Oldmako - great thoughts, I'll have what your drinking. just thinking of "Lord Jeffy" squirming and wringing his hands over needing us brought a smile to my face:)

No. Generally, they are flying as much for the company as for the money. Taking sick days maintains the dollars but doesn't help the company. Some will take a 1000-hour sick bank into retirement.

Oldmako, I agree with most of your points and some of your logic, but I just don't believe it's going to be enough to move management off their tragically flawed belief that we will succumb to a "next generation" labor agreement. In other words, management truly believes we will continue subsidizing profits with concessions. Recently, Fred was heard to say that we are millions and millions apart on an agreement and didn't see an end in sight. These guys want to believe that the concessions both pilot groups have been subjected to are now the new status quo. I'm very confident that we won't move off our position either but frankly I don't see any of the scenarios you described, whether they come to pass or not, as being sufficient to move management. I agree with your assessment that we won't be allowed to strike - in the short term. But unfortunately I don't think this is going to be a short term thing. I'll be ecstatic if I'm wrong...

I guess they have been skipping a few folks because I'm a 5/2000 hire and I haven't been called yet. They must know my answer would be "no thanks". UAL, however, did call to make sure all my contact information was correct??? I'm not sure why they are doing that? Anyone have any ideas?

Here's a standard negotiating point that many on these types of boards have a tendency not to understand. I see it misunderstood quite often.

Concessionary-type contracts without "snapbacks" are a base-line starting point for new section 6 negotiations...they are the "status quo" whether anybody likes it or not. Improvements do not occur directly as a result of a prior contract being concessionary. Improvements will depend upon the economy and where your competition currently is and going in the contract world, ie, your pilot competition from a labor cost standpoint. Without "snaps," prior concessions have nothing to do with contract improvements.

Please note, I'm not advocating one way or the other. I've done this before and it just is. The opportunity for "auto" improvement/restoration was lost by both pilot groups when "snaps" were not included as part of the original deals.

I think he is talking about my post on the UAL forums. The call I got was simply to verify my contact information. I believe all remaining furlougees are getting that call.

That makes more sense. I guess those that received the latest offer(FedEx package, not a phone call) for a CAL job have until the 29th to accept/decline. If they don't get enough takers, they will send out the next wave of offers. Anyone know why UAL is proactively checking contact information for furloughees? I don't remember them doing that last time around. I thought the CBA put the responsibility on the furloughee to keep that info up to date.

You 100% correct. This is the new status quo brought to us by the 58% that voted yes on POS 02 without snapbacks. Let me restate my argument; I think it's astonishing that the company apparently believes that UCAL pilots will settle for the status quo in the absence of the exceptional conditions that caused concessions in the first place.

Complete WAG here but maybe the FAA Rest and Duty regs that are to be published tomorrow might be more manpower positive?

It would affect the CAL staffing model alot more than most since CALs well known razor thin flight operations staffing SOP.

yeah but they got two years to ramp up-- move along nothing to see here.

we suck-- cant wait to see what happens with this tpa extension and sli stuff----- ggrrrreeeaaaatttt