Search

Notices

Scope buster bagtags!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-15-2010, 05:34 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
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?!
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...
intrepidcv11 is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 06:47 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
EWRflyr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
Default

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
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...
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.
EWRflyr is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 07:41 AM
  #23  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr
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.
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.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 09:10 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Airhoss's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
Default

Originally Posted by PCLCREW
Im going out on a limb here, but I think the skipper decides who gets a ride and who doesnt.

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.
Airhoss is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 09:58 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cycle Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: DAL Pilot
Posts: 1,133
Default

Ok... so does this bag tag exist or not?
Cycle Pilot is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 10:18 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
Default

Originally Posted by Airhoss
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.
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.
syd111 is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 01:33 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
sydney5316's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B737 Captain
Posts: 102
Default

Originally Posted by Airhoss
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.
And wear a cup because the're likely to get slapped.
sydney5316 is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 02:04 PM
  #28  
APC co-founder
 
HSLD's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr

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.
I wonder how badly they want a single operating certificate? That clearly isn't the path.
HSLD is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 02:40 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Airhoss's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
Default

I wonder how badly they want a single operating certificate? That clearly isn't the path.
Time will tell. It'll be interesting to see what comes down here in the next couple of months.
Airhoss is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 07:48 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
EWRflyr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
Default

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.
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.

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.
EWRflyr 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