First of all, I can't even figure out what you are trying to say, as this doesnt make any sense.... But I get the gist.

Let me explain a few things to you. As UAL is closest to the next round of contract completion, let's look there. The union scope proposal is that ALL flying comes in house. How close we get to that goal, leverage will dictate, but I think you can see the mood of the pilot group with that position. I PROMISE you this. Scope will not be relaxed. Any flying over 70 seats will be done by the mainline, and the Aer Lingus debacle will go away. See, while you are thinking about the bottom side, we are being attacked on ALL sides.

In Bankrupcy I lost my Pension. I lost most of my work rules. I lost 50% of my pay and my seat. But the thing that ****es me off most is being number 20 for takeoff at Ohare and being the only mainline airplane out there. Or getting bumped from my 1 hour flight home because the piece of crap 50 seater my airline subbed for the 767-300 that USED to fly the route can't go out full. Someone mentioned that it will be great when more RJ guys are flying at majors because you "get it". Well, some of you "get it".... Some most definitely do not. We can't win with you guys. Get creamed in BK and relax scope and we are "eating our young". If we manage to get all 150 70 seaters parked there will be cries for putting regional guys on the street.

I've been through every RJ scope vote we've ever had. The decisions you decry as stupid weren't as easy as you make them out to be. I was there. I know. You weren't. The big one was the opening of the floodgates on the 70's, as the 50's are now basically worthless with oil at $80. That concession was made during Ch11. Do you know what the company proposed for scope in the 1113c filing? No scope. Gone. Zero. Nada. Should we have risked the judge allowing that contract or taken what we did? Well the judge gave the company pretty much everything they asked for, so... Pretty risky, wouldn't you say?

I'm ranting, but I've taken enough crap from a bunch of guys who have been in the industry for a couple of years who think they have all the answers. Come talk to me in 20 years and we will see how it turned out. In the meantime, ill bet anyone here $10,000 that scope is not relaxed in the next UAL contract.

Oh, and as far as "mainline pilots eating our young", I don't have any responsibility to you. Flying for United Express doesn't make you "my young". My responsibility is to the 1400 men and women at my company whose jobs have been outsourced.

PG, if we once again are in the position we were in a few years ago, we should use the experience that the NWA FA's showed us. They voted "No," and did not have a contract imposed upon them. Why? No judge wants to be the first, no matter what they say. It is uncharted waters.

Amen brother lol.

And since its all about the money, the relaxation of scope costs mainline pilots money and we all know it. So throwing some coin out for a relaxation of scope will go over like a wet fart in church.

Maybe if the mainline carrier isn't having to guarantee a profit to the regional carrier, pay for more schedulers, mechanics, dispatchers, accountants, lawyers, etc. then they'd have to pay in house, then just maybe a reduction in wages isn't necessary, maybe an increase in wages would be in order?

Amen preacher, amen.

---
GO U-CAL!!!!!!

Not only the (seat number) line, but the total number line, the max takeoff weight line, and all the other lines as well. And that clause whereby the large RJ fleet can grow as the mainline grows but if the mainline later shrinks the large RJ fleet can remain at mainline growth based levels needs to come out.

In addition to that, some level of scope reversal needs to happen. 76 to 70, or fewer total large RJ's (outsourced that is) or perhaps pretty potent poison pill punitive provisions :D that gut the outsourced flying in the event of mainline shrinkage or pilot furloughs, etc can be in there as well.

I'd like to see 100% of 51 and up seats insourced. For good "mainline" pay and bennies if possible but at current regional market rates if not possible. U/CAL is talking about that. If they even accomplish 10% of their scope opener goals there is no reason we can't "me too" their progress plus add on some amount progress of our own.

Maybe, but with UAL claiming to be 72 hours from liquidation and Wedoff being Wedoff, that was a pretty large gamble. Did you look at the 1113c contract? It was pretty eye opening.

Personally I don't think Wedoff would have had any problem being first. Just look at the way he handled the McCook Metals bankruptcy. It's a lot easier to assess the risks on the sidelines than to know you have to live with the consequences.

With the new Ch11 rules in effect, hopefully we won't have to play that game of chicken again

Simple.....No.

........At least that's how my ballot will read on ANY T/A (JCBA) that contains this sort of M.O.

Period.

I have some experience in this matter since I dealt with the management side of the equation. During the NWA bankruptcy the judge would have removed the scope relief provisions of an imposed contract if it had come to that point. A judge can't interfere with the law allowing employees to unionize. Scope relief by a judge is a denial of the right of workers to unionize at their respective companies. Scope has to be given up by the union work force, it can't be taken, even in bankruptcy.

Mesabah;

Did you just let a cat out of the bag? :D Of course that is up to legal interpretation. It has been one of my arguments though.

If Scope came between the ratification of a 1113C contract and not, I bet the judge would want the contract signed. It is generally easier to let the parties fight it out and arrive at a package deal. A package deal is just that. Like I have said, lets hope it never happens, but saying no may be OK too.

Well said!

Scoop

+1
 

Same boat as you, just not as senior. There is no freaking way I or any of my peers will allow (through our vote) scope to be relaxed. It might take a few years as FFD contracts expire, but at a minimum all 51+ seat flying will be MAINLINE at UAL. The economics of the 50 will take most of those away with hard cap numbers to protect their growth if oil price lowers. Does that mean mainline will fly CRJ-70 or EMB-70's? Doubtful, in that the company given the new reality of mainline 50+ they will choose a 90-110 seat Mainline airframe to replace the RJ's (Replacement Jets's). Hows that for irony? Almost without question every market that can support a 70 seater can support a 90-110 seater, just lower the CASM with the extra 20-40 seats. The larger (former Guppy) markets. ORD-DFW, DEN-PDX, DEN-IAH, etc., that are currently flown by 70 seaters will migrate back to 320/737/757 flying as that lowers the CASM for the company, which is good in-turn for pilots.

UAL pilots have lived with job outsourcing and felt the pain far too long. Yes we shot ourselves in the foot big-time in '97 with the We buy em Fly em vote. Who knows what the judge would have done, we voted C 2003 CRJ-70 seaters with 50% of block hours max, and WhiteFERG (rhymes with douche bag) sold out with the Guppy killer EMB-170 for a smokey pension promise.

Yea we f'd up, made mistakes, got screwed, but enough is enough and almost every UAL guy knows it, and CAL guys can see it coming. They would be crazy to give up their 50 seat scope and we (UAL) would be crazy to settle for anything less than 50+ with caps.

This is our only choice, The MEC in 2003 promoted this crappy contract as "The Devil we know is better than the Devil we don't" crap and "Live to fight another day" Well wake the F%$K UP, UAL and CAL pilots, because we will never have this opportunity in our careers again.

Rant off, TP