DiamondFlyer wrote:

I believe 86K was chosen, because the original DC9 was right around 86K pounds, in it's configuration used by US airlines. This kept mainline planes from every being flown at regionals.

Thank you, I wondered what was magic about 86k. Maybe it's time for an inflation adjustment to the 717's 110k.

ScottB wrote:

Why would the pilots give up a concession like increased MTOW at the regionals in exchange for nothing?

I guess because raising the weight a few thousand pounds wouldn't really affect them. It adds no seats to the regional operations, nor does it add any additional planes. It simply would allow old 76-seaters to be replaced with new ones.

oosnowrat wrote:

ScottB wrote:

Why would the pilots give up a concession like increased MTOW at the regionals in exchange for nothing?

I guess because raising the weight a few thousand pounds wouldn't really affect them. It adds no seats to the regional operations, nor does it add any additional planes. It simply would allow old 76-seaters to be replaced with new ones.

It would affect the mainline pilots because we want ALL the flying. regionals should be REGIONAL, less than 50 seats. Anything with a jet engine attached to it should be a mainline plane.

We screwed up as a group letting the Regionals grow to 76 seats and it is going to be really hard if not impossible to put that genie back in the bottle but one way to do it is to not budge on the limit of seats any weight. Either the airline will fly those jets for 50+ Years or buy new ones that mainline pilots will fly.

We will hold the line.

helhem wrote:

I think these scope clauses in the current form are stupid. It affects the design of aircraft too much . It probably increases the cost of airlines and creates market barriers . That has a global effect. I think the Us airline industry should manage their quarrels without using these methods.Changing anything is very difficult so I guess things will stay as they are for a very long time. This is just a classic labor dispute. Many other industries have it much much worse. I even want my pilot to be well paid . Someone should come up with realistic alternatives to achieve the same thing.

Then take it from those of us that ARE pilots that this is not "stupid". Among other things, it ensures MORE jobs at mainline which is what most wanna be pilots aim for. Regional flying is 19-37 seat turbo props, jets are mainline planes, all of them. Enough jobs have been lost at mainline due to the substandard outsourcing just to save a buck and increase a CEO's bonus. Anyone that thinks jets belong at the regional level is either not in the industry or flies an RJ and thinks its ok to be working for an express company with substandard wages and benefits and job protections vs being able to fly the same plane at mainline.

oosnowrat wrote:

Why would the pilots give up a concession like increased MTOW at the regionals in exchange for nothing?

Exactly...I think the pilots and the unions need to be smart about this... airline management has always seemed to get their way... look at 9/11...some unions had no layoff clauses in their contracts yet they still were able to lay people off... this is not the time to puff out your chests and say times are different so scope change is not gonna happen...if management wants it to happen it will happen...pilots/union need to be working out ways they can get more money into their own pockets in these good times and I think the E175 E2 is the perfect opportunity/tool

Now...this is only my opinion and from someone who doesn't work in the industry so bear with me if there's some inaccuracy

Fuel is one of the biggest costs of running an airline and the numbers are between 15-20% fuel savings with the E2 vs's the E1...that is a lot of potential savings for AA/UA/DL as they are the ones taking on the fuel risk not the regionals...now pilots need to reroute some of this fuel savings money into their own pockets...you can do this keeping regional seats locked at 76 which protects your current flying and relaxing the MTOW to allow E175 E2 at regionals...But...in return for allowing the E2...management is gonna have to pay up

Using UA as my example and a convservative $250 of fuel savings per takeoff/landing for 2000 70/76 seater flights per day over 1 year is $250x2000x365 is a fuel savings of $182.5 million...if you divide that by 12,000 pilots...each pilot could be afforded at $15,000 a year pay increase from just fuel...this would be a starting point in my opinion cause I'm guessing that fuel savings are even greater than that per leg maybe even per flight hour...aim high...use as a negotiating tool...ask for the moon and when they say no to your moon or whatever an hour raise you'll want say how about the moon and all the other negotiated stuff if we increase scope weight to MTOW and seats stay 76... mainline pilots win and management also wins.

All I'm saying is don't just stand strong on scope and only get scope protection as it currently stands...stand strong on scope keep your job protection at seats but also get some other stuff...money/better work rules/better insurance etc

Murf

CriticalPoint wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The pay rate for 100 seat aircraft exist at all 3 majors the pilots have done their part. It's the company that doesn't want to play ball.

It's real easy to get 76/70/50 seat pay rates just use the negotiated sliding scale. The ball is in the companies court they have the tools.

There's a very big difference between having the rates and those rates actually being competitive. Given those planes are not flown by mainline pilots, I'm guessing they're not competitive rates.

You can't set unrealistic expectations and then accuse others of not playing ball when you fail to get the flying.

There is no "failing" to get the flying. PILOTS have to give up scope it is not a company decision, bottom line. Company either pays us what was negotiated or they don't, if they don't then the company will never get anything smaller than a 737 or 319 it's that simple.

The company already gets lots of airplanes smaller than 737/320. All of them are outsourced. So it's not the company that's failing to get the flying, it's AA DL and UA pilots who are not getting the flying. That's clearly a failure on the pilot's part.

Murf wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

Using UA as my example and a convservative $250 of fuel savings per takeoff/landing for 2000 70/76 seater flights per day over 1 year is $250x2000x365 is a fuel savings of $182.5 million...if you divide that by 12,000 pilots...each pilot could be afforded at $15,000 a year pay increase from just fuel...this would be a starting point in my opinion cause I'm guessing that fuel savings are even greater than that per leg maybe even per flight hour...aim high...use as a negotiating tool...ask for the moon and when they say no to your moon or whatever an hour raise you'll want say how about the moon and all the other negotiated stuff if we increase scope weight to MTOW and seats stay 76... mainline pilots win and management also wins.

All I'm saying is don't just stand strong on scope and only get scope protection as it currently stands...stand strong on scope keep your job protection at seats but also get some other stuff...money/better work rules/better insurance etc

Murf

And dont forget if mainline operated these uber efficient planes, they could go above 76 seats and wouldnt have to pay any managment save a fleet manager. All the managment bloat of the regionals gone... poof

What is Skywest planning to do with their E2s?

For EMB and MRJ to build a new airplane betting on scope relief was beyond incompetent.

EMB will do fine selling hundreds of E2's outside the US. Just like ATR is making loads of money while not selling a single a/c in the US for decades. Manufacturers are no longer as dependent on the US market as they used to be, the market is global.
Mitsubishi I can see having more problems, because small RJs are more dependent on the US market (in Europe, most 70 seaters are going out the door. In many other places, anything below 100 seats is a prop).

Even then, the MRJ70 is within scope, the MRJ90 could in theory be paper-derated. Or Mitsubishi could build an MRJ76 - a slight MRJ70 stretch aimed exclusively at the US market.

I guess because raising the weight a few thousand pounds wouldn't really affect them. It adds no seats to the regional operations, nor does it add any additional planes. It simply would allow old 76-seaters to be replaced with new ones.

All I'm saying is don't just stand strong on scope and only get scope protection as it currently stands...stand strong on scope keep your job protection at seats but also get some other stuff

I agree with this strategy. Pilots should allow a few extra thousand pounds while keeping the seat limit - but not for free. In exchange for helping the company with fuel savings and modern aircraft, they should get some form of compensation. This is not about the threat of regionals growing into mainline territory. This is simply enabling old aircraft to be replaced by new ones.

r2rho wrote:

For EMB and MRJ to build a new airplane betting on scope relief was beyond incompetent.

EMB will do fine selling hundreds of E2's outside the US. Just like ATR is making loads of money while not selling a single a/c in the US for decades. Manufacturers are no longer as dependent on the US market as they used to be, the market is global.
Mitsubishi I can see having more problems, because small RJs are more dependent on the US market (in Europe, most 70 seaters are going out the door. In many other places, anything below 100 seats is a prop).

Even then, the MRJ70 is within scope, the MRJ90 could in theory be paper-derated. Or Mitsubishi could build an MRJ76 - a slight MRJ70 stretch aimed exclusively at the US market.

I guess because raising the weight a few thousand pounds wouldn't really affect them. It adds no seats to the regional operations, nor does it add any additional planes. It simply would allow old 76-seaters to be replaced with new ones.

All I'm saying is don't just stand strong on scope and only get scope protection as it currently stands...stand strong on scope keep your job protection at seats but also get some other stuff

I agree with this strategy. Pilots should allow a few extra thousand pounds while keeping the seat limit - but not for free. In exchange for helping the company with fuel savings and modern aircraft, they should get some form of compensation. This is not about the threat of regionals growing into mainline territory. This is simply enabling old aircraft to be replaced by new ones.

No, the pilots at Delta, United and AA, should push to move the weight and seat limit lower. Force mainline to fly the product that's being used as a non-regional airplane. Anything larger than a 50 seater, should be at mainline. Delta has payscales for the CR9, no reason they can't fly them there.

r2rho wrote:

For EMB and MRJ to build a new airplane betting on scope relief was beyond incompetent.

EMB will do fine selling hundreds of E2's outside the US. Just like ATR is making loads of money while not selling a single a/c in the US for decades. Manufacturers are no longer as dependent on the US market as they used to be, the market is global.
Mitsubishi I can see having more problems, because small RJs are more dependent on the US market (in Europe, most 70 seaters are going out the door. In many other places, anything below 100 seats is a prop).

Even then, the MRJ70 is within scope, the MRJ90 could in theory be paper-derated. Or Mitsubishi could build an MRJ76 - a slight MRJ70 stretch aimed exclusively at the US market.

I guess because raising the weight a few thousand pounds wouldn't really affect them. It adds no seats to the regional operations, nor does it add any additional planes. It simply would allow old 76-seaters to be replaced with new ones.

All I'm saying is don't just stand strong on scope and only get scope protection as it currently stands...stand strong on scope keep your job protection at seats but also get some other stuff

I agree with this strategy. Pilots should allow a few extra thousand pounds while keeping the seat limit - but not for free. In exchange for helping the company with fuel savings and modern aircraft, they should get some form of compensation. This is not about the threat of regionals growing into mainline territory. This is simply enabling old aircraft to be replaced by new ones.

No, the pilots at Delta, United and AA, should push to move the weight and seat limit lower. Force mainline to fly the product that's being used as a non-regional airplane. Anything larger than a 50 seater, should be at mainline. Delta has payscales for the CR9, no reason they can't fly them there.

No, the pilots at Delta, United and AA, should push to move the weight and seat limit lower. Force mainline to fly the product that's being used as a non-regional airplane. Anything larger than a 50 seater, should be at mainline.

That's fine too. As long as there's a clear line, either below MRJ/E2 capacity (i.e. 50 seats as you suggest) or above (i.e. 100 seats), and the scope clause doesn't arbitrarily split the RJ a/c families in two as it does today. And if the same rule is valid for all US3, there are no concerns that another airline would steal market share etc.

r2rho wrote:

No, the pilots at Delta, United and AA, should push to move the weight and seat limit lower. Force mainline to fly the product that's being used as a non-regional airplane. Anything larger than a 50 seater, should be at mainline.

That's fine too. As long as there's a clear line, either below MRJ/E2 capacity (i.e. 50 seats as you suggest) or above (i.e. 100 seats), and the scope clause doesn't arbitrarily split the RJ a/c families in two as it does today. And if the same rule is valid for all US3, there are no concerns that another airline would steal market share etc.

The scope clause is not arbitrary, it is specifically the seats and weight of a DC-9, an aircraft that was unequivocally a mainline plane. The RJ families were made with knowledge of where the US scope clauses were made (probably egged on by the majors themselves). Embraer knew where the US scope clause was and placed all their aircraft above that limit.

mikejepp wrote:

The E175E2 seems like a perfectly good airplane. And just like airplanes of similar size and capability of the past (DC-9-10, 737-200, F-28, BAC 1-11), it can be flown at mainline, by mainline pilots.

All of which were introduced 1965-1969. One might think the industry has evolved a bit in the last 50 years.

Very quickly the pilot ranks at most us3 will be made up by former rj drivers... not one pound.. Except pounding sand.

deltal1011man wrote:

ALPA national will do what they always do and pressure DALPA/UALPA to fold and allow the larger RJs at DCI/UAX. The Lee Moak way of thinking is far from dead at ALPA national.

The APA will be the last hold out as always.

My money, DALPA folds first. Probably on something stupid like a promise of more wide bodies and a Dallas base. UALPA will be right behind because they "can't compete" with Delta now.
And eventually the APA will do it, or be forced too.

You're making a DAMN lot of unfounded speculations that more than likely WON'T see reality. Whatever you're angle is? It's a BAD Angle!

r2rho wrote:

I agree with this strategy. Pilots should allow a few extra thousand pounds while keeping the seat limit - but not for free. In exchange for helping the company with fuel savings and modern aircraft, they should get some form of compensation. This is not about the threat of regionals growing into mainline territory. This is simply enabling old aircraft to be replaced by new ones.

Money has a way of evaporating. Company goes bankrupt and the money is gone. So what do the pilots have? No more money and a bunch of shiny new regional jets being flown by other pilots. The bankruptcies and furloughs of the 2000’s show that money doesn’t mean a damn thing if you don’t have a job. 1000’s of pilots lost their jobs in the 2000’s and regional pilots continued to fly.

We don’t want a pay raise we want the jobs to make sure we can support our families. This is absolutely about the regionals growing into mainline territory.

r2rho wrote:

No, the pilots at Delta, United and AA, should push to move the weight and seat limit lower. Force mainline to fly the product that's being used as a non-regional airplane. Anything larger than a 50 seater, should be at mainline.

That's fine too. As long as there's a clear line, either below MRJ/E2 capacity (i.e. 50 seats as you suggest) or above (i.e. 100 seats), and the scope clause doesn't arbitrarily split the RJ a/c families in two as it does today. And if the same rule is valid for all US3, there are no concerns that another airline would steal market share etc.

They aren't arbitrarily split. Scope was in place long before the E2 was on the drawing board. Embraer designed it with a gamble and lost.

They entire CRJ line was below scope limits before the -1000 was dreamed up.

Nobody can Blame a Guy or Gal for looking out for #1, and anybody who disputes that is a true FOOL!!
People always seem to think it's the other guy who should make Less so they can have More.
Well if you think that? Start your OWN airline and see just how involved it si to BECOME a Pilot !!
I guess those of you didn't know there are now airline mechanics making $90-100K/yr.

Varsity1 wrote:

1. Airliners aren't even remotely close to flying themselves. The 737 can't even maintain a VNAV track that it calculated itself. The A320 won't start down at TOD half the time. Give me a call when they can interpret vectors over a gargled HF radio in broken english.

The general public mistakes the military's UAV's for "pilotless aircraft" when in reality, the pilot just sits on the ground to avoid being killed. Autonomous aircraft are cruise missiles, which do not have any better record now than they did in 1965.

2. Nothing new starts with cargo. Cargo airlines fly the oldest and cheapest equipment. FX is still taking deliveries of 767's. UPS 747's.. The fact that you stated this leads me to believe you know very little about the industry.

Your post is a hateful jealousy fuel rant.

So if Cargo airlines fly the oldest and cheapest planes and UPS is taking delivery of brand new 747-8F's are so old what would you call a 737 it entered service long before the 747 ever did So I don't buy it that these are old aircraft. I guess one could say the same thing that you don't know much about your industry.
FX is also taking delivery of 777F's and the last time i looked Boeing was still delivering 777's of the same generation to passenger airlines.
Many other cargo airlines have taken delivery of other brand new cargo planes 747's, 767's 777, and A330's but I guess these would be considered old even though some of they same families of aircraft are still being delivered to passenger airlines.

Cargo planes may well be where this technology will be pioneered as you wouldn't have 200+ lives on board them thus equating to less risk of loss of life compared with an aircraft loaded with passengers.

To be honest couriers (some of the large one's also operate fleets of cargo planes) are pioneering unmanned flight with drones. some of the lessons learned from this will be used to develop pilot less aircraft however this will be quite a while in the future and after the general public has embraced driver less cars.

arvo wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

1. Airliners aren't even remotely close to flying themselves. The 737 can't even maintain a VNAV track that it calculated itself. The A320 won't start down at TOD half the time. Give me a call when they can interpret vectors over a gargled HF radio in broken english.

The general public mistakes the military's UAV's for "pilotless aircraft" when in reality, the pilot just sits on the ground to avoid being killed. Autonomous aircraft are cruise missiles, which do not have any better record now than they did in 1965.

2. Nothing new starts with cargo. Cargo airlines fly the oldest and cheapest equipment. FX is still taking deliveries of 767's. UPS 747's.. The fact that you stated this leads me to believe you know very little about the industry.

Your post is a hateful jealousy fuel rant.

So if Cargo airlines fly the oldest and cheapest planes and UPS is taking delivery of brand new 747-8F's are so old what would you call a 737 it entered service long before the 747 ever did So I don't buy it that these are old aircraft. I guess one could say the same thing that you don't know much about your industry.
FX is also taking delivery of 777F's and the last time i looked Boeing was still delivering 777's of the same generation to passenger airlines.
Many other cargo airlines have taken delivery of other brand new cargo planes 747's, 767's 777, and A330's but I guess these would be considered old even though some of they same families of aircraft are still being delivered to passenger airlines.

Cargo planes may well be where this technology will be pioneered as you wouldn't have 200+ lives on board them thus equating to less risk of loss of life compared with an aircraft loaded with passengers.

To be honest couriers (some of the large one's also operate fleets of cargo planes) are pioneering unmanned flight with drones. some of the lessons learned from this will be used to develop pilot less aircraft however this will be quite a while in the future and after the general public has embraced driver less cars.

UPS is taking delivery of 747's when no passenger airlines are. Fedex is taking deliveries of 767's when no passenger airlines are.

You just proved my point entirely.

Kalitta and Atlas were flying 747 classics up until earlier this year. Fedex flew the 727 until 2013.

Cargo carriers do not lead the way, new technology is expensive and they don't have the utilization rates to pay for it.

The Union Member way of talking is so fricking cringy! Based on what I've read, most of them would rather regionals fly around in E145s and CRJ-200s for the rest of eternity.

Boeing778X wrote:

The Union Member way of talking is so fricking cringy! Based on what I've read, most of them would rather regionals fly around in E145s and CRJ-200s for the rest of eternity.

Not even those, JET aircraft should be mainline aircraft. Regionals should be flying props on flights less than an hour, 6-8 legs a day without leaving the state. Thats what a REGIONAL airline is. Chicago is NOT in the same region as Dallas.......

Mainline pilots in the US will not relax scope in the current environment. What I think you'll begin to see is more mainline flying into smaller markets with larger (100 seat) aircraft as Delta is doing while reducing Regional flying. This will result in seeing fewer flights in some markets (6-10 RJ flights per day to 3-5 mainline flights). The airline will be putting the same amount of seats into the market but will sacrifice frequency.

Varsity1 wrote:

arvo wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

1. Airliners aren't even remotely close to flying themselves. The 737 can't even maintain a VNAV track that it calculated itself. The A320 won't start down at TOD half the time. Give me a call when they can interpret vectors over a gargled HF radio in broken english.

The general public mistakes the military's UAV's for "pilotless aircraft" when in reality, the pilot just sits on the ground to avoid being killed. Autonomous aircraft are cruise missiles, which do not have any better record now than they did in 1965.

2. Nothing new starts with cargo. Cargo airlines fly the oldest and cheapest equipment. FX is still taking deliveries of 767's. UPS 747's.. The fact that you stated this leads me to believe you know very little about the industry.

Your post is a hateful jealousy fuel rant.

So if Cargo airlines fly the oldest and cheapest planes and UPS is taking delivery of brand new 747-8F's are so old what would you call a 737 it entered service long before the 747 ever did So I don't buy it that these are old aircraft. I guess one could say the same thing that you don't know much about your industry.
FX is also taking delivery of 777F's and the last time i looked Boeing was still delivering 777's of the same generation to passenger airlines.
Many other cargo airlines have taken delivery of other brand new cargo planes 747's, 767's 777, and A330's but I guess these would be considered old even though some of they same families of aircraft are still being delivered to passenger airlines.

Cargo planes may well be where this technology will be pioneered as you wouldn't have 200+ lives on board them thus equating to less risk of loss of life compared with an aircraft loaded with passengers.

To be honest couriers (some of the large one's also operate fleets of cargo planes) are pioneering unmanned flight with drones. some of the lessons learned from this will be used to develop pilot less aircraft however this will be quite a while in the future and after the general public has embraced driver less cars.

UPS is taking delivery of 747's when no passenger airlines are. Fedex is taking deliveries of 767's when no passenger airlines are.

You just proved my point entirely.

Kalitta and Atlas were flying 747 classics up until earlier this year. Fedex flew the 727 until 2013.

Cargo carriers do not lead the way, new technology is expensive and they don't have the utilization rates to pay for it.

Well the last passenger 747-8I was delivered in July of this year. so only 2 1/2 months ago.

The 747-8F/I was only certified and entered service a few years ago with a primary market focus on the freighter market and has a lot of modern teach added to it.
so i wouldn't call it an old aircraft as there are many more aircraft that older and still produced in prior versions and delivered to passenger airlines. A330, A320ceo 737 NG to name a few.

There are also still passenger airlines in the western world (not just third world) Still flying 737-200's.

mikejepp wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

The Union Member way of talking is so fricking cringy! Based on what I've read, most of them would rather regionals fly around in E145s and CRJ-200s for the rest of eternity.

I'd like to see your job get outsourced and your profession get destroyed and see how much you like it.

Supporting a family is more important than having a cool new shiny jet flying into your airport so that you can take pictures of it and talk about it on airliners.net.

Union members would rather have airplanes with "XYZ Airlines" painted on the side be flown by "XYZ Airlines" and operated by employees of "XYZ Airlines". No where is there any law that says that an E175E2 can't be flown by mainline. Embraer simply created an airplane that management refuses to fly at mainline and unions refuse to allow to be outsourced. They could've created a new 50 seater, but they didn't, and this is the result.

Like I said, Union Members say cringy things.

I think I kinda rather would have the shiny new jet than give a flip about the solidarity brotherhood nonsense, if I'm 100% honest! And we do have shiny new jets! And it's great The E175E has been a great investment, not only for our employees, but our passengers.

I AM NOT working or flying on a prop just so Union members are happy. The world has progressed too far beyond that!

I seriously can give a crap. I was kinda forced to be union myself to get my job (extortion?) and they've done nothing but screw me over ever since. At the same time, everyone I have a good relationship with everyone in management. You know why? Because I do my job well.

mikejepp wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

I'd like to see your job get outsourced and your profession get destroyed and see how much you like it.

Supporting a family is more important than having a cool new shiny jet flying into your airport so that you can take pictures of it and talk about it on airliners.net.

Union members would rather have airplanes with "XYZ Airlines" painted on the side be flown by "XYZ Airlines" and operated by employees of "XYZ Airlines". No where is there any law that says that an E175E2 can't be flown by mainline. Embraer simply created an airplane that management refuses to fly at mainline and unions refuse to allow to be outsourced. They could've created a new 50 seater, but they didn't, and this is the result.

Like I said, Union Members say cringy things.

I think I kinda rather would have the shiny new jet than give a flip about the solidarity brotherhood nonsense, if I'm 100% honest! And we do have shiny new jets! And it's great The E175E has been a great investment, not only for our employees, but our passengers.

Listens to Unions, get mediocrity, simple as that.

"give a flip about the solidarity brotherhood nonsense"???

I have no idea what you do in the aviation industry, but trust me, management views you as a cost to be minimized or eliminated.

When your turn is up and you watch management destroy your profession and you no longer can pay your bills, feed your kids, or keep your home, you'll understand why people care about "solidarity brotherhood nonsense".

As someone who wants to go into management eventually, I think you're full of it. At the same time, you can be harassed for being a "scab."

mikejepp wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

"give a flip about the solidarity brotherhood nonsense"???

I have no idea what you do in the aviation industry, but trust me, management views you as a cost to be minimized or eliminated.

When your turn is up and you watch management destroy your profession and you no longer can pay your bills, feed your kids, or keep your home, you'll understand why people care about "solidarity brotherhood nonsense".

As someone who wants to go into management eventually, I think you're full of it. At the same time, you can be harassed for being a "scab."

Not caring about employees and their livelihood, let alone their employment contracts and collective bargaining agents.... sounds to me like you're doing pretty well in heading down that management path you desire.

Not in the least!

A business/company is all one giant vehicle. Employees who are happy contribute to the success of the whole.

I believe there are people who will excel at what they do, do their job and love every aspect of it...And there are people who do need a union..

Typed in "union scab" on YouTube...Wow...You guys are ruthless to defectors!

Boeing778X wrote:

As someone who wants to go into management eventually, I think you're full of it. At the same time, you can be harassed for being a "scab."

Wow you could not be doing a better job at becoming management. By the sounds of it you will be a perfect employee hater that will no doubt be loathed by the front line employees.

Good luck and stay at AMR........for all of our sakes.

mikejepp wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Not caring about employees and their livelihood, let alone their employment contracts and collective bargaining agents.... sounds to me like you're doing pretty well in heading down that management path you desire.

Not in the least!

A business/company is all one giant vehicle. Employees who are happy contribute to the success of the whole.

I believe there are people who will excel at what they do, do their job and love every aspect of it...And there are people who do need a union..

Typed in "union scab" on YouTube...Wow...You guys are ruthless to defectors!

Believe it or not, the vast majority of union members are that, at least in my profession. They love their job, want their company to succeed, and show up day in and day out and work hard.

But it is hard to do this when your job is eliminated and replaced by an outsourced bottom feeder contractor paying its employees borderline poverty wages.

Things like that cause employees to picket, strike, and get pretty defensive about the idea that a shiny airplane is more important than a job and the family it supports.

I mean, really, think about it.... how many pilots come into this industry with that attitude? Hardly any at all. But if you management beats them down hard enough and long enough, even the most die-hard can have attitude changes. The expansion of RJs/outsourcing in the US is a very visible indicator of it and the angry employees and lack of anyone wanting to enter the pilot profession anymore are the result.

Plenty of pilots and wannabes want to enter the profession, including me. That's not the problem.

That's the other thing I notice on Union members. Looking down at a worker who's not union. I like how you use the term "bottom feeder." Very complimentary.

What's funny is that I'm enjoying everything about my job. The people I work with, the new planes, the destinations, the thank yous I get when they leave...You almost forget that you get paid. And I guess that's what ticks you off. That I have no need to tinker with organized labor. It's not my thing.

The other thing you unions need to stop is the pamphlets and pins, I swear to God. I don't wear any union logos or slogans. It simply does not look good to me. But union members always give me the evil eye like I'm some sort of deviant. I just threw out a CWA magazine with everyone holding their fists high like they are Antifa or something....Bu-What!? What is this?

helhem wrote:

I think these scope clauses in the current form are stupid. It affects the design of aircraft too much .

I disagree. We are in an age where new materials like composites and carbon fiber are being used to make aircraft stronger, lighter, and more fuel efficient than ever. Why the next generation of this size aircraft is actually heavier makes no earthly sense.

toltommy wrote:

helhem wrote:

I think these scope clauses in the current form are stupid. It affects the design of aircraft too much .

I disagree. We are in an age where new materials like composites and carbon fiber are being used to make aircraft stronger, lighter, and more fuel efficient than ever. Why the next generation of this size aircraft is actually heavier makes no earthly sense.

New engines, especially geared types, weigh significantly more.

toltommy wrote:

helhem wrote:

I think these scope clauses in the current form are stupid. It affects the design of aircraft too much .

I disagree. We are in an age where new materials like composites and carbon fiber are being used to make aircraft stronger, lighter, and more fuel efficient than ever. Why the next generation of this size aircraft is actually heavier makes no earthly sense.

Aside from the engine as mentioned above, the aircraft is actually stretched. So it's a bit larger.