|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1786479)
Furlough protection is huge, right up until it isn't.
Ever hear of a Force Mejuere clause? (Pardon the french spelling) Personally I would rather have more real narrow bodies than SNB's. But I wouldn't trade it for scope. If they were to renegotiate the scope choke to include the number of NB or SNB's, I don't see how we would lose. I think used buses or guppies are easier to come by right now than new 190's. |
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1785927)
Sent a note about this to my LEC last night; reply this morning.
He assured me that JH was no PW, and there would absolutely not be secret backroom deals. It sounded like the MEC had been approached, more than once, but told "no" each time. His take: our scope is a thorn in UCH's side, and they want it to be more like Delta or American. He said the entire MEC would have to agree, and if so, would put it to a vote for the membership. |
Furlough protection goes the way of the white buffalo with Force Majuere every single time. Spending any negotiating capitol on it is a waste of time. Just ask all the pilots furloughed in the last 13 years how their furlough protection worked out.
As far as what the company flies and where they fly it? It is none of my concern or responsibility. I do hope ALPA is strong enough to make sure that it is us that flies them. In the last 20 years we have not been that strong. Actually, we gave it away. |
Originally Posted by Really
(Post 1786674)
T38, Do you mind explaining this comment I don't know the history but, am interested what happened? Whose PW?:confused:
Letter 03-17 Page 483 UNITED AIRLINES REWRITE 2003 ALPA Let ter 03-17 Embraer 170 Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association 6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700 Rosemont, IL 60018 Dear Paul, In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer 170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy (70) seats. If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies for our file. |
[QUOTE=jsled;1786680]This Guy.....
Letter 03-17 Page 483 UNITED AIRLINES REWRITE 2003 ALPA Let ter 03-17 Embraer 170 Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association 6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700 Rosemont, IL 60018 Dear Paul, In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer 170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy (70) seats. If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies for our file.[/QUOTE I've heard of the "Whiteford letter" but, I guess I don't understand it! Did you guys know it was coming down the pipe? What was the reason they did the agreement? What was i guess, threatened? |
We didn't know and didn't have a say. He just did it unilaterally.
|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1786675)
Furlough protection goes the way of the white buffalo with Force Majuere every single time. Spending any negotiating capitol on it is a waste of time. Just ask all the pilots furloughed in the last 13 years how their furlough protection worked out.
As far as what the company flies and where they fly it? It is none of my concern or responsibility. I do hope ALPA is strong enough to make sure that it is us that flies them. In the last 20 years we have not been that strong. Actually, we gave it away. We've given away scope at every opportunity, for far less than what was paid to Judas. Whatever the company's given in exchange for scope relief always disappears, but the express outsourcing remains. That needs to end. |
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1786684)
We didn't know and didn't have a say. He just did it unilaterally.
The company kept the pilot pensions ... for a short time. Now they're with PBGC. Previous union concessions for scope - more widebody flying. Widebody flying shrunk but the RJ outsourcing expanded. The company keeps its word on any scope concession agreements. But they eventually take back whatever was given, while the outsourcing remains. |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 1786691)
I agree about furlough protection. The only real furlough protection is our scope clause. Putting SNBs and large RJs on mainline property is the only furlough protection we could have.
We've given away scope at every opportunity, for far less than what was paid to Judas. Whatever the company's given in exchange for scope relief always disappears, but the express outsourcing remains. That needs to end. |
Originally Posted by strfyr51
(Post 1786511)
************************************************** **********
I understand your predicament However? This might be a bridge too far. More Mainline airplanes is one thing. Another fleet is something else. As Powerful as ALPA is you might have "gone around the bend" on this one. As you've read, it's not ALPAs job to trade long term career protections to fix management's inability to adapt to short cycle capacity demands. Quite the opposite actually. UCH has known about scope choke since they agreed to it the fall of 2012, it's not the pilots fault, nor is it their problem. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands