Continental Has Deadline for Pilot Contract

[jumppilot]

If a bunch of 170's are parked in Houston to fly some 737 routes, then that would be fine as long as they are flown by pilots on the seniority list of UAL, or CAL, agreed? Death to anything with a "connection", "express", or "eagle" on the side.

Agreed, but I'm not talking about what should be, but rather what disaster could have happened had the JV passed as written.

 

[motch]

Motch,

I flew with a union type and he said the JV, as it was written, would have allowed United Express to park a bunch of 170s in Houston to fly international routes we have 737s on, like Latin America, Mexico, etc. CAL would have been able to trim off a 737 while still meeting the terms of being in the Star Alliance (also flying the route).

That was the major part of the JV agreement many overlooked. It just doesn't affect widebodies!

Are you talking about the LOA JrV from the furlough proposal back on 08?
Cause I'm not talking about that~

At one of the LEC mtgs in EWR last year, we got a great briefing about what Star Alliance means to CAL and to it's pilots.

For CAL to take advantage of ALL the benefits of Star, they need this Pilot Groups approval, per our CBA.
As far as parking aircraft yet still getting profits from seats sold on other Star Carriers.. you can't run a true International Airline by doing that. The profits they might get from "those seats sold" would not cover the costs of doing business.
As someone else mentioned, CAL earns greater profits from actually flying the passengers than from selling seats on other carriers.

I'm talking about the Scope Provision within our CBA when it comes to Joint Revenue Sharing with other Domestic (US) Carriers. We had a deal with Delta while part of SkyTeam, now the company wants the same deal with Star.

It is a good question to ask the Union-
If we agree to this,
1) Can CAL passengers be flown on UAX flights to International Destinations?
2) What protections do we have that CAL won't park 73's that fly to the Caribbean and just replace them with code-shared CRJ700's and EMB170's from UAX?

This is where you (we) need good legal representation to prevent these things from happening.
Had UAL pilots thought about some of these things, maybe UAL would not have parked all those 73's and replaced them with all those bigger RJ's.
Just my Opinion~

motch

 

[chppr5]

For CAL to take advantage of ALL the benefits of Star, they need this Pilot Groups approval, per our CBA.
"As far as parking aircraft yet still getting profits from seats sold on other Star Carriers.. you can't run a true International Airline by doing that. The profits they might get from "those seats sold" would not cover the costs of doing business.
As someone else mentioned, CAL earns greater profits from actually flying the passengers than from selling seats on other carriers."

Joint Ventures are a business tool not a labor tool. Yes CAL would earn greater profits if they actually flew the route. By selling seats on another carrier CAL would incur NO cost or RISK but still increase revenue and grow their international route structure thru STAR. I'm not saying you're going to park aircraft, but why would CAL grow internally when they can grow within STAR without the risk or cost of opening new routes. You guys have the ace in the hole, hopefully you'll hold on to it.

 

[motch]

The same reason a virtual airline doesn't just pop up and sell tickets and not actually fly airplanes.

Lufty and Star wanted CAL because we have a good product, and a good route structure.

If CAL parked every 73 and just made an agreement to give those routes to United and their RJ's, Lufty and Star would not be happy and would not keep CAL. Not to mention the loss in profits from actually flying them.
If CAL gives up half on those routes to UAX, the profit in code share seat sales will not make up for the lose of the actual revenue if we flew it ourselves.

There are obviously markets out there that don't justify a large, mainline aircraft (100+ seats). At the same time, the market may not yield enough profit if only one carrier flies it by themselves. This is where a JrV comes into play and what CAL management wants.

If there was a market for big RJ's to fly from IAH to destinations south, they would already be doing it. But if there's no agreement in hand where a Star passenger goes from point A to IAH on a CAL aircraft, then transfers to a UAX RJ and CAL still gets part of the profit.. then it ain't gonna happen.

Everything is a business tool. I understand that. This pilot group has something VERY important that management needs. That's a fact.
If management wants it (to grow and increase THEIR profits and bonuses) they will deal with the Union and get it done.
If they don't, and the deal dies.. CAL still flies to all the destinations it does now but it doesn't get to profit share on code shares with certain carriers to other places we don't fly. Or vice a versa.
How that affects Star and Lufty's relationship with CAL management is then up for discussion.

Lets be honest, Lufty and Star are not happy with UAL and LCC (USAirways?!). Hell, when you hear talks about Star Alliance.. you usually don't here the name USAirways. And UAL has issues too...

Let's have this discussion 1 Jan 11.

Always
motch

 

[chppr5]

The same reason a virtual airline doesn't just pop up and sell tickets and not actually fly airplanes.

Lets be honest, Lufty and Star are not happy with UAL and LCC (USAirways?!). Hell, when you hear talks about Star Alliance.. you usually don't here the name USAirways. And UAL has issues too...

Let's have this discussion 1 Jan 11.

Always
motch

I guess you've been sitting in on meetings with Albrecht.

 

[SFR]

Go CAL!!!

 

[Ben Franklin]

This pilot group has something VERY important that management needs. That's a fact.


Always
motch

Devil's advocate alert:

What happens when CAL just goes ahead with the JV without the pilots' sign off? Oh great, now you just "fly now and grieve later?" Then, after millions in new profits, new 787's and new hires... there's the stupid pilots grieving over a provision that is making the company huge again.. nice PR work, alpa.

Or, what if the pilots don't sign off on the deal and then CAL starts showing losses, begins furloughing and then Lorenz---oops, I mean Smisek takes CAL BK11 and then imposes new contracts on all the employees?

Oh cool, then CAL pilots just go on strike... all 40% of them?

CAL MEC thinks they have so much leverage with all of this... too bad CAL's CEO graduated #1 in his class from Harvard... guys with those credentials don't lose very often - if at all.

Don't be so naive to think that ALPA has CAL by the nads and that your contract is all but assured by January.

Sincerely,

B. Franklin

 

[motch]

What happens when CAL just goes ahead with the JV without the pilots' sign off? Oh great, now you just "fly now and grieve later?" Then, after millions in new profits, new 787's and new hires... there's the stupid pilots grieving over a provision that is making the company huge again.. nice PR work, alpa.

Ben, I don't really know. It is my understanding that they can not go ahead without the Unions approval. I thought our CBA was a legally bidding contract.

There certain things that are black and white.

What would happen if CAL told a crew to fly a 75 overseas without the ETOPS signoff? Pretty sure the crew would say NO and be legally right and protected.

I have to believe that the Company has to have our approval to do the JV.. otherwise, why would they even wait till Dec? Why not just do it now without the Union and Pilots Group agreement?!

 

[nimtz]

Go CAL!!!

Looking good Sean! If you ever bust up with the Mrs Roth, I'm sure "The Bachelor" is looking for a strapping entrepreneur like yourself for "Wings of Love II"...

 

[samballs]

Devil's advocate alert:

What happens when CAL just goes ahead with the JV without the pilots' sign off? Oh great, now you just "fly now and grieve later?" Then, after millions in new profits, new 787's and new hires... there's the stupid pilots grieving over a provision that is making the company huge again.. nice PR work, alpa.

Or, what if the pilots don't sign off on the deal and then CAL starts showing losses, begins furloughing and then Lorenz---oops, I mean Smisek takes CAL BK11 and then imposes new contracts on all the employees?

Oh cool, then CAL pilots just go on strike... all 40% of them?

CAL MEC thinks they have so much leverage with all of this... too bad CAL's CEO graduated #1 in his class from Harvard... guys with those credentials don't lose very often - if at all.

Don't be so naive to think that ALPA has CAL by the nads and that your contract is all but assured by January.

Sincerely,

B. Franklin

Man, you must be a national guy at ALPA. They only think that way. The rest of the world thinks difference, ALPA has failed thoughts

 

[EL10]

Just look at what Lufty is doing this week. No such thing as good scope relief. Hold the line.

 

[flyf15]

Pilots sure are dumb sometimes. Anyone remember when scope for RJs was relaxed because it wasn't a big deal and nobody cared about them?

Mainline guys managed to give away scope to the bottom half of their flying. Now they're going to give it away for the top half too.

 

[Ben Franklin]

Ben, I don't really know. It is my understanding that they can not go ahead without the Unions approval. I thought our CBA was a legally bidding contract.

There certain things that are black and white.

What would happen if CAL told a crew to fly a 75 overseas without the ETOPS signoff? Pretty sure the crew would say NO and be legally right and protected.

I have to believe that the Company has to have our approval to do the JV.. otherwise, why would they even wait till Dec? Why not just do it now without the Union and Pilots Group agreement?!

FAR required ETOPS signoffs have nothing to do with your legally binding contract between your union and your company.

I'm glad you have so much faith in a magna cum laude Harvard Law grad to play by the rules in the course of his business dealings - when he represents the OTHER side in your negotiations.

I guess time will tell when 1. this summer comes and goes and nothing happens and 2. when january 2011 comes and goes and.... yep, nothing happens. I hope I am wrong.

Sincerely,

B. franklin

 

[motch]

Come on Ben..
I know who you are and respect that you're a very staunch and vocal Union supporter.
You also know who I am and know that I'm not one to roll over just for the company, nor will I blindly believe everything my Union (and company) tell me.

I saw through the BS of the first JRV LOA that the company said would save the furloughs. And I also had a talk with our EWR CP, in front of a class at GSR about those holes.

I expect NOTHING this summer, except a major meltdown on numerous occasions.
I'm not sure about what the fall... maybe the company sees the light and talks with the union openly and honestly.

On another thread (that I don't know how to find!) I mentioned what I thought was my opinion of the course of our contract negotiations. I'm still planning to be on the street, walking the line sometime next year. And I know (you) and I won't be alone!

Always
motch