J4J is not nearly enough to make that happen. 190 flying has to be on mainline property or it won't happen at all. J4J does not make outsourcing alright. As a matter of fact, the mindset has to be more than just protecting the 90 seat flying. The mindset has to be about getting the 70 seat flying back. Not impossible but tough I know.

 

Only way that will happen is if there is a merger with you know who

 

You seriously think in a UAL and CAL merger that CAL ALPA's scope language can be kept and UAL can jettison at least 30% of their passenger fleet?

Unless you were talking about a merger with Skywest, Mesa, and Republic.

 

Yes I do. Why don't you think so?

 

Thank you; United has some of the finest people in the industry working their tails off to run the operations day to day. It is a crying shame to see them held back by executive management.

 

Why should CAL's scope language take precedent over UAL's?

UAL ALPA and CAL ALPA are not going to hammer out the merger. UAL management and CAL management will (if it happens @ all). It is in the interests of UAL and CAL shareholders, as represented by management, to have UAL's scope, or, at the very least, not CAL ALPA's.

I just don't think UAL ALPA and CAL ALPA can dictate the scope language here, and, even if they could, would choose not to, spending their negotiating capital on other items of interest to the pilots - such as seniority integration, say.

I hope I'm wrong, of course. I'd love to see CAL's scope become industry standard.

 

If your referring the "last golden" egg in the POS CAL contract....SCOPE.....you better bet that this will be the fight of all fights if the company wants otherwise.

If there is one thing that we have left that is considered "industry leading", that would be Scope constraints and clauses in place under POS '02. There have been other Legacy carriers that have negotiated/bent/or relieved their prior Scope outlines, and we've seen on the whole, this is NOT a good thing for the most part in protecting mainline flying positions.

Just last year, CAL's Mgt came forth to the MEC and presented a JVF (Joint Venture Flying) proposal in which one of Mgt's "major wants" was some scale of Scope relief.....the last golden egg that the CAL pilot hold in the labor agreement. One of the better moves that our MEC has executed thus far was to tell Mgt "Thanks, but no thanks".

So Yes...I among many other pilots believe that CAL's Scope agreement can be fought for and kept, if not, we have seen the ugly foreshadowing of what could come if compromised otherwise.

 

Not having UAL's to go side by side with CAL's Scope outlines.....but looking at what's taking place in the recent years over at UAL with Regional flying vs. what was their Guppy Flying, I would dare to say CAL's Scope clause has been kept intact/stronger when comparing the two. Would like to hear examples of why this would not be a true statement.

When comparing Apples/Apples, if there to be a marriage down the road, I would think/hope that the combine group would want the strong/clad agreement in place on the Scope Clause/Rules.