Seniority?
02-18-2012 | 01:58 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
I believe NWA was adamant about having a fence around their 747s
After the merger, DAL moved the 747s from dtw to atl.
Now the NWA pilots HAVE to commute to atl.
I see that as a very possible scenario here.
02-18-2012 | 03:03 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
From: 787 CA
Essentially your willing to enter into binding arbitration...as long as it works out your way. If your not willing to enter arbitration in good faith and aren't willing to adhere to ALPA merger policy I suggest we just halt the entire process now. As bad as it is currently, I would truly rather keep the status quo than head down some USAir path to hell. You can be sure that when the time comes, neither of the MC's in the room will be real enthusiastic about presenting the arbitrator(s) with your ultimatum. In other words, the arbitrators will neither know, nor care. And anything done after the fact will be costly and completely ineffectual, resulting in nothing other than career paralysis for both pilot groups. That's the problem with binding arbitration. It's binding.
Last edited by 13n144e; 02-18-2012 at 03:35 AM.
02-18-2012 | 03:32 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,772
Likes: 1
From: 744 CA
Not sure that is 100% true... I was just in DTW last week and saw 2 747-400s at the gate.
02-18-2012 | 04:18 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Am I glad that then furloughed LUAL pilots have been offered employment at LCAL? Absolutely. That said, they furloughed so that the merger could happen (I could care less if you agree). We flew all of the same jets (737's) that UCH is now proposing that CAL will fly on the same routes not 4 years ago. They "replaced" them with inefficient RJ's, and claimed that the 737's simply couldn't be flown cost effectively despite the fact that they had the lowest cost of ANY 737 operator in the US through our bankruptcy contract. Total and complete crap. They were parked for a reason. Any guesses what that might be? The 50-70 seat RJ isn't a panacea. It isn't more efficient than any of our "old" 737's that it replaced. Period.
02-18-2012 | 04:39 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
So... just so we're clear... you personally did this? You're taking personal and/or effectual personal credit for getting the UAL furloughees back into the cockpit? UFB. Your posts are the most condescending posts of any pilot I've ever read. You did NOTHING to make this happen. NOTHING. Don't act like you did. Decisions have been made that benefited UCH. You didn't make them. You working "extra hard" as a pilot for UCAL didn't make it happen, and me working for UAL didn't cause it in the first place or make it happen. If you really feel that you're the cause, reason or fault in any of this then you simply don't understand how the big the game is or how it is played.
Am I glad that then furloughed LUAL pilots have been offered employment at LCAL? Absolutely. That said, they furloughed so that the merger could happen (I could care less if you agree). We flew all of the same jets (737's) that UCH is now proposing that CAL will fly on the same routes not 4 years ago. They "replaced" them with inefficient RJ's, and claimed that the 737's simply couldn't be flown cost effectively despite the fact that they had the lowest cost of ANY 737 operator in the US through our bankruptcy contract. Total and complete crap. They were parked for a reason. Any guesses what that might be? The 50-70 seat RJ isn't a panacea. It isn't more efficient than any of our "old" 737's that it replaced. Period.
Am I glad that then furloughed LUAL pilots have been offered employment at LCAL? Absolutely. That said, they furloughed so that the merger could happen (I could care less if you agree). We flew all of the same jets (737's) that UCH is now proposing that CAL will fly on the same routes not 4 years ago. They "replaced" them with inefficient RJ's, and claimed that the 737's simply couldn't be flown cost effectively despite the fact that they had the lowest cost of ANY 737 operator in the US through our bankruptcy contract. Total and complete crap. They were parked for a reason. Any guesses what that might be? The 50-70 seat RJ isn't a panacea. It isn't more efficient than any of our "old" 737's that it replaced. Period.
IF the Ual 737s were parked to right size the airline for a merger, then the merger you are talking about was with USAir.
So the argument it not necessarily valid when applied to the MERGER with Cal.
Cal has lost as much flying to the RJ as Ual. Cal has parked All the 737-300 ( same as Ual), And most of the 737-500s, But Cals management at the time ( Bethune) was smart enough to order new planes to replace them. Something Ual did not do until it was too late. The loss of scope protections in bankruptcy allowed Ual regionals to go hog wild.
02-18-2012 | 05:11 AM
#119
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Wasn't aware UAL had a large 737-800/900 fleet that was parked. Almost anytime I've touched a UAL hub it has been in a NG (btw I didn't want to be there either). Sorry the Guppies got parked but don't EVER expect us to believe it was all laid out to help save CAL from certain B/K!
02-18-2012 | 05:19 AM
#120
Banned
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: IAH 737 CA
A 737 is a 737 whether it's a 200 or a 900. It's a 737. UAL park it's 737 fleet because it was older and less efficient and looked for a "small" airplane airline to merge with - you were it! Just as Pierce has been puffing his chest to explain the inflated presence of the 767-400 being equal to a 747-400, you are trying to equate a 737 to anything smaller than a 747-400. You are a 737 airline and fly the smallest airplane on routes that are normally flown by wide-bodies. Get over yourself - you're an RJ outfit flying long-haul routes.
So be it. But don't continue to come on here and and make like poor pitiful because you have no 737's left. It is what it is. YOUR membership allowed YOUR 737 fleet to be parked and YOUR membership allowed 1400+ pilots to be furloughed. CAL had nothing to do with it. How do we get this message to sink in? The CAL pilots DID NOT DO THIS TO YOU!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DLax85
Cargo
14
06-26-2008 03:26 PM
