SoCalGuy

Well my friend, I'll save you from having to read between the lines and spell it out for you.....you are correct, furloughs do suck. Since your "flare for the obvious" seems to escape you as evidence of the above scratch, the point I was 'attempting' to make is that furloughs numbers in this case (CAL v UAL) have just about everything to do with conceding/folding on SCOPE. This is beyond a classic example/nightmare of what "can happen" if given the chance. It's all very simple.....give the company the ability to farm out their labor in peanuts, don't be surprised when an entire fleet get's parked, & you have have 1000+ mainline guys/gals on the street.....an example on what NOT to give back.....that's my point.....In your words, I believe that's 'on point'.

There you go!! That's a great mantra to 'work' by.....why not fold your tent and make it "120 is the new 50, get over it"!! Seems to be the vogue thing to do, keep dragging down the profession like a 'train wreck in slow motion'. I guess the idea/topic of SCOPE is not 'topical' to you in a CBA? I've said from square one, we can/should go ahead and give the company "RJ" relief w/ constraints/numbers/size ect, but they will be flown by "mainline" pilots period. Problems?? The company get's what they ask for, but mainline pilots are not being forced out of their jobs.....you know, like the ones we spoke of earlier???

I can see with your numerous posts of "2", you may not have weighed in (maybe not have even taken the time to read) on past threads that have discussed the SCOPE topic in nauseam. If by some chance you have read to what I am refering, it should be clear that we can go around in circles on the topic as it has been displayed before. If your solution is to put your head in the sand on SCOPE in the form of a joint CBA (assuming a merger takes place), do many of us a favor, pedal that non-sense else where. It has clearly been displayed on what happens to an airline when a pilot group compromises it's SCOPE. Need we say more??