SkyWest IAH Base, What If ?

[homerjdispatch]

To make Jerry a very rich man.

What constitutes "very" rich? Just curious so I know when to stop!

 

[Chairman]

If SkyWest Pilots say no then UAL will offer the contract to some one else. Colgan could just as easy start flying them under code share for UAL. It's not the regional pilots issue its yours with Management. I am furloughed managment parking airplanes and our pilots relaxing scope put me here not SkyWest. Funny how CAL pilots aren't saying much as they are now doing flying in FEB FLL and PBI to ORD and DEN. Not normal CAL routes are then. It is about time pilots stand up and stop fighting each other and hope someone else should stand up and take on there fight. Time we all step up and lead the fight.

Chairman

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

If SkyWest Pilots say no then UAL will offer the contract to some one else. Colgan could just as easy start flying them under code share for UAL. It's not the regional pilots issue its yours with Management. I am furloughed managment parking airplanes and our pilots relaxing scope put me here not SkyWest. Funny how CAL pilots aren't saying much as they are now doing flying in FEB FLL and PBI to ORD and DEN. Not normal CAL routes are then. It is about time pilots stand up and stop fighting each other and hope someone else should stand up and take on there fight. Time we all step up and lead the fight.

Chairman

Um! And UAL is not picking up flights of CAL's. Might want to call your reps, I believe Houston-Lima was announced and others are coming. CAL is not taking UAL work. Plus, 2 UAL a/c per month are being sent in for paint into the new livery. Who will fly that work???

Yogi

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Houston Flying
I am sure many of you have either read or heard some of the chatter going around on the public forums discussing SkyWest Airlines and the flying we will be doing with the CRJ700 in IAH. The common “thread” on the forums seems to be that SkyWest Airlines pilots will be taking flying that is protected by scope clause. As you already know, this is not new flying but a redistribution of equipment and flying within the United Airlines route structure. We have been assured by the legal department at United Airlines that flying from IAH does not violate scope and is in full compliance with the current labor agreements in place.
According to some forum threads, a few of Continental’s pilots have made the suggestion to deny SkyWest Airlines pilots’ jumpseat privileges, refuse SkyWest pilots travel in the cabin and even to take pictures and place you onto a “blacklist” in hopes that you will be intimidated. While this may be only rhetoric from a few disgruntled employees or a direct attempt by ALPA to intimidate our people, United Airlines flight operations management will not tolerate any such behavior and expects the same level of professionalism from their employees.
Should you encounter any unprofessional actions directed towards you as a SkyWest pilot please call the MOD immediately. We will take immediate steps to resolve the situation and ensure our crewmembers the respect which you each have earned and deserve.
See you in Houston,

This communication from management should make every Skywest pilot disgusted. It is manipulative, patronizing, controlling and insulting. Let's look at it line by line.

I am sure many of you have either read or heard some of the chatter going around on the public forums discussing SkyWest Airlines and the flying we will be doing with the CRJ700 in IAH.

First off, management reference message board posts as the basis for communicating with its employees is low class. However, it allows mgmnt to discuss any topic they like by simply saying starting a communication with "chatter on public forums". It is no different than that gossip addicted FA that enters the crewroom with "You are not going to believe what I just heard....."


The first part of the sentence makes an assumption "I am sure many of you...." It is just a laid back way of starting a "conversation" with the reader and opens up the topic of their choosing. It also is designed to put the readers guard down.

The common “thread” on the forums seems to be that SkyWest Airlines pilots will be taking flying that is protected by scope clause.

A pre loaded statement that assumes is false. Is it? Are Skywest pilots taking flying?

As you already know, this is not new flying but a redistribution of equipment and flying within the United Airlines route structure.

"As you already know"? How does the Skywest pilot already know? Is s/he an expert on scope? Are most pilots? This is assumptive and patronizing. Even though management treats Skyweat pilots (all pilots really) like mindless machines to work, it comes across as falsely patronizing the pilot as intelligent on the issue. Unfortunately too many pilots will read this and believe that they are scope experts.

We have been assured by the legal department at United Airlines that flying from IAH does not violate scope and is in full compliance with the current labor agreements in place.

Wait a minute. Why does the author assume that a Skywest pilot knows this is not a scope violation, but then the legal dept at UAL is needed? Where is the Skywest legal department? Of course UAL legal says it is legal. They are telling Skywest to do the flying.


This is a hallow statement designed to reassure Skywest pilots of something that is hardly certain. Sounds like a teenage boy telling his prom date that she won't get pregnant. Trust me...he tells her int he back of daddy's Lexus....


It is designed to convince Skywest pilots.. by saying.. "You are smart to know this is not a scope violation, and UAL legal agrees with you..."

According to some forum threads, a few of Continental’s pilots have made the suggestion to deny SkyWest Airlines pilots’ jumpseat privileges, refuse SkyWest pilots travel in the cabin and even to take pictures and place you onto a “blacklist” in hopes that you will be intimidated.

Fear. You can always count on management to instill fear.

While this may be only rhetoric from a few disgruntled employees or a direct attempt by ALPA to intimidate our people,

This is hilarious. Management rests its entire communication on a "few" disgruntled employees. Who? Where? Can they insert a link so Skywest pilots can read for themselves what was said?

But where does this attack on ALPA come from? Seriously, how all of a sudden is ALPA a part of this? Does Skywest management have any proof that ALPA is trying to intimidate? Of course not, just classic divide and conquer with hate.

United Airlines flight operations management will not tolerate any such behavior and expects the same level of professionalism from their employees.

United Flight Ops is bound by a CBA with its pilots. If a UAL or CAL Captain denies a Skywest pilot the jumpseat, captains authority will simply prevail. Management really doesn't care if a jumpseater is denied or not. And has no desire to chase this around. This is simply a false reassuring act.

Should you encounter any unprofessional actions directed towards you as a SkyWest pilot please call the MOD immediately.

In other words, don't handle the issue as a professional.. just run to daddy and snitch on your fellow pilot. Don't worry children, we will take care of this for you. These matters are not for you to handle amongst yourselves as peers.

We will take immediate steps to resolve the situation and ensure our crewmembers the respect which you each have earned and deserve.

In other words, here is an ego stroke, now get back to work...

 

[vtech]

So, according to your rep, the ALPA code of ethics only applies to other Union carriers? So ALPA members only have to be what ALPA defines as professional part of the time?

Seems a bit fishy to me...

No, what it means is Skywest pilots don't get the benefit without the responsibility.....

Why do you want something for nothing?

That is what a union is all about. WE are ALL in this together.

So, as I understand it, it's OK for the union brothers and sisters over at Republic to fly the routes but not the non-union brothers and sisters over at Skywest to fly the routes? Is that what you're saying? Really?

The question is whether or not it is in violation of scope. There is a grievance on the matter and picketing in process.

So what are the Skywest pilots trying to accomplish?

No, Rez. You don't answer questions with another question. The questions were posted by ehaecker and me and are referenced above. You haven't attempted to address the questions. Why don't you answer the questions we've asked?

tick ... tock ... tic ... tock ...

Clock is running awating your cogent answer.

 

[Speedtape]

To make Jerry a very rich man.

Last time I checked, Jerry is already a very rich man!

 

[Speedtape]

Well, there was another option. Skywest could have not bought Express Jet, and Express Jet would have gone bankrupt in the next 12 to 18 months. Then, Skywest would be doing all the flying. The Pilots of Express Jet have been rescued and just don't know it!

 

[Nevets]

Well, there was another option. Skywest could have not bought Express Jet, and Express Jet would have gone bankrupt in the next 12 to 18 months. Then, Skywest would be doing all the flying. The Pilots of Express Jet have been rescued and just don't know it!

I doubt it. Someone else would have been courted by CAL to buy XJT. CAL's whole reason for making this purchase happen is to have a financially stable partner all the way from two years ago because they were concerned that a liquidation would have been a huge disruption to their operation. They would have just gotten someone else to buy XJT even if it mean they finance it just like DAL financed both compass and mesaba's purchase.

 

[Jetjockey]

Last time I checked, Jerry is already a very rich man!

On the backs of cheap labor. God Bless America. Sign up another FO for $22 an hour.

 

[JoeMerchant]

On the backs of cheap labor. God Bless America. Sign up another FO for $22 an hour.

Kinda like the $30 an hour WITHOUT health insurance at CAL...

 

[Flyerdan]

Um! And UAL is not picking up flights of CAL's. Might want to call your reps, I believe Houston-Lima was announced and others are coming. CAL is not taking UAL work. Plus, 2 UAL a/c per month are being sent in for paint into the new livery. Who will fly that work???

Yogi

Perhaps you have not heard. There has been a merger and CAL and the old UAL no longer exist. The new UAL is now the biggest player in Houston and will likely get exactly what they want there. The pilot groups (former CAL and UAL) should put emphasis on their JCBA and scope protections under that agreement instead of looking to the past when CAL was in existence.

 

[johnpeace]

The pilot groups (former CAL and UAL) should put emphasis on their JCBA and scope protections under that agreement instead of looking to the past when CAL was in existence.

That seems so obvious...why can't the Flopguts of the world understand it?

 

[jbDC9]

Perhaps you have not heard. There has been a merger and CAL and the old UAL no longer exist. The new UAL is now the biggest player in Houston and will likely get exactly what they want there. The pilot groups (former CAL and UAL) should put emphasis on their JCBA and scope protections under that agreement instead of looking to the past when CAL was in existence.

Okay Einstein, answer me this; if CAL no longer exists, why does my ID still say Continental? My ops and flight manuals still have CAL on the front cover... and guess what, I'm still flying under our sh!tty CAL contract using the CAL FAA operating certificate. There's the reason CAL guys are pissed about this; we're still CAL pilots operating under a CAL certificate and CAL ALPA contract flying out of our CAL hubs. Our crap contract and its scope clause still exists, which means that flying 70 seaters under CAL flight numbers out of our hubs is a contract violation. But if you guys say CAL no longer exists, it must be true... I must've just missed the memo on that one.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Jetjockey]

Kinda like the $30 an hour WITHOUT health insurance at CAL...

Yeah, that pay sucks. It's part of a concessionary agreement. Of course that CAL FO is making more than a CRJ captain in 3 years, the Skywest FO.........................not so much.

Hey Joe, your comparing apples to bowling balls.

 

[BrickTop]

Don't worry. You couldn't pay me to live in a grease injected garbage floating septic tank like Houston.....

 

[Flyerdan]

Okay Einstein, answer me this; if CAL no longer exists, why does my ID still say Continental? My ops and flight manuals still have CAL on the front cover... and guess what, I'm still flying under our sh!tty CAL contract using the CAL FAA operating certificate. There's the reason CAL guys are pissed about this; we're still CAL pilots operating under a CAL certificate and CAL ALPA contract flying out of our CAL hubs. Our crap contract and its scope clause still exists, which means that flying 70 seaters under CAL flight numbers out of our hubs is a contract violation. But if you guys say CAL no longer exists, it must be true... I must've just missed the memo on that one.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I think you get my point. I'm sure it will take time to paint aircraft, replace ID tags, etc. But the bottom line (legally at least) is that the CAL entity really no longer exists. Also, I am fairly sure the flights talked about on this thread will be United Express flights flown in aircraft painted with United Express paint jobs. I have yet to see one of our Skywest/United Express 700's painted with Continental Express colors and there is zero chance that they would be painted those colors now.

Seriously, I can understand the frustration the CAL pilots feel but I also think they must have seen these and other changes coming with the news of the merger. I wish you all the best and hopefully the merger will lead to a stronger company, growth for the pilots, and an agreement on scope that will work out well for everyone.

 

[Nevets]

I think you get my point. I'm sure it will take time to paint aircraft, replace ID tags, etc. But the bottom line (legally at least) is that the CAL entity really no longer exists. Also, I am fairly sure the flights talked about on this thread will be United Express flights flown in aircraft painted with United Express paint jobs. I have yet to see one of our Skywest/United Express 700's painted with Continental Express colors and there is zero chance that they would be painted those colors now.

Seriously, I can understand the frustration the CAL pilots feel but I also think they must have seen these and other changes coming with the news of the merger. I wish you all the best and hopefully the merger will lead to a stronger company, growth for the pilots, and an agreement on scope that will work out well for everyone.

It has nothing to do with the color of the RJ. They can paint it like a banana for all I care, it's still a clear violation of the intent of the CAL scope clause. I'm frustrated about it and I'm not even a CAL/UAL pilot. This merger will lead to growth for their pilots IF we win this battle. Otherwise, plan to see more parked airbuses replaced by regional 50+ seat RJs and commensurate furloughs ala UALs furloughs when their 37s were parked in favor of large RJs.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

I think you get my point. I'm sure it will take time to paint aircraft, replace ID tags, etc. But the bottom line (legally at least) is that the CAL entity really no longer exists. Also, I am fairly sure the flights talked about on this thread will be United Express flights flown in aircraft painted with United Express paint jobs. I have yet to see one of our Skywest/United Express 700's painted with Continental Express colors and there is zero chance that they would be painted those colors now.

Seriously, I can understand the frustration the CAL pilots feel but I also think they must have seen these and other changes coming with the news of the merger. I wish you all the best and hopefully the merger will lead to a stronger company, growth for the pilots, and an agreement on scope that will work out well for everyone.

That's funny, the surviving name may be United, but the surviving certificate is Continental. But until SOC, as per the TPA, they will be run as TWO SEPARATE certificates/companies.

Yogi

 

[homerjdispatch]

That's funny, the surviving name may be United, but the surviving certificate is Continental. But until SOC, as per the TPA, they will be run as TWO SEPARATE certificates/companies.

Yogi

So since its TWO SEPARATE companies, SkyWest pilots should face no problems flying for UNITED as UNITED EXPRESS. I fail to see how this could violate your scope, until its ONE company....

 

[proptojet]

So since its TWO SEPARATE companies, SkyWest pilots should face no problems flying for UNITED as UNITED EXPRESS. I fail to see how this could violate your scope, until its ONE company....

CAL's scope prevents anything larger than a 50(Jet) seater from flying out of our hubs. They are trying to replace CO flights out of our hubs with 70 seaters using a CO flight number and listing the flights on coair.com. This is a violation of our scope. They are free to replace any current United flights that fly into IAH. Until we have a Joint contract and a integrated seniority list the two companies are separate. Our scope also prevents them from reducing our block hours. They are attempting to bring SkyWest pilots in to replace current CONTINENTAL Flying not UNITED.

 

[CRJ's suck]

I'm a CAL mechanic, and wondering. Are they shifting flying around between the two companies? I know Continental is supposed to start doing some more flights from ORD to some Florida destinations starting in February which sounds like when the regional flying is supposed to start in IAH (I may be wrong). If the block hours are the same for continental and no loss of work, is it really a Contract violation? That being said, it's still worth fighting the company for. If you give an inch they will take a mile.

Regards,
Brian

 

[EWR_FO]

If the block hours are the same for continental and no loss of work, is it really a Contract violation? That being said, it's still worth fighting the company for. If you give an inch they will take a mile.

Regards,
Brian

Our scope clause has nothing to do with block hours, it's really very simple AND black and white. Smisek is testing us, that's all- he has no idea the level of discontent he is throwing gas on.

 

[CRJ's suck]

Our scope clause has nothing to do with block hours, it's really very simple AND black and white. Smisek is testing us, that's all- he has no idea the level of discontent he is throwing gas on.

Thanks for the clarification. I hope alpa takes it to them then and puts a stop to it. It affects alot more jobs that just you guys. Hopefully alpa and the teamsters could work together on this. I would say good luck, but it sounds like a clear contract violation from what you're saying, so hopefully no "luck" will be involved.

Regards,
Brian

 

[Morning Wood]

So assuming that this arbitration rules in favor of the CO pilots. Would the current UAX flying being done from DEN and ORD be in violation of scope? Why, or why not?

 

[EWR_FO]

So assuming that this arbitration rules in favor of the CO pilots. Would the current UAX flying being done from DEN and ORD be in violation of scope? Why, or why not?

No because it is being done with UAL flight numbers, however it would fall under the Transition and Process Agreement that deals with block hours.

7-C. Flying Ratios. In each consecutive six (6) month period during separate operations beginning on the Merger Closing Date, the ratio of aircraft block hours scheduled to be flown by United to the aircraft block hours scheduled to be flown by Continental, will equal or exceed ninety percent (90%) of the same ratio for the same six (6) month period during the period May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2010 (excluding United’s 737 scheduled aircraft block hours during the period May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2010). The applicable scheduled aircraft block hours for the period May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2010 are shown in Attachment C. Aircraft block hours scheduled to be flown by Continental Aircraft will not be included under this paragraph if:
(i) the aircraft are listed as on order or in storage on Attachment A; and (ii) the aircraft enter or return to active service after the Merger Agreement Date; and
(iii) the aircraft are in addition to the number of aircraft in service as listed on Attachment A.
Similarly, adjustments to scheduled block hours for the same schedule from one period to another (i.e., the same aircraft on the same routing) will not affect the calculation, and reasonable block hour reductions attributable to aircraft removed from active service for purposes of modification or painting related to the merger will not be considered in the numerator or denominator of a ratio under this paragraph. The Airline Parties will advise the Association of such reductions.

 

[Morning Wood]

So assuming that this arbitration rules in favor of the CO pilots. Would the current UAX flying being done from DEN and ORD be in violation of scope? Why, or why not?

I should have clarified....current UAX flying from DEN and ORD to/from IAH.

 

[Dewey Oxberger]

I should have clarified....current UAX flying from DEN and ORD to/from IAH.

That flying would be legal, as it's UAX flying out of UAL hubs. However, 70 seat jets flying out of CAL hubs to non-UAL hub cities is a violation of our scope clause.

 

[Flyerdan]

Was there an injunction filed on this issue? The bottom line seems to be that UAL will go forward with this flying unless stopped through a legal process. People tend to act like they know what they are talking about on these forums but most of the time they really don't have all the information and just pick and choose or make stuff up to support their position. I guess we will all know the real outcome soon. Either the flying will proceed or it won't.

My hunch is that the flying will proceed just the way UAL plans.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

I think you get my point. I'm sure it will take time to paint aircraft, replace ID tags, etc. But the bottom line (legally at least) is that the CAL entity really no longer exists. Also, I am fairly sure the flights talked about on this thread will be United Express flights flown in aircraft painted with United Express paint jobs. I have yet to see one of our Skywest/United Express 700's painted with Continental Express colors and there is zero chance that they would be painted those colors now.

Seriously, I can understand the frustration the CAL pilots feel but I also think they must have seen these and other changes coming with the news of the merger. I wish you all the best and hopefully the merger will lead to a stronger company, growth for the pilots, and an agreement on scope that will work out well for everyone.

We will do whatever is necessary to take back all the flying we can in house and stop the BS of outsourcing our flying to the regionals. Either we FIX the mistake or we SHUT it down.

 

[ASADriver]

We will do whatever is necessary to take back all the flying we can in house and stop the BS of outsourcing our flying to the regionals. Either we FIX the mistake or we SHUT it down.

And you expect us to support you taking away our job? Go ahead and "shut it down". I'll look good in that 777.