![]() |
From last night's MEC Email:
The first two days of the meeting this weekend has focused on MEC questions for the subject matter experts from the Negotiating Committee, System Schedule Committee, Alliance and Scope Committee, and Retirement & Insurance Committee to ensure all provisions in the TA are fully understood prior to the vote. |
Originally Posted by AxlF16
(Post 3128430)
From last night's MEC Email:
Hmmmmmm. I didn't see anything in the rumors that even touched on scope. 2. Even if scope weren’t involved in the final language, I would want the scope pros going through it with a fine toothed comb and briefing me on why they think it would or wouldn’t be acceptable. Now go back to the rumor mill. I’ll have another beer 🍻 |
Originally Posted by McNugent
(Post 3128445)
1. It’s rumors you’re talking about. F’ing RUMORS. Chill and read it when it comes out.
2. Even if scope weren’t involved in the final language, I would want the scope pros going through it with a fine toothed comb and briefing me on why they think it would or wouldn’t be acceptable. Now go back to the rumor mill. I’ll have another beer 🍻 In case you haven't noticed, the LEC reps are still taking calls and input, and are reactive to mid course guidance. The reason I pointed that out is because we might want to start reviewing and thinking about UPA scope provisions and what type of changes we would accept or reject. Once you get a group leaning one way they tend to minimize or disregard warning signs. Didn't we learn about this in CQ?... The MEC update was the 1st mention of scope related to this TA. Assume that away if you wish, but my antennae just got perked up. |
Originally Posted by AxlF16
(Post 3128459)
OF COURSE we're talking about rumors. You might need 'chill'...or stop reading sections that contain ONLY rumor.
In case you haven't noticed, the LEC reps are still taking calls and input, and are reactive to mid course guidance. The reason I pointed that out is because we might want to start reviewing and thinking about UPA scope provisions and what type of changes we would accept or reject. Once you get a group leaning one way they tend to minimize or disregard warning signs. Didn't we learn about this in CQ?... The MEC update was the 1st mention of scope related to this TA. Assume that away if you wish, but my antennae just got perked up. it would also be very convenient to push it through on a rush timeline as an LOA rather than a new contract. but maybe I am just too suspicious. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 3128332)
That's true. the industry was not doing well in summer of 2001. A big part of that reason was the overexpansion by all the majors. So, my generalization of United being "on a tear" is not accurate. My point is that United expanded through June, 2001 and continued to hire pilots. I read a Q2 2001 report that states that United was shifting away from 4% growth for 2001 to basically flat.
Well that was also the year of the Arthur Anderson/Enron scandal something to consider when looking back at anyone’s reports from that time. As you said the industry was in trouble already largely. I believe a couple of companies like US and AmWest had already announced or were hinting at l furloughs prior to 9/11. Imo, that 4% to flat was Goodwin and Dutta trying to save face after a tough run and unlikely to happen. The DC-10 and older 747’s were gone. The 737-200’s were toast as well to be replaced by an A319 order that never materialized. The 727’s were up next, but there never was a replacement order there. Both fleets left faster than expected that fall, but they were going anyway-that’s nearly 100 NB’s with only 1/4 of the smaller ones replaced. Most of it would have been 50 seat RJ’s. The Shuttle was about to be merged with mainline and rationalized, they were already doing so on the low prior to 9/11. WB in places like MIA, JFK, SEA and HNL were drying up, shuffling or both. Also remember that a lot of UA’s growth predictions in that timeframe included anticipated UsAirways flying. They had stopped pretty much all internal initiatives there once that deal was announced. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by AxlF16
(Post 3128430)
From last night's MEC Email:
Hmmmmmm. I didn't see anything in the rumors that even touched on scope. |
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3128744)
The scope committee makes reports all of the time. They are tracking block hours and making sure that the company stays in compliance with our contract.
|
Originally Posted by AxlF16
(Post 3128459)
OF COURSE we're talking about rumors. You might need 'chill'...or stop reading sections that contain ONLY rumor.
In case you haven't noticed, the LEC reps are still taking calls and input, and are reactive to mid course guidance. The reason I pointed that out is because we might want to start reviewing and thinking about UPA scope provisions and what type of changes we would accept or reject. Once you get a group leaning one way they tend to minimize or disregard warning signs. Didn't we learn about this in CQ?... The MEC update was the 1st mention of scope related to this TA. Assume that away if you wish, but my antennae just got perked up. |
Originally Posted by ReadOnly7
(Post 3128930)
Starting to sound like Colonel Kurtz......
|
It is amazing how many of you are willingly and what seems to be excitedly taking part in becoming angry about AiP information that is completely made-up. Put the child-like emotional fits on the backburner and don’t pizzagate your own union.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:38 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands