Lerxst

CAL's contract was passed on 11-08-1997, we didn't undercut anything. Look no further than to Smisek's FIRST order of business for the combined company - he violated the CAL scope by moving the UAX 70 seaters into CAL hubs, and an arbitration supported the CAL ALPA Grievance. Obviously access to the 70 seaters were more important to UCH than the hordes of 50 seaters that BOTH sides brought.

Lets not even discuss the Aer Lingus debacle that was closed by applying the then current CAL language regarding company flying to the new UPA.

Sunvox

Total lie. Did you even read your our 2000 contract posted above? CAL had no limit on jets under 60 seats. Did you read the first post?

flybynuts

So what is the intent of this post? Reaching back 13 years ago accomplishing nothing. It's like saying your contract in 2000 bankrupted your company. It's old news that isn't as relevant to today's fight. Blame game this far along is very sophomoric. Bottom line is UAL suffered as employees the last 13 years under Tilton. CAL did well during the same time and now we have to blend this short term history because it is the most relevant case for now. Do we want to go back to the years before the 80s. UAL wasn't even international until Pan Am fell and you bought their routes. Better try thinking about SWA. For years they where the bottom airline and yada yada. Now they have ha a great run the last
15 years. Thier cheaper wages and work rules made them what they are today. See it doesn't work using your logic in history.

Sunvox

What's the intent????

The intent is to get a load off my chest on the internet where I can say what I really feel.

Your MEC is arguing that our career expectations should be based on trend lines drawn back to 2000, but if I look at contributing factors to the UAL bankruptcy that's going too far. . .



CAL was born in the '80's from a fight with Lorenzo where the pilots on the "winning" side undercut their brethren at Eastern, and since that time CAL has operated with a contract with lower pay and more "efficient" work rules and NOW you think you should be rewarded for that behaviour by taking my seniority. Well, it's the straw that broke my back. Coaches defense of unlimited 50 seat RJ's is too much. Face the facts and tell me it was all ok in the name of competition and then I'll have some respect for the CAL poster on APC, but don't dare try to tell me that you are where you are because you made a better choice and the pilots at UAL caused the problem. I'm sick and tired of the rewriting of history and ALPA policy, and the trite personal slams that constitute argument on this forum.

Mitch Rapp05

Joe,
Are you saying that the LUAL pilot group are part of the problem because they voted to relax scope up to 70 seats?

Sunvox

Try studying your history. SWA made an enormous bet on fuel at a time when the legacy carriers hit the pinnacle of labor costs. Their success over time had everything to do with undercutting their fellow pilots in the form of work rules and little else. Give it 2 decades and SWA will be bankrupt like every other airline because of their aging labor force that expects better and better treatment.

Wanna make a 10 year bet?

Sunvox

No . . .

I'm saying guys like you can't take the time to say: "Gee, you guys fought a good fight, but it turns out we won the competition."

Mitch Rapp05

Based on your premise that LCal pilots started the problem with our scope clause, how can LUAL pilots thus be excused from not contributing to the problem? (since they relaxed scope even further)

Lerxst

Total lie?? For a guy that thinks he is the epitome of level headed posters you sure go ugly early. (and nonsensical: "Did you even read your our 2000 contract posted above")

You said " CAL and DAL purposely killed the best contract that pilots had ever seen and that is a fact." I said the CAL contract was passed in 1997, how could we proactively undercut what you did in 2000? If I misinterpreted what you said, I apologize, but it was hard to decipher your point.

And you are wrong about the CAL 50 seat Scope, it was: The legacy Continental contract has a limit on the number of small jets (50-seat limit) which can increase with increases in the mainline fleet, based on a matrix of our entire fleet. The number is unlimited for
Q400 turboprops. (Of which there are 24 currently flying)

But lets not talk about how CAL pilots were harmed and had to successfully grieve the infestation of UAX 70 seaters into our hubs.

Understandably, "In the years since the legacy Continental and United contracts were negotiated, industry standards have
changed and there has been explosive growth in business arrangements between carriers to take advantage of
Open Skies agreements and more liberalized regulatory frameworks such as those associated with alliances." (From Crews News about UPA Sec 1)

That passage gives both sides an out to leave the past where it belongs, as an objective and instructional guidepost for us, collectively, to go forward from here.

Here are some excerpts, subjective, from our new Section 1:

Scope (1-B)
Borrowing from the legacy Continental contract, Company flying is defined to include all commercial flying of
any nature “by or for” the Company or a Company affiliate.

Hubs (1-C-1-d)
• Permits up to five percent of United Express block hours to operate between Company hubs. This concept
is new and addresses the fact that as a result of the merger, the number of flights operating between what
will be Company hubs is currently close to this limit. The legacy Continental CBA prohibits these flights
and the legacy United CBA requires a reasonableness test for them to be operated by Express operations.
As a comparison, Delta allows six percent of their feeder flying to operate between hubs

United Express Flying Block Hour Limitations (1-C-1-f)

As further clarification, had provisions from existing contracts (in
particular, United) been retained for the TA, United Express flying at DOS could have grown as much as 22 percent
without any growth for mainline flying, merely because of the difference in network size following the merger.

Domestic Code Share Agreements (1-C-2)
Previously known to Continental pilots as referring to Complementary Carriers (now Domestic Code Share
Carriers), these are the same code share agreement restrictions from the legacy Continental CBA.

Hub-to-Hub Flights (1-C-2-c-(1))
• These provisions are carried over from the legacy Continental contract and operate the same way.

System Flights (1-C-2-c-(2))
• These provisions are also carried over from the legacy Continental contract, adjusted for dates and
nomenclature used in the JCBA

Exception for smaller carriers that operate fewer than one-half the system ASMs of the new United (ratio
satisfied so long as it does not exceed 125 percent [or inversely 80 percent, as borrowed from the legacy
Continental CBA])

Foreign Air Carrier Code Share Agreements (1-C-3)
These provisions outline the allowable code share business arrangements related to international segments with
foreign carriers. There are similarities to language in the legacy Continental CBA, updated or expanded to address
how foreign carrier code share agreements have developed over the years.

Geographical Limits (1-C-3-a)
• From the legacy Continental CBA. If a foreign carrier code-shares with United, flights are permitted only
to or from our hubs, to or from countries where that carrier has a hub

Flying Ratios (1-C-3-b)
1-C-3-b-(1) and 1-C-b-(2)
• The language in 1-C-3-b-(1) establishes the process used to determine a flight differential ratio that
compares international route flights operated by the Company to international flights on the same route
operated by a foreign air carrier. Provisions in 1-C-3-b-(2) outline a limitation of two flights above this
differential. This limitation is from the legacy Continental contract

Yadda yadda ya. And as CAL pilots, we are tired of the holier than thou attitude SOME UA pilots throw out by saying we brought nothing to the merger. I am cognizant of, and appreciate the "gets" that were achievable in the UPA only because they previously existed in the UA CBA. But we brought some skin to the game too, not that it really matters.

We will all get over these perceived slights, in time. It's impossible to NOT analyze current and past events from one's subjective point of view. It's time to get over it and move on, knowing that BOTH sides have contributed to the unproductive mud slinging. But we are also capable of forging a new positive future, collectively, together.

hockeypilot44

I agree. It probably won't even be that long. You will see new airlines pop up claiming to be a "different" and "better" airline. In reality, the only thing better is cheaper, more motivated employees that are excited to start a career. The story always ends the same way. Southwest will be no different long term. It is what it is.


On a different note, the Delta pilots are almost always the first to give up scope. Usually for a small raise and some kind of "furlough protection." This last contract was unbelievable to me. I thought they had learned their lesson. I was wrong. It is frightening to think the trend is still moving in the outsourcing direction.