View Single Post
Old 12-15-2010 | 05:47 AM
  #22  
EWRflyr's Avatar
EWRflyr
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
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.
Reply