Scope refers to the 'scope' of our flying. It addresses things like Regional/Small Jets, Code Shares, and Joint Ventures. For example, UA pilot scope allows express to fly aircraft with up to 70 seats. They can fly a 1-1 ratio with mainline block hours. This has directly resulted in the loss of thousands of mainline pilot jobs, shrinkage of our fleet by 100+ planes, and the overall shrinkage of the airline. BTW, they are not very close to the max they can fly! There is surely a place for such aircraft, but 3+ hrs on a CRJ50 is just wrong. They were sold as a way to expand the operation, but have been used to replace mainline operations instead. Every relaxation we have given has been used to bludgeon us -- it's time to take the hammer away from them! The CAL pilot agreement limits Small jets to 50 or fewer seats. A JCBA that allows >50 seat jets will not pass.

On the long haul end of the scale, they are attempting to replace our widebody flying by using Joint Ventures (such as Aer Lingus). If expanded, this will cost more jobs at UAL.

So basically, scope is identifying and protecting the flying that will be done by UA pilots. You can think of scope as 'Job Protection'.

Hope that helps!

This feels tricky to me. Mainline pilots flying 51-100 seat aircraft are certainly a good thing for customers as the airline will charge whatever the route will bear irrespective of the equipment or who sits in the captains chair. However, if the airline remains resistant to implementing this then it could mean routes flown by CR7 and E175 today regress to CR2 and E145 again. Not good.

The preponderance of 50 seat RJ's at Continental was always a reason to think 2x about booking them over UA. Any agreement that means more 50 seat RJ flying to outstations should be viewed with skepticism by customers.

FTR: No one should suffer. Everyone should have a happy work environment and be fairly compensated. That of course means that if things turn out not to be to a particular group's liking, they move on and let people who want to work under those conditions take their position. Just like customers should move on when something isn't to their liking.

UA/CO has a tremendous base of assets and a management that gives a damn. We'll see how much of the United poison carries over. The track record this past decade is horrid. Language like you see at http://www.facebook.com/UnitedFlightAttendants isn't encouraging.

I find it truly unfortunate that you and Axey feel the need to perpetuate your anger at what was a mix of bad attitude, bad weather, bad manpower planning, and inept management. As for staffing the airline with less experienced pilots, you'll get your wish if the predicted pilot shortage comes about. Then, you will probably be on airplanes that has pilots that are paid more than they're worth, which I'm guessing, you probably assume is the case right now.

Just keep in mind that when things go wrong in our work environment, you'd be crying for the highest paid pilots on earth in the cockpit if you're on the plane. Not tootin' my own horn, just stating fact.

FAB

That's not how it works. We get to vote on our contract-if enough of us feel it is not good enough then it won't pass. If the majority think it's ok but I don't - then I agree that I should consider something else. Until that point I will exercise my right to set my contract

My prediction is that 50 seat jets will go away. 70 will be the new 50! You will see mostly 90-110 seaters show up in large numbers. They will eventually all be flown by mainline pilots.

I'm supportive of new UA mainline crews flying 70 seat + aircraft - pay scale may differ, but damn it these should be mainline pilots flying this.... I understand the costs involved in outsourcing it before - but I can't see it now.

RJ's are a mainstay of the domestic fleet; it's not longer an experiment to be farmed out to other carriers...

Run it as a separate subsidiary but own it (e.g. Comair, Lufthansa City Line, etc)

That is pretty much the sentiment of mainline pilots.

FAB

What might work well is if UA agrees to capped number of outsourced 70 seaters (say 100 or 150) and then adds a new payscale for 90-110 seaters that are all mainline. Not sure if the pilots or mgmt would agree.

Whats your take on 66 seat aircraft that were built for 70? (i.e. E+ reduces the capacity to 66 vs the standard 70 on say the CR7, or if they were to add another row/2 of E+/F to an ER7 to get it to under 70 seats)

From a customer perspective, I would love to see more mainline jets and less UX. I certainly hope to see mainline crews on 70-110 seaters in the near future. What I hope does NOT happen is that a scope clause forces the new UA to rely MORE on 50 seat CR2s. That would be very bad for the customer.

has anyone seen any numbers as to what the new UA routes from IAH-AKL/LOS will do to increase pilot numbers? With so many former (UA) pilots on furlough, I'd say 100-200 could def be brought back by the end of 2011 or 1Q12 pending the delivery of the 787 isn't delayed further.

50 seaters are very expensive to operate per seat mile flown. That is why they will go away. All 51+ seaters will be flown by mainline (that's my prediction... and my vote ;-) )

We haven't been told much. Now that we are 1 company we should hear more. I wouldn't expect a lot of good info until after our contract is done!!

50 seaters have 1 less crew member than 51 seaters, so per seat mile, don't forget to include the increased labor cost of the 4th crew member on a plane that has say only 6 extra seats. That is part of the cost of operation.

Welcome to Flyertalk, may I take your coat?

Yup, its unfortunate that some can be so callous when it comes to things such as pilot experience. Like others have said, just wait till you have something go wrong up there- the degradation of pay and benefits will pave way for cutting corners, and even more sloppy work when you need it most. I guess the joke will be on them if that happens...

I could care less if its mainline or UX crew (in fact many of the UX FAs seem to be quite good) just so long as its got F-cabin. The 50seat RJs should be limited to 60min or less flights. I can see this being a net-loss for customers, if the pilots are going to demand they fly 51+ seats then I can see lots of routes that are CRJ70/EMB170s going to CRJ200s or simply going away, both options really suck. Many of those routes only make sense monetarily due to the cost structure at UX, move to the mainline cost structure and the routes probably don't make sense.