What to do about Contract Violation
11-08-2010, 09:50 AM
#51
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
I understand the jumpseat denial concept, I just think it will be very ineffective and rather just hurt the person trying to jumpseat over creating a ripple effect. I can tell you this: I travel all the time and I almost NEVER use the jumpseat. So even if you were able to have this go system wide the pilots are probably non-reving anyway and you will never know they are on your flight.
If your suggesting that the person in question is 'commuting' on a $$ purchased pass (ZED Fare, ID90, Ect....), I see your point and there's 'no-say' from the PIC on those accords.
If your alluding to the fact that they are 'offline' & 'getting' a seat in the back (and not physically on the J/S) merely b/c your carrier has a standing agreement AKA "Jumpseat/Reciprocal Agreement" and there happens to be seats in the back.....your still "J/S'ing". If he/she so wishes, the Captain can see who is listed as a "J/S'er" (and I know for a FACT at several carriers can/able to display this information via their Stby Pax listing), even if they are given a seat by the issuing gate agents.
I am not out to play "J/S Wars", nor do I think that's what needs to be done under the "Ready/Fire/Aim" method at this present time....BUT, if CAL's MEC and ALPA/outside Legal Council are able to clearly cite/show how this topic is in direct violation to their current/enforceable CBA....it's going to be taken to the next step....and 'one' of those options was mentioned earlier in this thread via the Union writings from yesterday.
For those who keep pointing out that it's "not the SkyWest guys fault", that's 'gray' at best. The phrase "Don't hate the player, hate the game" comes to mind. If this move by Mgt is proven to be an out-right/clear violation that is being taken on a valid/standing CBA.....I would tend to believe that there is going to be a lot of 'blurred' vision as to where the game begins, and the players start.....thus where the term VERY VERY Messy was born.
I can tell you this, it's not an issue that will be slid to the back burner. Time will tell.
11-08-2010, 11:05 AM
#52
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Howdy bumped,
Again, I looking for the specific language. The CAL pilots are making some threats without backing it up with specifics. That isn't sitting well with me.
Does everyone realize that CAL has been doing this thru "codeshare" long before this IAH issue came up. I pulled up two examples on the CAL website.
Example 1: FAT to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg could be on a Mesa CRJ900 (USAirways Express)
Example 2: MFR to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg is on a United Express 700 (Skywest)
They have been doing this for a long time. Is it the cities of IAH, CLE, and EWR that make the difference?
CAL has been selling tickets on CRJ 700s and 900s for quite some time now....
Again, I looking for the specific language. The CAL pilots are making some threats without backing it up with specifics. That isn't sitting well with me.
Does everyone realize that CAL has been doing this thru "codeshare" long before this IAH issue came up. I pulled up two examples on the CAL website.
Example 1: FAT to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg could be on a Mesa CRJ900 (USAirways Express)
Example 2: MFR to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg is on a United Express 700 (Skywest)
They have been doing this for a long time. Is it the cities of IAH, CLE, and EWR that make the difference?
CAL has been selling tickets on CRJ 700s and 900s for quite some time now....
Cheers
11-08-2010, 11:24 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 335
How much wiggle room is left on the ratio of rjs to United block hours is left? These rjs are United express and have been redeployed from Ord is the way it looks to me. I think in mgt eyes, the jets don't have CAL express painted on the side and they think they are pulling a fast one.
11-08-2010, 11:39 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ200 Capt.
Posts: 822
Understood. Hopefully someone will post the actual language for you. The difference is that no-one has opened a crew base in IAH, CLE, or EWR to do that kind of flying. The flying was always done by a competitor in a code-share agreement. Now its being done "in-house" with a crew domicile and base in these cities. I'm sure you can agree that the XJET wasn't flying 700's out of IAH, CLE, or EWR ONLY because it was prohibited by the CAL scope clause. Well, now Skywest comes in and starts doing exactly that based on it being "United". I'm sure you can see the difference in this vs. USAirways Express flying a CRJ900 into IAH with a CAL codeshare on it.
Cheers
Cheers
11-08-2010, 01:20 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 432
Just so we're ALL clear on what your saying, and there's no guessing......
If your suggesting that the person in question is 'commuting' on a $$ purchased pass (ZED Fare, ID90, Ect....), I see your point and there's 'no-say' from the PIC on those accords.
If your alluding to the fact that they are 'offline' & 'getting' a seat in the back (and not physically on the J/S) merely b/c your carrier has a standing agreement AKA "Jumpseat/Reciprocal Agreement" and there happens to be seats in the back.....your still "J/S'ing". If he/she so wishes, the Captain can see who is listed as a "J/S'er" (and I know for a FACT at several carriers can/able to display this information via their Stby Pax listing), even if they are given a seat by the issuing gate agents.
I am not out to play "J/S Wars", nor do I think that's what needs to be done under the "Ready/Fire/Aim" method at this present time....BUT, if CAL's MEC and ALPA/outside Legal Council are able to clearly cite/show how this topic is in direct violation to their current/enforceable CBA....it's going to be taken to the next step....and 'one' of those options was mentioned earlier in this thread via the Union writings from yesterday.
For those who keep pointing out that it's "not the SkyWest guys fault", that's 'gray' at best. The phrase "Don't hate the player, hate the game" comes to mind. If this move by Mgt is proven to be an out-right/clear violation that is being taken on a valid/standing CBA.....I would tend to believe that there is going to be a lot of 'blurred' vision as to where the game begins, and the players start.....thus where the term VERY VERY Messy was born.
I can tell you this, it's not an issue that will be slid to the back burner. Time will tell.
If your suggesting that the person in question is 'commuting' on a $$ purchased pass (ZED Fare, ID90, Ect....), I see your point and there's 'no-say' from the PIC on those accords.
If your alluding to the fact that they are 'offline' & 'getting' a seat in the back (and not physically on the J/S) merely b/c your carrier has a standing agreement AKA "Jumpseat/Reciprocal Agreement" and there happens to be seats in the back.....your still "J/S'ing". If he/she so wishes, the Captain can see who is listed as a "J/S'er" (and I know for a FACT at several carriers can/able to display this information via their Stby Pax listing), even if they are given a seat by the issuing gate agents.
I am not out to play "J/S Wars", nor do I think that's what needs to be done under the "Ready/Fire/Aim" method at this present time....BUT, if CAL's MEC and ALPA/outside Legal Council are able to clearly cite/show how this topic is in direct violation to their current/enforceable CBA....it's going to be taken to the next step....and 'one' of those options was mentioned earlier in this thread via the Union writings from yesterday.
For those who keep pointing out that it's "not the SkyWest guys fault", that's 'gray' at best. The phrase "Don't hate the player, hate the game" comes to mind. If this move by Mgt is proven to be an out-right/clear violation that is being taken on a valid/standing CBA.....I would tend to believe that there is going to be a lot of 'blurred' vision as to where the game begins, and the players start.....thus where the term VERY VERY Messy was born.
I can tell you this, it's not an issue that will be slid to the back burner. Time will tell.
You are correct, that is what I meant, I was referring to listing as a non rev. I never list Jumpseat unless it looks like I won't get a seat in the back and I don't think I should take the non rev risk. I am referring to actually being a standard non rev out of uniform, wearing jeans and a t-shirt and never even listing jumpseat therefore never having to "request the jumpseat" . On my airline this is a free benefit we have, so I don't have to actually purchase the ticket, but I have been on a Continental flight (I'm a travel companion or whatever its called) and purchased the $12 ticket rather than jumpseat. I don't always do that on Continental, there were just certain circumstances that made that the best option that day. Anyway that is all beside the point of my post, there are other means for people to get to work, like driving, living in base, other airlines, etc. I just don't think denying jumpseats will create an effect that will be efficient in getting what you want, and in the mean time really screw over other pilots.
11-08-2010, 01:41 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 432
Well, Skywest has chosen to remain non-union, so your solution won't work in this case. The JCBA discussions of Scope are ongoing, and ALPA's position is to move ALL regional flying in-house. Time will tell how successful that effort is.
I'm surprised the new UAL management made this move. Talk about stirring up the hornets nest! This has just strengthened the resolve of ALL the new UAL pilots to at the very least eliminate the 70 seat flying from our regional feed. It has served as a unifying entity for both pilot groups... I can't imagine that was managements intent.
I'm surprised the new UAL management made this move. Talk about stirring up the hornets nest! This has just strengthened the resolve of ALL the new UAL pilots to at the very least eliminate the 70 seat flying from our regional feed. It has served as a unifying entity for both pilot groups... I can't imagine that was managements intent.
You are right, I had completely forgotten that Skywest is non union as I wrote that post. I guess its all up to Continental and United pilots to get that scope in the contract! Stay unified, and get all your pilots back on property!
11-08-2010, 02:23 PM
#57
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Howdy bumped,
Again, I looking for the specific language. The CAL pilots are making some threats without backing it up with specifics. That isn't sitting well with me.
Does everyone realize that CAL has been doing this thru "codeshare" long before this IAH issue came up. I pulled up two examples on the CAL website.
Example 1: FAT to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg could be on a Mesa CRJ900 (USAirways Express)
Example 2: MFR to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg is on a United Express 700 (Skywest)
They have been doing this for a long time. Is it the cities of IAH, CLE, and EWR that make the difference?
CAL has been selling tickets on CRJ 700s and 900s for quite some time now....
Again, I looking for the specific language. The CAL pilots are making some threats without backing it up with specifics. That isn't sitting well with me.
Does everyone realize that CAL has been doing this thru "codeshare" long before this IAH issue came up. I pulled up two examples on the CAL website.
Example 1: FAT to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg could be on a Mesa CRJ900 (USAirways Express)
Example 2: MFR to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg is on a United Express 700 (Skywest)
They have been doing this for a long time. Is it the cities of IAH, CLE, and EWR that make the difference?
CAL has been selling tickets on CRJ 700s and 900s for quite some time now....
All good points, and you are correct, those are "Codeshares". Just so we are both up to speed, those Codeshares in which you are sighting, some come by way of the "Star Alliance" in which CAL became a part of following their departure from the "Sky Team" in Oct 2009.
Well prior to the Merger back in 2008, CAL was granted governmental "anti-trust immunity" by way of an enhanced Codeshare with UAL (can ONLY speak for the CAL side, but our Union DID scrutinized thourghly the agreement) as it's partner in the agreement. If you have been on APC for any length of time, you should be familiar that this "enhanced" code share did have a "shelf-life" that was due to expire come the end of 2010. With that date looming, then came many 'road blocks' (via CAL's SCOPE) for long term future plans involving such an agreement after which it expired.
To cite a 'few' Codeshared flights that were permissible under CAL's current CBA as a product of the former Enhanced Codeshare with UAL, or some that have come about as a by-product with USAirways via the "Star Alliance", is much different than "UAL's Jeff" opening up a 70 Seat RJ base in one of CAL's biggest hubs/bases. To say they "already" do it (and you obviously NOT having CAL's CBA as your expressed earlier), nor 'possibly' understanding the prior landscape & the legalese that were involved under those few/select segments that you cite that 'could' have been tied to "Star", or the Enhanced Codeshare.....Your theroy paints a broad stroke in which you may not be able to 'generalize' as being a uniformed reason over the entire matter.
We have all read our contracts (I would hope), and can see how at times there are things/sections that are "up for interpretation" depending on 'whos' reading it. CAL ALPA is presently going through the proper channels to have it's current Section 1 in their CBA reviewed closely (along with the company's explanation) with the individuals who are qualified to decipher if there is any violation of the subject. I can appreciate your 'zest' to want to analysis CAL's Section 1 to make your 'own ruling' (which holds about as much water as a paper bag).....but just b/c your operator puts you up at a "Holiday Inn Express", does NOT make you a seasoned/qualified Labor Contract Attorney. I for one will sit back and wait to see the outcome on this as reasoned by individuals who are a heck of a lot more qualified to call a spade a spade on the issue of 70 seaters out of IAH.
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 11-09-2010 at 08:16 AM.
11-08-2010, 02:30 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 717 FO
Posts: 397
If you don't mind me asking... when were you hired at Skywest? If you are junior to 2003, then you were hired knowing full well that you were a replacement for a mainline guy/gal who is still on the street flying old mainline routes in mainline paint. You say you don't want the job, but ANY pilot that ends up in IAH and was forced to go down there falls into that category, so you DID want the job... After all, you applied for it!
Who knew that the tried and true method of going to a regional and then a major would be kosher prior to 2003 and scabby after! Man I'm getting dizzy trying to think with your logic!
11-08-2010, 02:32 PM
#59
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
And on that tone.....11/08/10
SCOPE UPDATE
This is an update on the status of management’s plan to place the CO code on United Express flights using 70-seat jets to and from CLE, EWR and IAH. As previously communicated, less than two weeks ago, we met with the Company to clearly express our objections and to formally request their contractual justification. We received their response last week, at which time we also received their request for a more complete explanation of why we believe their actions are a violation of Section 1 of the Continental CBA.
We have now provided that to the Company, along with our steadfast insistence that they confirm to us, no later than this Wednesday, Nov. 10, that they have ceased and desisted with their plans. As I have said before and I will repeat now—we are prepared to use all appropriate legal vehicles to bring resolution to this issue and ultimately prevent outsourcing in violation of our current CBA. We will provide you with additional updates as more information becomes available.
One Union. One Voice.
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
SCOPE UPDATE
This is an update on the status of management’s plan to place the CO code on United Express flights using 70-seat jets to and from CLE, EWR and IAH. As previously communicated, less than two weeks ago, we met with the Company to clearly express our objections and to formally request their contractual justification. We received their response last week, at which time we also received their request for a more complete explanation of why we believe their actions are a violation of Section 1 of the Continental CBA.
We have now provided that to the Company, along with our steadfast insistence that they confirm to us, no later than this Wednesday, Nov. 10, that they have ceased and desisted with their plans. As I have said before and I will repeat now—we are prepared to use all appropriate legal vehicles to bring resolution to this issue and ultimately prevent outsourcing in violation of our current CBA. We will provide you with additional updates as more information becomes available.
One Union. One Voice.
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
11-08-2010, 02:38 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 999
.I'm just ANOTHER pilot hosed by scope relaxation and age 65. I am excited but not all that optimistic about ALPA's desire to bring all flying in-house.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wolf
Regional
10
02-18-2008 06:27 AM
