CAL LAX Base Rumor, AGAIN!

[lookin4better]

I am really suprised the furloughs have not been recalled yet..... what would be a drop dead date in order to recall / train them by summer? I would imagine very soon... looks like 2011 or 2012 for the recalls unless more retirements occur.

 

[Twotter Driver]

I am really suprised the furloughs have not been recalled yet..... what would be a drop dead date in order to recall / train them by summer? I would imagine very soon... looks like 2011 or 2012 for the recalls unless more retirements occur.

I am thinking the later part of this year or the first few months of 2011 is when the recalls will happen. There is still a small possibility of a new bid coming out in April that could have recalls on it. With a short term notice they could be in training in late April or early May and on line by the beginning of June for the busy summer schedule. I am not really sure how the summer flying will be covered with our current staffing situation. With that said, I fully expect CAL management to take the "low road" and fly the summer schedule without recalls. We are adding a number of new routes and have a net gain of a minimum of 10 airframes this year, including 4 757-300's, and 2 777's. Next year we will receive at least that many new airframes with the 787 coming on line by the middle of the year.

 

[Twotter Driver]

One other note...CAL pilots have an extremely good piece of leverage in our contract. I believe, if used properly, this can be used as a bargaining chip to ink a new contract and bring back our 147 furloughed brothers and sisters

Pilots contract threatens Continental-United ventures



A little-known pilot contract provision could scuttle two major international initiatives planned by Continental and United Airlines and their Star Alliance airline partners.
The two U.S. carriers, along with Lufthansa and Air Canada, received antitrust immunity from the U.S. government last year to divvy up revenue and closely coordinate flights across the North Atlantic.
Chicago-based United and Continental are using that partnership as a template for a trans-Pacific venture they are forming with All Nippon Airways to compete with that region's troubled juggernaut, Japan Airlines.
However, Continental's pilots hold an effective veto over the deals as a result of a clause in their contract that bars the Houston-based carrier from entering into a revenue-sharing arrangement with another U.S. carrier.
Deep in contract talks with Continental management, the pilots union is refusing to budge on the "scope" language in their collective bargaining agreement.
The stalemate is holding up the full launch of the Atlantic joint venture and would be a barrier to the Pacific deal, sources said. The Atlantic partnership must be fully operating by December under the terms of the antitrust immunity granted by the U.S. Department of Transportation last summer.
"There are a number of open items related to governance and commercial issues that we are working through on the joint venture, including discussions concerning our pilots' scope clause," said Continental spokeswoman Julie King. "The companies and the DOT recognized that there were a lot of issues to be resolved in setting up a joint venture, and that's why the DOT order gives 18 months for the joint venture to be implemented."
The pilots are aware of the clout that they hold as potential deal-breakers and the importance of the international forays to Continental's management. The nation's fourth-largest carrier defected last year to Star from the SkyTeam alliance and formed a close relationship with United that many analysts think is a precursor to an eventual merger.
"I think they're counting on us," Capt. Jay Pierce, head of the Continental pilots union, told the Tribune. "History would probably tell you that's not a bad gamble for them to take. I will say this: We are well aware of the leverage this gives us."
Continental and its pilots have been in contract talks since July 2007 and, after reaching agreement on nine sections, are starting to tackle "hard economic issues" like pay, Pierce said. Scope issues touch all of the hot buttons: pay, management's rights and job security, he noted.


Since Continental is known for healthy employee relations in an industry rife with acrimony, industry observers predict the carrier will find a middle ground with pilots.
"It needs to get worked out," said aviation consultant Robert Mann. "Like it or not, this is where the industry is going."
Many U.S. pilots find the prospect of large-scale partnerships deeply threatening. They worry that carriers are seeking to outsource the long-range flying jobs that are among the most prestigious and highest paying.
American Airlines' pilots oppose its proposed trans-Atlantic alliance with Oneworld partners British Airways and Iberia. While United and Continental pilots didn't try to block Star's Atlantic venture, they want assurances that pilot jobs won't be a casualty of "metal-neutrality," the practice of giving all participating carriers a cut of revenue on a flight regardless of who flies it.
"We do not want a shell operation," said Capt. Wendy Morse, who heads United's pilots union. "We want metal in the market, United pilots being productive in terms of flying their own airplanes and route structure."
That concept is less threatening to Delta Air Line's pilots, who already participate in a metal-neutral venture in the Atlantic and last fall endorsed their management's bid to form a partnership with JAL that would likely have a similar structure. But the pilots have safeguards against flying cuts. Delta, for example, is required to maintain a minimum number of landing slots at Tokyo's Narita Airport for its own aircraft, according to a Nov. 30 union communique.
Proponents of the new ventures argue that they will create jobs and travel growth as passengers in Tokyo or Brussels find it easier to get to destinations like Costa Rica.
"Joint ventures and alliances make us a stronger airline and partner, and create and protect jobs," said United spokeswoman Jean Medina. She estimated that United's alliance with Lufthansa and other partnerships have created or protected 3,000 jobs that would have otherwise vanished.
But this decade's alliances may prove far different than those forged during the past two decades, when global aviation boomed, warned aviation consultant Hubert Horan, a former airline executive who helped form the original Northwest-KLM alliance in 1992.
"These are taking place in markets that are shrinking, not growing," he said. "There's no discussion of how that pain will be shared."

 

[bravodude]

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.

 

[mamba20]

One other note...CAL pilots have an extremely good piece of leverage in our contract. I believe, if used properly, this can be used as a bargaining chip to ink a new contract and bring back our 147 furloughed brothers and sisters
"

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!

 

[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.