Scope 6-14-12
06-15-2012, 06:24 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Originally Posted by Freddriver5
So EWR, do you now understand the frustration of myself and all the other posters? L-CAL LEC's need to let the first string do their job and not bite at the ankles of those actually doing the negotiating. Don't try to bait me into your typical personal attacks. I don't know you personally, but from your positions on this board, it would be a real quiet flight if we are ever crewed together.
So how far are you willing to let the first string go? Down by 30 on your own 8 is not a very good position to be in. Thinking outside the box? We've been down this hellhole road before and this is the same thing all over again. You really want to risk, of all things SCOPE, on the the chance that the MEC will not pass it on to the pilot group as a TA and the pilot group will not sign off on it? 150 76+ seaters at skywest isn't enough for you? This is the one section that we must get right the first time, deadline be damned.
I have a book.............
06-15-2012, 06:34 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
Originally Posted by EWR73FO
So how far are you willing to let the first string go? Down by 30 on your own 8 is not a very good position to be in. Thinking outside the box? We've been down this hellhole road before and this is the same thing all over again. You really want to risk, of all things SCOPE, on the the chance that the MEC will not pass it on to the pilot group as a TA and the pilot group will not sign off on it? 150 76+ seaters at skywest isn't enough for you? This is the one section that we must get right the first time, deadline be damned.
I have a book.............
I have a book.............
06-15-2012, 06:50 AM
#23
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
I completely understand what you guys are saying. If we give each MEC member a line item veto, we are going to get a contract when?
This topic underscores the importance of LEC elections btw.
This topic underscores the importance of LEC elections btw.
I see your point...."Just as many Chiefs as Indians" in the MEC ratification. Not only do we have one MEC 'fine toothing' any TA that comes down the pike, but we'll be required to have two/both MEC's in agreement in order to send the TA out for vote by the combine Pilot Group.
On the flip side, this JCBA should NOT be passed on the premise of "We'll get'em on the next one". Stating the obvious, this is going to be the leverage of all leverages concerning the construction of a CBA, probably the most leverage we'll see in our careers from this point forward barring any Legacy v Legacy Mergers. I hear what you're saying about the 'many hands in the pot' when ratifying, but it's the methodology that was set forth on the original TPA several months ago.
I think (hope) we'll be in full agreement on ONE topic that needs to be sliced/diced/dissected to the n-th degree.....The SCOPE, entire Section 1. This section needs to be gone through by EVERY MEC REP with a fine tooth comb (multiple times) prior to even discussing it's merits amongst each other in 'round table'. NO EXCUSES this time around, lock it down.
As far as "Know Thy LEC Reps"......"It Rings No Truer Than Now".
06-15-2012, 02:09 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 194
I have a dumb question.
As a CAL pilot, I know our management HATES our scope section.
I know they would prefer UAL's scope section.
I know they would LOVE DAL's scope section.
Let's say we remain separate and DAL signs away their careers and votes yes on their TA.
Would we (UAL & CAL pilots), have the more restrictive scope section?
I don't know enough about the UAL contract to make a guess.
Thanks.
As a CAL pilot, I know our management HATES our scope section.
I know they would prefer UAL's scope section.
I know they would LOVE DAL's scope section.
Let's say we remain separate and DAL signs away their careers and votes yes on their TA.
Would we (UAL & CAL pilots), have the more restrictive scope section?
I don't know enough about the UAL contract to make a guess.
Thanks.
06-15-2012, 07:39 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
News Flash:
This merger was done for one and only one reason....To defeat the CAL scope clause, the strongest in the industry. CAL Management couldn't defeat it without merging with another company that already had in place weaker, and more liberal language.
You give up 70 seat jets, 1200 pilots or more lose their mainline jobs through attrition. That will take 2 years max to see play out. Also, look for a ripple effect:
1. Regionals lose pilots as they grow frustrated with the career progression.
2. Pilot Shortage announced by ATA (A4A), FAA, and ALPA jumps on the band wagon to: A. pursue lowering flight time minimums, B. sponsor and allow age 70 legislation, C. Further degradation of the career with reduced earnings, lower quality of life, and way too much domestic work and all the reassignments, and reduced rest that goes with it.
The ripple effect will be eternally damming to the profession, and far out-weighs any short term benefits of a "signing bonus," or "pay raise" in section 3 of the CBA.
This merger was done for one and only one reason....To defeat the CAL scope clause, the strongest in the industry. CAL Management couldn't defeat it without merging with another company that already had in place weaker, and more liberal language.
You give up 70 seat jets, 1200 pilots or more lose their mainline jobs through attrition. That will take 2 years max to see play out. Also, look for a ripple effect:
1. Regionals lose pilots as they grow frustrated with the career progression.
2. Pilot Shortage announced by ATA (A4A), FAA, and ALPA jumps on the band wagon to: A. pursue lowering flight time minimums, B. sponsor and allow age 70 legislation, C. Further degradation of the career with reduced earnings, lower quality of life, and way too much domestic work and all the reassignments, and reduced rest that goes with it.
The ripple effect will be eternally damming to the profession, and far out-weighs any short term benefits of a "signing bonus," or "pay raise" in section 3 of the CBA.
06-15-2012, 07:41 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by El Gwopo
I have a dumb question.
As a CAL pilot, I know our management HATES our scope section.
I know they would prefer UAL's scope section.
I know they would LOVE DAL's scope section.
Let's say we remain separate and DAL signs away their careers and votes yes on their TA.
Would we (UAL & CAL pilots), have the more restrictive scope section?
I don't know enough about the UAL contract to make a guess.
Thanks.
As a CAL pilot, I know our management HATES our scope section.
I know they would prefer UAL's scope section.
I know they would LOVE DAL's scope section.
Let's say we remain separate and DAL signs away their careers and votes yes on their TA.
Would we (UAL & CAL pilots), have the more restrictive scope section?
I don't know enough about the UAL contract to make a guess.
Thanks.
In what terms do you mean?
It's probably impossible to answer, since in your example that we "Let's say...remained seperate" How do you even examine that.
But I will:
Most liberal: UAL, Middle of the Road: DAL: Least liberal: CAL
06-15-2012, 08:04 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
Restrictive is a relative term.
In what terms do you mean?
It's probably impossible to answer, since in your example that we "Let's say...remained seperate" How do you even examine that.
But I will:
Most liberal: UAL, Middle of the Road: DAL: Least liberal: CAL
In what terms do you mean?
It's probably impossible to answer, since in your example that we "Let's say...remained seperate" How do you even examine that.
But I will:
Most liberal: UAL, Middle of the Road: DAL: Least liberal: CAL
Does the combo of the UAL/CAL scope help at all?
06-15-2012, 08:44 PM
#30
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
News Flash:
This merger was done for one and only one reason....To defeat the CAL scope clause, the strongest in the industry. CAL Management couldn't defeat it without merging with another company that already had in place weaker, and more liberal language.
You give up 70 seat jets, 1200 pilots or more lose their mainline jobs through attrition. That will take 2 years max to see play out. Also, look for a ripple effect:
1. Regionals lose pilots as they grow frustrated with the career progression.
2. Pilot Shortage announced by ATA (A4A), FAA, and ALPA jumps on the band wagon to: A. pursue lowering flight time minimums, B. sponsor and allow age 70 legislation, C. Further degradation of the career with reduced earnings, lower quality of life, and way too much domestic work and all the reassignments, and reduced rest that goes with it.
The ripple effect will be eternally damming to the profession, and far out-weighs any short term benefits of a "signing bonus," or "pay raise" in section 3 of the CBA.
This merger was done for one and only one reason....To defeat the CAL scope clause, the strongest in the industry. CAL Management couldn't defeat it without merging with another company that already had in place weaker, and more liberal language.
You give up 70 seat jets, 1200 pilots or more lose their mainline jobs through attrition. That will take 2 years max to see play out. Also, look for a ripple effect:
1. Regionals lose pilots as they grow frustrated with the career progression.
2. Pilot Shortage announced by ATA (A4A), FAA, and ALPA jumps on the band wagon to: A. pursue lowering flight time minimums, B. sponsor and allow age 70 legislation, C. Further degradation of the career with reduced earnings, lower quality of life, and way too much domestic work and all the reassignments, and reduced rest that goes with it.
The ripple effect will be eternally damming to the profession, and far out-weighs any short term benefits of a "signing bonus," or "pay raise" in section 3 of the CBA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
