i fly boxes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 848
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
Jet blues scope clause
- Thread starter i fly boxes
- Start date
- Watchers 10
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
B6Busdriver
pushbutton pusher
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Posts
- 902
Scope is a hot issue right now. However, there are no scope protections whatsoever for Bluejet pilots.
BeachBummer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 997
The ALPA guys are quick to point out we don't have any legal binding scope....and they are correct. The company can farm out all the flying they wish.
However, they have shown no propensity to do so....even though our E190 pilots make more than a lot of A320 CA's at other airlines. The last bit of someone else flying our routes was when ExpressJet came in and subbed for our 190 fleet when it was going through the mod line in BNA. They paid all the pilots who were displaced by the flying and management fully admitted it isn't the product we want to have in the marketplace. Noone but JetBlue pilots have ever flown one of our airplanes in revenue service.
Certain groups like to make you afraid of something....when there is no real threat. ALPA can work great in up times....witness the UAL contract of 2000. But their record when things are bad is very weak. No contract cannot be broken. Therefore the guarantee you wish is a phantom of your imagination.
A350
However, they have shown no propensity to do so....even though our E190 pilots make more than a lot of A320 CA's at other airlines. The last bit of someone else flying our routes was when ExpressJet came in and subbed for our 190 fleet when it was going through the mod line in BNA. They paid all the pilots who were displaced by the flying and management fully admitted it isn't the product we want to have in the marketplace. Noone but JetBlue pilots have ever flown one of our airplanes in revenue service.
Certain groups like to make you afraid of something....when there is no real threat. ALPA can work great in up times....witness the UAL contract of 2000. But their record when things are bad is very weak. No contract cannot be broken. Therefore the guarantee you wish is a phantom of your imagination.
A350
Lake Alice
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Posts
- 793
With all due respect A350 in this industry you must prepare for what could be. Leadership at Jetblue is doing things today they said they would never do 5 or even 10 years ago. The bottom line has become more important at Jetblue than anything else especially the touted culture. So if it makes financial sense, which regional flying does, it is on the table. Maruster has already been quoted as saying the 190, our regional, has to remain competitive in the markets it flies against the aircraft it competes. The 10% difference between seats is something they are not pleased about.
We don't have the best and brightest at the helm and at times it shows.
We don't have the best and brightest at the helm and at times it shows.
Caveman
Grandpa
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,580
That applies equally to our PEAs. The big difference is a CBA will be defended in court by a staff of lawyers provided by ALPA. If they violate your PEA you will have to hire an attorney to seek redress. Can you afford to hire a team of lawyers to represent you in court? I can't.
If you have any doubt as to how JetBlue will react I urge you to look at how the 3A process has been handled. That's who you work for. That's the reality. Despite JTTPs to the contrary they will react in a very mercenary way if you have the audacity to demand they honor a written agreement.
Given that, how do you think they'll proceed if circumstances dictate it's in JetBlue's best financial interests to outsource flying? They're already fighting tooth and nail to get out of a contractually written agreement. If they need to outsource they'll have no reservations about breaking a verbal promise.
Splert
PoipuBayResort15thTBox
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,188
Scope is not only about current flying but it has more to do with our code.
Placing our code on other airlines is a very quick way to expand the footprint of JetBlue. It drives revenue without long-term debt. That is good for the Jetblue but bad for the bottom 90% of the pilot list.
Domestically this would be terrible for the JetBlue pilot group.
We bought Sabre for a reason and the reason. I hope it is for code sharing (two way code) but looking at other pilots collective bargaining agreement it looks more like one-code, which again would be terrible for JetBlue pilots.
The same group of lawyers who helped give away my retirement, my scope, and my job to another union pilot?
No thanks.
What contract are they trying to get out of? The 3A deal? I've read it 20 times and can't make the leap you guys are that you are due a raise. Good on you for trying....but in the end it was written to prevent a reverse B scale.
A350
No thanks.
What contract are they trying to get out of? The 3A deal? I've read it 20 times and can't make the leap you guys are that you are due a raise. Good on you for trying....but in the end it was written to prevent a reverse B scale.
A350
Hair-on-Fire
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Posts
- 614
In reality it's just vague language you guys are trying to exploit because you see dollar signs dancing in your eyes. Embarrassing.
i fly boxes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 848
So lets just say one of these "regionals" comes in trying to buy jet blue - then they start farming out the flying to their own regional jets. you guys are saying this could happen? Im not predicting this or saying i want this to happen but after i found out that republic bought frontier and midwest, anything is possible.
airjackson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
- Posts
- 226
Frontier and Midwest were both in bankruptcy I believe when Republic bought them. JB is nowhere close to being in that position.
DonVersteed
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Posts
- 32
Jetblue's market cap is 1.95B as of 12/22/10. Republic is 255m...... Skywest is 902m..... Look, you guys who spread this Republic is going to buy everybody, kinda stuff are way out there. Jetblue has 161 airplanes and a pretty weak route network. The market cap is high because of thier percieved flexibility and percieved good management. Doesn't matter if we like it or not, no one would try to acquire Jetblue because they don't get much. JFK and BOS........maybe. You're paying a premium for something that materially is'nt worth much. Oh and by the way, AMR is only worth 2.65B. A company that size would be foolish to try and acquire Jetblue. Mergers are completely different stories and anything can really happen. An all out acquisition shouldn't happen.. Just to give you an idea of the size difference on the market, the only 2 airlines that are worth enough to do something like this would be SWA at 9.78B and DAL at 9.81B and the combined UAL/CAL. Even then I believe they wouldn't pay close to 5B dollars for Jetblue (using the multiple SWA is paying for Airtran.
B6Busdriver
pushbutton pusher
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Posts
- 902
As a former Airways guy myself I can empathize with you to some extent. Why is it so hard to see if your employer is in an extremely perilous financial position (read bankrupt) life on the other side will be unpleasant?Can you answer me this, what did you expect when your employer went bankrupt twice in three years and was about to go bankrupt for the final time? Did you not think there would be no concessions? At this point I don't care wether you vote yes or no but at least be honest with yourself.
CitationLover
Aw, Nuts!
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Posts
- 3,316
Midwest was never bankrupt.
av8tor4239
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Posts
- 768
BeachBummer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 997
... well maybe they should have. A google of Midwest express 2008 is riddled with articles on how they didn't go into BK. However the reduction in fleet and employee layoffs were in upwards of 3/4 of the total work force. BK or not they were not in good financial standing by any stretch.
flying zephyr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Posts
- 86
B6Busdriver
pushbutton pusher
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Posts
- 902
I'll take ALPA over Benevolent Dave........
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
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
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
