United: Growth plans on little expenditure
04-25-2014, 06:10 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
Originally Posted by Lerxst
Can't we all just get alooonngggg??
04-25-2014, 06:30 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
I'm guessing the above was generated by the CAL side somewhere along the process? What's "crew news"? Unfortunately this is another skewed attempt to show that the CAL contract was brought over and we use it now.
The current contract is the UAL contract with some changes. Yes some of them came from CAL, but 90% of the contract including all the scope language was the previous UAL contract.
Just reading the first line proves it all.... "Borrowing from the legacy Continental contract, Company flying is defined to include all commercial flying of any nature “by or for” the Company or a Company affiliate."
That 1-B language is about 8 paragraphs, and looks EXACTLY like the old UAL scope. As a matter of fact I am looking at the old UAL contract and the new UAL contract and the scope language is REMARKABLY similar.
It appears they used ONE SENTENCE from the CAL contract and put it into the existing UAL contract and then told everyone that that one sentence is 1-B when in fact 1-B is about 1 1/2 pages of words.
So 1-B scope is 99% the old LUAL contract language and then you get a "crew news" that makes you think they used the CAL language for 1-B when they didn't. Just a big propaganda piece.
Think what you want, but unless you sit with both old contracts and the news one you won't get it.
The current contract is the UAL contract with some changes. Yes some of them came from CAL, but 90% of the contract including all the scope language was the previous UAL contract.
Just reading the first line proves it all.... "Borrowing from the legacy Continental contract, Company flying is defined to include all commercial flying of any nature “by or for” the Company or a Company affiliate."
That 1-B language is about 8 paragraphs, and looks EXACTLY like the old UAL scope. As a matter of fact I am looking at the old UAL contract and the new UAL contract and the scope language is REMARKABLY similar.
It appears they used ONE SENTENCE from the CAL contract and put it into the existing UAL contract and then told everyone that that one sentence is 1-B when in fact 1-B is about 1 1/2 pages of words.
So 1-B scope is 99% the old LUAL contract language and then you get a "crew news" that makes you think they used the CAL language for 1-B when they didn't. Just a big propaganda piece.
Think what you want, but unless you sit with both old contracts and the news one you won't get it.
04-25-2014, 06:32 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Grumble
This is something I'm seeing more and more on the line. The company is absolutely hemorrhaging money, meanwhile LCAL and LUAL employee groups are too busy calling each other names to realize, that ship has sailed. Start working together or blast right into bankruptcy as two bickering groups.
That's hemorrhaging money!?
04-25-2014, 07:58 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 728
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
I'm guessing the above was generated by the CAL side somewhere along the process? What's "crew news"? Unfortunately this is another skewed attempt to show that the CAL contract was brought over and we use it now.
The current contract is the UAL contract with some changes. Yes some of them came from CAL, but 90% of the contract including all the scope language was the previous UAL contract.
Just reading the first line proves it all.... "Borrowing from the legacy Continental contract, Company flying is defined to include all commercial flying of any nature “by or for” the Company or a Company affiliate."
That 1-B language is about 8 paragraphs, and looks EXACTLY like the old UAL scope. As a matter of fact I am looking at the old UAL contract and the new UAL contract and the scope language is REMARKABLY similar.
It appears they used ONE SENTENCE from the CAL contract and put it into the existing UAL contract and then told everyone that that one sentence is 1-B when in fact 1-B is about 1 1/2 pages of words.
So 1-B scope is 99% the old LUAL contract language and then you get a "crew news" that makes you think they used the CAL language for 1-B when they didn't. Just a big propaganda piece.
Think what you want, but unless you sit with both old contracts and the news one you won't get it.
The current contract is the UAL contract with some changes. Yes some of them came from CAL, but 90% of the contract including all the scope language was the previous UAL contract.
Just reading the first line proves it all.... "Borrowing from the legacy Continental contract, Company flying is defined to include all commercial flying of any nature “by or for” the Company or a Company affiliate."
That 1-B language is about 8 paragraphs, and looks EXACTLY like the old UAL scope. As a matter of fact I am looking at the old UAL contract and the new UAL contract and the scope language is REMARKABLY similar.
It appears they used ONE SENTENCE from the CAL contract and put it into the existing UAL contract and then told everyone that that one sentence is 1-B when in fact 1-B is about 1 1/2 pages of words.
So 1-B scope is 99% the old LUAL contract language and then you get a "crew news" that makes you think they used the CAL language for 1-B when they didn't. Just a big propaganda piece.
Think what you want, but unless you sit with both old contracts and the news one you won't get it.
Oh, did you figure out where your critical analysis in adding up all the CAL 757 and larger aircraft(s) went wrong? It's all in the TPA, which I assure you was not written by the CAL MEC.
04-25-2014, 08:10 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
Start working together or blast right into bankruptcy as two bickering groups.
04-25-2014, 08:15 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Airhoss
Or.......With the way this company is being run. We could be spooning and whispering sweet nothings into each others ears and we are still going to blast right back into bankruptcy.
04-25-2014, 08:16 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 728
Originally Posted by Airhoss
Or.......With the way this company is being run. We could be spooning and whispering sweet nothings into each others ears and we are still going to blast right back into bankruptcy.
04-25-2014, 08:24 AM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Lerxst
Nobody has said "that the CAL contract was brought over and we use it now", except you. There are some foundational pieces taken from both sides, isn't that how it's supposed to work? If you need to feel better by assigning a winner or loser to the process, (90% UAL, 10% CAL) then fine. But at least read beyond 1-B to see where some of the other things came from. (remember Aer Lingus?)
Oh, did you figure out where your critical analysis in adding up all the CAL 757 and larger aircraft(s) went wrong? It's all in the TPA, which I assure you was not written by the CAL MEC.
Oh, did you figure out where your critical analysis in adding up all the CAL 757 and larger aircraft(s) went wrong? It's all in the TPA, which I assure you was not written by the CAL MEC.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
