Help stamp out Scope Relief Rumors.
12-19-2014, 07:58 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Furlough protection is huge, right up until it isn't.
Ever hear of a Force Mejuere clause? (Pardon the french spelling)
Personally I would rather have more real narrow bodies than SNB's. But I wouldn't trade it for scope. If they were to renegotiate the scope choke to include the number of NB or SNB's, I don't see how we would lose.
I think used buses or guppies are easier to come by right now than new 190's.
Ever hear of a Force Mejuere clause? (Pardon the french spelling)
Personally I would rather have more real narrow bodies than SNB's. But I wouldn't trade it for scope. If they were to renegotiate the scope choke to include the number of NB or SNB's, I don't see how we would lose.
I think used buses or guppies are easier to come by right now than new 190's.
12-19-2014, 08:49 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 342
Sent a note about this to my LEC last night; reply this morning.
He assured me that JH was no PW, and there would absolutely not be secret backroom deals. It sounded like the MEC had been approached, more than once, but told "no" each time.
His take: our scope is a thorn in UCH's side, and they want it to be more like Delta or American.
He said the entire MEC would have to agree, and if so, would put it to a vote for the membership.
He assured me that JH was no PW, and there would absolutely not be secret backroom deals. It sounded like the MEC had been approached, more than once, but told "no" each time.
His take: our scope is a thorn in UCH's side, and they want it to be more like Delta or American.
He said the entire MEC would have to agree, and if so, would put it to a vote for the membership.
12-19-2014, 08:52 AM
#33
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Furlough protection goes the way of the white buffalo with Force Majuere every single time. Spending any negotiating capitol on it is a waste of time. Just ask all the pilots furloughed in the last 13 years how their furlough protection worked out.
As far as what the company flies and where they fly it? It is none of my concern or responsibility. I do hope ALPA is strong enough to make sure that it is us that flies them. In the last 20 years we have not been that strong. Actually, we gave it away.
As far as what the company flies and where they fly it? It is none of my concern or responsibility. I do hope ALPA is strong enough to make sure that it is us that flies them. In the last 20 years we have not been that strong. Actually, we gave it away.
12-19-2014, 08:59 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Letter 03-17 Page 483
UNITED AIRLINES REWRITE 2003 ALPA
Let ter 03-17 Embraer 170
Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman
UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association
6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700
Rosemont, IL 60018
Dear Paul,
In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer
170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross
takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would
be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company
further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this
aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy
(70) seats.
If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies
for our file.
12-19-2014, 09:04 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 342
[QUOTE=jsled;1786680]This Guy.....
Letter 03-17 Page 483
UNITED AIRLINES REWRITE 2003 ALPA
Let ter 03-17 Embraer 170
Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman
UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association
6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700
Rosemont, IL 60018
Dear Paul,
In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer
170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross
takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would
be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company
further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this
aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy
(70) seats.
If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies
for our file.[/QUOTE
I've heard of the "Whiteford letter" but, I guess I don't understand it! Did you guys know it was coming down the pipe? What was the reason they did the agreement? What was i guess, threatened?
Letter 03-17 Page 483
UNITED AIRLINES REWRITE 2003 ALPA
Let ter 03-17 Embraer 170
Captain Paul R. Whiteford, Chairman
UAL-MEC Air Line Pilots Association
6400 Shafer Court, Suite #700
Rosemont, IL 60018
Dear Paul,
In discussions leading up to the 2003 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Embraer
170, certificated to a maximum seating of seventy-eight (78), with a maximum gross
takeoff weight of less than eighty-two thousand one hundred (82,100) pounds would
be an exception to definition #22 of Section 1 of the 2003 Agreement. The Company
further commits that should one or more of our Feeder Carrier partners select this
aircraft for operation, it will not be configured for operation with more than seventy
(70) seats.
If this letter accurately reflects our agreement, please sign and return two (2) copies
for our file.[/QUOTE
I've heard of the "Whiteford letter" but, I guess I don't understand it! Did you guys know it was coming down the pipe? What was the reason they did the agreement? What was i guess, threatened?
12-19-2014, 09:15 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Furlough protection goes the way of the white buffalo with Force Majuere every single time. Spending any negotiating capitol on it is a waste of time. Just ask all the pilots furloughed in the last 13 years how their furlough protection worked out.
As far as what the company flies and where they fly it? It is none of my concern or responsibility. I do hope ALPA is strong enough to make sure that it is us that flies them. In the last 20 years we have not been that strong. Actually, we gave it away.
As far as what the company flies and where they fly it? It is none of my concern or responsibility. I do hope ALPA is strong enough to make sure that it is us that flies them. In the last 20 years we have not been that strong. Actually, we gave it away.
We've given away scope at every opportunity, for far less than what was paid to Judas. Whatever the company's given in exchange for scope relief always disappears, but the express outsourcing remains. That needs to end.
12-19-2014, 09:18 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
The company kept the pilot pensions ... for a short time. Now they're with PBGC.
Previous union concessions for scope - more widebody flying. Widebody flying shrunk but the RJ outsourcing expanded.
The company keeps its word on any scope concession agreements. But they eventually take back whatever was given, while the outsourcing remains.
12-19-2014, 04:51 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
I agree about furlough protection. The only real furlough protection is our scope clause. Putting SNBs and large RJs on mainline property is the only furlough protection we could have.
We've given away scope at every opportunity, for far less than what was paid to Judas. Whatever the company's given in exchange for scope relief always disappears, but the express outsourcing remains. That needs to end.
We've given away scope at every opportunity, for far less than what was paid to Judas. Whatever the company's given in exchange for scope relief always disappears, but the express outsourcing remains. That needs to end.
12-19-2014, 05:51 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
************************************************** **********
I understand your predicament However? This might be a bridge too far.
More Mainline airplanes is one thing. Another fleet is something else.
As Powerful as ALPA is you might have "gone around the bend" on this one.
I understand your predicament However? This might be a bridge too far.
More Mainline airplanes is one thing. Another fleet is something else.
As Powerful as ALPA is you might have "gone around the bend" on this one.
As you've read, it's not ALPAs job to trade long term career protections to fix management's inability to adapt to short cycle capacity demands. Quite the opposite actually. UCH has known about scope choke since they agreed to it the fall of 2012, it's not the pilots fault, nor is it their problem.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
