I'm guessing the scope proposal is something along the lines of "70 seat aircraft flown by UAL pilots when capacity purchase agreements expire, block hour protections.....yada, yada". So the company sees that worst case they have the outsourced feed for the duration of the current CPA's.
Not saying I like it, but based on the context I've heard those "in the know" talk about it. I'm betting that's what's proposed.

VoteNo

 

My radar is as perked as yours towards our union heads, but nothing is official. You are right that it's odd to build this even though Jeff Smigel can get away with this in the short term a la the IAH-ASE thing. It's our job to stop this destruction with this contract...

 

Did you listen to the conference call/Town Hall call in this week??

If you did, you would have heard the question that was posed to Jay regarding SCOPE as it pertains to 'whats' on the table presently to the company. The caller asked Jay, who was deferred to Dan (as in Dan -lead council/legal)....does the SCOPE that is presented "MEET or EXCEED" what was given to the company back in Dec 2009?? Dan's long winded answer started out by saying "It meets, but hard to quantify if it exceeds.....". The caller was referring to the "Economic-Proposal" that was the subject of the Road-Show this past DEC. Everyone (Pilots) were supplied a copy of what presented back in Dec, so it shouldn't be any guessing game as to where this subject starts.

 

I wouldn't put it past this management to just schedule this flying because it can. In absence of a new JCBA and new scope clause, the company will take advantage of every loop hole it can.

The CAL contract defines the 50-seat limit. The UAL contract allows bigger jets. This will be done under United Express banner out of current CAL (I know they are all United) hubs.

The company also knows that if a JCBA becomes effective Jan 1, 2011, as an example, that the 70-seat RJs will not turn into pumpkins on Dec 31, 2010 @ 23:59:59. It simply won't happen as that is the reality of Express contracts that the negotiators and reps are well aware of.

 

The United contract does limit the number of RJ's that can be flown by Express and I believe it is tied into a mainline operational metric. I thought that the number of RJ's was very close to that number at this time. Does anyone have the details? What has happened to Continental's joining one of the alliances that required the pilots consent. Did the merger nullify this provision or is it still required? I seem to recall that there was a January 2011 deadline for this to be worked out.

 

If it is any consolation, mgmt did say that the only express airframes they would be adding for 2011 was 4 Q400s, no mention of any additional 70 seaters. So they spread the current 70 seaters out in the system to try to maximize their use but hold it there. Of course they could be lying

It will take a little bit to but this thing back in the bottle when/if we get that flying back. Sucks we are still paying for the sins of Whiteford.

KC

 

Not too sure on what exactly your referring to other than the drop dead date for CAL's Anti-Trust Imminity Agreement that had a 'shelf life' until the end of 2010. If that's what your refering to, the following are the two ways it could have played out....

Scenario#1: IF CAL would have remained independent, then their would have been a 'shelf life' on the Anti-Trust Immunity granted to CAL (and UAL) by the Gov. That "drop dead date" was to end the immunity at the end of DEC 2010, that's the only thing that had a 'shelf life' in what your were referring to?? Even during the Merger 'talks', this could have revived if/and ONLY if the 'deal' did not go through via Gov approval regarding the Merger.

Scenario#2: The preverbal "Ship has sailed".....There is NO LONGER a Anti-Trust/Drop Dead date b/c it's all one company now....UAL.

As we know today, Scenario#2 is the hard fact.

 

That is what I was thinking about SoCal, before the merger, this was a large negotiating chip CAL ALPA had in the contract renewal negotiations. Makes you wonder how big a factor it was Continental's coming back to the table in the merger negotiations.

 

Anyone looking at what it truly meant would be remissed if they did not give that bargining chip substancial "credit" to CAL-ALPA during Contract '08 Negociations.

It's all a moot point now. As we know, being one company makes the need for it all null-void. Do I think it was a 'key' player in pushing the CAL Mgt side towards the Merger?? I would not say it was the 'sole' peice to the puzzle, but was definitely a key player in how the future landscape would look if CAL was to stand alone with that date looming at the end of Dec 2010.

Just my $.02 cents....