Jcba Must Not Be Signed By October Deadline
09-24-2010, 03:46 AM
#81
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Outside of NMB.....
ANY TA that the company want's to hand down has to pass the "Thumbs UP" per both MEC's prior to even seeing the light of day as it's handed down to the pilot group's for general vote.....I don't see this happening on any agreement that does not have solid SCOPE protection as a paramount item.
Just as "57Capt" seems to interject conjecture up to this point, might as well follow suit, minus the 'extreme' views that he presents. It is my belief (and yes, I'll state that up front)......both pilot groups have seen/felt the 'beat down' by their respective mgt over the recent years (one more than the other), never-the-less, it's infliction has been abundantly felt as evidence per our present/respective CBA's.
With respect to SCOPE, it's w/o a doubt one of the top issues (IF NOT, the TOP issue) in any future JCBA. With this being said, there are many pilots (1400+) on the old UAL side that are on the street w/o jobs due to the 'lack of' SCOPE. It's my strong belief that our Joint Neg Comm knows darn well where the meat of the matter sits as a Corner-Stone on any future JCBA....and SCOPE would have to be it.
One thing reigns consistent, Mgt will always attempt to toss "Smoke and Mirrors"/and "Fear Mongering" into ANY Neg when it comes to CBA ratification....especially one as big as this. I am confident that in the end (and outside of NMB), our Joint Neg Comm & respective MEC's will defend that topic (SCOPE) to the 'N-th degree' during this JCBA Neg on the road to becoming the industry leading new UAL.
Don't let another "party of one" detract you from that....especially when "he" can't tell you himself.....fact or conjecture.
ANY TA that the company want's to hand down has to pass the "Thumbs UP" per both MEC's prior to even seeing the light of day as it's handed down to the pilot group's for general vote.....I don't see this happening on any agreement that does not have solid SCOPE protection as a paramount item.
Just as "57Capt" seems to interject conjecture up to this point, might as well follow suit, minus the 'extreme' views that he presents. It is my belief (and yes, I'll state that up front)......both pilot groups have seen/felt the 'beat down' by their respective mgt over the recent years (one more than the other), never-the-less, it's infliction has been abundantly felt as evidence per our present/respective CBA's.
With respect to SCOPE, it's w/o a doubt one of the top issues (IF NOT, the TOP issue) in any future JCBA. With this being said, there are many pilots (1400+) on the old UAL side that are on the street w/o jobs due to the 'lack of' SCOPE. It's my strong belief that our Joint Neg Comm knows darn well where the meat of the matter sits as a Corner-Stone on any future JCBA....and SCOPE would have to be it.
One thing reigns consistent, Mgt will always attempt to toss "Smoke and Mirrors"/and "Fear Mongering" into ANY Neg when it comes to CBA ratification....especially one as big as this. I am confident that in the end (and outside of NMB), our Joint Neg Comm & respective MEC's will defend that topic (SCOPE) to the 'N-th degree' during this JCBA Neg on the road to becoming the industry leading new UAL.
Don't let another "party of one" detract you from that....especially when "he" can't tell you himself.....fact or conjecture.
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 09-24-2010 at 08:10 AM.
09-24-2010, 05:00 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Ah I wish I could agree, but given some of the old dipsh!ts we got running around CAL it would probably be 90%-10%. And no they aren't all scabs for the record.
09-24-2010, 09:17 AM
#83
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Yeah, you are probably right. There should be a PBS setting that makes it so our putzes and your putzes have to fly with each other.
09-24-2010, 09:29 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Cap. 737
Posts: 293
At this point in the game, knowing what we know, I think anyone who votes to give scope away is no better than a scab.
09-24-2010, 12:22 PM
#86
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
09-25-2010, 05:12 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
Imminently 70 seat RJs will start operating out of IAH, EWR and CLE under the United banner.
However, there will be no growth of the overall RJ fleet as this flying is nearly maxed out under the current contract
expect UCAL to shrink about 30% as 70 seat flying grows along with new domestic code-share agreements, in preparation for further acquisition and consolidation. These are the facts, vote carefully.
Now let's recap the solid information you have claimed here since you started this thread.
1. Ua buying 100 seaters
2. Huge pay raises and furlough recalls, but we are supposed to vote no to this
3. UA now buying Airtran
4. UA reducing pilot force to 8k and loosening the scope to allow domestic code share
You sir are apparently the most out of touch pilot at UA. Again I am sure you are just making this stuff up rile the forces. Thanks for lobbing softballs, it a pleasure to knock your stuff out of the park.
L
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
