United Airlines' First Choice: Continental

[Palomino]

Why wouldn't CAL be their first choice? They would be the easiest pilot group roll-over. The UAL pilots will pummel the CAL pilots on every issue of a merger. Period! I know being a CAL pilot. Simple unfortunate reality, CAL pilots are weak, look at our contract. We don't have the percentage of pilots strong enough to be a majority voice of solidarity yet.

your opportunity to change that assumption is coming up on March 12th in NYC.

unless you have other commitments that take priority, you should take part in the effort to improve the quality of life and perception of your pilot group.

hope to see you there.

 

[densoo]

Why wouldn't CAL be their first choice? They would be the easiest pilot group roll-over. The UAL pilots will pummel the CAL pilots on every issue of a merger. Period! I know being a CAL pilot. Simple unfortunate reality, CAL pilots are weak, look at our contract. We don't have the percentage of pilots strong enough to be a majority voice of solidarity yet.

Maybe the "B3rd" group will have some impact. Someone's got to show some unity.

 

[Furloughed80]

Why wouldn't CAL be their first choice? They would be the easiest pilot group roll-over. The UAL pilots will pummel the CAL pilots on every issue of a merger. Period! I know being a CAL pilot. Simple unfortunate reality, CAL pilots are weak, look at our contract. We don't have the percentage of pilots strong enough to be a majority voice of solidarity yet.

The demographics of the CAL pilot group have changed significantly since contract '02. Not to mention CAL has more leverage in this integration. I seriously doubt UAL pilots would want this to go into neutral party arbitration.

 

[Andy]

The demographics of the CAL pilot group have changed significantly since contract '02. Not to mention CAL has more leverage in this integration. I seriously doubt UAL pilots would want this to go into neutral party arbitration.

???? Why, pray tell, wouldn't UAL pilots want neutral party arbitration? Are you somehow thinking that an arbitrator would deviate significantly from relative seniority?

 

[Mr.B]

Geez, you're freaking dense. In 2000, AMR needed another hub in the center of the country to offload excess traffic from DFW and ORD. DFW and ORD were maxed out - need I remind you of the slot restrictions put in place at ORD back then?
Carty wanted NWA because the MSP and DTW hubs were great fortress hubs with a lot of O&D traffic. The O&D traffic out of STL was smaller and not the high yield variety.
There was zero talk of dismantling any of the three hubs, because MSP and DTW are high revenue fortress hubs. I understand that the high revenue fortress hub is a difficult concept for a deltoid to grasp, since SLC is about the closest thing to such a beast for Delta.
It's pretty obvious from previous exchanges with you that you have near zero understanding of why AMR would want/need additional midwest hubs. Again, DFW and ORD were maxed out; ORD is still maxed out - I can't speak for DFW since I haven't been through there for quite a while. So what's the importance of additional midwest hubs for AMR? Look at AMR's fleet. Mad dogs and guppies aren't built for transcons. They've dissembled most of their STL hub; it's a crappy hub city, so that's the logical move.

AGAIN, USAirways had 4, count 'em, FOUR hubs within an hour of each other - PHL, PIT, DCA, and BWI. Those hubs are used primarily for north/south traffic. And PHL and DCA are great high yield O&D hubs. I know, I know, high yield O&D hubs are an abstract concept to deltoids.

Good points.

Don't expect general dipstick to understand.

 

[Furloughed80]

???? Why, pray tell, wouldn't UAL pilots want neutral party arbitration? Are you somehow thinking that an arbitrator would deviate significantly from relative seniority?

No, I believe an arbitrator's decision would most likely be very close to relative seniority. I think most UAL pilot would push for DOH however.

 

[AWACoff]

Moresky,

Welcome to the new Continental. 1/3 of the seniority list has been hired since 2004. We control the outcome of any contract/seniority list merger/etc. Many of us have come from regionals with far better contracts and we intend to have that QOL here at CAL. If we have to force you to have a great contract, we will. We are not intent on selling anybody else down the river. We'll leave that to the scabs. A great contract for everybody is what the B3rd is all about.

 

[General Lee]

General,

The article Andy was quoting was from year 2000. AMR could easily try to play spoiler in the Delta-Northwest merger scenario today. Do you think every other airline will sit on their hands and watch this play out?

Try to play a spoiler? You mean make us pay more than we should? Ron Allen made that mistake with the Pan Am Europe Routes when he bought them in the early 90s. I don't think Anderson will play that game, and he could always take their bluff and let them have it. There would be soooooo much overlap (from MSP to ORD to DTW----unbelievable), that they would have to either divest a large chunk of one of the hubs, or a lot of routes or slots at each one of them. It just doesn't make sense. It is like if CAL and DL tried to get together, one of us would have to get rid of either their EWR hub or our JFK hub. (and probably the Delta Shuttle too at LGA) Not gonna happen, and not gonna be approved by anyone, especially not the DOJ. They can try if they want, and I doubt Anderson will pay more than he has to.

Do I think everyone else will sit on their hands? No, no I don't. Southwest has stated they wouldn't sit idle, and USAir wants to dance with anyone. I bet there would be a lot of DOJ reviews.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Geez, you're freaking dense. In 2000, AMR needed another hub in the center of the country to offload excess traffic from DFW and ORD. DFW and ORD were maxed out - need I remind you of the slot restrictions put in place at ORD back then?
Carty wanted NWA because the MSP and DTW hubs were great fortress hubs with a lot of O&D traffic. The O&D traffic out of STL was smaller and not the high yield variety.
There was zero talk of dismantling any of the three hubs, because MSP and DTW are high revenue fortress hubs. I understand that the high revenue fortress hub is a difficult concept for a deltoid to grasp, since SLC is about the closest thing to such a beast for Delta.
It's pretty obvious from previous exchanges with you that you have near zero understanding of why AMR would want/need additional midwest hubs. Again, DFW and ORD were maxed out; ORD is still maxed out - I can't speak for DFW since I haven't been through there for quite a while. So what's the importance of additional midwest hubs for AMR? Look at AMR's fleet. Mad dogs and guppies aren't built for transcons. They've dissembled most of their STL hub; it's a crappy hub city, so that's the logical move.

AGAIN, USAirways had 4, count 'em, FOUR hubs within an hour of each other - PHL, PIT, DCA, and BWI. Those hubs are used primarily for north/south traffic. And PHL and DCA are great high yield O&D hubs. I know, I know, high yield O&D hubs are an abstract concept to deltoids.

No, no, you again are wrong. This is not 2000. Nope. You cannot equate STL to ORD, MSP, and DTW. They (MSP, ORD, and DTW) are almost in a straight line across the country. St. Louis was between ORD and DFW, but helped with transcon connections when WX was bad, not North/South traffic. How is STL doing now? A lot slower, eh? It just won't happen.

How did USAir's 4 hubs do anyway? The reason they HAD 4 hubs back then is because LCCs really weren't around back then. Southwest came into BWI and wiped them clean. How is PIT doing? Do you get my point yet? Today is a different day. LCC's whine when they see a monopoly, and the government will let them pick and choose the scraps. I just don't see 3 hubs in a straight line within one hour flights. I don't care if they are fortress hubs. Again, you need to fill up your ammo if you want to shoot from the hip. Today is not 2000.

Speaking of high yield hubs, ever heard of CVG? That is our highest yield hub. But, we just don't know that.........


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Andy]

Good points.

Don't expect general dipstick to understand.

If it doesn't fit into his myopic deltoid view of aviation, it can't be correct.
He first argued that DOJ wouldn't allow three hubs in close proximity, then he said that it didn't make economic sense (in spite of MSP and DTW being SOLID fortress hubs), and now it's that AMR has ample midwest capacity to offload excess traffic.

AMR is not going to make a bid for Northwest at this time; they do not currently need another midwest hub. If both ORD and DFW are maxed out, they can grow STL - it's not a great hub city, but AMR can easily expand there.

There is a great deal of relative value in Northwest - they have a couple of the best fortress hubs in the business along with an extensive route structure in Far East.

 

[Andy]

No, I believe an arbitrator's decision would most likely be very close to relative seniority. I think most UAL pilot would push for DOH however.

I don't think that there will be many pushing for DOH at UAL. I haven't seen anyone suggest that on our ALPA boards. We went through that with USAirways in 2000 and are now the senior pilots DOH-wise compared to CAL.
Some have suggested tall fences, as what happened with NWA/Republic. I oppose fences because it will create too many barriers within the pilot group.
I would be very disappointed with UAL ALPA if they did not propose a reasonable seniority integration from the start. To do otherwise sets the pilots up for unrealistic expectations.
In my case, I'd benefit greatly from DOH; I was hired at UAL in 2000. I don't expect to see my relative seniority change by more than +/- a couple of percent.

I hope that a merger does not occur, but if one were to occur with United, I'd hope it to be with CAL. It makes the most sense in terms of route structures. There is not a great deal of overlap which would mean less cutbacks.

 

[G4G5]

AGAIN, Andy, tell me how it would work with 3 hubs next to each other? They are all within 1 hour flight of each other. Which one would they trim down? What would local politicians think?


You can ROTFLMAO all you want, but it won't work. Again, you are shooting from the hip with NO ammo.

Bye Bye--General Lee

You are once again, wrong. Carty is on record stating that the purchase of TWA will allow AA to off load some of it's ORD traffic to STL.

STL is 225 miles from ORD.

MSP is 290 mies from ORD.

History has shown that this will not stop AA from merging. Having a hub so close to ORD is not an issue for AA

 

[G4G5]

I don't think that there will be many pushing for DOH at UAL. I haven't seen anyone suggest that on our ALPA boards. We went through that with USAirways in 2000 and are now the senior pilots DOH-wise compared to CAL.
Some have suggested tall fences, as what happened with NWA/Republic. I oppose fences because it will create too many barriers within the pilot group.
I would be very disappointed with UAL ALPA if they did not propose a reasonable seniority integration from the start. To do otherwise sets the pilots up for unrealistic expectations.
In my case, I'd benefit greatly from DOH; I was hired at UAL in 2000. I don't expect to see my relative seniority change by more than +/- a couple of percent.

I hope that a merger does not occur, but if one were to occur with United, I'd hope it to be with CAL. It makes the most sense in terms of route structures. There is not a great deal of overlap which would mean less cutbacks.

The biggest stumbling block (after NWA) would be the 747's. UAL/ALPA needs to protect the career projections of their pilots. I could eaisly see something like you refer to but with fences on the 747.

 

[G4G5]

Try to play a spoiler? You mean make us pay more than we should? Ron Allen made that mistake with the Pan Am Europe Routes when he bought them in the early 90s. I don't think Anderson will play that game, and he could always take their bluff and let them have it. There would be soooooo much overlap (from MSP to ORD to DTW----unbelievable), that they would have to either divest a large chunk of one of the hubs, or a lot of routes or slots at each one of them. It just doesn't make sense. It is like if CAL and DL tried to get together, one of us would have to get rid of either their EWR hub or our JFK hub. (and probably the Delta Shuttle too at LGA) Not gonna happen, and not gonna be approved by anyone, especially not the DOJ. They can try if they want, and I doubt Anderson will pay more than he has to.

Do I think everyone else will sit on their hands? No, no I don't. Southwest has stated they wouldn't sit idle, and USAir wants to dance with anyone. I bet there would be a lot of DOJ reviews.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Paid too much?

Wow are you wrong, where would DAL be today without the Pan Am purchase?

Just to be clear. DAL got:
A turn key European operation with JFK hub
Including 30 Eurpoean route authorities
The cash cow NY/DC/BOS Shuttle and associated terminals, slots and gates.
The Frankfurt hub
45 aircraft (while taking less then 700 pilots, out of seniority, no less)

All for $260 million!

Some more FACTS:

Prior to the aquisition of Pan Am. DAL was 86% Domstic. Operating just 13 international routes from 4 hubs (ATL, CVG, MCO and DFW)

Without Pan Am, DAL would have as much European presence as USAir does with little or no east coast presence.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...an+destinations+1990&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

 

[justin15e]

The biggest stumbling block (after NWA) would be the 747's. UAL/ALPA needs to protect the career projections of their pilots. I could eaisly see something like you refer to but with fences on the 747.

I'll tell you what. UA can keep their 747s in any merger. However, no UA can ever fly one of CAL's future 787s. Deal?

I'm willing to bet the 787s will be around a lot longer than those 747s.

 

[DTW320]

Some more FACTS:

No No NO! Those silly things won't work with the Generally. Now don't bother him with those...his mind (such as it is) is made up!

 

[stillflyn]

I'll tell you what. UA can keep their 747s in any merger. However, no UA can ever fly one of CAL's future 787s. Deal?

I'm willing to bet the 787s will be around a lot longer than those 747s.

That's fine... All airplanes on your property at the time of the merger can be fenced off. I can tell you right now that no arbitrator is going to fence off aircraft that were delivered after the merger takes place. Only existing aircraft will be kept fenced for any real length of time.

All your two year CA seats will be protected on the 737 and we'll probably have some sort of protection with our widebodys.

If you think that your "senior 9 month" FO is going to be slotted in above a 9-10 year UAL FO your crazy!

Stillflyn

 

[General Lee]

No No NO! Those silly things won't work with the Generally. Now don't bother him with those...his mind (such as it is) is made up!

Really? I think he is wrong. I have been told that we paid $1 billion for the routes and hub, and that price was run up by AA. Ron Allen overpaid. But hey, you know everything about Delta. Go back to Duluth.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Paid too much?

Wow are you wrong, where would DAL be today without the Pan Am purchase?

Just to be clear. DAL got:
A turn key European operation with JFK hub
Including 30 Eurpoean route authorities
The cash cow NY/DC/BOS Shuttle and associated terminals, slots and gates.
The Frankfurt hub
45 aircraft (while taking less then 700 pilots, out of seniority, no less)

All for $260 million!

Some more FACTS:

Prior to the aquisition of Pan Am. DAL was 86% Domstic. Operating just 13 international routes from 4 hubs (ATL, CVG, MCO and DFW)

Without Pan Am, DAL would have as much European presence as USAir does with little or no east coast presence.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...an+destinations+1990&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Really? Are you sure about that? Everyone who I have talked to, and I was not at Delta at the time, says we overpaid thanks to a runup from AA. Ron Allen supposedly overpaid a lot for the routes and terminals. I think your figure is a lot low. Let's ask Tom Goodman, he was there I bet. $260 million is low. I heard it was over $1 billion.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Flopgut]

UAL can keep their 747s. I don't care. BUT we can NOT end up with the UAL scope clause!!!!