouldn't? (I don't expect anyone to be able to authoritatively answer, but I'm genuinely curious why AC could do this and UA couldn't.)

ncorman

There are some airlines which require a significant amount of training to become employed. At Southwest you need to have a B737 type rating when hired, not something you run down to the corner to get at an inexpensive price. United just requires a minimum of hours to apply and not a specific type rating.

Pilots are limited to 1000 hours in a year, 100 hours in a month, and United guarantees 65 hours a month for line pilots and 70 hours a month for those on reserve. Of course as mentioned there are other rest rules which are all in FAR Part 121.

Not all pilots fly 1000 hours in a year otherwise you would not really want to fly anytime in December knowing there would be delays due to staffing issues.

aluminumdriver

Thanks for the laugh this evening. I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

Jorgen

Right, which is why you should fire *all* your unionised employees simultaneously.

Baze

Then there would be no United Airlines at all except for non-unionized management.

freshairborne

The problem isn't that mainline pilots cost too much, it's that express pilots aren't paid enough. Express pilots are responsible for lives, just as mainline pilots are. The number of lives is not the issue.

When the poop hits the prop, how much will someone say their pilot is worth? That's a number that should be universal. No, computers don't make the tough decisions, so leave autopilots out of the equation.

An extra 35 cents on your ticket would have covered my raise back in January. It's not the pilot pay that makes or breaks an airline, it's the ability of the management to turn what they have into something as opposed to turning it into nothing. Just look at the recent quarterly results.

FAB

tom911

And file for chapter 7 bankruptcy?

DXjr

I agree with your first sentence, but the rest of this quote negates anything said in it. If the number of lives at stake was NOT the issue when it comes to earning a paycheck, then the crews flying the 747 would be perfectly happy to be paid just as much as those crews flying the A319, but that's certainly NOT the case. The number of seats on the plane has always been the bottom-line basis of pay negotiations throughtout the years, so why, then, is it such a tragedy then when the same thought process is applied to regionals? If you do the math, on a per-seat basis regional pilots are actually overpaid compared to their mainline bretheren.

aluminumdriver

It's not that they're overpaid for what they do but that the regional jets are not cost efficient. A 747 pilot carrying a full load and all the cargo is over $1 million profit for that flight according to United. The pilot's salaries are approx $6000 for 4 pilots. A 747 going down with a self-insured carrier, you do the math on that one. They are very cost efficient for what they produce. ALPA has always pushed for salaries based on revenue produced when you fly, it's why a 747 pilot makes more even though a 737 pilot may work more days/hours/flights in a month.

A RJ 70 with 64 seats has to charge a higher fare to make it profitable. Problem is passengers don't want to pay more for a small RJ unless it's someplace that only a RJ serves such as Aspen. But an RJ going up against SWA to Omaha or New Orleans, etc...cannot charge the fare that it needs to be profitable. So the mainline ends up making up for the shortfall. Throw in that it's a fee for departure where United pays for a full RJ flight even if it goes out empty, makes it even more cost ineffective. It is a major reason why RJ pilot salaries are so low, because of the revenue they produce.

Why United likes them is United wanting the feed without actually having to own the planes, people, or parts. They can then whipsaw each regional carrier against each other for business, which again drives down the costs and what the RJ carrier can pay the pilots. Comes in handy when the economy shrinks and the company wants to shrink flying quickly. With the new FAR regs coming out in Jan, this whole equation is going to change since no pilot is going to pay for all the training they have to get just to get hired as a Part 121 pilot and start out at $20,000/yr maxing out at $70,000. It costs more than law school if you go the civilian route. When the regional's can't fill their planes with crews, the mainline will end up taking over more of the flying. It's already happening, with many of our Regional carriers unable to fill the planes with crews and the flying being shifted over to mainline.

When you put your butt in the seat of a RJ out of Denver and it's snowing outside with nasty ice and blowing wind and snow, are you hoping you got lucky and have an experienced crew up front, or are you hoping that you have two newbies that are making the lowest salary possible at that airline? I know what I think.

AD

sam732

I also think they avoid a lot of, if not all, the liability for all the UX flights. Why would you want all that risk on your books if you can outsource it, as well as avoid union rates and have the flexibility to hire a new company at anytime.

They can also run the UX companies into insolvency and if they own the planes just pop up a new company reusing all their assets and hire the same crew.

It's for these reasons I prefer mainline. I actually don't find the RJs all that uncomfortable, even at 6'1", just hate the no carry on space, but the gate checking is pretty efficient.

AdamUK

I really hope you are never put in charge of any sort of humanitarian effort...

Why should United management agree a contract and then have the right to just fire the lot because it doesn't suit them anymore?

I know United are not that stupid, but clearly you think they ought to be?