Jesus, will you guys relax? 757driver, I COMPLETELY understand where you are coming from. I do not work for CAL, UAL or any express carriers (anymore) so I don't have a hand in any of this, but it's ridiculous.

You know those SkyPesters (my term of endearment for them) don't have a say so in any flying they do. The majority of the pilot group probably wants no part in this - however someone has to fly it if management opens it up.

This is CAL flying, absolutely. But - this is also CAL/UAL management's doing, and has nothing to do with choices made by SkyWest. Directing your anger at the regional pilots will do nothing to help the main problem here... you need to fire up your own pilots and get them to do something about this - and while you're at it, please for the love of God tell the UAL pilots to stop giving away flying. Make management stop this crap, but don't get some person going to work in trouble for being late just because you're mad about the whole thing. That does nothing but cause trouble for other pilots who are innocent of the entire thing.

Again - you KNOW how it works. The company gives us flying - and we show up and fly it, or we get in trouble. The only time NO pilot should show up to work is to fly struck work, and even then, those on probation will get fired immediately.

It's nasty out there, but if we're ever going to solve these problems we HAVE to work together.

This......

Guys,
I realize the Company (United) is playing you guys like "chess pieces" BUT! Air Wisconsin and Atlantic Coast already made the mistake of challenging United management. And both were ROYALLY SCREWED! (if you ever transit ORD go over to look at gates B26-B29 as that wing was BUILT for Air Wisconsin) Then look up what United DID to Air Wiskey when their managment thought they had an edge over United)(as well as what UAL did to Atlantic Coast-Independence Air) If you've got a beef with UAL. SKYW-XJT management?? Then I Might suggest you support UAL's & CAL's ALPA efforts at reigning in Scope so you guys might NOT be flying at a regional but at a Major. Even IF you are a SKYW Non-Union Pilot, Nothing in this won't affect you should this NOT go down right.. SKYW-ASA-XJT are ALL part of the same Group and therefore Equally SCREWED if there's a problem that affects United in the least. A CAL CEO might be running the show but the Name on the side of the Headquarters building says UNITED and United Airlines takes a "DIM VIEW" of ANYTHING or ANYBODY that messes with what they want to achieve. Get behind ALPA and maybe ALL of you come out on a winning end. But flaming and bashing one another? UAL managment is Dying Laughing over this. And Don't think for One Minute they aren't reading this. Those guys only LOOK stupid!!

I will echo what 757driver is saying and also add that for the Skywest guys doing the IAH flying come Jan. 1st, make sure you never want to apply for the new United. The flying that will be done by Skywest is a breach of contract, and if you choose to do it, you will have your picture taken and name written down and added to a list. It won't make any difference for the rest of the industry, but at United you can be sure that you will not be getting an interview. As long as pilots are part of the interview selection process, it's probably not the best idea to step on the d*cks of the same guys you someday hope to get a job from.


I seriously doubt that this will be supported by official ALPA policy, but once a list is created and your name is on it, you can be pretty well assured that you will not be invited to an interview.

Really Stylie? So any Skywest pilot that even has a turn should get fired or quit so they don't fly in IAH? I'm pretty sure none of them are happy with the new base and I'm also pretty sure the pilots didn't decide to open the new base. Go after management for that one. Specifically YOUR OWN management because they are the ones spreading the flying around the system, not the Skywest pilots. I wouldn't take it out on them. Seeing that your a UAL Furloughee, I'm assuming you didn't quit your job when UAL was giving all that flying to regionals did you? It's a two way street.

"Your name on a list" didn't stop Freedom A-listers or GoJet pilots from being hired by any airlines...

Since I'm a FL commuter I could have cared less about ORD from a new base standpoint. However, since XJT was nearly on life support when we won the United RFP, I would say that most XJT guys were happy about it.

That being said, my ideology says that I don't mind losing an RFP to a superior company. We were all under the belief that this RFP was to replace Mesa flying. Nothing personal against the Mesa guys, but your company sucks. If XJT, with a much superior contract and a better operation, can take an RFP from a ****tty company like Mesa, then I consider it a victory, not only for XJT, but for the regional industry as a whole.

Like I said, my biggest beef isn't that SKYW is opening an IAH base, but the fact that you guys don't want to join us.

From a CAL point of view, I was just trying to explain why they are so upset (some of your guys just don't seem to get it).

From a jumpseat point of view, while I may not welcome you guys with open arms, I am certainly not going to deny you a ride to work or home.

I only hope that, in time, you all will realize that we can accomplish more as one than we can separately.

Well thank you. Now I can sue ALPA (for representing the UAL pilots) and UAL for harrasment, discriminating and denying me a right to work for no other reason that I flew into IAH. My retirement has been made. See you in the California courts, stylish.

Those who are are sniping at soon-to-be IAH Skywest pilots are gonna need to switch to shotguns. Check out the new 70-seat feeder for CO in EWR starting in about a month or so: Shuttle America. If you think the IAH "experiment" is an isolated incident, think again.

Starting a jumpseat war is just going to create animosity and lower the professionalism of this career yet another notch. Not to mention, even if the proposed blacklisting tactic succeeds by preventing one pilot group from flying the contested feed, there will always be a lower bidder willing to step up. Neither that nor a jumpseat war is an intelligent or mature solution. Intelligent negotiation and strategy is the only way to solve the scope problem, not intimidation and friendly fire.

See ME in the courts? Haha! You know I'm a FURLOUGHED United pilot right? I have as much influence on the CAL side as you do, considering I'm on the UAL side, and I'm furloughed. I have good friends a CAL, and I know how high the emotions are running over there. If you think blacklists are something new, then I don't know what to tell ya. I'm guessing you are from Skywest and are not remotely aware of how a unionized airline is run with regards to the hiring. Never burn bridges in the airline world, because you never know how it will affect your career. I have no easy solution, but Chip has put his own employees at risk for the bottom line. It doesn't feel good to be thrown under the bus, I should know.

Any pilot - regardless of what airline you fly for - is welcome on my airplane jumpseat or in the cabin. Our fellow pilots are not the enemy. Taking your contract frustrations out on pilots from other airlines only hurts the wrong people. The management of our airlines are to blame for this mess, let's remember that.

...but you see, its waaaaaaaay easier to say "No jumpseats or mainline jobs for you!" on an internet message board that it is to, you know, unify the pilot group into exerting (legal or illegal) pressure on management to not do something they plan on doing by use of the parking brake.

Besides, perhaps I've missed it on one of the previous 13 pages of this thread, but aren't United & Continental the same company now (albeit still operating separately)? I know CAL pilots don't want anything over 50 seats flying around despite that ship having long since sailed at UAL...but at what point would management shifting UAL 70 seaters into former CAL hubs be "okay" within the merged company?

Hey pal. I posted here how this merger was going to happen two weeks ago. CAL has found a way around CAL scope. Exactly as it is unfolding. CAL management is going to transfer flying to UAL and UAL is going to fly the 70 seater's on the routes.

It amazes me how dumb pilots are when they think they have management in a corner. You folks better start thinking out of the box, management does.

Blacklist, maybe you should wonder on what list some of those CAL pilots are on. Dont forget the true story and history of CAL. Union brotherhood is solid as long as it does not effect the other, once it does forget solidarity.

ALPA because it was loosing dues allowed CAL back into ALPA. Why dont you ask yourself, why it was removed from ALPA. Next time you want to talk about blacklist, check CAL's.

Want to talk about how unionized airline, ALPA represented TWA, EAL, PAN AM, etc; you really want to go down that road. I personally do not like why you are furloughed, but that is the reality of the airline industry.

IAH and EWR are going to see a larger amount of flying done by 70+ seater's. The new UAL will be run like US Airways. One holding company, one board, two certificates and CAL side will domestically be reduced via the retirement of the 737. Flying transfered to UAL side and passed on to the feeder of 70 seat aircraft. UAL board and stockholders very happy because this will increase the return on there investment and increase the stock price.

It has nothing to do with thinking outside the box. The RLA SEVERELY restricts labors' ability to act as a check and balance against management. To add to the problem is the court system is VERY anti labor. So where is the relief valve? The problem is there currently isn't one. The word hemorrhage comes to mind. If management is able to knowingly trample existing contracts, what are CAL pilots to do? Everyone is saying the CAL/UAL pilots need to deal directly with management. How will that occur if there are no available vehicles to stop what management is doing? The new UAL management as well as Skywest management are both using scorched earth policies. Why? Because historically, they have been able to. Who or what is going to stop them? CAL pilots filed an emergency order to stop what is happening. Will the judge determine that it is in fact an emergency in a Texas court system? My guess is no, and the attack on the contract will continue for some time.

Instead of telling CAL pilots to "take it up with management", how about understanding the forces at work here and show some empathy to the CAL guys that worked hard to keep scope just to have it illegally circumvented. Among all of us pilots, there will be no winners in this.

you work at gojets, right?

757Driver.... Very serious question, and one that I would ask you if you allowed me in your jumpseat to discuss this adult to adult in a reasonable fashion if I ever ran into you. (ps I'd also discuss it in my jump as well, because you're always welcome in a skywest jump.)

Put yourself in a junior skywest pilots shoes... he's been displaced to IAH, and his schedule has him flying into and out of IAH. What would you have him do? Quit? Refuse the work, and be fired? I'm not sure what you expect of us, because it seems like you think we have some power in this situation.

I myself am not junior enough to be displaced to IAH and won't have to do any of the flying in question, but I'm afraid that's not the case for a good number of pilots at SkyWest who will be FORCED into flying the routes.
You'll deny them a seat to get back home, see their wife and kids all because you don't like what your CEO has decided to do with RJ route structure. I agree, they ******* on your contract, please go to court over it, and I'll cheer your victory.

But I again ask that you give them a reasonable option that won't get them fired.

he feels powerless at what his company is doing to him, so he wants to feel powerful somehow. taking it out on people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the decision is the only power he has, so he wants to exercise it. it's not rational, it's emotional.

This whole thread is an example of why all flying needs to be scoped back to mainline.

Like I said previously, the only "power" I supposedly have as the PIC is to deny anyone going to IAH to violate my contract a ride. Hopefully that will create a cancellation and if it happens enough, management might want to revisit their decision.

This is all conjecture at this time as our Union is actively involved in stopping this flying from occurring.

I'd be happy to discuss it with you in the terminal, but unfortunately you wouldn't be riding on the aircraft.

Power is a relative thing. I would take no joy in denying someone the Jumpseat but as of right now it's the only tool I possess

It's a very rational response to a very valid threat.

What if they're attempting to leave IAH for home, to me that's far more egregious, and you denying that jumpseat only prevents him from getting home, it doesn't cancel a flight, or even delay one. All it does is delay a pilots ability to be where he'd rather be. If anything if he can't get home, he's more likely to go pick up a JRM trip created because someone else can't get there.

Also you completely failed to answer the question.... What do you expect any of us (read skywest RJ pilots) to do about it?

I expect them to be more vocal about what amounts to struck work. I haven't seen one post where a skywesty has sent a letter to management pointing out the fact that you should not be doing this flying.

Commuting in or out of IAH makes you fair game, sorry.

Mod Note:

This thread was, is, and will continue to be a good thread, but let me remind ALL posters to just argue the points and issues and leave out name calling, flamebait or insults.

So, for example, do not have anywhere in your posts referring to others as "slick," "dude," "pal," "dbag," "buddy," "son," or any other derogatory, derisive, small-minded, petty terminology.

Next person who does this will be banned.

Did you know when Comair went on the strike, the non union SkyWest was offered the flying, but refused it? This pilot group has done the right thing, and would do the right thing again. However you're making quite a leap to call this struck work. You are not on strike, if your pilot group managed to go on strike over this, then SkyWest would not fly the routes.

Let me ask you this, if the new UAL decided that your 767 would look really nice on the ORD-LHR route, should all the UAL guys deny every CAL guy?

So your answer is I should send a letter to management... fantastic, they say, your opinion is noted, but were still doing it, and you're still displaced. What do I do now?

Apples and Oranges. We all fly for the same holding company, you do not. The most appalling thing about this thread is the lack of regard to our contract and the only questions being asked are "how will it effect me and my commute"?

You guys would be screaming from the rooftops if your contract was violated and XYZ airline came to town.

Your contract is between you, and your management. It is impossible for a 3rd party (SKW pilots) to violate your contract. Your management violated your contract. Maybe the better option would be to kick off any CAL or UAL management type (non-rev or company business) riding in the cabin. I guess that doesn't have quite the same ring of denying those SKW "scabs violating your contract" so you probably won't do that.

Guys 757driver is entitled to his opinion and to eventually exercise his right to deny a js. If that day comes whoever is denied will need to go through the appropriate channels to get the issue resolved or at least made it aware to mgnt of what is happening.

Today the flying hasn't even started and writing a letter of what pontentially might happen to mgnt will only flag you at skywest and make you a pontential target.

757driver the message we have sent to mgnt so far has been through the standing bids or lack there of for IAH. You will do what you have to and our captains at skywest will they think is fit and we will see this play out. I am glad to hear that the CAL union is working on getting this stopped. Hopefully all this bantering will be a mute point.

Oh I see, the contract of a UAL pilot to fly that route with pilots under the UAL seniority list doesn't apply here, because you're same holding company. I'm no expert but that sounds like an alter ego situation to me.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're seperate airlines with seperate contracts, and should continue to operate completely seperately until a JCBA is reached, or UAL is free to determine the block hours of any regional contract at their discretion under the new UAL banner.

*I again reiterate that I agree that new UAL is violating the spirit of their contract with CAL ALPA, and I will cheer your victory in court. However your decision to deny a SkyWest jumpseater for any reason regardless of reason for travel, or direction of travel is the wrong decision for everyone involved.*

I beg to differ. I know of 2 from each of those airlines that did not get hired at CAL on account of their background. As stated in other posts, any private entity can and will reserve the right to set forth their hiring criteria provided they don't violate EEO laws. In this case, judgment and teamwork are put into question which both are well within the confines of the law.

Have there been contract workers from both Freedom A and gojets that have gotten through the cracks? Sure. Would you want to gamble your career by being on a list? Probably not. That being said, the way some folks are talking here, it would appear that they are more than happy to spend the rest of their careers flying a 70+ seat aircraft for 50 seat pay and not protections at a regional.

You know, after thinking about it, I'm not so sure the contract IS being violated. UAL does indeed own CAL now, and that means they are free to do whatever they want within the realm of their business model. They could technically close IAH I guess. They can do whatever they want. UAL has a crappy scope clause, unlike CAL. But CAL was just bought out - so there's going to be some changes made. Gee 757driver, what are you going to do now?

What does that mean? You are obviously completely out of touch if you think the SKW pilot group is happy about this IAH flying. This is going to hurt the junior guys at SKW because they will be forced into IAH when they don't want to be there or have any part of it.

I'd be willing to bet that if it were ASA, XJT, insert any ALPA carrier here, you wouldn't be saying the same thing. In fact, I bet you would be trying to find a way to support the IAH flying.

Because we don't support the baseless threats of blacklisting us over something beyond our control, you think we want to be career regional pilots? If you are talking specifically about SlapHappy, just say so. I don't think a single SKW pilot shares his opinion on just about anything.

Everyone up to now has been saying that that pilots will be "forced" to do this flying. I wonder how many Skywest pilots will proactively put a bid in to IAH? If Skywest pilots are truly being "forced" by their management to do this, then a dialogue with CAL MEC needs to take place. Otherwise, I'm not sure that there will be much sympathy over there at CAL. Remember, if no one at Skywest puts a bid in, it makes it MUCH more complicated for Skywest management.

I think most people here at skw have no clue as to what's going on. People who frequent our pilot association forums have been obscenely vocal. Unfortunately that's a small number compared to the many who have their heads in the sand. Good luck, hope it ends well.

Last I looked, there were less than 20 bids in for IAH on the FO side. Most of those, I'm sure, are because they live in Houston, or nearby. As of now, <2% of our FOs WANT to go to Houston. I'd say it would be a bit off-base to judge the entire pilot group based on the actions (and ignorance) of 1.4%

Emotions are running high at CAL, but at the end of the day, the pilots that put a bid in for IAH for Jan. 1st will show that they lack the compassion, solidarity and situational awareness required to work for a union carrier in the future. Goodwill will not be shown when they try to get on a CAL jumpseat; karma is a b*tch, especially in the airline industry.

Ha!

I'm pretty satisfied to be out of the airlines. But reading a thread like this one makes me even more so.

Good luck with your senseless jumpseat war.

Like I said, don't judge us by the 1.4% that probably don't even know the situation because they don't frequent internet boards. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of SKW folks that end up in IAH will be there AGAINST THEIR WILL.

I undertand your frustration, and that the easiest, "feel good" thing to do is to take it out on the SKW pilots. Most of us understand your position, and are no happier about the flying than you are. That said, when you start denying our guys (there against their will remember) a ride home to their families, you won't get much support from us. This is an issue with management and needs to stay that way.

Just ignore everything SlapHappy says.

Cal 171 LEC update.





The SPSC has been directed to formulate a response intended to show management, the media and the traveling public our outrage at management’s actions and our displeasure with management’s outdated philosophy concerning outsourcing. Your MEC will review the details of these plans as part of a Special MEC meeting scheduled for next week.
With regards to the pilots of SKYWEST and the rumor of jump seat issues, all I can say is that we are not at that point—YET. Keep in mind, however, SKYWEST has voted down ALPA representation on several occasions. I’m hoping they are starting to realize the detriment to their careers should they choose to fly stolen work. Captain Pierce has requested Captain Prater’s approval to reach out to the SKYWEST Pilots’ Association leadership so that they are fully aware of our position regarding this flying.

First of all, I want to thank the numbers of Skywest folks that have treated me with respect and dignity as I make my way to/from work on a route that USED to be flown by our 757's, 737's and A320's, but in the last couple of years has transitioned to mostly RJ's. This is a stinky business sometimes, and I DO appreciate the ride.

A little bit of history, however. I was on the receiving end of NUMEROUS threats (some recently) from Skywest pilots saying they were going to deny me the jumpseat because of a mixup in the computer that UAL management was not bothering to fix whereas UAL guys would show up ahead of Skywest guys on their own flights....because you use our computer system for the jump. A couple of times, I hear a UAL pilot slipped through the cracks and snuck on the airplane in front of a Skywest guy. This was brought up to me time and time again, every time I tried to jumpseat (which is the only way I would EVER get a seat on a route that typically has a load factor in the high 90's... ALL YEAR LONG thanks to UAL pulling mainline from it). I was told I needed to get our guys to fix it, or I would be left behind. My answer was always the same. "I hear you, but unfortunately I'm afraid this is low on the alarmingly high totem pole that we have between the pilots and management. Feel free to deny me, I could use the time off anyway". I was threatened denial as recently as 3 months ago.

Fast forward, and now a "jumpseat war" is the most horrible thing in the world. Not trying to start a debate about the rights/wrongs, just remember that it always looks different when its YOUR issue.

One more thing that I feel needs to be pointed out. The pilots in question that will be forced to IAH through no fault of their own are the junior pilots on the property according to the posts I'm reading here. Every pilot hired at Skywest in the last 7 years was hired as a direct replacement for a UAL pilot that is now out on the street... some of them raising gear for the very guys that were hired in their place for 1/5th their pay. When each and every person in these junior position was hired, they were fully aware (or should have been) that they were replacing a mainline pilot with their lower paying job flying airplanes that were painted the same, flying the same routes, and doing the exact same thing as our 1400+ brothers and sisters were doing before UAL used Ch 11 to destroy our contract and what was left of our scope clause.

I'm not saying Skywest pilots shouldn't have gone out to try to get hired, and I'm sure I'll hear all about how United pilots "voted in" this scope clause "voluntarily" (go through a Ch 11 process and see how you feel about the word "voluntary" when/IF you come out the other side - see Mexicana). But the simple fact remains that at SOME POINT the pendulum was going to shift, and you HAD to know that the seat that you are in at someone else's expense was going to get awwwwwfffulllly uncomfortable. Best of luck to both sides, and I do truly hope a solution can be found that doesn't include the jumpseat.