Who's Flying Your Airplane? NO OUTSOURCING

[Yuppyguppy]

If it's UAL colors it's UAL pilots. Time to end this crap. No more E170s and CRJ700s flying on UAL/CAL routes. I've had it. See you on the "line" December 1st.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I agree.

What actions is CAL ALPA going to use to combat the breach of their current scope Dec. 1st? Action not words is what it is going to take.

 

[Bigoober]

I agree.

What actions is CAL ALPA going to use to combat the breach of their current scope Dec. 1st? Action not words is what it is going to take.

I'm sure another blast mail is in the works. That will show them!

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Picket December 1st...77 E. Wacker in Chicago.

 

[SuperFLUF]

I agree.

What actions is CAL ALPA going to use to combat the breach of their current scope Dec. 1st? Action not words is what it is going to take.

Expedited arbitration is scheduled.
If arbitrator rules with company, ALPA will take it to court and seek an injunction.
If arbitrator rules with ALPA, expect Jeff Lorenzo-Smisek to ignore the arbitrator and.....ALPA will take it to court and seek an injunction.

In the mean time, its hard to see how the line pilots would have much enthusiasm for going the extra mile for operational problems.

 

[SFR]

Simple.... sue the company for damages and breach of contract. While doing so you go to your favorite overnight and call in sick at the hotel just prior to van, get a free overnight for a few days. Heck, even have your family meet you there....

FREE VACATION!!!!

 

[ZeroThRUST]

"sue the company for damages"

That sounds like a protectionist liberal attitude. Is Scope Anti Market Capitalism?

 

[SFR]

"sue the company for damages"

That sounds like a protectionist liberal attitude. Is Scope Anti Market Capitalism?

I just be wanting my hand out....

 

[SFR]

I will be at the Walmart on Walden road in about 30 minutes...whoever wants to join me can meet me at the McDonalds der..

 

[waveflyer]

"sue the company for damages"

That sounds like a protectionist liberal attitude. Is Scope Anti Market Capitalism?

Watch UAL breach Tilton's contract and see how quickly the lawyers get involved. You my friend - can't be real

 

[Twisted Mind]

Good luck with that. Taking back outsourcing from contract carriers would require contract give backs and pay cuts for the elephants. And that aint happen. No one cares about the contract below themselves.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Good luck with that. Taking back outsourcing from contract carriers would require contract give backs and pay cuts for the elephants. And that aint happen. No one cares about the contract below themselves.

Another inexperienced teen comment talking about stuff they know little about.

 

[Jetjockey]

Good luck with that. Taking back outsourcing from contract carriers would require contract give backs and pay cuts for the elephants. And that aint happen. No one cares about the contract below themselves.

Says you? Ok expert. Go back to your desk job management troll.

 

[NEDude]

Good luck with that. Taking back outsourcing from contract carriers would require contract give backs and pay cuts for the elephants. And that aint happen. No one cares about the contract below themselves.

I do not think this Dec 1 issue is about taking back flying from outsourced carriers. This is about new flying on CAL routes in direct violation of the CAL scope clause. Management is using a branding loophole (UAL vs. CAL) to blatantly violate a contract. Other than several friends flying for CAL, I do not have a direct interest in this specific case, but all pilots should be VERY concerned over the precedent this is setting. And that goes for majors, regionals, LCCs, etc.

 

[Twisted Mind]

Damn right Continental pilots must stand up for themselves. I wouldn’t put any faith in taking back what is already lost.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Expedited arbitration is scheduled.
If arbitrator rules with company, ALPA will take it to court and seek an injunction.
If arbitrator rules with ALPA, expect Jeff Lorenzo-Smisek to ignore the arbitrator and.....ALPA will take it to court and seek an injunction.

In the mean time, its hard to see how the line pilots would have much enthusiasm for going the extra mile for operational problems.

So you are saying that ALPA is not willing to accept binding arbitration? Sounding very USAPA to me. . .

 

[Cpt Oveur]

Doesn't it sound more likely that this phased withdrawal of United Express carriers would come as the result of not granting any new contracts, and not extending any of the current contracts?

CAL pilots held the scope line, and it has been no easy task. They are an example many of us should look to. The UAL pilots, hate to say it, but have a small responsibility to it. It's not their demise, and it can be something they can and will overcome. The blame game only points to things done in the past. If you want to get the flying back on property, isn't is more realistic to work with them, phasing their planes on to the mainline property, perhaps their pilots/flight attendants/mechanics as well?

 

[Ben Franklin]

If you want to get the flying back on property, isn't is more realistic to work with them, phasing their planes on to the mainline property, perhaps their pilots/flight attendants/mechanics as well?

That sounds like a slight variation of late 1980's/early 1990's history repeating itself.

Ask any stock analyst or history professor.. history NEVER repeats itself


Sincerely,

B. Franklin

 

[Cpt Oveur]

You're absolutely right, they're going to just cut a check to each of the 70+ seaters and say "thanks for your service." I don't know how much money United-Continental has in the bank, but I would bet they don't want to spend any fraction of it paying early termination fees to Skywest Inc, Republic Holdings, Trans States Holdings, or Mesa Holdings.

 

[SuperFLUF]

So you are saying that ALPA is not willing to accept binding arbitration? Sounding very USAPA to me. . .

You know not of what you speak.

The arbitration that will take place over the violation of CAL's scope clause is not binding. It is just expedited arbitration. An arbitrator is not a judge. Because of CAL mgmt's crafty wording of their "interpretation" of the contract this is categorized as a minor dispute and must be arbitrated before it goes to court.

 

[SuperFLUF]

You're absolutely right, they're going to just cut a check to each of the 70+ seaters and say "thanks for your service." I don't know how much money United-Continental has in the bank, but I would bet they don't want to spend any fraction of it paying early termination fees to Skywest Inc, Republic Holdings, Trans States Holdings, or Mesa Holdings.

...and they're not just going to cut a check to give us the 50% raise in total compensation that we seek either.

They only way they do it is if they cost of not doing it is greater.

And don't give me that "they can't afford it" bs, they just gave themselves 150% increases right off the bat. Who knows what sort of increase they'll get next year. And pre-paying 175 million dollar loans 13 years early....... the list goes on.

I'm not talking about demanding money that's not there. I'm talking about driving a hard bargain. Management never fails to play their role at the negotiating table, yet time and time again the pilots don't play theirs. Its not personal, its business.

 

[doh]

You're absolutely right, they're going to just cut a check to each of the 70+ seaters and say "thanks for your service." I don't know how much money United-Continental has in the bank, but I would bet they don't want to spend any fraction of it paying early termination fees to Skywest Inc, Republic Holdings, Trans States Holdings, or Mesa Holdings.

I might be missing something here, but aren't they negotiating to move flying in house as contracts with feeders expire? Why would they have to cut a big check?

 

[Cpt Oveur]

If they were to terminate the contract early, like as soon as the merger was complete. Thats what I meant

 

[Flopgut]

Doesn't it sound more likely that this phased withdrawal of United Express carriers would come as the result of not granting any new contracts, and not extending any of the current contracts?

CAL pilots held the scope line, and it has been no easy task. They are an example many of us should look to. The UAL pilots, hate to say it, but have a small responsibility to it. It's not their demise, and it can be something they can and will overcome. The blame game only points to things done in the past. If you want to get the flying back on property, isn't is more realistic to work with them, phasing their planes on to the mainline property, perhaps their pilots/flight attendants/mechanics as well?

If we [CAL] can hold the line on scope and get the 70 seat airplanes back to mainline perhaps some form of ALPA fragmentation policy could provide for a mainline transition for the pilots flying them? (Except for the non-ALPA types) But then again, why support that sort of thing?! I wish it were part of the discussion, but we can't even suggest that maybe Skywest and Shuttle consider not participating in blatantly violating our legal contract! How are you suppose to "work with" that type pilot?

 

[BobbyBiplane]

If we [CAL] can hold the line on scope and get the 70 seat airplanes back to mainline perhaps some form of ALPA fragmentation policy could provide for a mainline transition for the pilots flying them? (Except for the non-ALPA types) But then again, why support that sort of thing?! I wish it were part of the discussion, but we can't even suggest that maybe Skywest and Shuttle consider not participating in blatantly violating our legal contract! How are you suppose to "work with" that type pilot?

Idiot

 

[Raoul Duke]

You know not of what you speak.

The arbitration that will take place over the violation of CAL's scope clause is not binding. It is just expedited arbitration. An arbitrator is not a judge. Because of CAL mgmt's crafty wording of their "interpretation" of the contract this is categorized as a minor dispute and must be arbitrated before it goes to court.

You need to go and brush up on how the RLA works. You are correct that it is a minor dispute. You are not correct that if a party loses an arbitration they can just go to court. It does not work like that. Review of arbitration decisions are extremely limited (which will almost certainly not apply in this instance).

 

[Flopgut]

Idiot

Read a few of your posts. You're a real genius. Go to hell clown.

 

[777forever]

So CAL/UAL pilots will negotiate to slowly transition flying back to mainline? Man there are some long term contracts still left of the table. Management ask for something steep in return for such a task, and what will pilots give up in return? You can kiss any chance of a decent payraise and workrules(which you guys BADLY need) goodbye. I mean, its just embarrassing what legacy pilots make compared to SWA.

 

[doh]

If they were to terminate the contract early, like as soon as the merger was complete. Thats what I meant

That would be strictly a company decision since the pilots are not asking for that.

 

[doh]

So CAL/UAL pilots will negotiate to slowly transition flying back to mainline? Man there are some long term contracts still left of the table. Management ask for something steep in return for such a task, and what will pilots give up in return? You can kiss any chance of a decent payraise and workrules(which you guys BADLY need) goodbye. I mean, its just embarrassing what legacy pilots make compared to SWA.

Actually, they shouldn't give up a thing. There is pressure on management to get the merger completed from the stockholders. Management also can't cash in until the deal is done. As you say, there are some long term contracts still out there, so management can plan and ease into the transition. That also gives the pilots at the feeder time to get their ducks in a row to apply for the added positions mainline will need to fill.