For UAL pilots - Scope?

[trip]

Park'em is not realistic. Companies like SKW have long term contracts written to survive mergers. More restrictive scope will push them farther away possibly into codeshare arrangements that will be out of reach of labor. A better approach would be to negotiate for seats and senority for furloughed pilots current and future. A flow up/down agreement would benifit all parties and be a much easier sell, similar to the arrangement DL has worked worked witk Compass/Mesaba. The old adage of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could apply here.

 

[sleeves]

Park'em is not realistic. Companies like SKW have long term contracts written to survive mergers. More restrictive scope will push them farther away possibly into codeshare arrangements that will be out of reach of labor. A better approach would be to negotiate for seats and senority for furloughed pilots current and future. A flow up/down agreement would benifit all parties and be a much easier sell, similar to the arrangement DL has worked worked witk Compass/Mesaba. The old adage of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could apply here.

Cal scope will not allow the code shares. Park'em is realistic. Much harder obstacles are going to be overcome in this merger. The easiest, most advantageous, way for MGT. to over come this prob. is to get us to relax our scope. Unfortunately for them, I and most everyone I know is not on board with that. It will be a fight for sure!! I think it is one we, as a profession cannot aford to lose. Selling scope is selling your future!!

 

[Shrek]

Cal scope will not allow the code shares. Park'em is realistic. Much harder obstacles are going to be overcome in this merger. The easiest, most advantageous, way for MGT. to over come this prob. is to get us to relax our scope. Unfortunately for them, I and most everyone I know is not on board with that. It will be a fight for sure!! I think it is one we, as a profession cannot aford to lose. Selling scope is selling your future!!

Absolutely right - PARK EM.

 

[BigMeat]

Parkem!

Actually you are right. That's the best idea.

 

[General Lee]

You also have to watch out for those Dash-8-400s. That is NOT a part of the CAL scope clause, and densoo has pointed out, they are taking over a lot of CAL routes in the NE that 735s used to do. Soon they will be in IAH, and then DEN, ORD, and other places..... LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PROPS TOO.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[rumrunner300]

As I read a lot of post reference scope I see one common statement and it goes kind of like this "They will not park 70 seat rj's, we could stop the growth but that's it". Well it is funny how easy it was to park 94 B737's and replace them with RJ flying, so tell me why we couldn't fight to take back that flying and park the 70+ seaters and cap the RJ flying to 50 or less seats and cap the regional flying to half of what it is today? I know it will be an uphill battle because there will always be a low time pilot our there willing to fly a jet for next to nothing and management will always want to exploit that. We all need to work together to strengthen scope and regionals pilots should support this agenda. Regional pilots I hope will also fight for a new CBA bringing up the pay and QOL for regional pilots alike, the regionals aren't the as they were in the 90's These days regionals are practically all jet operators. We have to tighten scope and everyone needs a united front on this issue. This will only provide better opportunities in the future for all pilots lagacy an regional pilots alike.

To answer your question.... money. Mgmt would exact a HEAVY price to turn back the clock on scope, and while I am willing to pay that price (read junior) I can already hear the howls from the top of the list. Ironic, isn't it, the biggest threat to scope reform is not the little guy "willing to fly for nothing" but the big guys not willing to fly for less of an increase.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to eject the 70 seaters (talking about getting rid of 50 seaters may make some feel better but it is utter fantasy.) However, those horses are already out of the barn (and banging the wild philly's) and I am not certain it would be productive to suffer the costs necessary to corral all of them. I can think of another instance of when single-minded focus on a single issue really backfired; the E170 approval was a handshake deal in a desperate attempt to save the A fund.

The pilots may have some leverage in this deal, but it won't be a blank check free-for-all.

rr

 

[FSIGRAD]

You would think that these contracts with these 70 seat operators have language in them that allows this flying as long as there isn't a change in the Pilots' CBA prohibiting them. Therefore, if a new JCBA comes out that prohibits RJ's greater than 50 seats, then I would think that these agreements could be terminated on the 70 seat contracts. If UAL/CAL wants this Merger badly enough, then they WILL give in on 70 seat flying to get both Pilot groups onboard.

To agree with the above poster this all about money. I'm sure United could cancel their agreement with all their 70 seat contracts. However just the Shuttle America contract alone would result in a penalty somewhere in the 1/2 billion dollar range. Its fun to be a pie in the sky idealist and yell out "parkem". Any rational people think management is going to pay that kind of cancellation fee?

 

[Draginass]

United pilots need to take back their MEC and grow some cajones when it comes to scope.

 

[Homer Jay]

Its fun to be a pie in the sky idealist and yell out "parkem" ...says the kid flying a guppy killer for pi$$ wages. PARK 'EM!

 

[FSIGRAD]

Its fun to be a pie in the sky idealist and yell out "parkem" ...says the kid flying a guppy killer for pi$$ wages. PARK 'EM!

I'm going to guess that Homer is not one of the rational people.
My point was that typing PARK 'EM in big letters on the internet and somehow thinking "we took care of that" is pretty stupid.