Search

Notices

Scope buster bagtags!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-16-2010, 11:08 AM
  #31  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 16
Default

The way it was explained to me...I could be wrong but it makes sense. United is maxed out on the number of 70 seaters flying for them so they can not add anymore on the code ( their scope at least has some limits). So if management wants to fly them out of IAH, CLE, or EWR, they either need to put it on the CAL code or reduce a flight on the UAL side. Make sense??


Please correct me if I'm wrong I don't know much about United's Scope.
captainL is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 12:42 PM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Default

Originally Posted by captainL
The way it was explained to me...I could be wrong but it makes sense. United is maxed out on the number of 70 seaters flying for them so they can not add anymore on the code ( their scope at least has some limits). So if management wants to fly them out of IAH, CLE, or EWR, they either need to put it on the CAL code or reduce a flight on the UAL side. Make sense??


Please correct me if I'm wrong I don't know much about United's Scope.
Yes they are actually over the limit if you count UA connection i.e. Gulfsteam and others. Management says that doesn't count, grievance is in the process somewhere over that. So, now they would have to move a 70 seater or increase the mainline block hours to add that flying in a CAL hub.

30west
30west is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 12:53 PM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr
Again, where does it say that this can't be done under the CAL scope clause if they are operated as strictly UAL/UAX flights? I agree that the circumstances have changed, but if they aren't operated as CO flights I can't find where this violates the scope clause in the CAL pilot contract.f

I'm not talking about the awesome, kick a** scope clause that the New United pilots are going to get with the contract coming in the future.

You're right if they don't market it as a codeshare or a CAL flight number and simply market it as UA they aren't in scope trouble at CAL. But it would show up oddly on res system and flights wouldn"t market well. Might not be profitable.

Heard the hearing wen't well for our side managements two witnesses were weak, a marketing guy and a guy who negotiated the scope. Whats the marketing guy going to say? " Yes we should get to fly where we want" What a waste of peoples time and the negotiator said " well we meant it to allow 70 seaters to fly in CAL hubs" on cross ALPA asked does it say that in the contract his answer " NO". Never know though how these are going to turn out.

30west
30west is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 01:25 PM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by captainL
The way it was explained to me...I could be wrong but it makes sense. United is maxed out on the number of 70 seaters flying for them so they can not add anymore on the code ( their scope at least has some limits). So if management wants to fly them out of IAH, CLE, or EWR, they either need to put it on the CAL code or reduce a flight on the UAL side. Make sense??


Please correct me if I'm wrong I don't know much about United's Scope.
I'm sorry if it's been asked before, but what is the current limiting factor on UAL's 70 seat scope? Is it total airframes flying UAL code, a ratio of 70 seaters to UAL fleet numbers, block hours, total segments, total departures, amount of seats in the system, etc?

Originally Posted by 30west
Yes they are actually over the limit if you count UA connection i.e. Gulfsteam and others. Management says that doesn't count, grievance is in the process somewhere over that. So, now they would have to move a 70 seater or increase the mainline block hours to add that flying in a CAL hub.

30west
Gulfstream doesn't fly turbojet equipment, let alone the 70 seat kind. Does UAL's current scope have language dealing with turboprops?
dojetdriver is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 02:19 PM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
LeeFXDWG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,130
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
I'm sorry if it's been asked before, but what is the current limiting factor on UAL's 70 seat scope? Is it total airframes flying UAL code, a ratio of 70 seaters to UAL fleet numbers, block hours, total segments, total departures, amount of seats in the system, etc?



Gulfstream doesn't fly turbojet equipment, let alone the 70 seat kind. Does UAL's current scope have language dealing with turboprops?
dojet,

The basic answer to your question is:

1-C-1-d Number of Block Hours of Feeder Flying
In each calendar year, the number of scheduled block
hours of Feeder Flying may not exceed the number of
scheduled block hours of Company Flying.

I know, hard to believe isn't it. As 30 alluded to, that limit has been reached/potentially exceeded.

I'm not familiar enough with the "connection" aspect to comment.

Frats,
Lee
LeeFXDWG is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 02:28 PM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Free Flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B777 FO/IRO
Posts: 264
Default

Originally Posted by Golden Bear
What amazes me is that those same Republic guys are enabling scope busting as well out of EWR flying 170s but for some reason SKYW guys are the only bad guys in this drama. Furthermore, after the merger/buy-out/whatever the new "Republic/Shuttle/Frontier" is a direct competitor to the new UAL/CAL and is being funded by this outsourcing!

Why not the outrage there?!
Well, I haven't seen these bag tags out there, but I sincerely hope that they don't exist.

We (CAL) have taken several jumpseaters in and out of IAH lately that do work for Shuttle America/Republic/CHQ, and they agree that they don't want to do the 170 flying. Of course, I'm sure that they will say that as long as they get a ride. However, I really hope that these folks don't want to do this flying and that we don't retaliate by denying them jumpseats later on if the arbitration doesn't go well for us at CAL. We will reap what we sow. Some of our CAL pilots may have to jumpseat on Shuttle America/Republic/CHQ most likely.

I don't jumpseat on any flights other than mainline (one that could potentially be done by a 170), so it won't hurt my jumpseating ability should someone start a jumpseat war. I just hope that we keep our eye on the prize and direct attention to our disagreement with management, not other airline pilots.
Free Flyer is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:14 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by LeeFXDWG
dojet,

The basic answer to your question is:

1-C-1-d Number of Block Hours of Feeder Flying
In each calendar year, the number of scheduled block
hours of Feeder Flying may not exceed the number of
scheduled block hours of Company Flying.

I know, hard to believe isn't it. As 30 alluded to, that limit has been reached/potentially exceeded.

I'm not familiar enough with the "connection" aspect to comment.

Frats,
Lee
Thanks. Just for my own clarification, it's all feeder flying as United Express, to encompass 50 seat jet, as well as turboprops? To make an extreme case, under current scope, ALL United Express flying (not connection) could be done with 70 seat equipment as long as the 1 for 1 block hour limit isn't exceeded. Is that correct?

Thanks.
dojetdriver is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 05:45 PM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: e190
Posts: 929
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr
Again, where does it say that this can't be done under the CAL scope clause if they are operated as strictly UAL/UAX flights? I agree that the circumstances have changed, but if they aren't operated as CO flights I can't find where this violates the scope clause in the CAL pilot contract.f

I'm not talking about the awesome, kick a** scope clause that the New United pilots are going to get with the contract coming in the future.
The way it was explained to me is if they are going to put UAL code on the flights then it will still be fought. You are both (CAL/UAL) in section 6 negotiations so things have to stay status quo to keep legal with the RLA.

The flights are already on the schedule and tickets are being sold. I am xjt and i am deadheading to IND on a 170 to pick up a pairing next month. What will happen if you win? Limit the aircraft to 50 PAX? Financial penalty per flight?

A lot of people are hoping you guys pull this one out.
newarkblows is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 06:51 PM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
I'm sorry if it's been asked before, but what is the current limiting factor on UAL's 70 seat scope? Is it total airframes flying UAL code, a ratio of 70 seaters to UAL fleet numbers, block hours, total segments, total departures, amount of seats in the system, etc?



Gulfstream doesn't fly turbojet equipment, let alone the 70 seat kind. Does UAL's current scope have language dealing with turboprops?
No verbiage on turboprops but it falls under the block hours formula, the language calls it "Feeder Flying" we say that includes all airplanes bringing pax to UAL, management says it means only planes that say "United Express" thats the disagreement and why a grievance was filed. They are over limit if were right but under a little if they are right.

30west
30west is offline  
Old 12-17-2010, 12:26 AM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by 30west
No verbiage on turboprops but it falls under the block hours formula, the language calls it "Feeder Flying" we say that includes all airplanes bringing pax to UAL, management says it means only planes that say "United Express" thats the disagreement and why a grievance was filed. They are over limit if were right but under a little if they are right.

30west
Thanks.

So can it be said that the number of 70 seat airframes in the United Express/Connection system is unlimited as long as it doesn't exceed the block hour limit?
dojetdriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
B1900YX
Major
50
10-14-2010 07:30 AM
purple101
Cargo
3
08-05-2007 06:25 AM
Purple Nugget
Cargo
10
07-23-2007 12:01 AM
av8rmike
Cargo
36
09-16-2006 11:24 AM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
1
09-28-2005 06:40 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices