New CAL 737 Bases DEN / ORD

[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