mgt position is going to be, what is it worth to the pilot group and what are the pilots and every other work group willing to give up to have that size of aircraft flown, maintained, serviced by mainline personnel?

If you are not up for a 20% pay cut, 15% increase in work rules, reduction in duty/trip rigs, then you are just spinning your wheels and losing out on negotiating more important issues, such as QOL, pay, retirement enhancements (some type) schedule protection, and the list just keeps going on. But keep after the 70 seat market, all you are doing is delaying the conclusion of negotiations which is okay with management because they keep on as is.

************************************************** ******
You're Right on the Money!! "Scrooge and Marley" (Glenn T, and Jeff) ONLY care about MONEY! And they can't WAIT to "Swindle" ALPA!!

Just curious how much money was wasted on fuel hedging, Avolar, Special dividend payout and other great ideas. The cost to bring the flying in house even with cancelation penalties would probably be less than has been wasted in the past several years. Management has to figure out if they want to run an airline or ticket agency then the rest will follow. Hopefully the JCBA will help them make that decision.

But I applaud you for trying to defend the 70 seat flying you do in United paint.

I hear where you are coming from but most would point out 70 seat scope was given away by one individual signing a side LOA in return for A fund security. A fund security never happened, but the 70 seat scope removal remained.

If I gave something, either in exchange for something or for nothing, the value is already lost. To get it back requires the other side to lose something, not for me to give something else. To suggest otherwise just continues the concessionary trend which has beaten every major airline pilot contract since 9/11.

There is NO way an economically neutral JCBA will make it past MR, period. That is the whole point of this JCBA, if it takes them longer to realize that then so be it.

KC

Ahhhh but you see, keeping on as is would NOT be ok with management this time. Keeping on as is means two separate airlines, two separate groups, two separate certificates. The merger synergies are lost to a large degree... and that number is in the BILLIONS.

The 70's are barely profitable at present fuel costs, and the 50's are a noose. The luster of airplanes less than 90 seats is fading fast, but you won't hear management saying that, as it lessens their bargaining power. Read the consensus of the analysts to see a more objective view

Not exactly. Whiteford's boob move Side LOA only allowed for the E170 jets. The CRJ700 was already agreed to.

You are correct, thanks-

KC

Without scope, this job is worth nothing for most of each list. In the long run, scope means a job will exist. No scope - no job. Without that, it doesn't really matter how much the "imaginary" job pays. BTW, if you haven't looked from the cheap seats, we've already given as much as can be given on the UAL side of things. 95 hours, min rest, min days off, blah, blah, blah. If we don't hold the line now on this, finally, then all hope will most definitely be lost for this being a career for any of us.

Scott

Well why don't you start with getting rid of the E170's! The only company who operates these aircraft for UAL is Shuttle America/Republic who is Directly competing with UAL out of DEN!!! (ala Frontier) The CRJ 700 has 66 seats in the ex-plus configuation while the 170 has 70. Why not start with getting rid of CA Whiteford's desperate attempt to save the pension only to have it dumped without a Vote...and at least save yourselves 4 seats X 40+ airframes. I don't want to hijack your thread but Just saying you gotta start some where...why not start with what caused the ultimate demise of the guppy and go from there...

So, reading a couple of posts back along with this info, WHY would Whiteford agree to the 170's in exchange for UA's A-Plan while at the same time NOT having reciprocity in that the 170's disappear if the A-Plan doesn't survive? Simple: We get, you get. We don't get, you don't get.

It's difficult to believe this point was over his head but it is apparently so. Wonder if there is any remorse in sending a whole bunch of his junior co-workers to the street....for nothing. Amazing.