CAL LAX Base Rumor, AGAIN!

[mamba20]

Twotter,

Also, do you have a source or link for the article? I've decided to put my money where my mouth is and write my reps about this and I want to post this article in the message. Thanks.

 

[flyingitalian]

Pretty sweet if you live in so. cal.


Can you guys get released from DH? If you can, what a deal that will be. Bid CLE and these pairings, stay home get paid for 3 days, work one.

 

[Twotter Driver]

Mamba-
Here is the link!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,7767704.story

 

[Twotter Driver]

I hope I'm taking your post out of context here. Scope is not leverage! It is job security, especially for the B3. We cannot allow our union or our pilot group to even hint a relaxing our scope clause. It actually needs to be strengthened.

CAL management is all about outsourcing our mainline jobs to the lowest bidder. We cannot allow this to happen. Call/write your reps!

I think you misunderstand what scope relief the company is looking for in a joint venture. We are not talking about scope relief that would let Republic or some other low bidder to come in and fly 70 seat jets. The scope relief that the company will need from us is that which will allow them to enter into a joint venture / revenue sharing agreement with UAL and others on trans atlantic and trans pacific routes. This is the same relief they were looking for in September 08 when we didn't give in and they took 147 pilots hostage. Our current language does not allow for this. This is a good thing for us. This is major leverage. This is why the union hasn't given in on this yet. The company needs this relief from us before December or the Joint Venture approval is dead in the water. With the appropriate language in place, this can be a good deal. When I say appropriate language, I am referring to language that prohibits outsourcing of current routes to another transatlantic carrier and language that specifies an amount or percentage of flying that can be done by a JV partner. We have the upper hand in this deal an management knows it. If we play our cards right, we can give them the joint venture scope relief they need while putting in place language that will protect our jobs (i.e. the UAL -Aerlingus deal), ensure growth, bring back the furloughs and ink a new contract. No recall of furloughs, no new contract, no relief for the join venture, period!

 

[skywdriver]

I think you misunderstand what scope relief the company is looking for in a joint venture. We are not talking about scope relief that would let Republic or some other low bidder to come in and fly 70 seat jets. The scope relief that the company will need from us is that which will allow them to enter into a joint venture / revenue sharing agreement with UAL and others on trans atlantic and trans pacific routes. This is the same relief they were looking for in September 08 when we didn't give in and they took 147 pilots hostage. Our current language does not allow for this. This is a good thing for us. This is major leverage. This is why the union hasn't given in on this yet. The company needs this relief from us before December or the Joint Venture approval is dead in the water. With the appropriate language in place, this can be a good deal. When I say appropriate language, I am referring to language that prohibits outsourcing of current routes to another transatlantic carrier and language that specifies an amount or percentage of flying that can be done by a JV partner. We have the upper hand in this deal an management knows it. If we play our cards right, we can give them the joint venture scope relief they need while putting in place language that will protect our jobs (i.e. the UAL -Aerlingus deal), ensure growth, bring back the furloughs and ink a new contract. No recall of furloughs, no new contract, no relief for the join venture, period!

very well said. with the right protections in place as you mentioned, this deal is a win/win for the pilots and the company. airline mergers are a think of the past in my opinion, that is why i believe that we will not merge with United as long as the pilots and the company can come to an agreement on the joint venture that benefits BOTH sides. there is a reason that alliances have been in the media so much the past few months. route structure is what the customer wants - if someone can buy a CAL ticket that involves a CAL and UAL flight, they don't care as long as they can get where they want to go. the alliance that can take people the most places will be the most successful. mergers are no longer necessary to do that, and I think that is the reason that our management team opted out of the merger with UAL - they realized that they didn't have to. at least that is what i am hoping!

 

[mamba20]

I think you misunderstand what scope relief the company is looking for in a joint venture. We are not talking about scope relief that would let Republic or some other low bidder to come in and fly 70 seat jets. The scope relief that the company will need from us is that which will allow them to enter into a joint venture / revenue sharing agreement with UAL and others on trans atlantic and trans pacific routes. This is the same relief they were looking for in September 08 when we didn't give in and they took 147 pilots hostage. Our current language does not allow for this. This is a good thing for us. This is major leverage. This is why the union hasn't given in on this yet. The company needs this relief from us before December or the Joint Venture approval is dead in the water. With the appropriate language in place, this can be a good deal. When I say appropriate language, I am referring to language that prohibits outsourcing of current routes to another transatlantic carrier and language that specifies an amount or percentage of flying that can be done by a JV partner. We have the upper hand in this deal an management knows it. If we play our cards right, we can give them the joint venture scope relief they need while putting in place language that will protect our jobs (i.e. the UAL -Aerlingus deal), ensure growth, bring back the furloughs and ink a new contract. No recall of furloughs, no new contract, no relief for the join venture, period!

Alright, now that makes perfect sense. I was definitely misunderstanding it. I'm glad you explained it to me before I looked like a fool to my union reps!

Thanks for posting this and helping to get the word out!

 

[General Lee]

Leave it to the General and his mighty Delta. first they caved on scope with RJ's now they are doing the same thing with partnerships but don't worry this is good for all of us.

Ummm, say what? I believe the BK judge had a lot to do with the last RJ agreement, who wouldn't take NO for an answer. But you knew that.....

Anyway, any agreement with JAL will have minimums on the number of flights we have to fly out of NRT or HND, which we have right now (all done with our Joint Contract when our pilots came together). And, any way you could tell us why a partnership with JAL (with us gaining flying) would be bad for all of you??? I bet you can't.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Captain X]

Alright, now that makes perfect sense. I was definitely misunderstanding it. I'm glad you explained it to me before I looked like a fool to my union reps!

Thanks for posting this and helping to get the word out!

Good on ya' for taking the time to better understand it. A lot of our guys hear "scope" and just shut off their ears and brains.

It is a commonly misunderstood thing regarding our scope clause and exactly how the current language would need to be "modified." (I like that word better than "relief."

 

[ATRCA]

Heard from a friend......

Bid in April released......LA base opening and recalls.

Believe it when you see it, but this is from a buddy I played golf with today with friends in the training department.

This rumor is not on Calforums.........while Calforums contains plenty of BS the bid rumors on there are usually exceedingly accurate. I doubt this is true.

 

[Billsflyer]

This rumor is not on Calforums.........while Calforums contains plenty of BS the bid rumors on there are usually exceedingly accurate. I doubt this is true.

It is there, entitled Yet ANOTHER LA Base Rumor. It is a 4 page thread from 3 days ago.