Very well said. Folks, a jumpseat war helps no one.....it hurts everyone. Be a professional.

Wrong... just wrong. So, you want to complain, but agree that these pilots should have done the same thing anyway?

The 3000 SkyW pilots and the 9000+/- other UAX pilots are not replacements. Express contributes significant dollars to your companies bottom line, which in your best interest.

I have a feeling when the 1400 UA pilots are back on property the replacement argument will go away.

You guys have the same tired arguments over and over. So... 20 people want to go from Fargo to ORD and you want to fly a 320? Great thinking. How does your company get those 20 folks into the system in the most efficent way.. BINGO! Express.

Almost everyone wants out of the regionals, the only ones that don't are the older guys. We have 99% interest in common. I wish people would focus on that instead of the 1%.

BTW, a jumpseat war is stupid. On all sides.

Yes, make sure and rationalize this in your favor. Perhaps clicking your heels together and chanting "there's no place like home" 3 times will also make it all right to violate our contract.

You can have Fargo.

SEA-LAX
SEA-DEN
PDX-SFO
PDX-LAX
PDX-DEN
ORD-ATL
DEN-ATL
IAD-ATL

blah blah blah.

You've been reading too many management songbooks about RJ's contributing $$$ to the bottom lines and matching demand to capacity. Our moron-management trotted out some statistics about average load passengers travelling to ORD from somewhere like DSM. They said it was "65". Well, of course it is!! You've got a 66 seat jet on it! How stupid do they think we are???

If the RJ's were forced to stand on their own, buy their own gas, get their own res system, and fill their own planes, you'd have a lot more Independence Airs.

Of course I'm complaining! I'm a pilot, aren't I?

Agreed....... although I just don't worry about it all that much. If I make it to work, I make it to work. If not, oh well! I'll make it home eventually, and if I don't get enough time at home afterwards, I will take the time off I need. My contract says I need one primary and one backup to get to work. If I get bumped from those, so be it.

By the way I'm not "Wrong, just wrong". How does contributing to the bottom line make any difference? Fact: UAL used to have close to 11,000 pilots. UAL Express used to have, dunno, 2000 pilots? Prior to the merger, UAL had 6000 pilots, UAL Express has 9000 pilots? UAL parked 100 airplanes and reduced capacity by almost the exact percentage that UAL Express GAINED capacity. I call that replacement. What do you call it?

Few people who get hired at a regional understand any of the industry dynamics into which they are getting involved. That's stuff you learn after talking to senior pilots during cruise flight. The large majority of regional pilots were simply following the established career path for civilian pilots. Nobody knew where it was all going to end up.

I would ask what would you propose that entry level pilots do instead of regionals, except I already know there is no rational alternative answer for most (there are nowhere near enough corporate/135 jobs to train all the airline-bound pilots).

What's the solution? Relying on CFI's to understand long-term career dynamics and ramifications and to selflessly give up their dreams and goals so mainline current mainline pilots can enjoy lucrative, stable careers? Yeah...

Any solution has to be achievable using the existing power levers. "Well I think it should be this way" is just mental masturbation.

The only solution I can think of is for mainline unions to insist that ALL of their flying is done by pilots on their seniority list. The challenge is that long-term feed contracts with regionals would be too expensive for mainline to just cancel. The regional pilots could still be employed by regionals (thus achieving some savings on non-pilot labor) but their compensation would be negotiated by the mainline union and would be the same for all regionals operating under that banner. The pilots could bid into mainline flying when seniority permits.

This would take pilots out of the whipsaw equation within any one brand. There are a few logistics and cultural challenges but these could be sorted out.

Got any better ideas? I honestly can't think of anything else that is remotely practical.

Don't forget ORD-SLC, ORD-MIA, and doesn't Shuttle even do ORD-LGA?

I agree with everything you say with the exception of the bolded parts. The jumpseat access issues were (and still are) *extremely* widespread--I don't know of any commuters who haven't been bumped or at least been almost bumped out of a jumpseat by a mainline pilot. For me, it's two out of the maybe 10 mainline folks who consistently try to intimidate their way onto the jump. The other guys are some of the nicest, most reasonable pilots I've met. The reason you're hearing about this is because of the small majority of UAL commuters who aren't acting ethically and the company's refusal to implement a solution that can fix the problem (i.e. software changes).

I'm sorry that you're hearing about it in a threatening manner--that's not cool at all. I'm hoping that most of our pilots are courteous and helpful. Please try not to judge our pilot group based on a few bad apples.

Also, if CAL pilots want to start a jumpseat war, they have every right to. I think it's extremely misguided, though--lacking the ability to actually enforce their contract, they would just be taking it out on a powerless group in an action that really wouldn't do anything. Skywest not being ALPA has nothing to do with this, either--being ALPA would not give us the power to reject the flying. It's not struck work.

gettinbumped,

Did you fly for a regional to build your time and experience? I ask, because I'm sure a vast majority of the 1400 furloughees did. Is your soul magically "cleansed" once you get hired by mainline? I have a hard time taking a group seriously when they themselves were, at some point, part of the "problem".

If you built your time and experience by some other means, that is great. I wish there were enough of those jobs and/or military flying slots available for us all to avoid the regional word. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

I truly hope that both sides can remain professional throughout this process. Denying anybody (mainline or regional) the opportunity to get to work, or more importantly, home, doesn't do anybody any good. You might feel good about it for a few hours, but I can promise that your conscience will get the better of you when you realize that you possibly were the reason a new father didn't get to hear his young child's first word, or see him take his first step.

Would one of you CAL pilots throwing the term "scab" around please post the part of your scope that prohibits United from operating 50+ seat United Express flights out of IAH, CLE, or EWR...Chapter and verse let's hear the language...

"This sucks, change it" is not a violation of the contract. Give us the language that is being violated.

Let's hear the language 757Driver.

Good post, and very reasonable arguments. There isn't any practical short term solution. Inevitably, like all things airline, this was going to be a cyclical manpower model. The CRJ-200 came out and everyone wanted a million of them. They are essentially money losing tin cans now at the current price of oil. The CRJ-700 was the next savior; now it's becoming clear that to be profitable we need to be at 90-100 seats. Funny because that's getting close to the size management parked when they claimed they needed the 50 seaters.

I guess the point is that it appears that regional pilots are in for some painful times. The pendulum appears to be shifting back towards bigger, and with that shift, there is some momentum for some of the flying that had left mainline to come back. The gyrations of that will probably be as fun for the regional folks as it was for the mainline folks when we lost it.

I noticed nobody touched my point about having been threatened jumpseat denial by Skywest pilots in the recent past, but I never took that personally. ***Disregard last, just saw Hayduke's post**** I frankly just didn't really care. Sure I wanted to get home to my family, but it just was what it was. I figured a few times of me not making it to work because I was denied a Skywest jumpseat was going to get the situation cleared up by management one way or another..... but because UAL bought the seat, I figured it was probably going to end badly on the Skywest side.

I hope that this works out with a happy ending for all, as its not lost on me that we are all pilots, and any infighting takes our focus off being united, which is where we really CAN get stuff done.

For a long time I thought our management was really stupid. I learned over the past however many years that they are BRILLIANT when it comes to dividing and conquering, demoralizing, and shrinking. What they aren't so good at is doing the opposite. Maybe its all the years of practice doing the former that makes them so bad at the latter. An example: why, as we approach a JCBA between the pilot groups, would the new UAL management press to test this issue? They have done a GREAT job at strengthening the resolve of the CAL, and frankly the UAL pilots as well to make sure that Scope is the #1 issue for this new contract. The only solution I see is to make sure that we don't sign a new contract that at LEAST phases out the 70 seat flying from the Regional airlines. Putting the 70's in IAH just makes that more clear for everyone and strengthens the resolve. Probably not what management really intended.

As I said, nice post, and thanks for the thoughtful argument.

Hayduke,

Good to hear the story behind the story. Thanks for that. Good post, and good points. I've got no beef with the Skywest pilots over the issue. It never really bothered me that much. I'm WELL aware that we have more than our share of BAD APPLES and SCABS, so I'm sure you've had to put up with more of them than I have the occasional less than friendly Skywest guy or gal.

Cheers

Fair question, and reasonable point. I did fly for the regionals before going to UAL, though when I was there the largest piece of kit we had was a 30 seat turboprop. I was gone before the RJ's came about.

That doesn't magically cleanse me, nor should it for those of the 1400 pilots that flew for the commuters. As I mentioned in a previous post, and got bashed for, I understand the plight of the commuter pilot. You need the time to get OUT, and if the regionals are hiring and aren't GoJets etc. then you hold your nose and take the plunge. The vast majority of pilots I see at the regionals are in that category. Heck, even though I was flying a 19 seat turboprop at the commuters, I still got grief from the mainline guys at times. I suppose my whole point is that it's just the nature of the beast, and try not to take it personally. I don't ever look down my nose at regional pilots - I was one after all, but it doesn't change the fact that in many cases, our near term interests are diametrically opposed. Hopefully in the future that won't be the case. I wish you guys good luck, and hopefully this thing has a positive resolution for all involved.

Well said Rickair and Gettinbumped.

For reference, link to thread about the UAX jumpseat priority dispute:
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/re...-8-2008-a.html

Thank you for making good, clear, and fair points. I am glad we can have a civil discussion on this board from time to time.

I meant to address your being denied the jumpseat on SKW in my last post, but got all caught up in something entirely different. I very clearly remember the "jumpseat war", if you want to call it that, between UAL and UAX. As I remember it, it was between UAL and all UAX carriers, not just SKW. To resolve the issue, at least partially, SKW printed out a bunch of "jumpseat priority forms" that would override what the computer system said if there ever was a dispute over priority.

I do remember getting a memo that said we should "deny any mainline pilot the jumpseat until their MEC agrees to resolve the issue" or something to that extent. I, as a commuter at the time, did not support the effort one bit. With all the pull I had as an FO (haha), I'd insist to the captain that we always take any jumpseater, mainline or not. Most guys I flew with agreed, and we never left anybody behind. I'm truly sorry that happened to you. Had it been on my flight, I would have done everything in my power, as an FO, to make sure you got on the jumpseat. In my opinion, the jumpseat should NEVER be used as a political tool. Period. If pilots of different airlines want to point fingers, place blame, and argue, thats is fine, although unprofessional. But please don't deny guys the opportunity to get home to their families after a long trip and several night away from home.

To this date, I have never had a problem with a pilot from another airline in person. Most of this is just online chest-thumping, and nothing more. When we have a mainline pilot in our jumpseat, it is just business as usual. Like I said before, I hope that this can remain civil and professional while all of this gets sorted out. In the mean time, I plan to extend every pilot of every airline the common courtesy of a ride home, just as I would a pilot from my own airline. Good luck to all.

You can throw in
LAX-SMF
LAX-PHX
LAX-SJC
LAX-DFW
SFO-SAN
SFO-MCI
SFO-SEA
SFO-BUR
and so on. I do think RJ have a small nitche but these routes are not it.

GettingBumped,
Its unfortunate guys at skywest threatened you regarding the priority issue. Part of the big problem is that (i'm assuming it was on an rj) most rj captains have made their bed, drank the koolaid, and are not going to leave for a major. Therefore, they have no regard for diplomacy and the risk of burning a bridge because they feel they are on par with the likes of a united or delta. These guys don't commute, have never commuted, and have no sympathy for commuters. If you have problem commuting we do have a js coordinator and if you go to yours i'm sure something can be resolved. But i forgot you guys have a commuter policy which we dont:o.

Well said. I've even encountered some SKW captains that have no regard for our own commuters :mad:

Luckily, that attitude (at least in ORD) has all but disappeared as many of the koolaidoholics have kicked the habit over the last 1-2 years.

There's been a time or two when i made the numbers work and presented them to the captain but they still decided to leave the commuter behind. Glad to hear ORD is getting better. Out here on the west coast the old skywest culture is well and alive.

Thanks guys. I never took it personally when all that JS Priority stuff was going on. Like I said, I couldn't get any flying dropped so I was fine getting left at home :).

98% of the time I get treated very well on Skywest, and that's a WAY higher percentage than I get on my own airline.

Thanks for taking the time to at hear my points, and for providing me your perspective as well.

Cheers

Great point. When the RJ first came out, management sold it as a tool to extend the reach of the airline and create new routes that would grow and eventually become mainline. I wonder how those guys sleep at night spewing that kind of dishonest crap?

I've always heard horror stories about Tilton, but Skywest's management is increasingly resembling top UAL management. It's depressing.

I will say, though, that while the large majority of Skywest's UAX flying is fee for departure, an increasing amount is at-risk--routes that UAL doesn't want to fly at all and doesn't really want to pay someone much to fly. I don't have any problem with those at all--it's places like (I think) Duluth, Paducah, Asheville, Midland, and a number of others. I'd prefer it to be mainline flying, but I don't think mainline wants it period.

But LAX-PDX in a CRJ200 is ridiculous.

I call it unfortunate.. brutal.. awful..

It's not the "fault" of pilots trying to get to the same place you are.

That depends on who you ask, but that's an entirely different thread.

Not sure what you mean by your last sentence? I've always been West Coast, and have NEVER denied a jumpseater!

I'm not trying to paint everyone with on the west coast with the same stroke but what I was alluding to was the disparity in seniority between PSP, LAX, SFO, FAT, SLC, vs. ORD and DEN. Most captains on the west coast are towards the top of the seniority list and most i fly with have never commuted. Therefore, they have no sympathy for commuters and some make the process of getting numbers (ballast) as hard as possible. Don't take it personal but when i was in ORD I saw this attitude less and its probably becasue most guys out there were commuters incuding myself at the time and know the sensitivity of the JS.

Again its the minority, but a bigger minority than the junior bases have.

Odd, I don't ever recall flying with a CA who wouldn't make the effort to get a JSer on board. Of course there's bound to be one in every crowd, but I have never seen a cultural trend against JSer's in CA???

Not on the SkyW Express side, in fact there are a few EMB CAs who have called meetings with BN (LAX CP), and the CS manager in LAX to try and resolve the issue of leaving NRs behind.

Don't just fire a shot and run away. Let's hear your theory on why it's the pilots' fault after all. Wait, let me get some popcorn first.

Don't forget the beer Cpt. Tony....I wonder if Johnso29 includes the furloughed United pilots at the bottom of the Skywest list in his attack?

I want salt and butter on my popcorn please.....:D

I'm still searching for my lost shaker of salt...

How did that song go? Oh yeah:
Misdirected hostility, that's what you got see
Misdirected hostility, that's what you got see
Misdirected hostility, that's what you got see
Misdirected hostility, that's what you got see

You Bro guys have been very good about it. I never flew the bro but i know when i commuted on it you guys would go out of your way to try and get me or whoever was trying to get on. Great group of guys.

I only speak from experience rick. Not trying to diminish the skyw guys because as i've said its only a small minority that has acted this way. I wouldn't call it a trend but the occasion are there.

Any updates from CAL?

Latest CAL MEC update...

SCOPE UPDATE 2

On Monday, we gave you an update on the status of Continental’s plan to place the CO code on United Express flights using 70-seat jets to and from CLE, EWR, and IAH. We told you that we had exchanged information and formal arguments related to the issue and that we had provided a deadline (today) for receiving confirmation from management that they had ceased and desisted with their plans.

We received a communication from management today, but it did not include their intent to cease and desist. To the contrary, they fully intend to move forward with their plans. In light of their ill-advised decision to proceed and as we have forewarned, we will now begin work on taking the appropriate legal actions available to us in the coming days and weeks. Watch for more details from the union soon, beginning with information for upcoming SPSC events in EWR and IAH later this month.

In order to provide you with information about our stated reasons why management’s plan is in violation of our CBA, as well as the points provided by management, we are summarizing the communications that were exchanged last week. The summary is outlined below.

Our position is that Section 1, Part 3-A of the CBA clearly prohibits the Company action, unless it is authorized by some other Part of Section 1. No other Part of Section 1 authorizes the Company course of action, as none of the express carriers performing the work is a Company affiliate; only 50-seat and turboprop flying, not 70-seat jet flying, is permitted by Part 4; and flying to a Company hub (if not to or from a hub of the other carrier) is not permitted by Part 5.

The Company relies on Part 7, arguing that it is flying by another air carrier while participating in a Complete Transaction in accordance with Part 7. It is our position, however, that while Part 7 specifies rules for separation and merger of mainline operations, Part 7 does not change the rules in Parts 4 or 5 for operation of Express carriers or Complementary Carriers. Nor does Part 7 license Continental to permit United Express carriers SkyWest or Shuttle America to carry the CO code without observing the limits in Parts 4 or 5, because neither of them is a “participant” in a Complete Transaction. Neither express carrier is acquiring any part of Continental, nor is it becoming a Parent of the Company. Nor is Continental acquiring Control of assets of either carrier. Further, if either of these air carriers were participating in a Complete Transaction with the Company, that participation would trigger a series of obligations that the Company has not applied.

The Company also argues that following the merger closing, United and Continental will each continue to operate as an air carrier, but they are not prohibited from integrating their marketing, reservations systems and livery, ultimately marketing and operating their service under a blend of the United name and Continental livery. But this argument relies on general actions associated with a merger to dissolve specific protections at the heart of the CBA, as well as mixing those actions which the Company can undertake now with those that must wait until after a JCBA (and integrated seniority list) are reached. Ultimately, their actions are not an effort to transition Continental and Continental Express operations to the single UA code, but to replace 50-seat jets in Continental hubs with 70-seat jets and to connect them with Continental flights, branded as Continental flights under the CO code, strictly as a way of carrying more passengers and thus making more money.

Of course, Continental can always operate its own 70-seat jets under the CO code by doing so under the Continental CBA with Continental pilots. But if they do not do so, we have insisted that they act in accordance with the Continental CBA until and unless changed. Additionally, as we have mentioned in previous communications both to our pilots and to management, we have no reservations about using the full range of legal vehicles available to bring resolution to this issue and ultimately prevent outsourcing in violation of our current CBA.



One Union. One Voice.



Capt. Jay Pierce

Thump...thump...thump...thump...thump...thump...

Everytime I see one of these e-mails from ALPA I think of this.....

YouTube - Dr. Stone

"We strongly object......."

It is the fault of the pilots that they continue to earn paltry earnings many years after acquiring the troublesome Guppy Killers. Guess it would be asking too much to at least make percentage wise what a JB crew does for the 190. I feel bad for junior guys that have to deal with the likes of Joe and Tony squatting on the list and fearing the pot getting stirred. Kind of reminds me of that guy that practically lives at a bar in your hometown who loves to bring up that he was all conference linebacker 20 years ago...