Ual-alpa t/a leak......

[Deerkiller]

Won't this merger create a new company? I thought we had to get a new FAA certificate?? Then piss on the 70 seaters....those contracts were with a previous airline that is no longer in existence

I believe one of the three(CAL, UAL, Air Mic) certificates survives and the other two are returned to the FAA.

 

[densoo]

I believe one of the three(CAL, UAL, Air Mic) certificates survives and the other two are returned to the FAA.

The UAL is the "buyer" therefore the surviving certificate. The push will be to adopt the way UAL is operating, IOW no scope. Pilots will have to fight to put it back in the bottle.

 

[P38JLightning]

Which certificate survives has little if anything to do with the CBA the new group ebds up with. The company will try to point to the worst of both (while explaining how lucky they would be to accept a 2 year old fuel crisis recent BK emergence contract +1%, etc), the union will try to point to the best of both highlighted against the back drop of improving CBA's, hundreds of millions of quarterly profits and the need to get the merger done being in the best interest of the shareholders way more than outsourcing more jets. What UCAL ends up with as a contract will be what they are willing to negotiate/fight/compromise for and it won't have anything to do with which certificate survives.

 

[IAHERJ]

The UAL is the "buyer" therefore the surviving certificate. The push will be to adopt the way UAL is operating, IOW no scope. Pilots will have to fight to put it back in the bottle.

That is such an ignorant statement on two levels I don't really know how to respond. First of all, the "buyer" doesn't always get the certificate. Second, the certificate has nothing to do with scope. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this out of touch thought process.

IAHERJ

 

[IAHERJ]

A certificate has important things like ETOPS certification etc. in it. Whose certificate do you think would be more valuable in this merger? The airline who has lots of 767 and 757 aircraft going across the Atlantic along with some Pacific stuff along with 777 ETOPS certification or the airline that doesn't need ETOPS certification on a lot of it's long haul flights due to the equipment having 4 engines? It seems like the CAL certificate has more upside. Not a shot at UAL at all. What it means is that UAL has aircraft that are not in need of ETOPS certification, therefore the UAL 767's and 777's that are etops will remain so under CAL's certificate. You can always add to a certificate but filing a new one is more trouble

 

[bizicmo]

What was that advantage of having the CAL and Air Mic certificate all these years? And if there are any advantages, why wouldn't the Air Mic certificate remain?

 

[Mr.B]

Who really cares which certificate is used? Whats important for us a s pilots is to

1. Get an industry leading contract.
2. Get all 50+ seat aircraft under mainline.

Or, I'm ready to walk and watch those "synergies" fly out the window....With the bonuses!

 

[Mr.B]

Who really cares which certificate is used? Whats important for us as pilots is to

1. Get an industry leading contract.
2. Get all 50+ seat aircraft under mainline.

Or, I'm ready to walk and watch those "synergies" fly out the window....With the bonuses!

 

[densoo]

That is such an ignorant statement on two levels I don't really know how to respond. First of all, the "buyer" doesn't always get the certificate. Second, the certificate has nothing to do with scope. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this out of touch thought process.

IAHERJ

IAHERJ, Please don't give up the conversation! You are a moderating voice of reason! This wasn't meant to be an all-is-lost off-the-wall incaccurate comment.

As I said in my post there will be a "push" to adopt to UAL's scope. They will use any and all arguments to get it done, whether logical or not. One part of the argument is likely to be, "UAL is the buyer, we don't have scope, since CAL is joining our operation, you need to give up your scope, too. C'mon guys. Let's play nice."

It's not logical, but I'm sure theyll do it as part of the beat-them-back strategy.

Scope has nothing to do with the certificate, I know. It's contractual. But I believe the above is going to be a part of their argument to give up scope, to whomever will listen--parts of the pilot groups, an arbitrator, or the court of public opinion.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

um like duh...they can argue scope all day. We just have to say NO! Period. If they don't say yes a lot at the table well then we won't just say no but HELL NO TIME TO STRIKE!

 

[P38JLightning]

Unlike the theoretical "bargaining credit" union busting tactic of accepting additional scope give aways versus "holding the line", taking scope back actually does have an associated cost to it. It's not something you can throw on a tall pile of demands and make it so, just because it may be wanted.

In order to roll back scope in the slightest (much less the MASSIVE rollback to 50 and under jets only) numerous contracts with feeders will have to be renegotiated or bought out entirely. UCALPA will have to pay 100% of the cost of that. Whatever the number is, and I'm sure ALPA EF&A knows to the penny (or could quickly calculate it) I'd wager that it will be a pretty steep sum. probably many tens of millions, if not low 100 millions.

Every penny of that will come directly out of pay, retirement or work rule improvements that said monetary amount could otherwise be spent on. It's easy to say that 50 seat jet scope will be a demand, but the hardest thing, by far, will be enforcing that demand not from management, but from one's own pilot group. That is no mystery, that is exactly how so much scope has been given away in the first place (in good times and in bad).

I'm sure UCALPA will throw that in their opener, but will it survive? Will a "home run" big double digit raise triple dip work rule rebuttal by the company be turned down? Whatever CBA UCAL ends up with, it WILL be much, much less if it reclaims scope, even if it's more than either CBA today. Spending that much bargaining capital on scope reclamation is bold and practically unheard of in this industry and there is a reason for that. If this is not THE number one issue, it WON'T happen. However, if it is, then it might, but it will be a fight.

 

[densoo]

And so it begins: "may...acquire regional aircraft..." They may just start down this path as if scope isn't going to be there in the end, hoping that the momentum will make it a foregone conclusion. This will be a fight.

"Continental also benefits from the new agreement as the major airline may take advantage of SkyWest’s balance sheet to acquire regional aircraft, and utilize the regional aircraft owned by SkyWest."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/219252-regional-airlines-mimic-major-counterparts?source=yahoo

 

[Jetjockey]

Section 1 is #1! Make this clear to your reps. If someone else is doing your job, what does it matter what the rest of sections have in it?

(section 1 is SCOPE)

 

[GuppyWN]

Section 1 is #1! Make this clear to your reps. If someone else is doing your job, what does it matter what the rest of sections have in it?

(section 1 is SCOPE)

...... and you were the one commenting on my hard stance against codeshare at WN?

Give 'em hell! I completely agree. Without a SOLID section 1 nothing else matters.

Gup

 

[CFIT]

Unlike the theoretical "bargaining credit" union busting tactic of accepting additional scope give aways versus "holding the line", taking scope back actually does have an associated cost to it. It's not something you can throw on a tall pile of demands and make it so, just because it may be wanted.

In order to roll back scope in the slightest (much less the MASSIVE rollback to 50 and under jets only) numerous contracts with feeders will have to be renegotiated or bought out entirely. UCALPA will have to pay 100% of the cost of that. Whatever the number is, and I'm sure ALPA EF&A knows to the penny (or could quickly calculate it) I'd wager that it will be a pretty steep sum. probably many tens of millions, if not low 100 millions.

Every penny of that will come directly out of pay, retirement or work rule improvements that said monetary amount could otherwise be spent on. It's easy to say that 50 seat jet scope will be a demand, but the hardest thing, by far, will be enforcing that demand not from management, but from one's own pilot group. That is no mystery, that is exactly how so much scope has been given away in the first place (in good times and in bad).

I'm sure UCALPA will throw that in their opener, but will it survive? Will a "home run" big double digit raise triple dip work rule rebuttal by the company be turned down? Whatever CBA UCAL ends up with, it WILL be much, much less if it reclaims scope, even if it's more than either CBA today. Spending that much bargaining capital on scope reclamation is bold and practically unheard of in this industry and there is a reason for that. If this is not THE number one issue, it WON'T happen. However, if it is, then it might, but it will be a fight.

This above statement is very much inline. The only error is that the required cost would probably exceed over a billion dollars.

The aircraft manufacter's expect scope relief.
The legacy airline management expect scope relief.
The regional airline management expect scope relief.

Maybe expectations will fail but it seems managment has won every battle, pilots fly planes, management runs the airline.

Good luck

I'll bet when managemnt dangles a 10 to 20 % increase under the senior pilots wages, scope will drop like a bad habit?

Just remember, ALPA just wants the money, they can get more from the legacies than the regionals and will push it that way.