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.

 

[BID]

Well, we won the arbitration. Those flights can not be operated for Continental airlines. I still have a problem with those that VOLUNTARY bid IAH. the planned flying was clear violation of our scope.

It will be interesting to see what happens next and how they plan to market the flights, but once again, it will not be for Continental.

With regards to jumpseat issues, I sincerely, hope you guys are treated with respect and there are no denials. I spoke with our jumpseat committee and he said they have been in close contact with SkyWest Airlines.


“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.”

 

[russtgol]

Continental is going bye bye anyway

 

[Flopgut]

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,

__________________________________________________________

Will somebody post the follow up to this from whoever wrote it? The one where they eat a mile of crap.

Be advised: don't do this disputed flying guys. Any pilot who might be scheduled to should be able to take this very letter to SKYW and explain the flying "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" in fact does violate it.

 

[Flopgut]

Where is Joe Merchant? Box Office?

 

[Metro752]

d e n i e d

d e n i e d

d e n i e d

d e n i e d

d e n i e d

d e n i e d
​

 

[SPDBRD747400]

MESA sucks!

 

[General Lee]

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,

__________________________________________________________

Will somebody post the follow up to this from whoever wrote it? The one where they eat a mile of crap.

Be advised: don't do this disputed flying guys. Any pilot who might be scheduled to should be able to take this very letter to SKYW and explain the flying "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" in fact does violate it.

Ohhhh SMACK! Was I right? You bet I was. This was totally illegal, and Simsack got the smackdown. UAL and CAL do not have a single operating certificate yet, and since they are under different certificates currently, you have to abide by each contract until then. Simsack can try to actuallty get a JOINT Contract between the 2 groups, but I don't think he will like what they are asking for. Luckily, the arbitrator saw through management's plan. You might say "Well, they can just put those 70 seaters under the United code and sell them via the United website instead of CAL...." Why didn't they do that in the first place?


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[johnpeace]

No doubt it's the beginning of the end for oursourcing flying to RJs.

 

[Erlanger]

Ohhhh SMACK! Was I right? You bet I was. This was totally illegal, and Simsack got the smackdown. UAL and CAL do not have a single operating certificate yet, and since they are under different certificates currently, you have to abide by each contract until then. Simsack can try to actuallty get a JOINT Contract between the 2 groups, but I don't think he will like what they are asking for. Luckily, the arbitrator saw through management's plan. You might say "Well, they can just put those 70 seaters under the United code and sell them via the United website instead of CAL...." Why didn't they do that in the first place?


Bye Bye---General Lee

Not sure how true but I heard that UAL has reached the limit of 70 seaters allowed or is very close to the 70 seat scope limit under UAL, which is the reason they attempted to put these planes under CAL. Now that they're locked out of using these planes for CAL and under the UAL scope can't put online many more 70s if any, I guess they're in a bind.

 

[strega7]

Not sure how true but I heard that UAL has reached the limit of 70 seaters allowed or is very close to the 70 seat scope limit under UAL, which is the reason they attempted to put these planes under CAL. Now that they're locked out of using these planes for CAL and under the UAL scope can't put online many more 70s if any, I guess they're in a bind.

If I'm not mistaken, the 66 seaters that are going to be flying out of IAH (as United Express now) are being taken from other Express routes from around the country. Those former routes are either being upgraded (mainline) or downgraded to a CRJ200. There are no "new" 66 seaters being added to the fleet or on order. The are rumors about Horizons soon to be ex700's going to ASA and those aircraft if place into United Express service may push or break the UAL scope limit, but not the current 66 seaters going to IAH. Unless SkyWest has figured out how to have airplanes in two places at once!

 

[Morning Wood]

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,

__________________________________________________________

Will somebody post the follow up to this from whoever wrote it? The one where they eat a mile of crap.

Be advised: don't do this disputed flying guys. Any pilot who might be scheduled to should be able to take this very letter to SKYW and explain the flying "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" in fact does violate it.

The memo you quote was from several weeks ago before the ruling.

 

[Cpt Oveur]

Strega brings up a good point. While this may be a victory for CAL, what does this mean for Skywest Inc.

Does this shatter the growth plans they had for the holding company?

Will Smiseck proceed with theses flights anyway and just fight it with a long battle in court?

What does this mean for Expressjet's staffing in IAH and ORD?

 

[rickair7777]

Not sure how true but I heard that UAL has reached the limit of 70 seaters allowed or is very close to the 70 seat scope limit under UAL, which is the reason they attempted to put these planes under CAL. Now that they're locked out of using these planes for CAL and under the UAL scope can't put online many more 70s if any, I guess they're in a bind.

There are no new airplanes, just shuffling around the UAX system.

Sounds like the flights will go anyway, but with a UA code instead of CO. That may complicate connections, booking, mileage, luggage, etc but all the arbitration requires is that the CO code be removed.

A victory, but I suspect that it won't actually accomplish much once they reprogram all the computer systems to create a seamless interface between UAX and CO. CO and UA are both Star Alliance....

 

[rickair7777]

Strega brings up a good point. While this may be a victory for CAL, what does this mean for Skywest Inc.

Does this shatter the growth plans they had for the holding company?

There was never any growth, it was just reshuffling UAX airplanes

Will Smiseck proceed with theses flights anyway and just fight it with a long battle in court?

They are going to operate all planned flights, but with a UAX code, vice CO.

What does this mean for Expressjet's staffing in IAH and ORD?

If things continue as planned by UA, I suspect some XJT flying will get reshuffled to other parts of the UA/CO system.

UA/CO is trying to optimize employment of the 70's and 50's in their combined system

 

[Nevets]

The memo you quote was from several weeks ago before the ruling.

Which is why they should have waited. But they were so sure of the legality that they wanted to reassure the Skywest pilots by sending out this memo. I'm also curious what their response will be now that they have been proven wrong and what the new memo to Skywest pilots will be.