• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

CALALPA votes down Scope/Alliance TA

whatitdoing?

Are you awake? Good
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Posts
795
Total Time
>9500
Hats off to CALALPA for voting that POS TA down!!! It's a new era at CAL!! CAL better come next time with more than a freaking 2 percent pay increase. Screw you CAL!!!! Back to my rum and coke now. :beer:
 

A19

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Posts
56
Total Time
8000+
I think the tide is starting to turn here. I really thought the MEC was going to cave and pass it. Glad they voted this POS down!
 

Superpilot92

LONGCALL KING
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Posts
3,719
Total Time
Dunno?
Congrats guys thats fantastic! :beer:
 

Bigoober

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
222
Total Time
5000
Basics-

A revenue sharing plan to allow us to share with United instead of just code sharing. I think we are allowed revenue sharing with international carriers, not domestic.

-2% pay raise
-IRO for both crossings (from my understanding, DHs over and then works coming back)
-required BF seat instead of first row of coach for rest station if aircraft not equipped for crew rest
-furloughs averted (furloughees could take a COLA if wanted and no furlough clause except the usual crud with one item being if Gulf Coast fuel averaged above $170 for 20 days)

A few other items also. It boiled down to the managment getting the world and the pilots getting what we should already have.

Being one of the furloughees, I am interested in seeing what happens next month with 148 less people on board for the schedule. The holidays will be more interesting.
 
Last edited:

catIIIc

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2003
Posts
372
Total Time
5000+
it wasn't for larger RJ's they want to be able to revenue share with UAL in the Star Alliance and our Scope does not allow it.

They know better then to try for larger RJ's
 

Bigoober

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
222
Total Time
5000
Next step-

Most likely mgmt will sweeten the pot and come back. All part of the bluff for both sides.
 

Turtlesfly

Need a room check?
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Posts
678
Total Time
4000
what percentage pay did CAL give back in 2002? BTW, why are there no threads on this TA?
 

Bigoober

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
222
Total Time
5000
You think it is funny that there are no threads about the TA, think about how funny it is that CAL guys didn't know about this except for a private forum. No word from the union until they said they voted it down and then they didn't even tell you what they voted down. Talk about mushrooms.
 

Superpilot92

LONGCALL KING
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Posts
3,719
Total Time
Dunno?
it wasn't for larger RJ's they want to be able to revenue share with UAL in the Star Alliance and our Scope does not allow it.

They know better then to try for larger RJ's

But wouldnt the revenue share with UAL in theory allow CAL excess to 70 seaters through UAL? It could have been a way to sneak around the 50 seat scope limit. Either way it was a good move to give mgmt the finger on this one.
 

Bigoober

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
222
Total Time
5000
The whole thing was full of enough loopholes, even our MEC voted it down. That says enough.
 

davessn763

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Posts
74
Total Time
6000+
But wouldnt the revenue share with UAL in theory allow CAL excess to 70 seaters through UAL? It could have been a way to sneak around the 50 seat scope limit. Either way it was a good move to give mgmt the finger on this one.

BINGO!!!!

United Express carriers would be able to fly in and out of CAL hubs to Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
 

Captain X

Who is John Galt?
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Posts
948
Total Time
Doing?
BTW, why are there no threads on this TA?

Because the LOA (not TA -- well I guess it technically was a TLOA :D ) language was leaked in a lapse of integrity and breach of confidentiality before the MEC even had a chance to discuss it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the rank-and-file having a right to know and be given all available information, but this LOA language should have been released to the pilot group AFTER discussion was allowed by the MEC and if they authorized it for distribution, education, and ratification (which according to a IAH Status Rep, it would have been put forward for pilot ratification had it been approved by the MEC).

A simple summary message of what the MEC was discussing and if it failed a simple message stating such (like we got) and the basics and reasons behind the rejection would have been sufficient. IMHO.

It's a good thing the LOA had holes in it and the language was poor and the MEC saw it as such because if it had been truly good language that was either misinterpreted or in a draft (non-final) form the leak could have caused a situation where people made misinformed pre-decisions and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

All that aside, the CAL ALPA MEC did the right thing yesterday. Bravo!
 
Last edited:

whatitdoing?

Are you awake? Good
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Posts
795
Total Time
>9500
This was a backdoor move and CALALPA smelled it out. They want 70 seaters etc and they can't have it. I think the theory of going with UAL and 70 plus seaters was their plan. This is huge for CALALPA and we wait for the next offer. A big FU to CAL from me!!!
 

samballs

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Posts
1,511
Total Time
000000
Whats up with the CAL NC? Why did they even negotiate this crap to give to the MEC? Does the current NC need to be replaced?
 

Paul R. Smith

Fender Bender
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Posts
722
Total Time
4:30
Whats up with the CAL NC? Why did they even negotiate this crap to give to the MEC? Does the current NC need to be replaced?


No we don't need to replace the NC...again
 

SMOE

One Lucky Bastard
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
278
Total Time
10000+
Because the LOA (not TA -- well I guess it technically was a TLOA :D ) language was leaked in a lapse of integrity and breach of confidentiality before the MEC even had a chance to discuss it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the rank-and-file having a right to know and be given all available information, but this LOA language should have been released to the pilot group AFTER discussion was allowed by the MEC and if they authorized it for distribution, education, and ratification (which according to a IAH Status Rep, it would have been put forward for pilot ratification had it been approved by the MEC).

A simple summary message of what the MEC was discussing and if it failed a simple message stating such (like we got) and the basics and reasons behind the rejection would have been sufficient. IMHO.

It's a good thing the LOA had holes in it and the language was poor and the MEC saw it as such because if it had been truly good language that was either misinterpreted or in a draft (non-final) form the leak could have caused a situation where people made misinformed pre-decisions and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

All that aside, the CAL ALPA MEC did the right thing yesterday. Bravo!

I agree the MEC did the right thing. However, God bless the mole. Had the details of this steaming pile of LOA been kept hush, our MEC would've probably repeated what they did with the Furlough Mitigation Steaming Pile of LOA. They would've accepted it without bringing it to a vote by the pilot group, using the lame excuse of too short a timeline for a vote if we want to 'save' the 148. And CHQ would already be salivating...
 
Top