Could it happen!???
#11
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
BTW....the disparity in numbers wouldn't have anything to do with SCOPE protection in standing CBA's would it???.....Naw!!
#12
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 28
Not so much wise one......just comparing the 2 groups of furloughed numbers and strictly that.....CAL's 147 vs UAL's 1400+.....check it again and get back with me!
BTW....the disparity in numbers wouldn't have anything to do with SCOPE protection in standing CBA's would it???.....Naw!!
BTW....the disparity in numbers wouldn't have anything to do with SCOPE protection in standing CBA's would it???.....Naw!!
With regard to RJ's
Someone on another thread had coined the phrase "70 is the new 50, get over it".
Let's think this one through. CAL obviously has the more restrictive SCOPE language. So, if the merger occurs, we have 2 contracts with different language. Until such time as a single CBA is negotiated, the individual contracts are controlling. What would preclude the corporate entity from flying 70 seat RJ's? The answer is "nothing", they will just be flown under the less restrictive agreement. The CAL pilot's will sit and watch 70 seat RJ's fly from HUB -to (pick your hub or any other destination) under the UAL banner. So the potential whip-saw could continue until such time as it is either allowed or disallowed, under a joint CBA. I would suggest that in view of the merger templates recently available, seeking a joint CBA ASAP is the most preferable for all parties.
I am hopeful that you find this on point. Some of your "facts" not withstanding.
#13
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
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??
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 04-24-2010 at 08:02 PM.
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 28
I will try not to post with equal condescension. I think we can all connect the dots on things that have happened, a fairly mean feat. Let's try to digest the reality of the situation going forward. If the merger occurs, there will be a time (hopefully sooner than later) when a joint CBA is negotiated. It appears that you feel you have the leverage to compel a more restrictive scope clause in that process. You will have your work cut out for you trying to convince the UAL pilots and management to go with the CAL scope language. Think of all the trite sayings that apply here; Genie out of bottle, toothpaste back in tube, bell already rung, etc.
It is doubtful that you have the leverage you perceive, I guess we'll find out. Good luck.
Of course this is just the opinion of someone with 3 posts not 603, so validity is obviously questionable.
It is doubtful that you have the leverage you perceive, I guess we'll find out. Good luck.
Of course this is just the opinion of someone with 3 posts not 603, so validity is obviously questionable.
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 172
The United pilots don't need anyone's convincing. The majority that I know and have spoken to about scope have a VERY strong desire to recapture ALL seats above 50. I have even heard the position that perhaps the existing 70 seater's working for United would be allowed to stay for a short time and removed from service (for United) as the express contracts expire. This would give United time to place it's own 70 seat and above jets into the markets.
#16
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 320A
Posts: 333
#18
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Interesting Article.
One thing to remember.....'Harvard Jeff's' speciality is M&A. In this process, I'm sure he's in his element and 'loving' the entire chess match.
In the end, time will tell. Eitherway, it's safe to say that it's above most of our "pay grades".
One thing to remember.....'Harvard Jeff's' speciality is M&A. In this process, I'm sure he's in his element and 'loving' the entire chess match.
In the end, time will tell. Eitherway, it's safe to say that it's above most of our "pay grades".
#19
#20
The truth
The latest news (read: rumor) is that the merger hinges on stock price.
This tells us one of two things (if true):
A. Glenn will not cave on price, meaning this was all BS to manipulate stock price. (Notice he sold $1.6 mil whe nit hit 23.)
B. Glenn is just playing hardball for show...to make it look like he gives an f about the shareholders value. (We know Glenn is for merging at all costs)
This tells us one of two things (if true):
A. Glenn will not cave on price, meaning this was all BS to manipulate stock price. (Notice he sold $1.6 mil whe nit hit 23.)
B. Glenn is just playing hardball for show...to make it look like he gives an f about the shareholders value. (We know Glenn is for merging at all costs)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post