SpecialTracking

Many are voting yes because they feel a TA rejection would lead to the "Easternization" of sUAL. Little do they know they are presently working under a contract with a min block hour guarantee under 1-F-1 which would prevent such a scenario. It is ironic they are voting for an agreement that does NOT have a min block hour guarantee and would allow for future dismantling.

Caveat emptor my friends.

DirectLawOnly

The TA scope provisions are much, much more valuable (specifically the change in control provisions). The block hour guarantee contained in s-UAL 1-F1 which is stated at 1.68MM block hours but has been reduced by one of the LOA's to the CBA to think around 1.3MM. I don't have access to the document at the moment but the 1.68 number is aprox. 20% below where we are today so there is a real potential risk to down sizing s-UAL after March 2013. A block hour guarantee is only useful in certain situations (like this one for instance) and really does nothing in a situation where the company is severely retrenching. What are you going to do, force them to fly empty airplanes? How does that help us as pilots chained to the deck of United Airlines?

SpecialTracking

Please show us the empty planes? Do you really think they will shudder sUAL to spite the pilots who will in turn receive jobs at sCAL? What are the costs involved of furloughing sUAL pilots? How much revenue will the company forgo by parking 30+% of the sUAL fleet?

I'm just not buying the argument.

Yak02

When they park those old airplanes revenues will of course fall. But, also the expenses will fall even greater. Therefore, profits will rise, and just the announcement that UCH, Inc. is going to reduce the number of seats in the market will make the Stock price shoot up overnight, and again Jeff will be a hero.

Just look back over the Last 27 years at United Airlines, Inc. It happens every time.

Let's quit making the same mistake over and over again. We don't ever look at the "Big Picture".

SpecialTracking

So we are now reporting operating losses?

NavyCal

I don't believe our current leadership has any interest in ever growing the airline. While many worldwide airlines are aggressively pursuing plans to utilize the A-380 and/or the 747-800, Jeff is giddy about replacing the Airbus and 737-500s with 255 of the 70/76 seat RJs.

If you think about that and look carefully at 1-C-1-g, this TA will allow the company to operate up to 153 76 seaters at 120% of our mainline single aisle block hours. If they don't intend to grow the airline (and I contend they don't), there's no requirement to reduce the block hour ratio.

The Scope section is a massive concession compared to what we had at Cal. And yes - I know Cal is gone forever, but I am not voting in favor of any concession.

Bottom line: What would Admiral Ackbar say....?

"It's a TRAP!!!!!!!!"

SpecialTracking

According to Form 41 data, in 2009 UAL flew 1.51MM block hours. That is only a 16% difference. Any pilot furloughed would go over to sCAL, maintaining his sUAL pay and would receive 4.5mos furlough pay. The furlough pay is more than we are receiving in retro/lump sum/signing bonus.

Do you mean these TA change in control provisions? Like so many sections in the contract, Successorship affords the company an end run around so many clauses.

1-D-4-a-(6) however, that nothing
herein shall be construed to prevent fleet reductions which the Company can
demonstrate are attributable to the retirement of existing aircraft in the normal course
of business, to casualty loss or to economic reasons not related to the Air Carrier
Transaction.

1-D-4-a-(7) The Company shall be excused from compliance
with such minimum Scheduled aircraft block hours for the period of time that either a
Circumstance Beyond the Company’s Control or the retirement of aircraft in the normal
course of business as scheduled before the agreement that led to the Air Carrier
Transaction causes the Company to reduce or cancel service, or a governmental agency
requirement causes the Company to reduce or cancel service as a condition of approval
of the Air Carrier Transaction, and that the listed event is the cause of such noncompliance

gettinbumped

No, they won't park the planes to "spite the sUAL pilots". It's business, pure and simple. The L-UAL 757's ARE going away. It's just a matter of who flies the new 737-900's.

By the way, I'm familiar with the document you are quoting. Is that Joe again? I ask because he didn't sign his name this time, which is feeble. There are more holes in that document than a WWII bomber back from Germany

gettinbumped

Unfortunately, your scope is long gone thanks to the crud we brought you from L-UAL. You can see unlimited 70 seaters flying under your paint right now. And there is PLENTY more room for UAL to add them, as the block hour ratios in the L-UAL contract include the wide bodies while the TA only includes the narrow bodies.

You have confirmed what I've been saying to L-UAL pilots in your post. You will vote NO to ANY concession. Never mind that there has probably never been a contract in the HISTORY of aviation that's had NO concessions. The longer this goes, the stronger the position for the L-CAL pilots as they hire off the street, take the airplanes that were supposed to go to L-UAL, and watch the L-UAL pilots get furloughed. I see the upside of a "no" vote for a CAL pilot. I just don't see it for a L-UAL pilot.

SpecialTracking

You must be referring to our TA.