Ual Scraps Deal With Mesa Air

[Bear96]

Bear96, sorry to sound disrespecful. The facts are there. I don't wish to rehash them, but here is a short example that describes what I think is so ironic. I think is is comical because ALPA represents both sides of this equation. Usually the mainline gives something (like scope) for a short term gain (like hourly rate increases). Then the flying goes off to the regional partner who is then blamed when they sign a contract that ALPA national says is in their best interest. Then both sides blame each other. Your placing of blame is what I think is comical. You are part of the system that created airlines like ACA. You benefit from them and suffer harm from them at the same time. But, to blame them is not right.

Hi Farley,

Of course the reality is more complicated than I made it out to be, and your points about ALPA are well-taken-- they have created quite a mess for themselves with the scope clause issue.

And of course there has been a lot more going on the industry that has lead to pay cuts and quality of work life degradation than simply the LCCs.

However, it is an indisputable fact of any market (including the labor market) that if someone is willing to provide a service more cheaply, that puts pressure on other providers to do the same. I know people who work for regional / express / other LCCs (Low COMPENSATION Carriers, like jetBlue and charters) and I cannot believe the crap they put up with, for the pay they accept. And it is most definitely impacting the pay and work conditions of us all. I see F/A wannabes whose dream, now that the majors are not hiring, is to work for one of these carriers that will treat them like crap, and they seem willing to accept it for the glamor or whatever (I must admit I don't understand it really on the F/A side of the equation-- for pilots I guess they are willing to accept it to build time which I can understand is worth something).

I can't help but wonder how low people are willing to go. But as long as people are willing to do so, airline jobs will get worse and worse.

And another thing. When a LCC comes into a market, their entire business plan is built on "eating the lunch" of a big fat slothful major carrier with the goal of driving them out of markets or gaining market share or even putting them out of business. The LCC employees don't seem to give a crap about that, even though it is at the expense of the other airline's employees' jobs. But the minute one of the big fat slothful carrier's employees starts to say, "Hey wait a minute, I do NOT wish the LCC well because they are after MY JOB," we get called greedy and mean-spirited. What's up with that?

As an example, how many WN employees are shedding a tear right now for what their company's entry into PHL will do to U? And how come ACA employees are allowed to gleefully talk about how Independence Air will trounce UAL at IAD, but UAL employees are criticized for wishing ill on others when we say we will stand and fight and try to defeat Independence?

 

[Farley]

Gee Busdriver, I thought you would have remembered. ACA got scope relief when you got your whopper of a payraise. How could you have forgotten so soon?
Actually I worked for a lot less than $17 bucks an hour. It was in an AH-1 and nobody was bitching about the pay and working conditions. I'm glad that you've always been compensated at a much higher rate than me. Don't spend it all in one place.

 

[ual777fan]

United is going to have a tough time with Indy Air. They are going to need to move some serious airlift to Dulles in the form of RJ's or some of the grounded 737-300/500's rebuild the feeder network.

 

[Busdrvr]

Gee Busdriver, I thought you would have remembered. ACA got scope relief when you got your whopper of a payraise. How could you have forgotten so soon?
Actually I worked for a lot less than $17 bucks an hour. It was in an AH-1 and nobody was bitching about the pay and working conditions. I'm glad that you've always been compensated at a much higher rate than me. Don't spend it all in one place.

Check your facts "farley". UAL allowed ACA to fly RJ's looong before the C2K contract. large scope relief came in the concessionary contracts post 911. Your unbridaled love for Blew is starting to make sense... Lets see, virtually nothing but rotor time, wich most real airlines don't even count....(I wonder why) Please tell me you at least have a college education. What's with Blews love of rotor guys? Was it because they didn't want to train guys only to have them run away to much better jobs when the ponzi scheme starts to fall apart?

 

[Borescope]

Please give examples of ALPA giving up scope.

USAirways, need I say more?

 

[46Driver]

Gee Busdriver, I thought you would have remembered. ACA got scope relief when you got your whopper of a payraise. How could you have forgotten so soon?
Actually I worked for a lot less than $17 bucks an hour. It was in an AH-1 and nobody was bitching about the pay and working conditions. I'm glad that you've always been compensated at a much higher rate than me. Don't spend it all in one place.

Check your facts "farley". UAL allowed ACA to fly RJ's looong before the C2K contract. large scope relief came in the concessionary contracts post 911. Your unbridaled love for Blew is starting to make sense... Lets see, virtually nothing but rotor time, wich most real airlines don't even count....(I wonder why) Please tell me you at least have a college education. What's with Blews love of rotor guys? Was it because they didn't want to train guys only to have them run away to much better jobs when the ponzi scheme starts to fall apart?

I believe ACA first started flying RJ's under our own name because United pilot's wouldn't let us fly them for UEX - there is a big picture in ACA headquarters of our first RJ flying in the ACA paint scheme.

Second, what's your beef with rotor bubbas - is that not "real" flying to you? Interesting to note that the majority of Navy and Marine Corps T-34C primary instructors are helo pilots - and that it takes more hours for a jet guy to qual in a helo than a helo guy to qual in a jet according to NATOPS. Finally, every Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard helo pilot is a commissioned officer - no different than a fixed wing pilot, infantry officer, tanker, logistics, etc.

 

[Busdrvr]

"Second, what's your beef with rotor bubbas - is that not "real" flying to you?"

It's not MY beef, it appears to be a beef from every other Airline hiring dept. I had a very good friend who was a Marine Helo guy (killed in a climbing accident). He was faced with YEARS of RJ work to get up to the competative mins. The Helo guys do a very dangerous and important job. But so do sub drivers and tank drivers. But how if VFR flying at 100 knots and no particular altitude relavent to "airline flying"? Again, it's not MY gripe, just the gripe of just about every hiring dept in the country. The AF also uses a bunch of Helo/ heavy pilots in the tweet. The Fighter guys are used almost exclusively in the T-38. I'd guess the Marines use Herk guys in the Queen Air, and the fighter guys in T-2's, T-45's and T-4's. Guess that leaves the helo guys with only one airframe they can fill.

BTW, what's the Marine "pecking order". Does the top graduate usually gravitate to Helo's? Herks? Where does the typical "helo" guy rank in primary?

"Finally, every Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard helo pilot is a commissioned officer"

don't forget the AF as well!! Not true for the Army.

 

[46Driver]

If you teach in the training command, over 50% of the syllabus is instruments. We teach ILS, PAR, ASR, TACAN, VOR, NDB, and GPS - so yes we spend all day briefing instruments - and then flying the brief. The reason behind this is that flying over water at night is very disorientating, even with NVG's sometimes there is nothing to see. The Army syllabus is less instrument intensive.

The Marine pecking order is: infantry, then other combat arms, then pilots.
As for flight school: a majority of USMC students do tend to want jets but there is a substantial number that prefers helos due to the Marine Corps' mission. However, with the Navy students, there is a distinctive pecking order with fighters at the top and helos at the bottom. Also, flight school is a crap shoot. Depending on the week you wing, there can be over half jet slots while other weeks there are none. (By tradition, the top graduate gets whatever he wants.) Finally, don't forget that students with prior flight time have a huge advantage and usually graduate at the top.

What I find interesting is that some airlines count helo time while others don't - and there is no rhyme or reason. FedEx no, JetBlue no, Southwest no, Eagle no, UPS yes, Delta yes, AirTran yes, ACA yes, Comair yes (the yes answers count helo time but require various amounts of fixed wing time in addition)

 

[Busdrvr]

"As for flight school: a majority of USMC students do tend to want jets but there is a substantial number that prefers helos due to the Marine Corps' mission."

Ah, so what you're saying is that Marine helo guys can be put in one of two classifications
1. I'm a marine, I eat snakes, I've got a cool tattoo, I prefer a tent to a house, give me a gun so i can kill somebody, only a pansy would fly an airliner, I want a helo so I can stare the B@stard in the eyes when I **** his world (F-18's are FAR to impersonal)
2. I want to be a pilot...What I HAVE to do helo's?!

Which one were you?

(BTW, just messing with you)

"What I find interesting is that some airlines count helo time while others don't - and there is no rhyme or reason. FedEx no, JetBlue no, Southwest no, Eagle no, UPS yes, Delta yes, AirTran yes, ACA yes, Comair yes (the yes answers count helo time but require various amounts of fixed wing time in addition)"

And some airlines count Navigator time. But you are correct, the ones that do count it require an extensive amount of fixed wing time in additon to the rotor. So it isn't counted at all at Blew? Didn't know that!!

 

[46Driver]

BusDriver,
You missed option #3: I want F-18's, I want F-18's, I want F-18's, pause for acrobat flight training module, I want helos, I want helos, I want helos..... Come to think of it, I don't like roller coasters either. As for C-130's, it's actually easier to get jets than C-130's because there are so few Hercules slots in the Marine Corps.

Option #1 is accurate for many of the Marine students (one of my students the other day had "Front Towards Enemy" stenciled in red on his helmet....)- you might enjoy www.airwarriors.com It is basically a site for student naval aviators and those that aspire to be - it is quite funny to listen to many of the posters.

At any rate, I am going to ride ACA for as far it goes - if we go under, I'll be prepared for another profession. Don't know what UAL is going to do about Dulles either: bring in new regionals (MESA, TransStates, etc) codeshare with ACA, re-affirm ACA's current contract, or pullout of Dulles and leave it to USAir and the Star Alliance - what's your guess? From an employee perspective, I don't like where this industry is headed due to de-regulation and mass proliferation of the RJ but you can't put either of those genies back in a bottle.

 

[iflyjetz]

At any rate, I am going to ride ACA for as far it goes - if we go under, I'll be prepared for another profession. Don't know what UAL is going to do about Dulles either: bring in new regionals (MESA, TransStates, etc) codeshare with ACA, re-affirm ACA's current contract, or pullout of Dulles and leave it to USAir and the Star Alliance - what's your guess? From an employee perspective, I don't like where this industry is headed due to de-regulation and mass proliferation of the RJ but you can't put either of those genies back in a bottle.

I'll jump in on this one. I anticipate a multiple option approach. On routes where UAL can justify upguaging to larger equipment, UAL will either have 737s or A319s to replace RJs. (This can lead to upguaging equipment throughout the system). On routes where RJs are sufficient, UAL will shuffle in another regional.
This will cause UAL to selectively upguage from RJs throughout the system in order to provide sufficient RJ coverage from the regionals.
While on the surface it may appear that ACA has left UAL short of lift capacity, that is not true. The mainline fleet is currently underutilized and by forcing UAL to upguage, it will actually increase UAL's efficiency. I expect mainline UAL's CASM to be at or below ACA's CASM. However, UAL's marginal CASM (the CASM associated with increased fleet usage) will be well below anything that ACA could touch, even if all of ACA's employees worked for free.
There are two flies in the ointment for UAL. The first will be the number of available pilots. However, UAL could easily recall pilot furloughees from the last six months and run them through short courses where they'd be back flying the line in less than a month.
The second fly in the ointment is aircraft leases. I don't have a good handle on UAL's progress so the following is merely conjecture on my part. I would assume that UAL was very disappointed at ACA's refusal to cut rates because it gives them decreased leverage on renegotiating leases. However, I would be willing to bet that UAL will resolve all leases prior to terminating ACA's contract. And both of those issues will be resolved prior to UAL emerging from chap 11. From my understanding, there are still north of 100 aircraft leases that have to be renegotiated. UAL has rejected several 777 leases, but I've read that the leassors have not been able to find a new leasee. It may be possible for UAL to return to those leassors and make the same offer; I would expect the leassors to rethink their position when they discover that there is an extremely thin market for used aircraft.

 

[737nCH11]

I commute from an ACA station to ORD. According to an ACA agent UAL folks were there last week taking measurements around the boarding areas and on the ramp. This city was formerly served by 4 mainline flights daily, so I can only assume that UAL is stongly considering putting 37s or 320s back in. Lord knows it would make my commute easier.

 

[AirWisFO]

There's one thing that nobody mentioned...

ACA controls the gates it uses in IAD, so any replacement will have to either use somebody's mainline gates or bus the passengers to the plane. Not insurmountable, but not the best solution.

Jim

<_<

I think you're with US Jim so you wouldn't know but all you UA IAD employees have surely seen our CRJ's, Bae-146's, and Trans States ERJ's using gates C14 - C26 (7 gates I believe). Don't know how many flights Air Wisconsin has per day now but the rumor now is that a pilot and F/A base is coming soon. When I've been there perhaps 5 gates at the most are occupied. Who's going to be the largest UAX carrier at IAD in the future? I don't know but my theory is that IAD will have less UAX ASM than they do now: with ACA declaring their independence (ha ha) they will take market share immediately, unless UA can have replacement UAX or UA service to small cities at the same time. I suppose UA can increase mainline capacity and then cover ACA's departure. But using RJ's to do this isn't likely to happen because UA has to cover the loss of ACA at IAD and ORD, where ACA still has about 40% share of the UAX. There won't be enough UAX ASM left over to cover losing all of ACA's RJ's and props at ORD and IAD. I don't believe there will be enough growth in new UAX aircraft to replace all of the ASM in ORD and IAD: we're receiving RJ's, but our current order will be done by March; Mesa will get Midway's old birds and have a few 70 and 90 seat RJ's on order but have poor financing beyond that; I don't know anything about Trans States position.

That Mid-Atlantic stuff is hilarious, just done for entertainment, right Bear96? Look, flying 50 seat aircraft you can only make so much and still have a chance of making money. All us RJ pilots need a bigger plane if we want to make more than $35K/yr as FO or $60K/yr as CA (approx 4th yr). You can thank YOUR management for negotiating TA's we voted for or against (good job ACA) under threat of revoking our UAX contract (which UA can legally do in bankrupcy) and being replaced by cheaper carriers (Mesa and Trans States). And I wasn't able to vote on it due to me being on 1st yr probation then. UA used Mesa as leverage against all the UAX carriers.

ALPA is our union and at the end of the day they serve themselves to 'protect' the union strength in the industry, and serve those who contribute the most in dues (Boeing and Airbus drivers, not RJ pilots). It's a double edged sword. What ALPA did in order to bust Mesa's non-union carrier Freedom Airlines was this: negotiated the TA Mesa ALPA union pilots voted yes on, using the payscale Mesa was giving Freedom pilots (a new low pay standard for RJ pilots), in exchange for Mesa dissolving Freedom and keeping all of Mesa under ALPA. Couldn't have ALPA persued this in court as a violation of Mesa's contract?

At the end of the day ALPA still gets union dues from every Mesa Pilot, and gratitude from some (not all) the UA pilots who want the UAX guy and gals to take their lumps too. Don't say it's not true, UA pilots have a seat on the BOD, they have an interest in lower operating costs, in anything to help get the stock/retirement value up again. Want a Freedom Airlines pilot list? I can get you one. There were 70 some odd of them before it was dissolved.

GO ACA! I think United and Mesa dropped their persuit of Mesa like a hot potato because they fear the DOJ has good dirt to take them down with. The DOJ is continuing in their investigation, stay tuned in to this one folks.

Meanwhile, at Wisconsin our company can't hire and keep enough ramp workers in ORD and IAD, and that contributes to a gate shortage in ORD as well. The situation is horrible, it seems we are always waiting for something. Hopefully it will improve with time.

Thank you for flying United Express.

AirWisFO

 

[Bear96]

That Mid-Atlantic stuff is hilarious, just done for entertainment, right Bear96?

Pardon me but huh? I'm not understanding what you are getting at. I have never said the MDA was "hilarious" or done for "entertainment." No comprende.

 

[AirWisFO]

Pardon me but huh? I'm not understanding what you are getting at. I have never said the MDA was "hilarious" or done for "entertainment." No comprende.

Bear96,
You may have not said that but I did. And I did say that because, well, your theory was actually hilarious and entertaining to me. My post was what is known as 'sarcastic', as in 'sarcasm'.

And I thank you for that (your theory on MDA, that is).

It seems absurd from this point in time to consider MDA a possible ACA replacement. I thought Light Years and other responses would've sufficed for you but I guess not. So here's my two cents why MDA is not the 'shizzle' for UAX IAD. As far as I know MDA hasn't bid on UAX flying. If they were interested they would have done it this past summer. The carriers awarded UAX flying recently were Mesa and TransStates, existing carriers were Air Wisconsin, SkyWest, and ACA, and one of the carriers which bid but wasn't awarded was Chataqua (spelling?).

I think that when ACA UAX flying is terminated you will stop seeing CRJ's flying to medium to large size cities, they will be switched to cover ACA. The good news is the loss of overall capacity will require big blue to take back furloughed crews and cobwebbed airplanes (this is good for you!)

What is TED spelled backwards?

Thank you for flying United Distress.

AirWisFO