UAL/CAL Arbitrator decision delivered

scooter2525 said:
Chasen, a win for the pilots because that means more flying for them, more planes etc? Or could the flying be returned to the mainline?
Click to expand...

It's a win because a CBA is a legal agreement between a pilot union and a company. In this case, there was a dispute and the arbitrator found that the CAL CBA prevented the company from doing what the CAL pilots felt was a violation of that agreement.

Another way to think of it would be like if the company decided to knock $5/hr off of everyone's pay. We know that doesn't pass muster, so the same idea applies for the scope. The company was trying to not abide by language they agreed to.
 
Polar742 said:
Another way to think of it would be like if the company decided to knock $5/hr off of everyone's pay. We know that doesn't pass muster, so the same idea applies for the scope. The company was trying to not abide by language they agreed to.
Click to expand...
I like the laymen terms. I'm all for a win for the pilot group, just didn't realize the significance.
 
Baronman said:
MRIVC,
I know some have stated that SKYW will just put CRJ200 on those routes. Meanwhile XJT has plans for shipping quite a great deal of flying up to ORD. I don't imagine SKWY having the spare airframes (200) to cover that flying as they must be dedicated somewhere else. What do you forsee happening? Any word from management? Oops, I guess UAL legal wasn't so right despite their reassertions that this is fully legal. I don't see CRJ200s being successful on all the longer planned routes, IAH-YYZ for example.
Click to expand...

This is all a very big mess to say the least. And it can be pointed in only one direction: mgmt. They started this by deciding they were going to place the 700's in IAH with full knowledge they were violating scope. These ivy league arrogant types had their faces slapped by the judge and were in disbelief. They were so arrogant that they had no back up plan. We have not heard a peep from our mgmt except: "we will do the right thing" which is not very assuring considering they are playing with our careers. I truly believe they are in a current scramble to figure out what the game plan is. I have heard that our company "didn't see this coming" because they were assured by UAL everything was going to be ok. Appearantly, this whole plan was a big part of UAL wanting SkyW to purchase ExpressJet, and now this is blowing up in their faces.

To think, this all could have been avoided had they just made a deal with CAL pilots to allow the 70's on property. Everyone has a price they will say yes too. I'm sure the CAL pilots would have/could have used this as leverage to get their contract signed and UAL knowing this, decided they were going to just disregard them. Now I've heard rumors of them simply re-assigning the flights to have UAL codes. I WILL REFUSE to fly those routes. I will not risk my career simply because they change a flight number. Thankfully, it has not come to that yet, and our mgmt has stated we will not be forced to fly routes that put us in a bad position(700 in IAH frmo the get go put us in this place to begin with).

I'm glad I don't have any IAH flying on my schedule for JAN.

Again, another scenario where the SKYW pilots could have avoided from electing ALPA in 2005. Another I told you so moment.
 
I think the situation will get clearer in the next couple days. It's important to remember that simply flying IAH-ABQ-IAH in a CRJ700 isn't illegal. Having a Continental code on that flight is. Of course, I'm not quite sure how we would know if there's a Continental code on the flight if it is labeled "United Express 3454." I'm a pilot, not a booking agent.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
That defeats the entire purpose of what they're trying to do. Until they have a single operating certificate, they need to be able to code share with each other in order to get passengers from a CAL to UAL flight. If they can't put their code on a UAX 170, then they can't book a CAL passenger through to that flight. The passenger would first have to book a flight on CAL to IAH, then call UAL and book a separate flight on UAL from IAH to wherever. It's a nightmare for management and the customers. It was a major victory for the pilots.
Click to expand...

As of today this stuff is full steam ahead. I know the 170 will be up to 15 airplanes in EWR by march, at least thats the plan being handing down from UAX to RAH. Dont shoot the messanger.
 
This is what's flying tomorrow on 700's IAH:

Flight Schedules
Flight Date: Origin: Dest:

Flight Origin Dest Scheduled Estimated Actual AC Type Cancelled
4461 IAH SLC 06:30-09:01 06:30-09:01 CR9
1120 IAH DTW 07:25-11:08 07:25-11:08 CR6
1138 IAH PHX 07:25-09:24 07:25-09:24 CR6
1134 IAH OKC 09:02-10:25 09:02-10:25 CR6
1100 IAH ABQ 09:10-10:25 09:10-10:25 CR6
6606 IAH ASE 09:15-11:05 09:15-11:05 CR6
1124 IAH ELP 09:35-10:36 09:35-10:36 CR6
1149 IAH YYZ 10:20-14:18 10:20-14:18 CR6
1150 IAH YYZ 13:00-16:59 13:00-16:59 CR6
1105 IAH CMH 13:10-16:34 13:10-16:34 CR6
4489 IAH SLC 14:07-16:23 14:07-16:23 CR9
1131 IAH MCI 14:30-16:25 14:30-16:25 CR6
1102 IAH ATL 14:40-17:38 14:40-17:38 CR6
1125 IAH ELP 14:45-15:43 14:45-15:43 CR6
1128 IAH MCI 15:30-17:28 15:30-17:28 CR6
1144 IAH TUS 17:45-19:30 17:45-19:30 CR6
1112 IAH COS 18:08-19:32 18:08-19:32 CR6
1151 IAH YYZ 19:05-23:09 19:05-23:09 CR6
6826 IAH IAD 19:13-23:04 19:13-23:04 CR6
1132 IAH MKE 19:20-21:54 19:20-21:54 CR6
1127 IAH GRR 19:42-23:15 19:42-23:15 CR6
1118 IAH DFW 21:05-22:08 21:05-22:08 CR6
1114 IAH COS 21:10-22:30 21:10-22:30 CR6
 
CAL pilots have put up a good fight, won the arbitration yet there is no stopping the spread of this virus. It's too lucrative, it's too easy to fool the passengers with these aircraft.
 
The Continental code has been removed from these flights. The arbitration ruling is being complied with.
 
United said in an e-mailed statement that it disagrees with the arbitrator's decision, but will comply with the ruling.

"We are pleased that this decision will permit the company to redeploy 70-seat aircraft in certain markets under the United Express brand to better meet demand and improve profitability of the combined company," the company said.

Huh? Sounds shady imho.
 
Hootie said:
United said in an e-mailed statement that it disagrees with the arbitrator's decision, but will comply with the ruling.

"We are pleased that this decision will permit the company to redeploy 70-seat aircraft in certain markets under the United Express brand to better meet demand and improve profitability of the combined company," the company said.

Huh? Sounds shady imho.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Are they actually going to be able to fill these planes though? They're basically depending on nothing but local traffic now that people can't connect off CO in IAH and EWR. I mean how many people want to fly from Houston to Bakersfield on a daily basis? There are 136 UAX seats a day on that route now, we'll see what happens.
 
I'm confused. Why can't pax connect in iah/ewr? Pax have connected for a while from airline to airline. What makes this different? I've seen it a few times on expedite and what not where you can buy a ticket to one airport and jump on another airline to your destination. So if I wanted to go from ama to cos...why couldn't I do the XJT flight from ama - iah then iah - cos on a skw 700?

Absolutely not disagreeing with the ruling. I'm just trying to understand the whole "can't connect bit."
 
You could do it if you booked each flight seperately, but if you put AMA-COS in Expedia it won't connect the XJT and SKW flight through IAH. The SKW flight won't have a Continental code attached to it.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Hmm. Are they actually going to be able to fill these planes though? They're basically depending on nothing but local traffic now that people can't connect off CO in IAH and EWR. I mean how many people want to fly from Houston to Bakersfield on a daily basis? There are 136 UAX seats a day on that route now, we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

At least 50 a day. XJT was handling many of these flights.
 
mrivc211 said:
This is all a very big mess to say the least. And it can be pointed in only one direction: mgmt. They started this by deciding they were going to place the 700's in IAH with full knowledge they were violating scope. These ivy league arrogant types had their faces slapped by the judge and were in disbelief. They were so arrogant that they had no back up plan. We have not heard a peep from our mgmt except: "we will do the right thing" which is not very assuring considering they are playing with our careers. I truly believe they are in a current scramble to figure out what the game plan is. I have heard that our company "didn't see this coming" because they were assured by UAL everything was going to be ok. Appearantly, this whole plan was a big part of UAL wanting SkyW to purchase ExpressJet, and now this is blowing up in their faces.

To think, this all could have been avoided had they just made a deal with CAL pilots to allow the 70's on property. Everyone has a price they will say yes too. I'm sure the CAL pilots would have/could have used this as leverage to get their contract signed and UAL knowing this, decided they were going to just disregard them. Now I've heard rumors of them simply re-assigning the flights to have UAL codes. I WILL REFUSE to fly those routes. I will not risk my career simply because they change a flight number. Thankfully, it has not come to that yet, and our mgmt has stated we will not be forced to fly routes that put us in a bad position(700 in IAH frmo the get go put us in this place to begin with).

I'm glad I don't have any IAH flying on my schedule for JAN.

Again, another scenario where the SKYW pilots could have avoided from electing ALPA in 2005. Another I told you so moment.
Click to expand...

RAHs union has been in contact with CAL and UAL ALPA and discussed the mess we are all in. All parties have agreed that as long as there is no CAL flight numbers there is nothing wrong with UAX carriers flying these routes and shouldnt be labeled anything.
 
jtrain609 said:
At least 50 a day. XJT was handling many of these flights.
Click to expand...
Yes, but most of those 50 pax came off connecting flights in IAH. I'm talking local traffic now that people can't connect off CO. Sure, they CAN do it, but trust me as someone who goes thru pax reservations for a living, at least 90% of the flying public is not savvy enough to go and buy two tickets. And those who are savvy are know better, as it creates a lot of issues when you misconnect and you will need to re-check your checked bags, that's right, checked bags will not go on the Skywest IAH flights when pax come off CO. Tickets get much more expensive that way too. If you live in SHV and you need to get to PSP, it makes a lot more sense to go on travelocity and book a flight thru DFW on AA then try to mix and match schedules and buy two tickets to connect thru IAH on UA/CO.
 
CAL ALPA has requested that any SKW pilots who find their CRJ700 IAH flights still have a Continental code on it to report it to SAPA. CALPA will then pursue it through legal channels and will not take any action against SKW crewmembers. Overall Jay Pierce said they were pleased with how fast United complied with the arbitration ruling, and that they do not expect or request any SKW pilot to refuse this flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top