UAL Scope VS CAL Scope

[catIIIc]

United guys,

I know I am putting the cart before the horse, but seeing as we may be partners in the not so distance future I have a question.

In your Scope clause do you have a cap on the 70 seaters that fly for United Express? I am asking because if we end up merging that is the first thing that needs to happen. Our Scope is fairly strong with every jet above 50 seats flown by Continental Pilots. I know our management is chopping at the bit to get bigger jets on property and we aren't letting them.

I hope the government stops these mega mergers because it will be ugly, but I just wanted to ask the question.

 

[MCDU]

It will be DOH, that is all I know.

Marty

 

[whymeworry?]

It will be DOH, that is all I know.

Marty

Well you don't know much then, do you?

 

[Uniform Shop]

It will be DOH, that is all I know.

Marty

WOW! Maybe I read the question wrong because that has absolutely nothing to do with what he asked.

We all know that an arbitrator's decision is almost never straight DOH and I really doubt this is going to happen anyway so I wouldn't worry too much about where you might end up on the seniority list. :beer:

 

[Yuppyguppy]

I believe our fearless MEC leader back in 2003 read you Paul Whiteford (IDIOT) let the company have as many 70 seaters as they want...of course that was to save the pilot pension...good job Paul...hope that answers your question

I agree anything over 50...goes to mainline

 

[donvag]

CAL scope clause is that any JET over 50 seats has to be flown by mainline pilots.

Q400 have 70 seats but since it is a prop it can be flown by Colgan.

 

[catIIIc]

I know that is what I put.

 

[twad]

They Can have DOH

Just as long as we get DATE OF BIRTH!!!!! What a stupid thing to say. Nice.

 

[ualdriver]

United guys,

I know I am putting the cart before the horse, but seeing as we may be partners in the not so distance future I have a question.

In your Scope clause do you have a cap on the 70 seaters that fly for United Express? I am asking because if we end up merging that is the first thing that needs to happen. Our Scope is fairly strong with every jet above 50 seats flown by Continental Pilots. I know our management is chopping at the bit to get bigger jets on property and we aren't letting them.

I hope the government stops these mega mergers because it will be ugly, but I just wanted to ask the question.

Our scope sucks. Off the top of my head, they can fly anything up to 70 seats. There was a weight limit, too, but a bull**** side letter was signed that allowed the E170 to be outsourced as well even though it was too heavy under the original language. I think they can have as many RJ's as we have mainline aircraft, 1 for 1. Our management is currently flying a lot less RJ's than they could under our current scope. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[AWACoff]

Heck, Air Wisconsin was flying 95,000 lb 100 seaters as United Express. It doesn't get much weaker than that when it comes to scope. As far as DOH in a UAL/CAL merger... Why should growth from CAL become growth for UAL? We are the ones making money, not UAL. MCDU, you are truly out of touch if you were even half serious with your comment.

 

[MCDU]

Heck, Air Wisconsin was flying 95,000 lb 100 seaters as United Express. It doesn't get much weaker than that when it comes to scope. As far as DOH in a UAL/CAL merger... Why should growth from CAL become growth for UAL? We are the ones making money, not UAL. MCDU, you are truly out of touch if you were even half serious with your comment.

Read some history why Air Wisconsin was flying those 16 146's. They got royally screwed by United and by ALPA. They got bought and parted out to gain all their Jet slots in ORD. Many, many furloughs and the creation on lower paying jobs at ACA and UFS. Another ALPA screw job between two ALPA carriers.

 

[Mr.B]

Heck, Air Wisconsin was flying 95,000 lb 100 seaters as United Express. It doesn't get much weaker than that when it comes to scope. As far as DOH in a UAL/CAL merger... Why should growth from CAL become growth for UAL? We are the ones making money, not UAL. MCDU, you are truly out of touch if you were even half serious with your comment.

UAL made $695M in 07, CAL $556M. Both lost $$$$ in 4th Q 07.

CAL has announced expansion, UAL has not. Both are a likely/unlikely to expand. In fact....

However, Kellner did acknowledge reports that the U.S. is "on the cusp" of an economic recession. The airline will be "watching future bookings closely," and it has the ability to defer some capital spending by postponing projects.

Point is, a merger is nothing more that a deal to enrich a few. We will be left holding the bag. Personally, I hope for a CAL/UAL merger with CAL running the airline but it's all a crap shoot anyway.

Cheers

 

[Shrek]

AWACoff..........the only thing wrong with your statement about UAL not making money is unfortunately the TRUTH.

The UAL name will stay..........who knows who will actually run the 'new' airline.........

 

[LJDRVR]

The UAL name will stay..........who knows who will actually run the 'new' airline.........

Nothing but my opinion, but I think you're wrong on both counts. Continetal has a much better reputation with consumers. You management team is only looking to put a bunch of cash in their pockets. The folks in Houston run a much better airline. Not bragging, just facts.

I don't think a merger is as likely as y'all think. 100 777's? No way.

 

[stillflyn]

Heck, Air Wisconsin was flying 95,000 lb 100 seaters as United Express. It doesn't get much weaker than that when it comes to scope. As far as DOH in a UAL/CAL merger... Why should growth from CAL become growth for UAL? We are the ones making money, not UAL. MCDU, you are truly out of touch if you were even half serious with your comment.

UAL made more money than CAL in 2007. Check your facts.

Stillflyn