Displacement bid out
06-23-2015 | 06:46 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 320 Captain
Perhaps he didn't like it, perhaps he did, but that's immaterial because he wasn't citing it as the reason for his "yes" vote. The prior poster explicitly cited "scope" as the source of his "no" vote. The intent of the question was, in my estimation, to determine whether the original poster actually understood the scope provisions of the TA and had valid reservations about it or if he was misleading about his true reasons for voting or advocating "no".
06-23-2015 | 06:49 AM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
-80% limit of UAX flying to under 900 miles
-5% max hub-to-hub can be UAX
-76 seat limit to UAX
-As 76 seat aircraft rise, we must get more mainline narrowbody flying.
-76 seaters must be converted to 70 seaters if any pilot on the seniority list is furloughed (as of signing) plus other furlough protections.
-More strict UAX ASM limits
-More strict foreign code sharing
Its not the best, but I was impressed with the presentation the LCAL Scope negotiating rep gave at the EWR road show and since I was unfamiliar with the CAL scope previously he stated that this scope filled a lot of holes that were in that scope agreement.
-5% max hub-to-hub can be UAX
-76 seat limit to UAX
-As 76 seat aircraft rise, we must get more mainline narrowbody flying.
-76 seaters must be converted to 70 seaters if any pilot on the seniority list is furloughed (as of signing) plus other furlough protections.
-More strict UAX ASM limits
-More strict foreign code sharing
Its not the best, but I was impressed with the presentation the LCAL Scope negotiating rep gave at the EWR road show and since I was unfamiliar with the CAL scope previously he stated that this scope filled a lot of holes that were in that scope agreement.
06-23-2015 | 06:51 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
Perhaps he didn't like it, perhaps he did, but that's immaterial because he wasn't citing it as the reason for his "yes" vote. The prior poster explicitly cited "scope" as the source of his "no" vote. The intent of the question was, in my estimation, to determine whether the original poster actually understood the scope provisions of the TA and had valid reservations about it or if he was misleading about his true reasons for voting or advocating "no".
06-23-2015 | 08:43 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
looks like a big shakeup in DEN on the 320/737 Captains list that will trickle down to the FOs on both fleets there… as well as the 787FO list out of IAH… looks like most of the young 737 captains like that aircraft for the money.
06-23-2015 | 08:59 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
What in the even heck are you talking about?
Where in the HE// are these guys who just had their fleet closed in Denver supposed to go?
06-23-2015 | 09:40 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: 737 fo
Perhaps he didn't like it, perhaps he did, but that's immaterial because he wasn't citing it as the reason for his "yes" vote. The prior poster explicitly cited "scope" as the source of his "no" vote. The intent of the question was, in my estimation, to determine whether the original poster actually understood the scope provisions of the TA and had valid reservations about it or if he was misleading about his true reasons for voting or advocating "no".
06-23-2015 | 09:49 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
06-23-2015 | 09:59 AM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
I'm just saying that there are going to be some huge movements on the seniority lists in Den on the 737/320 and IAH on the 787… only so much room...
06-23-2015 | 10:00 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 320 Captain
I fully understand the scope section. It has been beat to death on here. The reason I brought it up is because it was stated that people voted no for other reasons than contract. I don't think many at LUAL realize what a blow it was to give the company more than 50 seats, especially to the jr lCAL pilots. We had fought for years to keep it. In fact we were offered no furloughs for relaxing our scope and said no. I understood that the 70 seaters were being forced on us with the merger, a huge pill to swallow, but could not get past adding almost 10% more lift to that and giving away 76 seats. That is especially tough as it is essentially the same plane as the 90 seater. I still think it was a mistake. My no vote had nothing to do with anything other then the merits of the contract.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
