I don't think we should be loyal to anything else except THIS PILOT GROUP.

The past is the past. I love my first grade teacher, but even if she was my favorite teacher it was a long time ago.

Who you flew for 10 years ago is irrelevant. How and where we make our cash today and tomorrow is the here, the now, the future. Our childre's college funds, our plans, our retirement dreams, etc. all hinge on this pilot group:
A. Not holding any grudges
B. Not holding on to past loyalties
C. Forward thinking
D. Unified in strategic goals

United entered C2000 negotiations with one of the tightest scope clauses in the industry at 65, 50 seat RJs. Yes, United did have the Air Wisconsin BAE146 agreement with tail number restrictions. Keep in mind Delta allowed an unlimited number of 70 seat aircraft to be operated.

Under the UAL C2000 agreement, United was allowed to increase the number of small RJs up to 150 with a one to one turboprop exchange. They were to further increase the numbers only if the mainline airframes grew over a certain metric. Kinda hard to maintain the line when the Delta has already given away the barn.

So how did we go from the rather small amount described above to a fleet of approximately 600 aircraft including 255 70/76 seat jets? If you're about to say that we gladly approved of UAL's C2003, I'd think twice. Nothing like being told to essentially accept United's terms or Wedoff will impose worse. Toss in Whiteferg's E170 giveaway and there you have it.

We're talking about OUR COMPANY, not Delta.

So, what was the max capacity turboprop at that time? You don't have to answer.....

Sure, you can mention that BAE-ATP, but that's not really a player here.

VVVVVV

Sure, you wanna create a false argument for when I said "anything else that relaxed scope", I should have worded it better for you. But I ALSO didn't blame it on anything after 9/11/during the bankruptcy period.

On a side note....the other day I saw a Trans State pilot with a UNITED lanyard on. Nothing EXPRESS about it. It was mainline. It was one of those “we are ABC” lanyards. (In this case, it was “we are LIT”). I haven’t been on property long enough to say for sure if it was offensive enough to challenge the guy....but I know in all my years at the regionals I would have NEVER done something like that.

Totally unrelated to the ongoing scope discussion, or the OP’s point......but I still have wanted to see what everyone’s thought is on this? Am I overreacting, or is that as offensive as I think it is?

Delta's contract affects ours. The Delta snap up that everyone dreams of at night during the contract extension. Even have people currently asking about it. Shameful. The Delta scope clause when confronting a mediator during our section 6. All of this I'm sure you are aware of.

Creating a false argument? Your words, not mine. I'm just sick and tired of revisionist history either online or from a guy who was in high school when my contract was being gutted.

For the record, sub United's 777s are ETOPS. That one still cracks me up.

Speaking of contracts. How's everyone enjoying our new one? Larga vida Avianca!

Cry to someone else grandpa, I’m not that young.

I was getting my ass handed to me at that time too, just not here.

The guy probably lives there and scored one from an agent. He's more LIT than I am, but I'm working on it this evening and hope to surpass him soon. I need a "WE ARE SUX" if anyone has a connection.

Just smile and wish him a good day.

Ahhh. It's all relative when it comes to zeros and decimal points. Goodnight comrade.

Well United trusts him with the lives of their passengers. I don’t begrudge him a lanyard. Who cares about LIT anyway.

One Consonant away and there's a lot of caring.