According to the December 2011 schedules The current UAL 512 DEN - HNL and the 508 HNL - DEN will be replaced by CAL airplanes and crews. This is clearly downsizing and replacement of traditional UAL routes and flying. This is not a new route being flown by CAL. It appears UAL Management is pulling another fast one and beginning the downsizing of DEN. The irony is it will cost more to do so because there will be the need to DH a CAL crew to DEN and lay them over for legality purposes. Unless of course the new CAL base opens in DEN at the same time they downsize the UAL base there. Ya got really not like these guys.
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
According to the December 2011 schedules The current UAL 512 DEN - HNL and the 508 HNL - DEN will be replaced by CAL airplanes and crews. This is clearly downsizing and replacement of traditional UAL routes and flying. This is not a new route being flown by CAL. It appears UAL Management is pulling another fast one and beginning the downsizing of DEN. The irony is it will cost more to do so because there will be the need to DH a CAL crew to DEN and lay them over for legality purposes. Unless of course the new CAL base opens in DEN at the same time they downsize the UAL base there. Ya got really not like these guys.
I think you need to do some more research. UAL is starting to take over our flying at both IAH and EWR.
Some examples are IAH-LIM. A UAL 767 crew flys in from SFO I believe and now does that flying. They will also start IAH-HNL-GUM flying as well on a UAL 777 shortly.
EWR is losing EWR-ZRH amongst other Europe flying to IAD UAL crews.
Two way street here my friend and expect it to continue and accelerate. Happened at DAL will happen here too.
What's amazing to me then is why aren't our MECs grieving or filing a law suite on any of this stuff? If we want a contract and a SLI then this should have been done. The RJ flying in EWR was a good move and actually forced the management to do something, as little as it was.
Just so you know it was done in the Pan Am pacific purchase. Until there was a SLI no cross over flying was allowed. Sure put the fire under the management back then.
But I'm getting old and times are different I guess.
There is a conspiracy here by management, realign the combined airline while they delay the contracts. No contract, no pay raises, no work rule changes, all the RJs they can muster up!
What's amazing to me then is why aren't our MECs grieving or filing a law suite on any of this stuff?
Because both MEC's negotiated a transition agreement that expires (for many of the protections) in Dec. 2011. That is what's amazing to me, after a decade of misery, the MEC believed that we'd have a contract last Oct. and agreed to TA protections that only lasted for 18 months.
To be clear, ALPA did this. The company will get all the synergy they need, just none of the goodwill from labor. DDSS.
Because both MEC's negotiated a transition agreement that expires (for many of the protections) in Dec. 2011. That is what's amazing to me, after a decade of misery, the MEC believed that we'd have a contract last Oct. and agreed to TA protections that only lasted for 18 months.
To be clear, ALPA did this. The company will get all the synergy they need, just none of the goodwill from labor. DDSS.
When the agreement expires at the end of this year, what prevents significant downsizing and additional furloughs on the UAL side of the house? I find it odd that the MEC's did not ensure identical furlough protections for both sides. Just sayin'. Whipsaw 101.
__________________
How copper wire was invented: two pilots fighting over a penny.
As much as I don't like the TA, it should be noted that some parts of the agreement remain should an "Airline Party" exercise Partial Termination. The value of any remaining protection is certainly up for debate. As I mentioned earlier, the company will get the operational synergy they need at the expense of labor...again.
Quote:
Section 13
Termination of this Transition and Process Agreement
13-A. Partial Termination. Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough with regard to United Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or after December 31, 2011, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date.
13-B. Termination by Agreement. The Parties may terminate this Transition and Process Agreement whenever they shall agree to do so.
13-C. Termination by Notice. An Airline Party or ALPA may terminate this Transition and Process Agreement on fifteen (15) days notice delivered to the other Parties at any time following termination of the Merger Agreement under Section 8.1 of that Agreement.
13-D. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Transition and Process Agreement will not affect a Party’s obligations under Sections 3, 7-B-(iv), 8, 11, 12, and applicable definitions in Section 1, nor will it affect any outstanding payment obligations under Section 15. A Pilot who has been employed pursuant to Section 7-B will continue, at his option, to be employed by the employing Airline in accordance with that Airline’s collective bargaining agreement; however, two (2) months after termination of this Transition and Process Agreement his pay rate going forward will
Conspiracy theory #2. Mgmt has over 30 million tied to bonuses to have a SOC by Dec 31. BOD is hot at Smisdick over the slow JCBA with us but there is no reason to pay us early before the SOC is complete. We are negotiating the biggest part of the contract sections as we speak. I think there may be some momentum gaining in a few months towards the JCBA. If so, watch out for the fast track sales pressure. If not, then next year will be interesting.
Similar Threads
CAL Replacing UAL flying, not new flying
Linear Mode
