Originally Posted by gettinbumped

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.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

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.

Originally Posted by TheBills

If we're talking about mass furloughs at the regionals to accommodate UAL/CAL scope, its easier for a regional FO/CA to be furloughed, than a mainline CA/FO to be furloughed. Lets face it, your average mainline pilot has wife, kids, child support, etc. to deal with on top of losing his job. I guess what im trying to say is, I would take another furlough if I knew that flying a regional jet would mean being employed by UAL to do it.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

You have no clue what a judge "would have done." But your opinion cloaked as fact is needed to make your case about everything being the major pilots' fault, while cementing your victim status.

Carl

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Carl,

His logic is the same as mine with regard to a Judge interfering in the clearly established right to organize.

But your own Zip Lines document the order of negotiations. Scope was sold, not taken.

Originally Posted by DAWGS

But if it meant just a furlough, and not on the UAL list, would you feel the same? This is why I don't think we can take it back under ALPA. Hold the line, maybe, but I highly doubt that as well. Taking jobs directly en mass from the regionals back to the majors would cause too many problems for ALPA or maybe even its demise, imho. Many people want to give lip service to the return of jobs to mainline, only if they come with that job. When they are on the street with no number at mainline, then the problems will begin. When thousands of ALPA members would fall into this boat, what do you think they will be saying to ALPA?

Has RJ scope at a Major ever been tightened, once already loosened at an ALPA carrier? I don't think so. It is much easier to slowly outsource jobs than to take a job back, once it has already been given. Especially when that job is a fellow union member. Management loves this conflict within our own house.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

I diverge with you a little bit about ALPA. The cynical side of me says that ALPA will easily "change sides" to whatever area shows growth potential. They certainly didn't have any real reaction to watching 10's of thousands of good mainline jobs go to the regionals, so I suspect that they wouldn't mind a number of them going back. Along those lines, I don't see how ALPA has a say even if they WERE interested in protecting their regional members from furlough. We've had a front row seat for how effective they have been at stopping mainline furloughs. ALPA National doesn't negotiate our scope or our contract. They sign the deal at the end, and I'm sure that Scope tightening wouldn't keep them from putting the ink on the paper.

Time will tell how successful we are at getting scope reigned back in, but for the first time in a decade, I believe we have something that management wants. I like the way this is headed. Let's get our 1500 back flying UNITED jets, no matter how many seats they have in them.