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!!

 

Well now let's have some discussion. I don't really know what you were trying to do with the whole furlough % thing, but these numbers represent people, and I am sure we can agree on how tragic that can be for any individual.


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.

 

Well my friend, I'll save you from having to read between the lines and spell it out for you.....you are correct, furloughs do suck. Since your "flare for the obvious" seems to escape you as evidence of the above scratch, the point I was 'attempting' to make is that furloughs numbers in this case (CAL v UAL) have just about everything to do with conceding/folding on SCOPE. This is beyond a classic example/nightmare of what "can happen" if given the chance. It's all very simple.....give the company the ability to farm out their labor in peanuts, don't be surprised when an entire fleet get's parked, & you have have 1000+ mainline guys/gals on the street.....an example on what NOT to give back.....that's my point.....In your words, I believe that's 'on point'.

There you go!! That's a great mantra to 'work' by.....why not fold your tent and make it "120 is the new 50, get over it"!! Seems to be the vogue thing to do, keep dragging down the profession like a 'train wreck in slow motion'. I guess the idea/topic of SCOPE is not 'topical' to you in a CBA? I've said from square one, we can/should go ahead and give the company "RJ" relief w/ constraints/numbers/size ect, but they will be flown by "mainline" pilots period. Problems?? The company get's what they ask for, but mainline pilots are not being forced out of their jobs.....you know, like the ones we spoke of earlier???

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??

 

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.

 

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.

 

Why in God's name would the United pilots not want more restrictive scope language?

 

News Headlines
new rumor

 

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".

 

Did Delta and NWA lock down scope for good when you guys merged?

 

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)