Sunvox

Uhmm . . . so let's see . . . the negotiations were tripartite with CAL reps and UAL reps agreeing to everything BUT somehow the UAL reps were beating the CAL reps up so hard on Scope because the boys from UAL were just dieing to give up Scope and the CAL reps and JP and the CAL-MEC had no vote in presenting the JCBA to us AND they are all idiots and made the wrong choices even though they were given intense weeks of briefings on the myriad of complex issues. Soooooo . . . the Scope give away was ALL the fault of the UAL reps and pilots.

Ahhh, yeah. You are sooooo right and I am soooo sorry. I just hope that illegal profit sharing check you got helps soften the blow.

By the way why don't you take a quick gander at this study and then type a short synopsis for me . . .

The Future of the Scope Clause

Kilder

Your scope prior to the JCBA was very generous to the company, when we merged with UAL our scope basically ended, thus giving the new UAL a very relaxed scope that CAL never had.

I liked the article, and I agree the future or Feeder flying lies with the new Embrear and C-series on top with the newer turbo props on the bottom.

The question is "who will fly them"?

The size of this airplanes will rival the B717, so I hope that our current scope, which I like, is as far as we are willing to go.

oldmako

I did plenty of flying into EWR and IAH prior to this merger. You guys had a ton of RJs as well, so spare us the scope lecture. Our rogue MEC Chairman allowed UAL to buy the EMB 170 on his own without the consent of the pilots. The notion that our 104 guppies were "replaced" by RJs is weak and not supported by fact.

UAL added very few large RJs after the guppies were parked. Certainly not enough to cover the loss of 104 guppies. Those planes were flying around full and were largely paid for. It was a money making operation. If UAL had replaced that flying with 170s, they would have needed 150 of so of them to get equivalent seat miles.

I don't know the exact number, but its easy to verify if you wish. The truth of the matter is that UAL simply LEFT some markets and gave up significant market share in others when they parked that fleet. They did this to satisfy issues the DOJ would have raised (as they are doing now with American and USAir) and to rearrange the pieces on the chess board for the merger. Just like the way CAL gates and UAL gates and ticket counters migrated closer and closer all across the country. Just like the way CAL joined the Death Star alliance. Just like the way your guppies started showing up on B gates and ORD where they were serviced by UAL rampies.

I know some of you guys like to think all of these instances were merely coincidental, but if you can connect the dots its easy to see. There are probably fewer than 100 UAL guys who weren't convinced UAL was going to merge with CAL 7 years ago.

Sunvox

Wow! I think we have found some common ground. Thanks for the even tempered response. My only added comment would be that the UAL Scope was a product of the bankruptcy. I wrote to each and every MEC member and they all believed we would not have been allowed to strike while in bankruptcy hence they felt we had no choice but to accept the company's proposal. I disagreed, and I think AA has since shown that we should have said "NO".

Anyways, just glad to find some common ground.

Joe

CALFO

Didn't the L-UAL Expert witness testify that UAL didn't order replacements for the 737-500's because they didn't know if they would merge with a 737 or A320 operator in the future? Seems to fly in the face of the theory that the CAL/UAL merger was preordained.

Did UAL rid themselves of 737-500's to make itself more attractive to potential merger partners? That is certainly a possibility.

Also, have you noticed that every major airline in the US (including CAL) has been getting rid of their 737-500/300's over the past several years?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I don't believe that what you propose has been proven by any stretch of the imagination. There were many factors involved in UAL dumping so many airplanes at the time. They include, but our not limited to, nor given any specific weight:
1. Major recession.
2. Aircraft mx cost
3. Availability of 70 seat RJ feed

So, can we drop the argument? In about five days, we will all be handed down the verdict. That will be fact, the rest is supposition.

Fraternally,

Future UAL ALPA member in good standing!

Old UCAL CA

He did, but who cares? This is an anonymous blog site...enjoy the show.