Exactly. Scope clauses are what allow United Express to fly as, well, United Express. The Scope part of the contract is what allows flying under the United banner to be done by pilots not on the United seniority list. There have been several relaxations of the United scope clause since the early-mid 1990's, when the RJ's first showed up in the industry. The first relaxation in 1995 allowed for a specific number of 50 seat RJ's that could be flown by the regionals. This was presented to the UAL pilot group by our MEC chairman at the time as "we can buy and fly RJ's or 777's, but not both. Which one do you want?". We chose the 777. Of course, the company was lying to us, and we never ordered the 777's. In 2000 we voted in a contract that allowed more 50 seat flying, and a continued small number of 70 seaters grandfathered in with Air Wisconsin. At the time, United was growing, and there were no furloughs, so it did not seem like it would be detrimental to the careers of those on the property. 9/11 happened, the economy took a dump, and we furloughed several thousand pilots. During that time, the company demanded that we give them a new contract, filed for Ch 11, and the company went bankrupt.

The company gave us a contract proposal, and told us that we could take it or take our chances with having the judge impose it on us. At that point, the judge had rubber stamped every single thing United had asked for, and there was a fear that he would do the same with the contract United wanted to impose. THAT contract had ZERO scope... in other words, United could fly any type, any size, and any number of jets for United Express they wanted. You would see A320's flying for Skywest right now if that had gone through. With that real threat on the table, we held our noses and voted in a contract that allowed for a huge increase in 70 seat RJ's. United parked hundreds of planes, and replaced them with pilots flying 70 seat RJ's for Express. 2000+ pilots were on the street. There were jobs negotiated for our furloughee's to go to the right seat of the RJ's at second year pay.

Finally, things started to turn around, and we recalled our furloughed brothers and sisters, and actually did a little hiring. Almost immediately, oil went to $140 a barrel, the geniuses at United hedged at high oil prices, so when oil crashed to $36 a barrel, United was paying BILLIONS is extra for fuel. The pilots again bore the brunt of that crappy decision. Another 1400+ pilots were furloughed as United parked another 100 planes, many of them for the second time. So here comes the present discussion. Our furloughed pilots are again offered jobs at second year RJ pay.... to do the same job they used to get paid 10 year mainline pay to do with mainline jets. It's insulting to them. It's basically saying "I'm ok with my job being outsourced". Now I don't begrudge any furloughee taking those jobs if they need/want them, but I will also support them 100% for telling United to go pee off and having the dignity to say "my skills and services are worth more than the pittance you want to pay me for them".

Mshunter got an earful because she made an assertion that the senior pilots at United voted themselves some sort of sweet deal at the expense of those furloughed pilots. Well, I'm making 50% less than I was in 2002, I'm working 20% more hours, I've lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension and stock, and have been bumped out of the seat I was holding twice. It's not like things are rosy anywhere on the seniority list. The #1 priority of the VAST majority of the pilots at UAL is to shore up scope in the new contract and get our brothers and sisters back in the cockpits of UNITED airlines where they belong. To suggest otherwise is ignorant, wrong, and insulting. Voicing opinions is fine, but if they are based on inaccuracies and heresy, expect a rather strong rebuttal.