UAL/CAL Merger - Lets get back on Track

Reply Subscribe

Page 11 of 11

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

03-02-2012 | 07:23 AM

#101

Once United

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2012

Posts: 225

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slammer

Once United, if I understand your " flight ratio" and mergers . UA had limited protections relating to flying ratios prior to the TPA. CAL had protections already in our contractural language. Hence TPA, for both single and twin aisle ratios...UA got 90% ratio protection to CAL and CAL has 100% or greater to UA, of what they were prior to seperate operations. The 100 % was already in our contract.

I think you are missing the point. Without a JCBA we have NOTHING....... If you want to be happy about raping you sister(so to speak), I won't agree with you or standby and watch. You seem to want to put yourself in a position of abuser. Don't put all CAL pilots in that boat. Thank You.

03-02-2012 | 07:37 AM

#102

AxlF16

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 1,512

Likes: 0

From: 787 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot

Actually, we already have CA's that are 2005 hires, so we're well beyond your furlough cutoff point. Every post causes agitation on these forums, so what are we supposed to talk about? That being said, doesn't it concern you at all that the "growth" all seems to be on the CAL side? Why do you think that is? Just asking............ Going to be hard for an arbitration panel to say UAL pilots futures are brighter when things have been going backwards there for so long. JMHO.........

You are either extremely dense, or your just a jerk. I don't know what your deal is, but I'm done wasting my time posting with you.

03-02-2012 | 07:43 AM

#103

AxlF16

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 1,512

Likes: 0

From: 787 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slammer

Once United, facts are that CAL has been adding aircraft for years and parked some, but the net has/ is increase in seat capacity and the types of seats being sold e.g. more first class...NG vs classics. Diff in 800/900/900 ER seats is min 46 to max of 59 additional seats vice a 500. Not to even mention, fuel efficiency and performance. So, perhaps the way you view growth may be a little skewed. Would agree that we've been understaffed for sometime on the 737 , not so much on the other aircraft, so I'm glad we are "catching up"..

So you're counting growth in asm and not airframes? Are you management or a pilot? Following that logic, should you be paid more for those extra seats you're flying?

I suspect you guys are going to find out sooner or later with Smisek, but the efficiencies of the airline do NOT translate to your paycheck -- nor should it. The company buys the planes and we fly them. If they bought DC3s, I'd happily fly them.

I'm afraid that you are the one skewed on your view of growth.

03-02-2012 | 08:48 AM

#104

LeeMat

SLI best wishes!

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 399

Likes: 0

From: B767 Capt

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxlF16

Excatly...I had a reply earlier but decided not to post...It basically said that a B737NG 700/800/900 or B737-200/300/500 still requires just two pilots...To management, the extra 46 seats and more fuel efficient means less airplanes and less pilots....

Last edited by LeeMat; 03-02-2012 at 09:08 AM.

03-02-2012 | 09:54 AM

#105

Slammer

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 225

Likes: 0

From: EWR B737FO

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxlF16

Many of us have known Smizek since he was apart of Bethune's entourage, so
You don't have to tell CAL pilots about the landscape. And your point is that..the inefficiencies of an airline, equates to your paycheck? Growth could be airframes and seats...not always 1 for 1. Nothing new.....Mgt's goal is to be efficient, our goal is to make them pay for that efficiency and our productivity. The current CAL contract did not make them pay for the increase in efficiency with new airframes because of our draconian work rules, poor staffing and PBS.