Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CAL pilots win 50+ seat scope ruling

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

princeton

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Posts
96
So, is that it for the Skywest IAH base?



Dec. 30, 2010


ARBITRATION DECISION
Earlier today the CAL MEC was informed that arbitrator Richard Bloch ruled in favor of ALPA in the expedited arbitration over scope held earlier this month. The arbitration resulted from the group grievance filed regarding management’s post-merger decision to outsource flying using the CO designator code on 70-seat jets from Continental hubs. The Association saw this as a violation of the Continental CBA and an attempt by management to leverage its position in negotiations in favor of outsourcing.

On Oct. 20, 2010, the Company informed the Association of its intent to operate CRJ-700 and EMB-170 aircraft as United Express flights with the CO designator code into and out of Company hubs starting on Jan. 4, 2011. The Association subsequently met with the Company on Oct. 26 to request the Company’s contractual basis for the proposed operation, which they provided on Nov. 3, 2010. In short, the Company cited as their justification 1) that the Transition and Process Agreement authorizes the carriers to integrate their marketing and reservations, 2) that the Continental pilots’ scope clause excludes merger partners’ flying and 3) that the United pilots’ scope clause permits the use of 70-seat aircraft.

In the arbitration hearing that took place Dec. 9, 2010, ALPA attorneys Dan Orfield and Art Luby, our Alliance Committee chairman Alfredo Suarez and outside council Mike Abram presented a vigorous case and an abundance of evidence to support our position.

In our presentation to the arbitrator, our position was that the Continental scope clause makes clear that all flying, not only by the Company, but also for the Company, is to be performed by the Continental pilots, with specific delineated exceptions that can be found under Part 3. The Agreement makes clear that use of the Company’s code is alone sufficient to qualify a flight as Company flying subject to the scope clause. It states that flying by another air carrier can be an exception to the scope obligation, but only if is “authorized by” Part 4 (Express Carriers), Part 5 (Complementary Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers) or Part 7 (a carrier participating in a Complete Transaction).

The arbitrator agreed with our position, stating in his award,

“Placing the CO designator code on the UAX jet aircraft with a certification of fifty-one or greater seats to and from CLE, EWR and IAH is a violation of Section 1 of the Continental/ALPA collective bargaining agreement. The Company is ordered to cease and desist advertising and placing the CO code on such flights.”

We are of course pleased with the arbitrator’s decision and the fact that the language and intent of the CBA that was negotiated by ALPA was affirmed. We are additionally pleased that the system for resolving such disputes worked as intended and that our strategy for handling this issue was affirmed as well. No doubt there will be complex compliance issues following the arbitrator’s decision that we will be monitoring closely. We will continue to provide any updates as needed.

Happy New Year.
One Union. One Voice.
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
 
CAL Management's Plan B

So what is to stop CAL Management from placing those flights out of IAH on the UAL label, and interline those flights with CAL?

Crap; USAIR does that with United all the time.

I can't count how many times I had a USAIR flight, and show up to the gate, and its a United airplane.

Will this ruling stop CAL from using CAL numbers on these big RJs? Sure. But the end result will be the same. You book a flight on CAL out of IAH, and they shift you over to their code share partner UAL, who just happens to be flying a 70 seat RJ.

ALPA won absolutely nothing here.

What a waste of the ALPA members dues.

You will still see 70 seat RJs flying Continental passengers out of IAH.


I am as Pro Pilot as they come.

This is not a Pilot victory. Just smoke and mirrors to make Pilots feel like ALPA accomplished something.

I see no benefit; Discuss.....
 
So what is to stop CAL Management from placing those flights out of IAH on the UAL label, and interline those flights with CAL?

Crap; USAIR does that with United all the time.

I can't count how many times I had a USAIR flight, and show up to the gate, and its a United airplane.

Will this ruling stop CAL from using CAL numbers on these big RJs? Sure. But the end result will be the same. You book a flight on CAL out of IAH, and they shift you over to their code share partner UAL, who just happens to be flying a 70 seat RJ.

ALPA won absolutely nothing here.

What a waste of the ALPA members dues.

You will still see 70 seat RJs flying Continental passengers out of IAH.


I am as Pro Pilot as they come.

This is not a Pilot victory. Just smoke and mirrors to make Pilots feel like ALPA accomplished something.

I see no benefit; Discuss.....

You really don't understand how airline tickets are sold do you?
 
Enlighten me....

Perhaps I am missing something here.

But I have booked many a flight on USAIR, only to get to the gate, check in, and find out I am on a United flight.

Since United does not fall under the CAL scope, United can fly the 70 seat RJ.

Why would it be any different with CAL?

Buy a CAL ticket, ticket has a disclamer that the flight is operated by United, just like every time you book a major airline flight and it has a disclamer that it is operated by XYZ regional.

How about some facts.
 
Perhaps I am missing something here.

But I have booked many a flight on USAIR, only to get to the gate, check in, and find out I am on a United flight.

Since United does not fall under the CAL scope, United can fly the 70 seat RJ.

Why would it be any different with CAL?

Buy a CAL ticket, ticket has a disclamer that the flight is operated by United, just like every time you book a major airline flight and it has a disclamer that it is operated by XYZ regional.

How about some facts.

The United flight you were on in your example had the USAirways code designator on it. Thats how you can buy a ticket on one airline but fly another. Continental can no longer place its code designator on 51+ seat RJs out of EWR, CLE, and IAH. United could still operate these flights but they could not take people that booked on Continental. Not a lot of point in operating out of continental hubs if you cant carry continental passengers.
 
So what is to stop CAL Management from placing those flights out of IAH on the UAL label, and interline those flights with CAL?

Crap; USAIR does that with United all the time.

I can't count how many times I had a USAIR flight, and show up to the gate, and its a United airplane.

Will this ruling stop CAL from using CAL numbers on these big RJs? Sure. But the end result will be the same. You book a flight on CAL out of IAH, and they shift you over to their code share partner UAL, who just happens to be flying a 70 seat RJ.

ALPA won absolutely nothing here.

What a waste of the ALPA members dues.

You will still see 70 seat RJs flying Continental passengers out of IAH.


I am as Pro Pilot as they come.

This is not a Pilot victory. Just smoke and mirrors to make Pilots feel like ALPA accomplished something.

I see no benefit; Discuss.....

I don't think there is any doubt in the minds of CAL pilots that we merely won a small victory in the latest stream of battles with mgmt, and that the war is still to come. But this is more than that. This is about sending a message to a wreckless and ignorant mgmt that we will not allow our contract to be used as a door backstop, as they so often try - even within the past few days. And it is about how the system does indeed work, to a point. We followed the arbitration process and it was fair, despite what some had suspected (that the arbitrator was on the take). We were level-headed, we didn't burn the place down, we followed the legal process. THAT is some of what our dues goes to pay for. What would you suggest otherwise? We just roll over and allow mgmt to continue to steal from us (as they have been doing for the past 6 yrs). Would you do the same in your line of work?

I predicted on here form the very beginning that we would win this battle but I also didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I fully expect mgmt to somehow circumvent this ruling, that or they will regroup to fight another day (aka, Taliban-style). Regardless of any of that, no mgmt in the history of airlines has succeeded in playing such games with it's skilled labor. I'm afraid this mgmt team is about to learn that very same hard lesson. Unfortunately, it will be at the cost of employees, sharholders, and our beloved customers. Nobody wins except mgmt in such cases. C'est Le Vie
 
We also have a transitional agreement, in addition to our contract that protects against swapping of flying between CAL and United untill a JCBA is complete. If swapping of flying occurs, then the other must be awarded a percentage or maintain the same block hours out of the hubs. This language is just off the top of my head, but there is other stipulation in there as well.
 
Thanks

Those posts help clear things up a little.

Be interesting to see how CAL Management tries to get around the Ruling.

Sounds like they are sure to try.

Good Luck CAL Pilots
 

Latest resources

Back
Top