Chicago Tribune: UAL/CAL merger looking like US Air

[JoeMerchant]

Not:

SCOPE UPDATE
This is an update on the status of management’s plan to place the CO code on United Express flights using 70-seat jets to and from CLE, EWR and IAH. As previously communicated, less than two weeks ago, we met with the Company to clearly express our objections and to formally request their contractual justification. We received their response last week, at which time we also received their request for a more complete explanation of why we believe their actions are a violation of Section 1 of the Continental CBA.

We have now provided that to the Company, along with our steadfast insistence that they confirm to us, no later than this Wednesday, Nov. 10, that they have ceased and desisted with their plans. As I have said before and I will repeat now—we are prepared to use all appropriate legal vehicles to bring resolution to this issue and ultimately prevent outsourcing in violation of our current CBA. We will provide you with additional updates as more information becomes available.

One Union. One Voice.
Blast mail from:
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman

Regarding the bold underline part....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

A simple reading of the posts between Jay and Wendy prove this statement alone is BS....

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Okay I love this. I'm gonna take a shot at this. We will have a contract by January. You heard it here first. The union will figure it out once they realize what A-holes UAL mgmt is. United we win divided we fail and fall.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Okay I love this. I'm gonna take a shot at this. We will have a contract by January. You heard it here first. The union will figure it out once they realize what A-holes UAL mgmt is. United we win divided we fail and fall.

You will fail....

 

[Dewey Oxberger]

So with that logic, banding the 319/320 with the 735/733 will staple the 1200 Airbus pilots to the bottom of the CAL list. It goes both ways if it's part of the SLI.

Where do you get the idea that we want the A320 to be banded as small narrowbody? We don't have them on the propety but even in our current POS contract it's listed with the 757 and 737-800/900 as large narrowbody. Only the A319 from UAL's fleet would be small narrowbody.

 

[chppr5]

Where do you get the idea that we want the A320 to be banded as small narrowbody? We don't have them on the propety but even in our current POS contract it's listed with the 757 and 737-800/900 as large narrowbody. Only the A319 from UAL's fleet would be small narrowbody.

From the NC. They may have been in your original proposal before the merger anouncment, but are they listed in your current contract? Also you have to look at the aircrafts capability not just number of seats when it comes to pay. The 319 is a coast to coast aircraft, the 735/733 doesn't compare. UAL paid the Airbus more than the 727 when we had them.

 

[Plug]

You will fail....

Really JB? Sounds like the reasoning of a scab in the making. Great attitude, good luck fighting over the scraps.

 

[nimtz]

From the NC. They may have been in your original proposal before the merger anouncment, but are they listed in your current contract? Also you have to look at the aircrafts capability not just number of seats when it comes to pay. The 319 is a coast to coast aircraft, the 735/733 doesn't compare. UAL paid the Airbus more than the 727 when we had them.

Yeah well the 700 is coast to coast, but it pays SNB. Sucks but not really worth striking over. Most of the time the QOL of doing a transcon makes up for the stink of pay, but that's up to how you bid.

So I do not misunderstand you chppr5, someone on NC told you that CAL wants the narrow body banding you have mentioned? If that's the case then why did your NC come to an agreement with ours on the compensation section last month? Either whoever told you about the banding is misrepresenting the facts or your NC agreed that banding the Buses to SNB was satisfactory. Maybe I'm missing something, but somewhere the facts aren't lining up.

 

[chppr5]

Yeah well the 700 is coast to coast, but it pays SNB. Sucks but not really worth striking over. Most of the time the QOL of doing a transcon makes up for the stink of pay, but that's up to how you bid.

So I do not misunderstand you chppr5, someone on NC told you that CAL wants the narrow body banding you have mentioned? If that's the case then why did your NC come to an agreement with ours on the compensation section last month? Either whoever told you about the banding is misrepresenting the facts or your NC agreed that banding the Buses to SNB was satisfactory. Maybe I'm missing something, but somewhere the facts aren't lining up.

And that was why the UAL MEC objected. Not sure why the NC agreed, but there are more junior guys at the LEC's which, IMHO, had sway with the MEC. The banding came back from the NC's the 764 was banded with the 777/744 and the 319/320 with the 735/733, which isn't fair to the junior pilots at UAL when it comes to the SLI (just as you guys weren't happy with the 744 in it's own scale). Look for the 777/744 to be banded without the 764 and the 733/735 alone. Hopefully they will have at least 6 catagories. Banding is not good for us, it promotes stagnation because it decreases the economic reasons for movement. This is negotiations, they should have never made their fight public. Both sides are thumping their chests, hopefully they will come up with a fix tomorrow.

 

[IAHERJ]

You will fail....

Not worth it...

 

[whatitdoing?]

If this goes bad, it will look NOTHING like US Air. It will be far worse.

You are correct sir. This loggerhead is all on the UAL side. Sorry, it's a fact. They can spin it all they want, but it's just spinning in circles.