We have 70+ seaters running wild cause you gave up your sçope and "Guppys."

 

Agreed. It's unfortunate that the pre UPA UAL contract had absolutely zero provisions to protect UAL flying in the event of a merger ... That was your contract; own up. Quit blaming everyone else except the men in the mirror for what your MEC wrought.

 

How did we give up our Guppies? I didn't realize we had control over what airplanes management parks!

 

Actually I'm perfectly comfortable with where I placed the blame.

We did what we needed to do... voted to de-power Pierce. I'm not the one whining about the scope provision. That would be laughable Larry who wants us to use the grievance we won thanks to Pierce's shenanigans to improve something for the LCAL pilot group. Funny, I didn't see the LCAL MEC looking out for ANYONE except themselves (which many LCAL pilots on here claimed was their job). That's fine, but you should expect the same now from LUAL.

Your point about not having any merger protections are totally moot. We could have had a contract in 2010, but Pierce AND Morse blew it. At least we had the good sense to replace our guilty party. Then the LCAL MEC hostage situation began. I don't need to look in the mirror to place blame there. The facts speak for themselves. Look no further than the LCAL position that we should use the 2013 list to merger seniority. Good luck with that. The strategy was clear to most of us all along.

 

No scope provisions? Management parks mainline airplanes and replaces with 90 seat airframes and calls them RJs.

Strong scope? Management parks mainline airplanes and replaces with mainline airplanes.

Seems to me that the pilots do have control of what will be the replacement airplane.

 

Nope. We didn't have any 90 seat airframes in our scope clause when they decided to park the guppy fleet in 2008. The Scope clause was set in 2003. There were no new RJ's added to replace the Guppies. That was a strategic decision by Tilton that went much deeper than the 70 seater

 

Hostage situation? That would be because your view is that all of the flying "created" since MAD belongs to some degree/shape/or form to L-UAL pilots ... well, your contract didn't protect that flying, period. Why didn't the L-UAL strategy post MAD protect your interest, knowing that there was this fatal flaw?? Because your side didn't know how to say YES, and instead countered with delay (W-2, profit sharing, etc.etc.) and death by a 1,000 grievences ... and instead, dealt management the winning hand at the JBCA card game and delivered well beyond 50.1 % ... or in other words, your lousy pre-merger contract delivered this POS UPA ... thanks.

 

Haha! Man, the water must be warm in your world. Actually, we had flying protections... that we negotiated in the TPA. Of course, nobody expected these negotiations to take THREE YEARS. Finally, Heppner had to end run around Pierce and Moak to force the issue because the TPA protections we had were going to expire; and lets just say we LUAL pilots realized that we were now fighting the company AND Pierce. 2-1 is not where you want to be.

You are frustrated by the grievances?? HA! How about we look at why we had to file those in the first place!!!! How about the comment from one of you MEC members saying they'll keep the contract they have forever unless we give in on pay banding - an inappropriate ISL grab. Oh, and those horrible grievances? Well, last I checked we won. So I guess they weren't so inappropriate after all.

Lastly, the pre merger crappy contract was extracted by our management in Ch 11. To say the deck was stacked against us would be an understatement. What's your excuse for YOUR crappy pre-merger contract?

And for the record, I absolutely do NOT think all post MAD flying should be LUAL's. The POST 2010 flying opportunities and seniority should be shared by both groups. That has been our position. LCAL's position is that 2013 flying is where we should be making our decisions. What a HORRIBLE idea that would be for our profession. To reward delays by one side??? Dumb

 

gettinbumped you're speaking for the LUAL group and to be honest it's about time somebody spoke against the LCAL guys. I know the negative writings take a lot out of you but they have been hammering the LUAL pilot on this forum for some time.

THANKS!

 

No, you didn't have any protections in your contract; CAL MEC agreed to the 90%, without delay; and agreed to let any of your excess pilots to be first in line for a job. We agreed to those provisions. You came to the merger without protections and 1437 pilots without a job. At MCD, every CAL pilot had a job or a recall letter in hand. AND yes, it did take your side THREE YEARS to finally realize that the WHOLE CAL PILOT group was not going to give in to the UAL demands ... Pierce was the "leader", but your fight was with the whole CAL pilot group. And your side had the weaker hand, I mean contract ... your ONLY OUT was a yes vote on anything ... thanks.

Please show me anything that links the CAL NC/MECs view on paybanding with the CAL MC's SLI strategy or proposal; did the same rep declare that we must have paybanding because it is our SLI strategy? Or perhaps it had everything to do with the CAL groups' belief that it was the right thing to do since 2002, including our 2007 opening position for 2008 contract negotiations. And the PS ... please ... more what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine also. I'm glad you will get more $$$, and ****ed that we missed the chance to use unity to benefit everyone.

So did the company only negotiated with one MEC?? Did the NC only have CAL reps on it?? Did the NMB only talk to CAL ALPA?? What a joke ... CAL stood it's ground, and now CAL caused the 3 year delay. And why oh why should post 2010 flying opportunities and seniority be shared?? If it should have been shared, then it WOULD HAVE BEEN SHARED ... possession is 9/10ths of the law, unless you are UAL, then its what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine also. Spare me the song and dance about one company, blah blah blah, making decisions blah blah blah ... your pre-merger contract didn't protect the "added" pilots and seniority, ours did. I really don't care what date is used by the arbs when they build thier award ... but I surely hope they won't let the UAL pilots steal what isn't thiers.