CAL GUYS, whats up with the 70's in EWR?
03-12-2011, 01:18 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: B777 FO
Posts: 240
03-12-2011, 01:18 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,900
So, United Express may operate these flights into and out of our hubs with a United flight number, but they cannot have a CO codeshare flight number on them. The arbitrator ruled for CALALPA in the dispute in regards to our scope.
There is no "spirit" of what the scope clause means. There is only what it states. The arbitrator reaffirmed that these flights cannot be sold or operated with any type of "CO" designator associated with it. The grievance was not to stop the actual airplanes from ever flying. It was only to stop them for flying in revenue service for Continental.
As a result, it becomes very hard for Continental to "feed" passengers to these flights because they cannot be sold as a continuing itinerary on the Continental website with two CO flight numbers. The flight loads are less than optimal because of this, as was mentioned above.
If you see the airplanes in EWR or CLE or IAH, they are allowed as long as they are strictly United flights. As much as it stinks, that's the whole game. Now that we are "one" company all the revenue is still being funneled to one corporate parent now.
03-12-2011, 04:10 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: Fifi
Posts: 176
Well, first, there is a misconception by many pilots (and even some of our own) who think our scope section prevents ANY CRJ700/EMB170 aircraft from operating at our hubs. That is NOT the case. Our scope clause says that CO cannot use 50+ seat jets for Continental Airlines in a revenue generating capacity or with a CO flight number on it.
So, United Express may operate these flights into and out of our hubs with a United flight number, but they cannot have a CO codeshare flight number on them. The arbitrator ruled for CALALPA in the dispute in regards to our scope.
There is no "spirit" of what the scope clause means. There is only what it states. The arbitrator reaffirmed that these flights cannot be sold or operated with any type of "CO" designator associated with it. The grievance was not to stop the actual airplanes from ever flying. It was only to stop them for flying in revenue service for Continental.
As a result, it becomes very hard for Continental to "feed" passengers to these flights because they cannot be sold as a continuing itinerary on the Continental website with two CO flight numbers. The flight loads are less than optimal because of this, as was mentioned above.
If you see the airplanes in EWR or CLE or IAH, they are allowed as long as they are strictly United flights. As much as it stinks, that's the whole game. Now that we are "one" company all the revenue is still being funneled to one corporate parent now.
So, United Express may operate these flights into and out of our hubs with a United flight number, but they cannot have a CO codeshare flight number on them. The arbitrator ruled for CALALPA in the dispute in regards to our scope.
There is no "spirit" of what the scope clause means. There is only what it states. The arbitrator reaffirmed that these flights cannot be sold or operated with any type of "CO" designator associated with it. The grievance was not to stop the actual airplanes from ever flying. It was only to stop them for flying in revenue service for Continental.
As a result, it becomes very hard for Continental to "feed" passengers to these flights because they cannot be sold as a continuing itinerary on the Continental website with two CO flight numbers. The flight loads are less than optimal because of this, as was mentioned above.
If you see the airplanes in EWR or CLE or IAH, they are allowed as long as they are strictly United flights. As much as it stinks, that's the whole game. Now that we are "one" company all the revenue is still being funneled to one corporate parent now.
03-12-2011, 04:16 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: B777 FO
Posts: 240
But as of right now Continental receives no revenue, I know it is robbing peter to pay paul but it is the best we can do. This does cost the company a lot of money because they are paying Shuttle America/Skywest a profit to operate these flights and they are not generating the revenue.
03-13-2011, 09:26 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
The CAL pilots no longer have profit sharing, but even if we did, whatever revenue is gained by these flights would be extremely minimal by the time it was filtered through the profit sharing plan.
03-15-2011, 08:16 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
But as of right now Continental receives no revenue, I know it is robbing peter to pay paul but it is the best we can do. This does cost the company a lot of money because they are paying Shuttle America/Skywest a profit to operate these flights and they are not generating the revenue.
03-15-2011, 09:32 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: B777 FO
Posts: 240
Believe me I want the jets, I was just making the point of what our Arbitration win actually causes in terms of revenue.
03-15-2011, 10:33 AM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
No way. Any loss of revenue is United's choice, not the arbitrators decision. At any point they could have pulled those 70's and put them back where they were in UAL's system. But they would rather fly mostly empty airplanes around just to prove a point. Stupid management decisions are alive and well at United.
03-19-2011, 02:24 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,597
We all knew this was coming when we merged. Every legacy airline out there has 70 or higher seat regional jets. Now if there were CRJ-900's or EMB-190's out there, I would have an issue. But 70 seat regional jets are hear to stay. Lets stop costing our company money when we would be benefiting from it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
