I think he's got a grip on what the TA is going to look like before it arrives.

I think anyone who thought we were going to put a hard cap on 50 seat scope was high. I also think that anyone who thought we were going to put the 70 seat genie back into the bottle is high. I also think that UAL scope sucks and is what put all those 70 seaters at the end of the C concourse in ORD. But it put them there in 2003, not 2009. This is an important distinction.

Before I go any further, let me state that I was on the street during the first big UAL furlough, and missed the second by one half of one RCH. Let me also state that if not for the merger, I believe that UAL would still have 103 B737s on the property and the second round of furloughs would never have happened. We needed the lift. The planes were full and UAL was enjoying record load factors. Meanwhile, our pay was abysmal. There is NO other reason to mothball full, and essentially paid for airframes other than to pre-arrange the merger. We were co-locating gates and equipment across the country. CAL 737s were parking at the B gates in ORD and UAL ground pounders were loading their bags and handling all ground ops. Clearly, the 737s were needed in ORD. Look how quickly the company moved to put them BACK in ORD, DEN, LAX, SFO etc. Connect the dots people. It really isn't all that convoluted.

What I am primarily interested in seeing in this contract is IRON CLAD language placing significant restrictions on the number of RJs and "large RJs" that UAL can operate. The number needs to be directly tied to block hours and the number or airframes that the combined UAL operates. There can be NO wiggle room or obfuscation for the company.

And importantly, the rest of Santa's bag needs to be overflowing as well. If not, NO.

Combined UAL/CAL will have how many pilots over 60? A whole bunch. How many of them are going to stick out their necks for the rest of us? Not too many I'm afraid. Many don't care about scope, and neither would most of us if in their shoes. They want retro, rates and retirement. They want health care when retired, they want work rules till retirement and ample sick time. Sure there are guys who WILL vote no to strengthen the future of this "now lousy" career, but there will be a whole lot more who won't. I base this on 12 years of watching UAL ALPA and listening to "my mentors" as they turn on CH9, pop the brakes early, sue the union, stove pipe, deny furoughees longevity, cave on the no-furlough clause, sue for more of the bond etc etc etc.

I don't like it, but that doesn't mean that I'm tootin' on the crack pipe.
(But I have been "sippin on gin n juice")

Flame away.