United: Growth plans on little expenditure
10-25-2010, 10:54 AM
#11
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by SUPERfluf
ALPA was/is confident that CAL's scope still applies to any flight with the CAL code on it.
The problem seems to be that they were so confident that they didn't prepare for the possibility that Smisek & pals would challenge our scope clause by placing CAL's code on these flights.
So now the word from the CAL MEC is, "we're researching any violations to scope".
Simply put, they can not operate any jets over 70 seats with the CAL code on it.
However, the date of commencement for these flights is months away so it could be that management is hedging their bets on the new JCBA being in force by then.
I am fairly certain that the scope proposal for the JCBA includes a 'sunset provision' that will allow the current UAL capacity purchase agreements to remain in force until they expire. (5+ years from now)
VoteNo and then a resounding "hell no!" to the MEC for any relief on CAL's scope restrictions while the second TA is being negotiated. (because tickets will already have been sold for these flight's I'm sure they'll be telling us we need to let it slide)
The problem seems to be that they were so confident that they didn't prepare for the possibility that Smisek & pals would challenge our scope clause by placing CAL's code on these flights.
So now the word from the CAL MEC is, "we're researching any violations to scope".
Simply put, they can not operate any jets over 70 seats with the CAL code on it.
However, the date of commencement for these flights is months away so it could be that management is hedging their bets on the new JCBA being in force by then.
I am fairly certain that the scope proposal for the JCBA includes a 'sunset provision' that will allow the current UAL capacity purchase agreements to remain in force until they expire. (5+ years from now)
VoteNo and then a resounding "hell no!" to the MEC for any relief on CAL's scope restrictions while the second TA is being negotiated. (because tickets will already have been sold for these flight's I'm sure they'll be telling us we need to let it slide)
I'm 100% in the same camp as you on the NO Vote. If the T/A is ping-ponged back to the MEC's to tell the JNC 'thanx, but no thanx'.....not only is that going to send a tall glass of "Shut the **** up" to Jeff and company regarding us giving into SCOPE, but as you said, it will buy time under the present provision set forth under the current CAL-CBA regarding RJ/Outsourcing of further flying.
Regardless of all the games Mgt is playing, stand tight on SCOPE.....that's the corner stone for us ALL.
10-25-2010, 01:57 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
That's what I gathered as well.
I'm 100% in the same camp as you on the NO Vote. If the T/A is ping-ponged back to the MEC's to tell the JNC 'thanx, but no thanx'.....not only is that going to send a tall glass of "Shut the **** up" to Jeff and company regarding us giving into SCOPE, but as you said, it will buy time under the present provision set forth under the current CAL-CBA regarding RJ/Outsourcing of further flying.
Regardless of all the games Mgt is playing, stand tight on SCOPE.....that's the corner stone for us ALL.
I'm 100% in the same camp as you on the NO Vote. If the T/A is ping-ponged back to the MEC's to tell the JNC 'thanx, but no thanx'.....not only is that going to send a tall glass of "Shut the **** up" to Jeff and company regarding us giving into SCOPE, but as you said, it will buy time under the present provision set forth under the current CAL-CBA regarding RJ/Outsourcing of further flying.
Regardless of all the games Mgt is playing, stand tight on SCOPE.....that's the corner stone for us ALL.
Again, one can hope. Should the T/A come out with such language, I hope everyone will vote NO. Domestic and Int'l outsourcing and JV's need to be ended or constrained to the maximum extent possible. Otherwise, any "gains" will be negated in the future.
My 2 cents,
Lee
10-25-2010, 02:49 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by SUPERfluf
ALPA was/is confident that CAL's scope still applies to any flight with the CAL code on it.
The problem seems to be that they were so confident that they didn't prepare for the possibility that Smisek & pals would challenge our scope clause by placing CAL's code on these flights.
So now the word from the CAL MEC is, "we're researching any violations to scope".
Simply put, they can not operate any jets over 70 seats with the CAL code on it.
However, the date of commencement for these flights is months away so it could be that management is hedging their bets on the new JCBA being in force by then.
I am fairly certain that the scope proposal for the JCBA includes a 'sunset provision' that will allow the current UAL capacity purchase agreements to remain in force until they expire. (5+ years from now)
VoteNo and then a resounding "hell no!" to the MEC for any relief on CAL's scope restrictions while the second TA is being negotiated. (because tickets will already have been sold for these flight's I'm sure they'll be telling us we need to let it slide)
The problem seems to be that they were so confident that they didn't prepare for the possibility that Smisek & pals would challenge our scope clause by placing CAL's code on these flights.
So now the word from the CAL MEC is, "we're researching any violations to scope".
Simply put, they can not operate any jets over 70 seats with the CAL code on it.
However, the date of commencement for these flights is months away so it could be that management is hedging their bets on the new JCBA being in force by then.
I am fairly certain that the scope proposal for the JCBA includes a 'sunset provision' that will allow the current UAL capacity purchase agreements to remain in force until they expire. (5+ years from now)
VoteNo and then a resounding "hell no!" to the MEC for any relief on CAL's scope restrictions while the second TA is being negotiated. (because tickets will already have been sold for these flight's I'm sure they'll be telling us we need to let it slide)
Thanks for the info.
10-26-2010, 06:31 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B-737
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
And it was Mr. Smisek who supposedly said to our MEC, "You don't get everything that you want."
Very true, Jeff. But you don't always get everything you want either.
Very true, Jeff. But you don't always get everything you want either.
If your luck with arbitrators is as good as APA's has been, ALPA will lose. Better to get the big $$$ and settle on scope with as much job protection as you can get. JMHO
04-23-2014, 06:55 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
United makes global plans on shoestring budget
Following merger with Continental, 18 new routes added and plans for international expansion are in works. Resources, however, will not be added.
Following merger with Continental, 18 new routes added and plans for international expansion are in works. Resources, however, will not be added.
"Starting Thursday, employees booking positive-space business travel through employeeRES will see the “flight value,” or the approximate cost to United, for each flight. Like the calorie count on a restaurant menu, this information is there to help you make good choices."
04-23-2014, 07:23 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Originally Posted by hopeSales
APC225,
Short question - you've brought back and posted to several threads that are around 4 years old. Is there a motive for doing this?
Short question - you've brought back and posted to several threads that are around 4 years old. Is there a motive for doing this?
04-23-2014, 09:18 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Fritzthepilot
A few thoughts.
Supposedly CAL maintains a higher fleet utilization than CAL. That, along with a few planes in the desert, might allow for minor growth going forward.
When management says 1-2% growth, you need to ask where is the growth coming from? With CAL and their 50 seat scope, the dog wagged the tail. Here at mother UAL, mainline can shrink, but there can be a net system growth via regional capacity growth. UAL might be at the block hour limit for scope, but they can replace almost every 50 seat lawn dart with a 70 seat, remain under the cap, and increase system wide asms.
Regarding the lawn darts, does anyone have an answer to HSLD's comment? Do they really think they can apply UAL's scope to the combined fleet?
Supposedly CAL maintains a higher fleet utilization than CAL. That, along with a few planes in the desert, might allow for minor growth going forward.
When management says 1-2% growth, you need to ask where is the growth coming from? With CAL and their 50 seat scope, the dog wagged the tail. Here at mother UAL, mainline can shrink, but there can be a net system growth via regional capacity growth. UAL might be at the block hour limit for scope, but they can replace almost every 50 seat lawn dart with a 70 seat, remain under the cap, and increase system wide asms.
Regarding the lawn darts, does anyone have an answer to HSLD's comment? Do they really think they can apply UAL's scope to the combined fleet?
At least the CAL scope rep at the EWR roadshow was gushing over the new scope saying that it filled numerous holes in CALs scope contract and the 50 seat limit they were going to lose at the next contract negotiation. PERIOD.
So please get over pointing out the selective pieces of the old CAL scope because the new one is better for the combined airline than the old ones were for the legacy ones. Don't believe me, call your legacy scope expert and ask them.
04-23-2014, 09:22 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Originally Posted by hopeSales
APC225,
Short question - you've brought back and posted to several threads that are around 4 years old. Is there a motive for doing this?
Short question - you've brought back and posted to several threads that are around 4 years old. Is there a motive for doing this?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
