JUNK YARD DOG
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Posts
- 106
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
CAL - LAX Base
- Thread starter JUNK YARD DOG
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
johnsonrod
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Posts
- 4,218
You're way ahead of yourself......the JCBA is basically going nowhere at the moment and the SLI hasn't even been addressed so we're a long way from arbitration......
Come back in 18 months and I'd bet we'll be a little closer on the JCBA...after that, 24 months will have some news regarding our court ordered marriage.
See you then.
not really, the blast mail had some promising information on the JCBA. very cautious of course, but better then nothing. At least they are talking.
LAX base finally !!
The longer the JCBA takes, the better chance the junior guys will have of not being furloughed. There will be a time soon that the NEW CAL wants to furlough and hopefully the greedy old, over 60 cock suckers will have retired to the point where if offsets furloughs. Those old windbags are on borrowed time. They shouldn't be here in the first place.
chppr5
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2002
- Posts
- 208
Actually, the other way around. That scope win is short lived. CAL scope restricts CAL flight numbers on aircraft larger than 50 seats. Those 70 seaters are still flying out of IAH and EWR with UAL flt numbers. Once the SOC is achived there will be no more CAL flight numbers which means the company can operate more 70 seaters. So the sooner we get a JCBA and our arms around scope the better off the junior guys will be.
Ben Franklin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Posts
- 580
This is wrong.
CAL pilots have protections against those 51+ seat jets until the JCBA and SLI are complete.
chppr5
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2002
- Posts
- 208
You may want to call Jay. Are the 70 seaters flying out of IAH and EWR with UAL flight numbers? The same will happen after the SOC with UAL flight numbers......CAL flight numbers will no longer exist. Time to contact your reps and get the interpretation of the grievance from last month.
Ben Franklin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Posts
- 580
which grievance?
Last info I have from an elected rep is on 1/6 and they said that the CO code lasts until SLI/JCBA are both complete.
You are completely wrong. As long as our contract exists our scope win is in force. Those 70 seaters are not even one third full and are causing chaos for our customers. Not one of which is the least bit confused about why and completely blame Jeff.
Focus on your side and win something over there.
chppr5
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2002
- Posts
- 208
What did you win? You won the argument of putting the CO flight number on those flights. What happens when the CAL name no longer exists after the SOC? The total block hours increases for the new UAL which gives the company the ability to fly more 70 seaters. Your scope is great as long as the CO name and flight numbers exists. So maybe you need to focus on the reality of the scope win. Once there is a SOC without a JCBA and new scope protections you will see a lot more 70 seaters operating out of IAH and EWR. Your scope will protect your jobs but will those new 737's be for growth or replacement with more 170's flying around?
Uncle Bort
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Posts
- 45
We successfully defended our contract. As long as it exists, even after SOC, we have kneecapped Jeff's plans for the 70 seater. I realize Jeff is racing to get to the point you are describing. We've already been trying to meet with the arbitrator about the meaning of the arbitration win going forward. The arbitrator ruled that as long as our contract exists, the intent of our scope has bearing. Why don't you let CAL do the heavy lifting on scope and you see if you can get your side out from under the injunction? Jeff's actions have shown that he is not negotiating in good faith. Go back to the judge and show her what Jeff is doing. She's a Democrat and a Clinton appointee. How did you even lose that in the first place?!
chppr5
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2002
- Posts
- 208
I have an attitude? Ok if you say so. Keep putting your head in the sand and every time you taxi by one of those 70 seaters in IAH and EWR keep telling yourself they are not there.
Ben Franklin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Posts
- 580
The CO code remains until completion of JCBA and SLI.
Agreed. And these planes are great for non-reving as they're the only ones with open seats. Flew on one today on vacation with 50 opens seats. Just like the old days!
Yeah, like the old days. Except the crew treats you a little weird when in CAL uniform.
nimtz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,442
Actually every time I see one of those things at Term B IAH or Term A EWR I think the only reason that POS is there is cause of this GD merger. Hopefully the new big pilot group has the b@lls to destroy the cancer that I've inherited due to the quest to become the world's biggest airline.
Yuppyguppy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 934
Here is part of a weekly update from Jay Pierce about 3 weeks ago:
"The concept of posturing might be a good segue into a topic I have wanted to discuss for a while now. During management’s third quarter earnings conference call to the media and various investment types a few months ago Mr. Smisek talked about being at a competitive disadvantage because of the job protections contained in the current CAL contract. In fact, to be accurate, when asked about the 50-seat rule Mr. Smisek said this: "We have been hampered and competitively disadvantaged…" This particular statement has bothered me for some time because it has been my opinion that Continental has performed at the top of the pack financially in comparison to the other legacy carriers during the time period the protections he complains about have been in place. I asked ALPA E&FA to do a little research and see if I was on track, or if Mr. Smisek might be correct in his assertions that we have been disadvantaged since April 2005 when our current contact came into effect. I asked them use Pre-Tax Margins because that particular metric is a good measure of how well a company can generate before-tax profits based on the revenue the company generates. E&FA supplied the following chart to reflect Continental’s performance compared to our peers.
There is a chart here that I can't paste in****
Please note that this reflects the timeline between when our current CBA became effective and now, inclusive of the outsourcing limits he cites as anticompetitive. This provides a comparison between CAL and legacy carriers that, to various degrees, are not as restricted in their ability to outsource flying to the lowest bidders. While the chart above certainly does not represent stellar margins compared to just about any other industry, when compared to our peers in the Airline Industry it most assuredly does reflect competitive, or dare I say industry leading, performance. I would say that one could argue that Continental has been very competitive and that perhaps this is not in spite of, but rather because they have been prohibited from outsourcing their domestic product. As I have said many times, our passengers desire one level of customer service and one level of safety when they travel. It could be that the fact that we are able to generate more pretax profits per dollar of revenue generated is a derivative of the very restrictions that Mr. Smisek complains about. Whatever the reason, it is very plain to see that we have not been less competitive over this time frame. As I said earlier, it is time to stop posturing and get the contract done."
I hope Jay runs with this and adds it to his anti-outsourcing campaign. CAL has been suitably competitive with the 50 seat scope clause. The new UAL needs to keep CAL's scope.
"The concept of posturing might be a good segue into a topic I have wanted to discuss for a while now. During management’s third quarter earnings conference call to the media and various investment types a few months ago Mr. Smisek talked about being at a competitive disadvantage because of the job protections contained in the current CAL contract. In fact, to be accurate, when asked about the 50-seat rule Mr. Smisek said this: "We have been hampered and competitively disadvantaged…" This particular statement has bothered me for some time because it has been my opinion that Continental has performed at the top of the pack financially in comparison to the other legacy carriers during the time period the protections he complains about have been in place. I asked ALPA E&FA to do a little research and see if I was on track, or if Mr. Smisek might be correct in his assertions that we have been disadvantaged since April 2005 when our current contact came into effect. I asked them use Pre-Tax Margins because that particular metric is a good measure of how well a company can generate before-tax profits based on the revenue the company generates. E&FA supplied the following chart to reflect Continental’s performance compared to our peers.
There is a chart here that I can't paste in****
Please note that this reflects the timeline between when our current CBA became effective and now, inclusive of the outsourcing limits he cites as anticompetitive. This provides a comparison between CAL and legacy carriers that, to various degrees, are not as restricted in their ability to outsource flying to the lowest bidders. While the chart above certainly does not represent stellar margins compared to just about any other industry, when compared to our peers in the Airline Industry it most assuredly does reflect competitive, or dare I say industry leading, performance. I would say that one could argue that Continental has been very competitive and that perhaps this is not in spite of, but rather because they have been prohibited from outsourcing their domestic product. As I have said many times, our passengers desire one level of customer service and one level of safety when they travel. It could be that the fact that we are able to generate more pretax profits per dollar of revenue generated is a derivative of the very restrictions that Mr. Smisek complains about. Whatever the reason, it is very plain to see that we have not been less competitive over this time frame. As I said earlier, it is time to stop posturing and get the contract done."
I hope Jay runs with this and adds it to his anti-outsourcing campaign. CAL has been suitably competitive with the 50 seat scope clause. The new UAL needs to keep CAL's scope.
You'r posts read like they were written by a pimple faced teen.
Yuppyguppy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 934
We've never had one. This is as good as it gets here. 7 retirements, not replaced. We did well this bid, only 7 reductions.....
The new UAL is shrinking to profitability, get used to it.
Yuppyguppy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 934
OOOOh, I have been watching it shrink for the last ten ********************ing years on the street, just trying to get info while I watch from the grandstands.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
