I think it's related. It probably gave them the "initial reasoning and logic" to do the deal. Once they realized the genuis of the deal, in that they could simply re-configure the aircraft as needed they saw it as a whip-saw to cut the legs out from under our scope clause and force us to defend it from a different attack point.

One of the top 3 reasons for the UAL-CAL merger was to find a way to defeat CAL scope language. It was a hindrance to the kind of "network oriented" and "non-organic" growth that both Larry Kellner and Jacques Lapointe favored. Evidence of this approach can be found in how they went all in on RJ's for the smaller routes, and went in big time on code-sharing for long haul without buying expensive 777 aiframes from Boeing.


Both Kellner and Lapointe wanted connectivity growth only and with zero to little cost associated with it. Their two major costs were labor and fuel. Pushing those costs to either LCC's, code share partners, or regional partners lowers, defrays, and mitigates those costs to a high degree. If you can out-source instead of in-source your entire cost structure is lowered, and you can then at that point start hiding the money, moving the money, and start giving out sweet executive compensation and stock option packages. The employees will never find the money and say good bye to profit sharing due to clever accounting and write-offs/mark-offs.

Since CAL was actually experiencing a liquidity shortfall due to failed short term investments, anticipated run on the bank for higher paid pilots retirements, and lack of high yield PRASMs it was only a matter of time til they had to find a dance "merger" partner.

Most of the short term cash struggle was because of Jacques Lapointe's leveraging of short term investments, and how he invested retirement funds, and in his abysmal failure (gambling) on fuel hedges. When the chickens came home to roost the pilots had to bail him and Larry out in our now famous POS 02 give-backs, and it's associated PBS debacle that ensued. it's the concession that keeps on giving.

We need stronger scope to account for this recent attack and likely more ingenuous ones to follow in the future. If Todd Insler is reading this I hope he understands the threat(s). It's time to go on the offensive instead of being defensive. Honey Badger time.