85% of DCI operations for DAL are limited to 900 NMs or less.

 

My understanding is SkyWest is prohibited from flying any aircraft with more than 76 seats for anyone because we're also a Delta Connection carrier and therefore subject to the DAL contract restrictions. Maybe the right management team would just do it anyway and leave it to the lawyers to sort out, but I doubt it. I'm sure a Delta guy could back me up on this.

In the meantime, I'd look for non-DCI type regionals to fly 90 seaters if they happen. Maybe American Eagle or Air Wisconsin or someone.

 

Apples and oranges. UAL is NOT DAL.

 

You are wrong ... The delta restriction is a fact.......Skywest has to have another certificate in order to fly bigger rjs.

Mesa used the freedom certificate and put all erjs on the dead freedom certificate because they could not use the Mesa certificate..
All because of the usair 900s

The Skywest dude is correct ... Delta has that restriction

 

I think he's got a grip on what the TA is going to look like before it arrives.

I think anyone who thought we were going to put a hard cap on 50 seat scope was high. I also think that anyone who thought we were going to put the 70 seat genie back into the bottle is high. I also think that UAL scope sucks and is what put all those 70 seaters at the end of the C concourse in ORD. But it put them there in 2003, not 2009. This is an important distinction.

Before I go any further, let me state that I was on the street during the first big UAL furlough, and missed the second by one half of one RCH. Let me also state that if not for the merger, I believe that UAL would still have 103 B737s on the property and the second round of furloughs would never have happened. We needed the lift. The planes were full and UAL was enjoying record load factors. Meanwhile, our pay was abysmal. There is NO other reason to mothball full, and essentially paid for airframes other than to pre-arrange the merger. We were co-locating gates and equipment across the country. CAL 737s were parking at the B gates in ORD and UAL ground pounders were loading their bags and handling all ground ops. Clearly, the 737s were needed in ORD. Look how quickly the company moved to put them BACK in ORD, DEN, LAX, SFO etc. Connect the dots people. It really isn't all that convoluted.

What I am primarily interested in seeing in this contract is IRON CLAD language placing significant restrictions on the number of RJs and "large RJs" that UAL can operate. The number needs to be directly tied to block hours and the number or airframes that the combined UAL operates. There can be NO wiggle room or obfuscation for the company.

And importantly, the rest of Santa's bag needs to be overflowing as well. If not, NO.

Combined UAL/CAL will have how many pilots over 60? A whole bunch. How many of them are going to stick out their necks for the rest of us? Not too many I'm afraid. Many don't care about scope, and neither would most of us if in their shoes. They want retro, rates and retirement. They want health care when retired, they want work rules till retirement and ample sick time. Sure there are guys who WILL vote no to strengthen the future of this "now lousy" career, but there will be a whole lot more who won't. I base this on 12 years of watching UAL ALPA and listening to "my mentors" as they turn on CH9, pop the brakes early, sue the union, stove pipe, deny furoughees longevity, cave on the no-furlough clause, sue for more of the bond etc etc etc.

I don't like it, but that doesn't mean that I'm tootin' on the crack pipe.
(But I have been "sippin on gin n juice")

Flame away.

 

We are not Delta, it's Sleezeiks wet dream for you to be flying 90 seat aircraft in UCH colors. If UCH asked skypest to fly 90 seats I am betting your mgt team would step right up, kinda like they had no problem flying the CO code on your 70 seaters. Didn't see your mgt team saying no thanks to that, why? Because in the end UCH and the other legacy airlines pay your bills.

Your correct the lawyers will sort it out and in the end ALPA and the pilots of UCH will lose. The company has unlimited time and money, it quite simply must stop now.

Liquid

 

No flame,
I refuse to engage in any discussion about the parking of your 737's

The pilots of UAL have their opinion and the pilots of CAL have their opinion. Our respective MEC's have a merger committee who will present their sides. end.

The new scope clause will affect ALL of us, my intent was again to bring to light scumbag of company WE all work for. I'll put this in bold: DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING THIS COMPANY DOES OR SAY. They will violate the contract at will, no questions.

liquid

 

I haven't trusted them since 2002, so no need to worry there. Which is why I capitalized IRON CLAD.

We pay plenty of money for legal representation. Why is it too much to expect a black and white scope section that will hold up in court? I don't get it. "If it's bigger that 'X', we fly it. More than 'X' airframes, we fly them. If it flies further than X miles, we fly it. If it weighs more than 'X', we fly it."

 

I fully agree, the lawyers of UCH see an opportunity to get a third party opinion (arbitrator) with the possibility they may win. Its costs the company nothing if they lose but if they get a partial ruling the threat continues. This company never admits fault, the issue/problem/grievance will just go away with fault never acknowledged or admitted.

"With my mind on money and my money on my mind..."

liquid

 

[QUOTE=paokgate4;1268542]I am not wrong. I'm not talking about their scope clause, I'm talking about Delta being a well run airline that doesn't need to furlough or shrink. UAL is NOT DAL. One is first and the other is last in every way.