New CAL 737 Bases DEN / ORD

[SoCentralRain]

Both sides were right sized for the merger. Sadly, the United side was trimmed by parking the entire 737 fleet plus a few 747's for good measure.

From the horses mouth for those interested.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1483922036

Bingo. At about the 9:24 mark, Glenn Tilton states he "right-sized the operation" to make the DOJ issue evaporate. This right-sizing was the parking of 100 aircraft on the UAL side, and the furlough of 1436 of my brothers and sisters--and myself.

Been on furlough almost 8 years total. And the clock is running.

SCR

 

[Chairman]

Both sides were right sized for the merger. Sadly, the United side was trimmed by parking the entire 737 fleet plus a few 747's for good measure.

From the horses mouth for those interested.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1483922036

Yeah they said they parked the 737 because they could not make money with paid off airplanes due the the high operating costs.......Funny still see lots of 737's in Denver someone is making money with them

 

[whatitdoing?]

There is a mis-interpretation going on. There have never been letters out to more than the 1437 originally planned furloughs that resulted from the parking of 100 aircraft in 2008. As a part of the voluntary furlough reduction program, 448 individuals who initially received involuntary furlough notices were not then furloughed. The last furlough date was November 11, 2009. No furlough notices were ever given subsequent to that date. You can find all of this information by accessing Skynet, then Flight Operations, then Recall and Furlough Information. As to your assertion that these furloughs were undertaken "because of financial reason" that is also wholly inaccurate.

Lem, I appreciate ur input. But, besides techical terms, what's the difference between getting notice of an involuntary furlough and getting a letter of furlough. I get what ur saying, but the involuntary furlough was going to turn into an actual furlough if not because of the merger. United/CAL didn't want to furlough if they didn't know the staffing requirements. If the merger wasnt announced, there would be 448 more furloughs. Listen, my discussion was with a rep and crew.....and basically said the same thing. Besides making your technical point, the issue is that 448 pilots were on the way out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Jetjockey]

13-A. Partial Termination.​

Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties
may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough
with regard to United Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base
Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or
after December 31, 2011, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a​

JCBA by that date.


Either side can terminate 4-D, 7-A, 7-C, 7-D, and 9 after 31 Dec with no JCBA. Needless to say, the only party that would want to terminate any of those sections is management.

I'm reading "jointly terminate" as in all parties. The "individually or collectively" pertains to the sections which can be terminated. Maybe I'm incorrect on my understanding.

 

[chppr5]

Lem, I appreciate ur input. But, besides techical terms, what's the difference between getting notice of an involuntary furlough and getting a letter of furlough. I get what ur saying, but the involuntary furlough was going to turn into an actual furlough if not because of the merger. United/CAL didn't want to furlough if they didn't know the staffing requirements. If the merger wasnt announced, there would be 448 more furloughs. Listen, my discussion was with a rep and crew.....and basically said the same thing. Besides making your technical point, the issue is that 448 pilots were on the way out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. The top 448 involuntary were saved by 448 voluntary furlough reguests. There were not an additional 448 on top of the initial 1400+. So the merger didn't save any jobs.

 

[whatitdoing?]

Yes, you are wrong. The top 448 involuntary were saved by 448 voluntary furlough reguests. There were not an additional 448 on top of the initial 1400+. So the merger didn't save any jobs.

So were 448 pilots still given the voluntary furlough or not?

 

[whatitdoing?]

There is a mis-interpretation going on. There have never been letters out to more than the 1437 originally planned furloughs that resulted from the parking of 100 aircraft in 2008. As a part of the voluntary furlough reduction program, 448 individuals who initially received involuntary furlough notices were not then furloughed. The last furlough date was November 11, 2009. No furlough notices were ever given subsequent to that date. You can find all of this information by accessing Skynet, then Flight Operations, then Recall and Furlough Information. As to your assertion that these furloughs were undertaken "because of financial reason" that is also wholly inaccurate.

Lem, come on now. Are you saying that your furloughs weren't tied to financial reasons? So if pilots worked for free, they'd still be furloughed because they .........inhale too much oxygen? My point being is that United furloughed for many reasons that were all tied to financial reasons. The 100 a/c parked were a result of the 70 seaters that your union sold you on. Why would a major airline outsource flying to another airline? It's cheaper, plain and simple. Unless you have protections, it'll happen again and again. If we relax scope on this JCBA, you'll see another 1400 pilots furloughed. Management doesn't care about you or me. It all comes down to money. So how am I wholly inaccurate?

 

[RT8VA]

I don't understand why no one wants to believe a thing Tilton says until it supports the theory that he right sized UAL. Wouldn't have any thing to do with all the 70 seat rjs flown by your regionals that aided in the reduction of the 737 fleet. Tilton is a pos and there is always lies mixed in with truth this is no different.
The seniority list will be arbitrated 100% so this is a meaningless argument as to who got furloughed and why, we need to stick together get a good contract and move forward no matter who wanted or didn't want the merger.

 

[whatitdoing?]

I don't understand why no one wants to believe a thing Tilton says until it supports the theory that he right sized UAL. Wouldn't have any thing to do with all the 70 seat rjs flown by your regionals that aided in the reduction of the 737 fleet. Tilton is a pos and there is always lies mixed in with truth this is no different.
The seniority list will be arbitrated 100% so this is a meaningless argument as to who got furloughed and why, we need to stick together get a good contract and move forward no matter who wanted or didn't want the merger.

Good point. My argument was in response to above statements that the United side was or is currently stagnant because of CAL. My point is that it had nothing to do with 'right' sizing for a merger. My argument has nothing to do with SLI. It will be arbitrated 100 percent. United will make their case and CAL will make their case........shake it around and we have SLI. Nothing I or anyone can do about it.

 

[Andy]

I'm reading "jointly terminate" as in all parties. The "individually or collectively" pertains to the sections which can be terminated. Maybe I'm incorrect on my understanding.

Which sections do you read as being able to be terminated "individually or collectively"?

 

[ejm179]

I'm reading "jointly terminate" as in all parties. The "individually or collectively" pertains to the sections which can be terminated. Maybe I'm incorrect on my understanding.

You guys should look under definitions in the TP&A. "Airline Party" is defined as CAL or UAL. ALPA is not included. Either CAL or UAL can terminate those specific sections on December 31.

 

[Andy]

Good point. My argument was in response to above statements that the United side was or is currently stagnant because of CAL. My point is that it had nothing to do with 'right' sizing for a merger. My argument has nothing to do with SLI. It will be arbitrated 100 percent. United will make their case and CAL will make their case........shake it around and we have SLI. Nothing I or anyone can do about it.

Not only did the right sizing have to do with the merger, it also had to do with allowing Continental to enter the Death* Alliance. Some history: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...r-routes-to-win-u-s-clearance-for-merger.html
Note that the article mentions downsizing that needed to be done in order to permit CAL to join the alliance. The downsizing was done on the UAL side of the fence. Christine Varney didn't sugar coat the overlap issue in the article.

Current stagnation on the UAL side is because the CAL training pipeline is now open. Tell us, what would happen if the UAL training pipeline was opened? Who would they be recalling to UAL? They're completely interrelated.

 

[Andy]

You guys should look under definitions in the TP&A. "Airline Party" is defined as CAL or UAL. ALPA is not included. Either CAL or UAL can terminate those specific sections on December 31.

DOH! You are correct, sir.

 

[Jetjockey]

13-A. Partial Termination.​

Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties
may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough
with regard to United Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base
Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or
after December 31, 2011, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a
​

JCBA by that date.



section 1 definitions,

1B Airline Party, CAL, UAL
1S Party, an Airline party or ALPA

 

[whatitdoing?]

Not only did the right sizing have to do with the merger, it also had to do with allowing Continental to enter the Death* Alliance. Some history: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...r-routes-to-win-u-s-clearance-for-merger.html
Note that the article mentions downsizing that needed to be done in order to permit CAL to join the alliance. The downsizing was done on the UAL side of the fence. Christine Varney didn't sugar coat the overlap issue in the article.

Current stagnation on the UAL side is because the CAL training pipeline is now open. Tell us, what would happen if the UAL training pipeline was opened? Who would they be recalling to UAL? They're completely interrelated.

It's just a difference of opinion. If right sizing was the argument, then why did CAL walk away from the merger the first time around? United cleaned up their books and changed things around to make them more attractive to a merger partner. I don't think CAL was the only choice. I can also argue that UAL stock value was artificially manipulated by Wall Street and CAL's stock was stagnate or devalued to make it a stock for stock merger. My point is, and I'm not talking about it anymore, is that United's stagnation started with bankruptcy, loss of scope, blah blah blah....on and on. It's a factor of many things. On the CAL side, we had 05 hires as Captains with lots of movement till 65 came along. You say current stagnation only because it helps your argument that CAL is hiring and United isn't. United side won't hire or recall till this merger, JCBA, and SLI are complete. Blame our crappy CBA or your scope....take a number.

 

[Flopgut]

Fact is, it would have been CAL getting "right sized" if Paul Whiteford was a CAL pilot and we'd let him loot the contract trying save the A fund. Any contempt for CAL pilots is totally misplaced. If it wasn't this merger and pilot group, it would have been another. Senior UAL ALPA pulled the ladder up then and they don't have their act together now. If UAL got close to needing to recall I wouldn't be surprised if UAL ALPA offered more relief just to get few more pennies for the senior and keep the junior on the street even longer.

 

[whatitdoing?]

Fact is, it would have been CAL getting "right sized" if Paul Whiteford was a CAL pilot and we'd let him loot the contract trying save the A fund. Any contempt for CAL pilots is totally misplaced. If it wasn't this merger and pilot group, it would have been another. Senior UAL ALPA pulled the ladder up then and they don't have their act together now. If UAL got close to needing to recall I wouldn't be surprised if UAL ALPA offered more relief just to get few more pennies for the senior and keep the junior on the street even longer.

Yep.....

 

[Ex737Driver]

Fact is, it would have been CAL getting "right sized" if Paul Whiteford was a CAL pilot and we'd let him loot the contract trying save the A fund. Any contempt for CAL pilots is totally misplaced. If it wasn't this merger and pilot group, it would have been another. Senior UAL ALPA pulled the ladder up then and they don't have their act together now. If UAL got close to needing to recall I wouldn't be surprised if UAL ALPA offered more relief just to get few more pennies for the senior and keep the junior on the street even longer.

Ummmm, didn't Stivala and Panerello get the senior pilots at CAL an even better deal than their UAL counterparts? They "froze" the A fund while giving returning furloughs the same pay cut and having to pay for your own health insurance for the first 6 months. I really hope that if both l-cal and l-ual seniors think that the same snow job will happen again, they will be set straight as all will be gone by the time this thing actually gets ratified.

 

[Flopgut]

Ummmm, didn't Stivala and Panerello get the senior pilots at CAL an even better deal than their UAL counterparts?

Well, not really. See Paul W. at L-UAL sold out all of scope to try and save all of his pension. And he ended up losing everything. At CAL, yeah we got screwed, but we didn't allow them to put it on the junior guys entirely. The A plan got frozen, but we kept the 100% lump sum and we kept our scope. We kept a balance. Doesn't make Tom and Jay better people, we were just watching their moves more closely.

 

[Chairman]

Well, not really. See Paul W. at L-UAL sold out all of scope to try and save all of his pension. And he ended up losing everything. At CAL, yeah we got screwed, but we didn't allow them to put it on the junior guys entirely. The A plan got frozen, but we kept the 100% lump sum and we kept our scope. We kept a balance. Doesn't make Tom and Jay better people, we were just watching their moves more closely.

The side letter only allowed the E170 on the property the 70 seat issue was brought on with c2003