The CAL JV application was made in 2008 and the 2008 CAL annual report stated that ALPA approval was required. I wasn't there, but obviously something happened for the final approval to occur in 2009.

Scope violation? Grievance? I'm thinking the answer is "no."

 

Wasn't 2009 when CAL joined Star Alliance? Buried in the proposal to join Star Alliance was probably a sub paragraph that allowed joint ventures. I bet if you found and read the contract CAL signed to join Star you would find it.

I have no idea if the Union has a say in switching alliances. If it does then they most likely agreed to JV without any of you even knowing it happened.

 

Alliance say...No the union has no vote in that.

But, the scope language in existing book was rock solid. Management tried several times to get around it. Each time, like 5 times, the union prevailed. Finally, management disguised an LOA as a furlough mitigation LOA and in the reading of it, it was actually a joint venture LOA. The MEC voted it down twice. A year later, the merger was announced.

If (and a big if), but if management negotiated a joint venture flying agreement prior to the finalization of any merger with UAL, then I think that's a violation of the CAL scope clause. If any JV flying was done, or negotiated while CAL pilots were flying under the status quo, I would have a problem with that. I would also have a problem with those agreements if they remained in place, up to and including present day.

JV flying is different than code-sharing. The differences may be subtle now as things tend to get watered down. Truly, management wants the pilots to just mind their P's and Q's, but this entire issue is pretty darn important. Who knows, we may be one day enslaving ourselves to the ME3. We will need stronger language in the future.

I was never a fan of outsourcing our flying. You really can't scrutinize the books, the operations, and the standards of those you do business with that are over-seas. Moreover, what's to stop management from shifting international flying to lower priced international labor flying their airplanes on our routes and just calling it network sharing, joint venture flying, or code sharing? I think it should be watched very closely.

 

I agree with everything you just said and must be watched closely, Just look at what has happened at DL over the last couple years.

I have heard some really bad/corrupt things about the CAL MEC. Not trying to start an argument but are you certain they didn't sign off on it without telling the rank and file? I'm betting they did, I doubt some APC posts just found the screw job of the decade lol

 

The MEC Chairman tried to do that actually. But, he knew he didn't have the power to do it unilaterally. At an MEC meeting which was held in CLE, he got the scheduling Chairman (not the NC Chair) to brief the MEC on the so called joint venture flying LOA. This LOA if approved was a promise from management not to furlough any pilots. Well, you know pilots got furloughed. The MEC voted it down. Then, 2 months later, the MEC voted it down again. The MEC reps were not allowed to photo copy the agreement, not allowed to make notes, and not allowed to ask counsel any questions, to include the meaning of various definitions.

The vote failed twice. The agreement, under the terms given to the MEC by the chair included the following:
1. Not put to pilots for ratification
2. 2 percent pay raise if vote yes
3. promise of no furlough (unless there is a need)
4. joint venture flying to greatly expand usage and size of RJ's
5. possible aer lingus style agreements lowering the price of labor on trans-atlantic routes.

At that time, the prevailing thought of Kellner/Smizek was to grow the network through code-sharing type agreements. Hence CAL only had 22 wide bodies via the 777 after they parked the 10's. Many 10's were never replaced, but their load capacity was preserved through their growing network.

I never fully understood the cost structure of the code-shares. They obviously do get paid, but they certainly don't get the full revenue benefit of the pax traffic on other airline's metal. What is the percentage I wonder. Further, does the money from these agreements go straight into the bottom line, or is their a side hose/siphon that skims money and puts it in other places? Is all the revenue from these agreements accountable? What percentage of the revenue from these agreements are the pilots entitled to?

I personally feel that if management negotiates an agreement on a cheaper (lower cost) carrier in terms of pilot costs, then we should get a cut of that money. We can't have our management pimping out our routes without us getting our fair share of the revenue. These routes are our growth. If we don't grow, we die.

look at the stagnation now at SWA. They can't grow any more, and they are looking at various types of schemes to "pretend grow." It's not real growth, it's just pretend growth.

 

Snapshot is now up. Quite a few 777 FOs so the company is getting what they wanted. A few are taking advantage and going SFO 747 to get the whale and a free bump again.

 

I like that our company is making a profit, but I'd rather it be on metal that you and I may one day be flying. Wouldn't you?

Hmmm where could United get airplanes just sitting around doing nothing? Oh wait! Aren't we about to park 22 747-400's? QED

Hmm where could we could we get the capital to buy or lease more airplanes and begin new service? Oh wait! We have enough excess cash to buy back $6,000,000,000 worth of stock. QED

United (nor continental) have ever served China from IAH, are you arguing that we shouldn't expand our international service to our hub that connects to every major Latin American destination? The same should be said for ICN. The same could be said for AKL. The same could be said for SYD.

Don't even get me on more thread drift with Emirates, Etihad, and Qatari. F those bribing, human trafficking, potlicking scumbags.

 

Saw that......this is the first round of 3 displacements of 25, did see a few taking a Capt'n slot...good for them!

 

The oil bust and the collateral damage from it extends from IAH down through LA / SA. Hardly the time to be banking on Petrobras and others sending high paying corporate clients to China through IAH. Wait and see appears to be appropriate for now. Lagos was nursed along for years and was never profitable. Why do something like that again when there are better options?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...ica-s-economy/

 

Do any of those routes make money?