Scope buster bagtags!
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
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?!
Why not the outrage there?!
1) ALPA loses. Have a blast flying them shiny jets to CAL hubs
2) ALPA wins. Jeff blinks and agrees to drop plans (never gonna happen)
3) ALPA wins. Jeff says so what sue me
If scenario 3 happens, I don't care what your paycheck says. You are a scope breaking POS to me at that point and thus all bad guys. Nobody is giving CHQ or any other large RJ provider a pass if we win this thing...
#22
All my 'outrage' is on hold till the arbitrator rules. There are three ways this can go:
1) ALPA loses. Have a blast flying them shiny jets to CAL hubs
2) ALPA wins. Jeff blinks and agrees to drop plans (never gonna happen)
3) ALPA wins. Jeff says so what sue me
If scenario 3 happens, I don't care what your paycheck says. You are a scope breaking POS to me at that point and thus all bad guys. Nobody is giving CHQ or any other large RJ provider a pass if we win this thing...
1) ALPA loses. Have a blast flying them shiny jets to CAL hubs
2) ALPA wins. Jeff blinks and agrees to drop plans (never gonna happen)
3) ALPA wins. Jeff says so what sue me
If scenario 3 happens, I don't care what your paycheck says. You are a scope breaking POS to me at that point and thus all bad guys. Nobody is giving CHQ or any other large RJ provider a pass if we win this thing...
If the arbitrator decides for the CAL pilots, the company will still be able to operate these United Express flights but only as United flights without the CO code.
The 70-seat small-jets have been flying in and out of our hubs already as United Express. It's putting the CO code on them before we have a new, combined JCBA with a new scope section that is the issue. The JCBA's new scope will determine the future of 51+ seat small-jet flying going forward, not this arbitration over the CO code issue.
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
OK, the arbitration is NOT over whether the company can fly these out of our hubs. The arbitration is over whether or not the company can fly these flights out of our hubs with the CO code on them. The CAL pilots say the company can't put the CO code on these flights because it violates our scope section to fly a CO-code flight on 51+ seat jets.
If the arbitrator decides for the CAL pilots, the company will still be able to operate these United Express flights but only as United flights without the CO code.
The 70-seat small-jets have been flying in and out of our hubs already as United Express. It's putting the CO code on them before we have a new, combined JCBA with a new scope section that is the issue. The JCBA's new scope will determine the future of 51+ seat small-jet flying going forward, not this arbitration over the CO code issue.
If the arbitrator decides for the CAL pilots, the company will still be able to operate these United Express flights but only as United flights without the CO code.
The 70-seat small-jets have been flying in and out of our hubs already as United Express. It's putting the CO code on them before we have a new, combined JCBA with a new scope section that is the issue. The JCBA's new scope will determine the future of 51+ seat small-jet flying going forward, not this arbitration over the CO code issue.
#24
Go ahead and crawl out there on that limb but hang on because you are about to learn something that all F/O's should know.
The captain might be the final authority but he isn't going anywhere without an F/O. So the moral of the story is...Grow a pair.
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
I would not let someone ride with that sticker either, that being said If your captains disagrees with you on who rides and he lets the fo decide then the captain better grow a pair!
Last edited by syd111; 12-15-2010 at 02:51 PM.
#27
And wear a cup because the're likely to get slapped.
#28
#29
I wonder how badly they want a single operating certificate? That clearly isn't the path.
#30
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
Nope, there is STILL a difference. UAX was flying out of IAH to UNITED hubs. And there was no domicile in IAH. With this flying, Skywest will be flying out of IAH as a HUB, and to spoke cities. Before, IAH was just the spoke. Big, important difference.
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.
Last edited by EWRflyr; 12-17-2010 at 07:05 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post