Continental Pilots Offering 70-seat Scope?

[Jetjockey]

Don't ya hate when the voices of reason squash a good internet rumor?

 

[labbats]

They should teach how to ignore a rumor in ground school. Took me too darn long to figure that out myself.

 

[xjhawk]

Obviously the tool that started this thread is a 22 year old wonder school graduate who wants an upgrade when he turns 25

 

[bvt1151]

Obviously the tool that started this thread is a 22 year old wonder school graduate who wants an upgrade when he turns 25

Except if I were a 22-year-old wonder school graduate who wanted to upgrade by 25, don't you think I would have kept my mouth shut so scope clauses would sneak past you to allow me to do that? Did you actually read the post?

Good job on the chest thumping. In the mean-time, what are you doing to actually make sure ALPA hasn't already committed to United to trash Continental 50-seat scope? Oh, you're trying to discredit someone on a web board who warned you that it was happening? Great job! Make sure to tell your furloughed colleagues what a great job you're doing helping them get back.

Regardless of whether or not you're able to admit there's a chance you're being sold down a river, there still is a chance. My point is that chance is much much more likely than you think. So instead of taking the time to call me a liar thereby attempting to desensitize your colleagues to the very threat you want them to be very aware of, why don't you double check to make sure you're right? If you're wrong, you don't have to tell anyone, but I guarantee you're going to want to. If you're right, you'll have reiterated your position to your reps and the worst you'll have to deal with is skipping this thread the next time you log in.

Or you could just sit back and say it's all lies...just like the Delta pilots did, and the United pilots did, and the Northwest pilots did, and the Airways pilots did...

My motives are to make sure you guys aren't surprised by anything your union does. I don't want scope to be relaxed a single seat, but for entirely different reasons. Take a step back to realize that we're actually on the same side. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Jetjockey]

Bvt....................are you an ALPA pilot? Or any union line pilot for that matter? If you are, you should know the membership would have to approve a TA. I don't think that there would be support for a TA that would allow scope erosion.

Great job sounding the alarm bell. You don't think we realize Jeff and company want UAL scope and more??? You are spreading rumors, which serves no purpose but to incite the real UAL/CAL pilots.

Until it's on paper from a Union source, I'm not buying your story. Now get back to class.

 

[bvt1151]

Bvt....................are you an ALPA pilot? Or any union line pilot for that matter? If you are, you should know the membership would have to approve a TA. I don't think that there would be support for a TA that would allow scope erosion.

ALPA pilot? Yes, although a bit different than you might expect.

You're right about the TA. You'll get to see it before it's ratified, but I've seen more TA's with scope relaxation passed than not. In fact I haven't seen a single TA with scope relaxation not passed, that ended up passing later with tighter scope.

TA's tend to pass or fail in a 60/40 vote. It's no coincidence that the Captain / FO split is about 60/40 as well. How well do you trust your captains? Now consider that the United FO's and captains will be voting on this as well. How well do you trust those pilots? The power of your vote just got diluted by half.

The simple matter is, if it does come down to a TA with scope relief, you've already lost your voice. You hold more power now as one of the few pilots talking directly to your reps than you will as one vote in the largest pilot pool in the world.

Don't think the TA vote is going to protect you. I know plenty of furloughed pilots who thought the same thing, only to see their scope-relaxed TA endorsed by the MEC and passed by the group. Delta, Northwest, United, American, Airways... They all said the same thing, and guess what...the TA passed.

It all comes down to this: How well do you trust the top 60% of the list who will be offered a pay raise in return for scope?

Don't let it come to a TA.

 

[eaglesview]

ALPA pilot? Yes, although a bit different than you might expect.

You're right about the TA. You'll get to see it before it's ratified, but I've seen more TA's with scope relaxation passed than not. In fact I haven't seen a single TA with scope relaxation not passed, that ended up passing later with tighter scope.

TA's tend to pass or fail in a 60/40 vote. It's no coincidence that the Captain / FO split is about 60/40 as well. How well do you trust your captains? Now consider that the United FO's and captains will be voting on this as well. How well do you trust those pilots? The power of your vote just got diluted by half.

The simple matter is, if it does come down to a TA with scope relief, you've already lost your voice. You hold more power now as one of the few pilots talking directly to your reps than you will as one vote in the largest pilot pool in the world.

Don't think the TA vote is going to protect you. I know plenty of furloughed pilots who thought the same thing, only to see their scope-relaxed TA endorsed by the MEC and passed by the group. Delta, Northwest, United, American, Airways... They all said the same thing, and guess what...the TA passed.

It all comes down to this: How well do you trust the top 60% of the list who will be offered a pay raise in return for scope?

Don't let it come to a TA.

Don't under estimate the resolve on the UA side. Remember we have had a first hand look at the ramifications of our scope clause. Over 1400 of our pilots are no longer here. I personally am in the top 60% of the list at UAL and have ZERO intention of relaxing any scope for a payraise. I assure you this is the mentality by the magority of the top 60 % and probably close to 100% of the bottom 40 %.

 

[nimtz]

ALPA pilot? Yes, although a bit different than you might expect.

You're right about the TA. You'll get to see it before it's ratified, but I've seen more TA's with scope relaxation passed than not. In fact I haven't seen a single TA with scope relaxation not passed, that ended up passing later with tighter scope.

TA's tend to pass or fail in a 60/40 vote. It's no coincidence that the Captain / FO split is about 60/40 as well. How well do you trust your captains? Now consider that the United FO's and captains will be voting on this as well. How well do you trust those pilots? The power of your vote just got diluted by half.

The simple matter is, if it does come down to a TA with scope relief, you've already lost your voice. You hold more power now as one of the few pilots talking directly to your reps than you will as one vote in the largest pilot pool in the world.

Don't think the TA vote is going to protect you. I know plenty of furloughed pilots who thought the same thing, only to see their scope-relaxed TA endorsed by the MEC and passed by the group. Delta, Northwest, United, American, Airways... They all said the same thing, and guess what...the TA passed.

It all comes down to this: How well do you trust the top 60% of the list who will be offered a pay raise in return for scope?

Don't let it come to a TA.

The above post is the same exact diarrhea that was blown out right here 9 months ago. You sure seem to have a hard on for this 60/40 thing. Get a life and try filling out an NCAA bracket.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=2002685#post2002685.

Tell you what since you are so convinced and concerned for us NAME your source. Once your proven to be the white knight savior I will immediately restart the recall of Jayson Barron/Tara Cook. Until then my concern for your 'info' is about as high as my opinion of Joe Merchant...

 

[bvt1151]

Sigh...

No wonder you guys have screwed yourselves over so bad on scope. You're all more interested in discrediting warnings than actually protecting scope.

Let me know how that works out. So far, you're batting 0.

 

[nimtz]

Sigh...

No wonder you guys have screwed yourselves over so bad on scope. You're all more interested in discrediting warnings than actually protecting scope.

Let me know how that works out. So far, you're batting 0.

CAL furloughed 147 guys for 2 years because we wouldn't waver on 50 seats. We went right to an arbitrator to torpedo the company's latest run around despite many haters claiming we didn't have a chance. Name your source oh wise oracle. Until then who the **** are you to accuse us of not protecting our scope?!?