NOT Good!

[kellwolf]

So you're saying UA doesn't have an extra 75 or 76 and a few guys to fly IAD to MAD, if they were so interested that they would help with a startup? Not even for a month? To see how it goes? I don't buy it.

Oh, they've got the pilots. They just make too much money......

 

[blee256]

"Aer Lingus has advised the Irish press that this joint venture will operate an Aer Lingus aircraft with neither United nor Aer Lingus employees, under a separate operating certificate and under newly established wages and working conditions. Obviously, this partnership will be accomplished at the expense of United's and Aer Lingus's own pilots and other employees.

I am going to have to agree with Fly8Slep on this one. While I do agree that this sucks for UA, it seems like its more of AL's pilots flight than it is UAs. They are using ALs planes, then it should be flown by ALs pilots. I dont think UAs pilots have a dog in this fight. The most they can do is support ALs pilot union if there is one...

If pilots in other countries don't want to fight something, then that's their business. I can't force another man to stick up for himself. When they do want to stick up for themselves, I'll be standing right there beside them to offer whatever help I can.

When they WANT to?!? I am sure everyone wants to, but please realize not every country is as great and as free as ours. For example, in Dubai it is illegal to form unions in that country. I hope everyone on this board knows that there is only one thing that seperates us, US born citizens, than from a boy born in N. Korea, Darfur, burma, or any other third world country, and its LUCK! plain and simple, stupid luck! So to blame other countries lack of desire to organize and fight for their rights is naive.

If UAL had no interest in the route, then they wouldn't be code sharing for it. No, they're interested in the route, they just want to do it cheaper by outsourcing it. The UA code will be affixed to the route.

Providing customers? That's called selling tickets, and it means that UAL does have an interest in the route. Do you not understand what a code share is? :banghead:

My understanding of an airline code, is that an airline will just slaps a flight number to an already existing flight of another airline, so they can sell seats on it, and add more destinations to their network without having to add more to their fleet. Is this any different code share than with DL/AF or NW/AF? Or any other alliance that almost every int'l airline is a part of?

There is no way one airline can, feasibly serve the entire world. Hence the star/oneworld/skyteam alliances. Am I missing something here? How is this one different?

Or is the argument onlyover the new start up airline?

We're getting closer. Why would they use their plane, then they'd have to pay union pilots a negotiated wage.

Contrary to popular belief, the world doesnt revolve around pilots. Airlines dont exist only to provide pilots with jobs and large paychecks. They are in it to make money!! like any other business.

I find it hard to believe that the sole reason for this airline is to screw pilots and not pay them a negotiated wage. Its got to be a lot more expensive to start up a whole new airline than to just pay a union pilot.

 

[kellwolf]

Brian, it's my understanding that UAL is picking the routes, marketing, etc and Aer Lingus is operating them. By your argument, it sounds like it would be okay for UAL to drop Mesa and out source the flying to Aer Lingus. What if Air Canada Jazz decided to do the same thing Aer Lingus is doing with cheaper labor but for NWA/Delta. Say goodbye to any of our Canadian flying.

 

[GaTechKid]

US Carriers: Outsourcing Risk To EU Airlines . United, apparently, has scored a coup of sorts using Open Skies. Aer Lingus will operate a code-shared flight between Madrid and Washington/IAD. For United, which will market the service, there is zero downside. UA gets a MAD leg from its IAD hub, plus the incremental US-generated feed, and, according to reports, Aer Lingus will take most of the financial risk. UA will do the US-side marketing. For United: it's zero risk and some sound upside. Furthermore, if the Aer Lingus operation shows real potential for MAD-IAD, United can enter it later, with the Irish carrier having developed it for them.

The Irish carrier had better hope that United's crack marketing team does a bang-up job, because most of the trip originations are going to be in the US. That's because the brand power of Aer Lingus in Spain is probably right up there with a bottle of Bud on a Haj flight.

Bottom line: Open Skies has some incremental upsides. If you're a US carrier, that is.

from www.aviationplanning.com

 

[surreal1221]

:yeahthat: It ain't too often that mikecweb comes along and backs me up, but the guy is absolutely right. It seems that you don't understand the whole allure of outsourcing, fly8slep.

Of course not, lest you've forgotten where he is presently employed.

 

[CFIscare]

Contrary to popular belief, the world doesnt revolve around pilots. Airlines dont exist only to provide pilots with jobs and large paychecks. They are in it to make money!! like any other business.

You are right airlines don't exist to provide for pilots. If given the chance, they would try to reduce every single cost related to the pilots. That is why we have unions. They are hear to protect pilots and even better their careers. Airlines must look out for themselves, sure, but pilots need to look out for themselves too.

I find it hard to believe that the sole reason for this airline is to screw pilots and not pay them a negotiated wage. Its got to be a lot more expensive to start up a whole new airline than to just pay a union pilot.

How else can you explain it though? Are they too bored running their own airlines? Is it a side hobby they picked up?

Think about it. They already have the planes. They already have the ground crews. They already have the gates. They already have the reputable names of United and Aer Lingus, and everything that goes with that. The only thing left is having air crews that aren't paid "respectable", don't have union protection, don't have seniority and the pay that goes with it, and don't have [insert anything that unions and pilots have fought for for the last 100 years].

 

[blee256]

Brian, it's my understanding that UAL is picking the routes, marketing, etc and Aer Lingus is operating them. By your argument, it sounds like it would be okay for UAL to drop Mesa and out source the flying to Aer Lingus. What if Air Canada Jazz decided to do the same thing Aer Lingus is doing with cheaper labor but for NWA/Delta. Say goodbye to any of our Canadian flying.

I think it would be absolutely okay for UA to drop Mesa (or any other regional, we are just outsourced pilots as well) for another carrier. It is their name on the line, not mesa. It would be fine for DAL to drop us after 2017 too. If they want to replace us with Aer Lingus or Jazz, thats their choice. but I dont think it would be cost effective to them to have US domociles. Besides, didnt Expressjet try to fly in europe and mesa in china? or was that just rumor?

According to arguments in this thread, only US airlines should fly flights within the US, correct? So if Lufthansa were to open a Hub in Chicago, and flew ORD-MIA, ORD-LAX, ORD-Vancouver, ORD-Mexico City, that wouldnt be cool. But NW has a huge hub out of Tokyo. I even think they have legs within asia that doesnt go thru NRT.

Also Korean Air flies LAX- GRU. Air Tahiti Nui flies LAX-CDG. Air New Zealand flies LAX- LHR.

And why does the US have more of a right to fly IAD-MAD than a European Airline?

You are right airlines don't exist to provide for pilots. If given the chance, they would try to reduce every single cost related to the pilots. That is why we have unions. They are hear to protect pilots and even better their careers. Airlines must look out for themselves, sure, but pilots need to look out for themselves too.

I agree with you completely about unions. And thank god we have them. But isnt this just a code share? I understand the are using new pilots, but its ALs planes. I agree that the ALs pilots are getting screwed.

How else can you explain it though? Are they too bored running their own airlines? Is it a side hobby they picked up?

Think about it. They already have the planes. They already have the ground crews. They already have the gates. They already have the reputable names of United and Aer Lingus, and everything that goes with that. The only thing left is having air crews that aren't paid "respectable", don't have union protection, don't have seniority and the pay that goes with it, and don't have [insert anything that unions and pilots have fought for for the last 100 years].

Will they be using UA/ALs crew schedulers? dispatchers? What about Admin staff? payroll, acct? will they be sharing the same ops? that could get interesting...ha...

 

[Minuteman]

I guess it's worth mentioning that Ryanair owns 29.4% of Aer Lingus (the Irish government owns another 25.4%).

Oop, looks like the Irish government just turned down Ryanair's bid to buy their 25% share or Aer Lingus.

Business as usual here, nothing novel or trendbreaking.

 

[kellwolf]

I think it would be absolutely okay for UA to drop Mesa (or any other regional, we are just outsourced pilots as well) for another carrier. It is their name on the line, not mesa. It would be fine for DAL to drop us after 2017 too. If they want to replace us with Aer Lingus or Jazz, thats their choice. but I dont think it would be cost effective to them to have US domociles. Besides, didnt Expressjet try to fly in europe and mesa in china? or was that just rumor?

And Virgin flies in the US. It's just 51% owned by capital fund groups. They don't need us domiciles. All they'd have to do is run the AC Jazz stuff outta YYZ. Poof, there ya go. You mentioned "cost effective." It's not cost effective for United to run these routes with United planes and pilots. Hence the end-around.

According to arguments in this thread, only US airlines should fly flights within the US, correct? So if Lufthansa were to open a Hub in Chicago, and flew ORD-MIA, ORD-LAX, ORD-Vancouver, ORD-Mexico City, that wouldnt be cool. But NW has a huge hub out of Tokyo. I even think they have legs within asia that doesnt go thru NRT.

The Lufthansa wouldn't only by "not cool," it would be illegal. The NWA routes have, as has already been mentioned, been operated under ICAO "fifth freedom" rules.

Also Korean Air flies LAX- GRU. Air Tahiti Nui flies LAX-CDG. Air New Zealand flies LAX- LHR.

And why does the US have more of a right to fly IAD-MAD than a European Airline?

It's not the airline, it's the STAFFING choice. United's basically outsourcing it to Aer Lingus rather than using planes they've had parked for a while and pilots heading to the streets. I'd bet money that United's scope clause says something about outsourcing something as large as an Airbus.

I agree with you completely about unions. And thank god we have them. But isnt this just a code share? I understand the are using new pilots, but its ALs planes. I agree that the ALs pilots are getting screwed.

Reading the first article, it sounds like just another code share. When I dug deeper into the issue, it's not. The routes are owned and operated by United with Aer Lingus doing the flying. It's no different than Pinnacle's flying for NWA. If Aer Lingus set their schedule and United just piggybacked with a flight number, that would be a codeshare.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I think part of the problem here is that a lot of pilots don't really understand what "scope" is. Scope is the language that deals with an airline's code. The UAL pilots have a scope section that defines their level of control over the UA code. The Delta pilots have a scope section that defines their level of control of the DL code. And so on. A "code share" still has to fall under the "exceptions" language that is contained within the agreement's scope section. I'm not familiar with the UAL scope language enough to know what restrictions they have on code shares, but I'm sure there are some sort of guidelines. Captain Wallach stated that the UAL MEC will try to fight this. That leads me to believe that ALPA attorneys have advised them that they have at least a small chance of having some scope language that would deal with this issue. We'll have to see what comes of it.

 

[kellwolf]

I think part of the problem here is that a lot of pilots don't really understand what "scope" is. Scope is the language that deals with an airline's code. The UAL pilots have a scope section that defines their level of control over the UA code. The Delta pilots have a scope section that defines their level of control of the DL code. And so on. A "code share" still has to fall under the "exceptions" language that is contained within the agreement's scope section. I'm not familiar with the UAL scope language enough to know what restrictions they have on code shares, but I'm sure there are some sort of guidelines. Captain Wallach stated that the UAL MEC will try to fight this. That leads me to believe that ALPA attorneys have advised them that they have at least a small chance of having some scope language that would deal with this issue. We'll have to see what comes of it.

Big question is if ALPA loses the fight.....what does that mean for scope clauses? Other airlines might decided to do the same end around to get regionals flying A320s, etc. IMO, the Aer Lingus deal isn't much different than United start new routes and letting a regional partner fly them. So, what's to stop them from saying "Mesa, here's our A320s. What will you bid to fly these?"

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Depends on what their language says. There might be different language for "feeder" operations and international code shares. I haven't had the time to look at the language in-depth yet.