Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal

YOU heard it here first folks.

First: This merger is all about scope.

Second: This CBA is all about taking away 90-100 seat flying.

The 70+/- seat RJ issue is a crowbar if you will to move the mountain in 4-6 years to further allow management to erode more mainline jobs and bid them out to regionals at the lowest cost possible. They will use the regionals against each other, and let them cut each other's throats to fight over the crumbs that fall from the mainline table.

If you will be in this career for anything longer than 10 years you need to be aware of management's true intentions so that you can plan for the future. If you need to get another career, or another job, or stay in the guard/reserve, etc, then be ready for what the future really holds.

This is not a prediction, but a promise. You vote yes for relaxation of scope, management will make a full court press to steal the 90-100 seats from you under a republican administration.

Originally Posted by Pilotbiffster

It seems to me that the scope protection "could" be accomplished by raising the mainline/express block hour ratios. At L-UAL, they've already hit the contractual limit (50%). Drop the limit down to 25% express and 75% mainline block hours. Disallow anything over 76 seats for the express. This should protect mainline flying. I'd enjoy well thought replies because I could be overlooking something.

Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal

Scope is a pretty complex nut to crack. IMHO, you need to attack it from multiple fronts because management will counter attack it with 50 lawyers all making more money in a day then we make in a year.

1. Block hour ratio's work because they can be tracked
2. Nautical Mile distance restrictions work because they can be tracked
3. Seat/size limitations work because we can monitor the size of Acft brougt into the market place.
4. Numbers of airframes allowed can work because we can count on our toes and it can be tracked.
5. Codified financial penalties must be in place for any and all scope violations to act as a deterrant to management's desire to use our contract as nothing more than a door stop.

What will not work is anything that is subjective in nature, such as arbitrary triggers/targets, or anything subject to management's unilateral interpretation.

Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal

Scope is a pretty complex nut to crack. IMHO, you need to attack it from multiple fronts because management will counter attack it with 50 lawyers all making more money in a day then we make in a year.

1. Block hour ratio's work because they can be tracked
2. Nautical Mile distance restrictions work because they can be tracked
3. Seat/size limitations work because we can monitor the size of Acft brougt into the market place.
4. Numbers of airframes allowed can work because we can count on our toes and it can be tracked.
5. Codified financial penalties must be in place for any and all scope violations to act as a deterrant to management's desire to use our contract as nothing more than a door stop.

What will not work is anything that is subjective in nature, such as arbitrary triggers/targets, or anything subject to management's unilateral interpretation.

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy

What about specific language to address the (a'la 'Lingus') JV/Foreign Flying? That threat is just as bad, and stands to get a lot worse if not taken care of NOW.

The ENTIRE Section 1 is just that......PARAMOUNT.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking

Might I add code sharing as well. A strong scope clause is fruitless if United has the ability to code share with Republic and a fleet of 70/90 seat jets.