skippy

Cant be mad at cal furloughs flying old ual routes at ual bases. Really?
They have no say so in the matter any more than express pilots have say on who they fly for and what equipment is flown etc.
Mgmnt is excellent at creating ambiguous agreements with always the element of doubt to play on fears. The union is absolutely fn worthless when it comes to using conditional language to benefit themselves in terms of protection, backstops, and meetin certain goals and expectations.
Trust me the furlough is the biggest bluff of them all, i they want to close bases, they close bases, the union needs to understand and unify under the premise that we as a pilot group wont take a concession bc sea may not be a domicile.
And the biggest of them all.... We as a pilot group wont take a concession to prevent addl furloughs. As i recall, noone took a concession when i was furloughed- so as far as im concerned, that is a very easily won discriminatory class action lawsuit.
When you take away mgmnts fear they spew, they have no leverage.

EWRflyr

Not sure how this post fits into the thread itself. CAL already operates these routes and is going to up-gauge the equipment from 764s (C35Y200) to 777s (C50Y226) for the net +41 seats per flight.

AxlF16

In theory you are correct. But in the real world, that ship has sailed. HOW can you actually say 'no' to cross flying?

I'm with you here! Of course the economic penalties must come to them in a legal manner.... For instance, when some of this 'cross flying' is done, it results in a very shallow operation. I have an ID at the end of the month with EWR-ZRH flying.... I'm guessing they will have a grand total of ONE 767-300 at EWR and a total of ONE legal crew to fly the trip. They are going to need (read ASK) for our help when they have the slightest hiccup! My personal policy is that I don't waive the contract and I don't do anything voluntarily to help. So, by putting a pilot like me on this trip will result in an economic penalty when they need my help.

Unfortunately our union cannot conduct contract education. Advocating (or insinuating...) a work to rule campaign would get us dragged back into court... BUT, that doesn't mean that we have to go along and get along with anything they throw at us! Actually, it doesn't even mean that we have to do ANYTHING to help the company. While I don't try and convince other pilots to take the same approach, I ABSOLUTELY tell them MY personal policy so they are not surprised when they me to waive/run an engine/etc... If they ask WHY I feel that way I tell them. THAT doesn't violate the injunction.

skippy

dont need ual alpa to do a work to rule campaign, it shoudl be well known anyway.
fly safe, fly your contract--- thats not an illegal statement, and i wish ual alpa had some balls and quit living in fear-- they think that just b/c they say or write a catch phrase they will immediately be spanked- simply not true- it would take an outright blatant and open message conveyed to the pilot group to bring on a penalty.

SoCalGuy

WOW.....You mean to tell us that CAL is actually going to "up-size" with in-house equipment on an existing route????

Unfathomable.

EWRflyr

I know. I about fell out of my chair when I read that, too.

LifeNtheFstLne

System bid within the next 30 days. 180 vacancies.

iPads in August and ship sets shortly thereafter.

That's the latest gossip. Get back to work. :-)

APC225

Not a chance, and iPads will be delayed.

FurloughedX2

1437 recalls, a sweet contract, and 75 virgins for each of us is what I heard. Just kidding, I'll get back to work now....oh wait, I am furloughed still. Dammit!

SOTeric

What...just get back from a PC?