SkyWest IAH Base, What If ?

[johnpeace]

Then why doesn't CAL management just do that now and save themselves the hassle and cost of arbitration? Honest question.

Because this way they get to push against the CAL ALPA and gauge how firm (or soft) it is. Arbitration on this is a cheap way to gather valuable information that they can take into negotiations.

 

[General Lee]

Because this way they get to push against the CAL ALPA and gauge how firm (or soft) it is. Arbitration on this is a cheap way to gather valuable information that they can take into negotiations.

Sounds like scope must be important to CAL ALPA if they are taking it this far. But you need to realize that this isn't a "give me something and I will give you something" type negotiation. CAL and UAL pilots have HORRIBLE contracts, and everything will have to go UP to just meet current industry standard. UAL management knows this, and to make for a smooth merger, they will have to comply. Since SCOPE was first in the "public negotiations", they will have to deal with that first, and it sounds like CAL/UAL ALPA is mad. The top 10% of senior pilots at both CAL and UAL probably don't care about scope, but the rest do, and any future contract will have to be put to a vote. SCOPE is probably high on the list for change I bet.....


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Nevets]

Because this way they get to push against the CAL ALPA and gauge how firm (or soft) it is. Arbitration on this is a cheap way to gather valuable information that they can take into negotiations.

That doesn't make sense to me either. If CALALPA loses arbitration, they will just use the lessons learned from it to improve the scope in negotiations. I think that CAL management just slapped the beehive on this one.

 

[Jetjockey]

That doesn't make sense to me either. If CALALPA loses arbitration, they will just use the lessons learned from it to improve the scope in negotiations. I think that CAL management just slapped the beehive on this one.

Exactly. This is the first skirmish in what could be a long war. The bigger prize is keeping CAL scope on the JCBA. This arbitration hearing isn't the end all battle.

 

[BID]

What is "lame" is saying "a non-union airline is coming in violating our contract and undermining our leverage."

There are only two parties to the contract. Those parties are CAL management and, possibly, its successors and the CAL Pilot Group. Neither Skywest pilots nor Skywest management are parties to the contract in question. Neither Skywest pilots nor Skywest management can "violate" a contact to which they are not a party.

Nothing a Skywest pilot or a member of Skywest management can do can undermine or enhance your leverage. Your contract is your leverage and it stands on its own. The terms of your contract provide whatever leverage there is.

You'll have to speak with an arbitrator or a judge to get your contract enforced the way you want. In the meantime, I'll be happy to give you a ride to work. I'd appreciate the same consideration from you and your fellow pilots. Thanks.

Thank you, I have yet to fly with a captain that would deny or has denied a pilot of SkyWest the jumpseat. If so, I would voice my opinion heavily against it.

Regardless of our differences, I hope we extend the same professional courtesy.

 

[difete]

Thank you, I have yet to fly with a captain that would deny or has denied a pilot of SkyWest the jumpseat. If so, I would voice my opinion heavily against it.

Regardless of our differences, I hope we extend the same professional courtesy.

It has been done already. Sadly to a United Furlough guy too. He is now commuting out of Hubby on SWA. He told me the FO told the CA who had no idea about anything that "this guy is Skywest" we do not take them on JS now, the CA agreed and said back: "what goes around comes around", and booted him out.

 

[TheAlchemist]

It has been done already. Sadly to a United Furlough guy too. He is now commuting out of Hubby on SWA. He told me the FO told the CA who had no idea about anything that "this guy is Skywest" we do not take them on JS now, the CA agreed and said back: "what goes around comes around", and booted him out.

Lame and sad...very, very sad.

 

[ehaecker]

I haven't heard of any more denials on the SKW end. Hopefully communication between SAPA and the CAL MEC is effective, and we can keep MGMT out of it.

THat said, I've noticed SEVERAL UAL jumpseaters on my flights lately that don't bother checking in at the cockpit if they have seats in back. You know that they would ******************** their britches if it were the other way around...

 

[Bako Cap]

If you are flying on the United side, they are probably just non-reving. On the Delta side the same thing happens with Delta pilots. I usually do not check with the pilots when I non-rev unless I want free first class.

 

[ehaecker]

If you are flying on the United side, they are probably just non-reving. On the Delta side the same thing happens with Delta pilots. I usually do not check with the pilots when I non-rev unless I want free first class.

This is partially true. The only way I know is when CS comes down before boarding and says "I have 39 and a jump."

I understand when people non-rev (at least back when it was free). I used to do it all the time, because I didn't want to deal with the Delta pilots.

Now, I hear that we have a jumpseater...see a uniformed pilot (UAL) come down the jet bridge, and magically, nobody comes in the cockpit besides the FA and the CS agent. It doesn't really matter to me. Everybody is welcome in our jumpseat...I just find it ironic the the very people that are threatening jumpseat denials are the same people taking our jumpseats without even offering the courtesy of popping their heads in to say "hi".

 

[IBNAV8R]

Trouble is that the lines are often confused. I list as a nonrev and, if it's close (loads) also sign up for OMC. I often have to ask while they're swiping my boarding pass, "Am I a nonrev or jumpseater?"

Conversely, if the agent tells me 65 and a jump, I expect to have heard from someone and I will set about finding out who it is. I have no problem singling out someone who didn't properly introduce themselves (or at least let a crewmember know who they are if the situation dictates). Personally, I'd also like to know the guy I saw in uniform at the gate didn't get left behind.

 

[ehaecker]

^^That is why I never question anybody I see in uniform...because they might be "non-revs". I just don't understand why someone would pay the fee to non-rev over just taking the jumpseat. If they would rather pay the fee than ask us lowly regional pilots for a ride...thats fine I guess. I'd never do it.

 

[AntiJedi]

I just don't understand why someone would pay the fee to non-rev over just taking the jumpseat. If they would rather pay the fee than ask us lowly regional pilots for a ride...thats fine I guess. I'd never do it.

Some gate nazis don't like that they have to pay the fee, and yet certain workgroups (Pilots, FA's, DX, MX) can dodge that bullet by jumpseating. Therefore, they will make your life miserable by making you pay the fee.

True story for me: Jumpseating around the system getting my time in with not a problem, and then on the last leg to go home, the agent says, "I'm not letting you on unless you pay the fee, because we have too many pilots jumpseating to avoid paying it."

 

[rtmcfi]

Please tell me you reported that to your jsc.

 

[AntiJedi]

Please tell me you reported that to your jsc.

This wasn't an isolated incident in the leastt; both pilots and DX were reporting it. This was a few years ago that this happened. It hasn't happened to me since, thankfully, but I think a large part of the sour sentiment came about because the non-rev dues had just been implemented.