********While I do agree Goodwin appeared to be a good candidate... there was a BETTER one, John Edwardson***************
Yeah, great statement. Again, hindsight is 20-20. We all thought that we had a good candidate in Goodwin for the reasons mentioned in my post, just like we all think we have a good candidate in Tilton. Time will tell. If Tilton fails over the next 18 months or years (maybe), perhaps you can write us another post telling us how we should have gone with Candidate Y instead of Tilton?
*****Is it not true that a significant (greater than 30%) amount of United pilots have second jobs?*******
I would have to say that in my 7 years of flying narrowbody aircraft for UAL, the vast, vast majority DO NOT have second jobs outside of their flying career. Many have another bachelor's degree, a graduate degree, or something of that nature, but that's about it. I wouldn't even say 1% of the guys I have flown with have an outisde job, and senior narrowbody guys (like me) can get just as many days off as a widebody guy from what I have seen of the ORD schedules. Widebody guys? I don't know if many of them have outside employment since I don't fly with them, but I doubt the figure is anywhere near the 30% you quote. Perhaps you can tell us how you know this to be fact? Did you obtain that information in the money section of USA Today? The Times? The Journal? Perhaps from an "industry expert?" Maybe when you were chumming it up with Edwardson?
*********** Because of productivity rules. With the pilot type of salary in any other industry, you could not have a second job. Is it not true that the most senior 747-400 pilots fly less than 20 trips per year across the Pacific?*******
Again, I don't know how many trips senior 747-400 pilots fly across the Pacific. I do know they fly around 75-80 hours at least, like everyone else. That probably equates to about 3 trips a month or so, but I don't kow that as fact as I am unable to gain access to the 747-400 trips. Please quote your source as you seem to know. I do know that if they flew "double" the trips you quote (40 per year), it would probably be illegal per the FAR's. They probably didn't mention in that USA Today article that some of these trips across the Pacific are 14 hour flights each way with multiple time zone changes, and are 4 to 6 days long. Further, are you claiming that pilots are the only group on the property with productivity rules that need enhancing? Give me a break. As I posted from the beginning, pay and work rules for EVERYONE should be on the table, not just the pilots. We have $60,000/yr mechanics pushing back airplanes. We have flight attendants working one trip a month for long periods of time but still receiving full benefits. We have a management employee who walks away with multi-million dollar severance packages, automobiles, and country club memberships even though he practically managed our company into the ground. Funny how you don't mention any of that?
****Well Edwardson believe those 747-400 pilots certainly deserved 300K, even 400K salaries... if they flew at least double those trips... which isn't even all that many.*****
I really don't care what anyone thinks a 747-400 pilot should be making. And again, I assume you know little or nothing about the FAR's concerning international work rules, and you got this "20 trips a year" and "they need to be flying at least double those trips" snippet reading yet another industry expert or the USA Today. Also please expand upon this statement: "at least double those trips...which isn't even all that many....." I want you to tell us how many days away from home that 747-400 pilot would be if he flew 40, fifteen hour crossings a year and how it would be legal per the FARs. You must know if you made the statement.
******This is sheer denial. United lost its shirt during the job action of May-Aug 2000*****
NO, it's sheer denial to think that we are in bankruptcy today soley because of the Summer of 2000 as the post at the beginning of this thread implied. Many, many factors came together to put us where we are today. Is the Summer of 2000 one of those pieces? Yup, probably. Is it THE REASON we are here. Nope. Not by a longshot.
The reason why I get annoyed reading posts like yours and others is that labor is everyone's favorite punching bag when things go bad, particularly the pilot group. You too, N230UA, can finger point, complain, blame those greedy old pilots all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that we are not here today soley due to ALPA, Contract 2000, 747-400 pilots not flying 40 trips a year, or whatever other outlandish pilot bashing reason you can think of. I'll be anxiously awaiting the answers to my questions to back the "facts" that you and hommegros will provide to prove your statements.
Yeah, great statement. Again, hindsight is 20-20. We all thought that we had a good candidate in Goodwin for the reasons mentioned in my post, just like we all think we have a good candidate in Tilton. Time will tell. If Tilton fails over the next 18 months or years (maybe), perhaps you can write us another post telling us how we should have gone with Candidate Y instead of Tilton?
*****Is it not true that a significant (greater than 30%) amount of United pilots have second jobs?*******
I would have to say that in my 7 years of flying narrowbody aircraft for UAL, the vast, vast majority DO NOT have second jobs outside of their flying career. Many have another bachelor's degree, a graduate degree, or something of that nature, but that's about it. I wouldn't even say 1% of the guys I have flown with have an outisde job, and senior narrowbody guys (like me) can get just as many days off as a widebody guy from what I have seen of the ORD schedules. Widebody guys? I don't know if many of them have outside employment since I don't fly with them, but I doubt the figure is anywhere near the 30% you quote. Perhaps you can tell us how you know this to be fact? Did you obtain that information in the money section of USA Today? The Times? The Journal? Perhaps from an "industry expert?" Maybe when you were chumming it up with Edwardson?
*********** Because of productivity rules. With the pilot type of salary in any other industry, you could not have a second job. Is it not true that the most senior 747-400 pilots fly less than 20 trips per year across the Pacific?*******
Again, I don't know how many trips senior 747-400 pilots fly across the Pacific. I do know they fly around 75-80 hours at least, like everyone else. That probably equates to about 3 trips a month or so, but I don't kow that as fact as I am unable to gain access to the 747-400 trips. Please quote your source as you seem to know. I do know that if they flew "double" the trips you quote (40 per year), it would probably be illegal per the FAR's. They probably didn't mention in that USA Today article that some of these trips across the Pacific are 14 hour flights each way with multiple time zone changes, and are 4 to 6 days long. Further, are you claiming that pilots are the only group on the property with productivity rules that need enhancing? Give me a break. As I posted from the beginning, pay and work rules for EVERYONE should be on the table, not just the pilots. We have $60,000/yr mechanics pushing back airplanes. We have flight attendants working one trip a month for long periods of time but still receiving full benefits. We have a management employee who walks away with multi-million dollar severance packages, automobiles, and country club memberships even though he practically managed our company into the ground. Funny how you don't mention any of that?
****Well Edwardson believe those 747-400 pilots certainly deserved 300K, even 400K salaries... if they flew at least double those trips... which isn't even all that many.*****
I really don't care what anyone thinks a 747-400 pilot should be making. And again, I assume you know little or nothing about the FAR's concerning international work rules, and you got this "20 trips a year" and "they need to be flying at least double those trips" snippet reading yet another industry expert or the USA Today. Also please expand upon this statement: "at least double those trips...which isn't even all that many....." I want you to tell us how many days away from home that 747-400 pilot would be if he flew 40, fifteen hour crossings a year and how it would be legal per the FARs. You must know if you made the statement.
******This is sheer denial. United lost its shirt during the job action of May-Aug 2000*****
NO, it's sheer denial to think that we are in bankruptcy today soley because of the Summer of 2000 as the post at the beginning of this thread implied. Many, many factors came together to put us where we are today. Is the Summer of 2000 one of those pieces? Yup, probably. Is it THE REASON we are here. Nope. Not by a longshot.
The reason why I get annoyed reading posts like yours and others is that labor is everyone's favorite punching bag when things go bad, particularly the pilot group. You too, N230UA, can finger point, complain, blame those greedy old pilots all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that we are not here today soley due to ALPA, Contract 2000, 747-400 pilots not flying 40 trips a year, or whatever other outlandish pilot bashing reason you can think of. I'll be anxiously awaiting the answers to my questions to back the "facts" that you and hommegros will provide to prove your statements.
43 PM ualdriver wrote: 
ffice
