I have no idea what are you guys talking about.

 

Sky west pilots refuse to fly flight...

 

Unless the recruiter is a former ALPA Rep. and recognise the captain refusal.

driver

 

You are right, you don't know the story. The work is illegal due to the CAL code being used.

 

I had a Skywest guy on the jumpseat the other day and he asked me what I think about Skywest pilots flying those 70 seat routes out of the former CAL hubs. I told him I don't like that management decided to outsource that flying, but I have no issue with the Skywest pilots for doing the flying. That is their job.

It is not Skywest pilots fault that our management gave that flying away, it is OUR FAULT as United pilots for not having negotiated a JCBA yet that includes scope banning regionals flying 70 seaters for the new United.

It is legal and safe work, and therefore Skywest pilots have no excuse not to fly the routes. That is what I told the guy on the jumpseat.

If and when the pilots from Skywest are fired for this action, I will be pretty angry at a few of my United colleagues. Some people take union politics way too far!

 

Drymotorboatin's link should help to explain the story to those who do not know.

In a nutshell, SkyWest pilot(s) refused to accept a flight out of IAH which was coded as a CO flight. CAL has a scope clause that limits the size of regional flights coded as CO to 50 seats. in December CAL CEO Jeff Smisek disregarded the scope and began operating Skywest's 70 seaters out of IAH. The pilot group filed a grievance. Last week there was an arbitrator decision in favor of CAL's pilot group and their scope violation by their CEO Smisek. However, Smisek decided to ignore the ruling and continue to break scope and operate 70 seats out of IAH (a CAL hub). He is still doing it as of last night when I left the airport. And, as mentioned before, some ballsy Skywest pilots refused to take the flights out of principle. This entire event is important to every single pilot that wishes to eventually fly with any major airline. Bottom line, the more that we see major airlines expanding, the higher probability that we will be hired and have better pay rates and vice versa, the more that majors outsource to regionals and grow the regionals, the higher probability that we will stay with a reg and continue to receive substandard pay. What these pilots showed by their actions is a step in the right direction for the QOL of all of us. That's the best I can explain the story in a quick manner.

The ruling reads as follows:

ARBITRATION DECISION
Earlier today the CAL MEC was informed that arbitrator Richard Bloch ruled in favor of ALPA in the expedited arbitration over scope held earlier this month. The arbitration resulted from the group grievance filed regarding management’s post-merger decision to outsource flying using the CO designator code on 70-seat jets from Continental hubs. The Association saw this as a violation of the Continental CBA and an attempt by management to leverage its position in negotiations in favor of outsourcing.

On Oct. 20, 2010, the Company informed the Association of its intent to operate CRJ-700 and EMB-170 aircraft as United Express flights with the CO designator code into and out of Company hubs starting on Jan. 4, 2011. The Association subsequently met with the Company on Oct. 26 to request the Company’s contractual basis for the proposed operation, which they provided on Nov. 3, 2010. In short, the Company cited as their justification 1) that the Transition and Process Agreement authorizes the carriers to integrate their marketing and reservations, 2) that the Continental pilots’ scope clause excludes merger partners’ flying and 3) that the United pilots’ scope clause permits the use of 70-seat aircraft.

In the arbitration hearing that took place Dec. 9, 2010, ALPA attorneys Dan Orfield and Art Luby, our Alliance Committee chairman Alfredo Suarez and outside council Mike Abram presented a vigorous case and an abundance of evidence to support our position.

In our presentation to the arbitrator, our position was that the Continental scope clause makes clear that all flying, not only by the Company, but also for the Company, is to be performed by the Continental pilots, with specific delineated exceptions that can be found under Part 3. The Agreement makes clear that use of the Company’s code is alone sufficient to qualify a flight as Company flying subject to the scope clause. It states that flying by another air carrier can be an exception to the scope obligation, but only if is “authorized by” Part 4 (Express Carriers), Part 5 (Complementary Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers) or Part 7 (a carrier participating in a Complete Transaction).

The arbitrator agreed with our position, stating in his award,

“Placing the CO designator code on the UAX jet aircraft with a certification of fifty-one or greater seats to and from CLE, EWR and IAH is a violation of Section 1 of the Continental/ALPA collective bargaining agreement. The Company is ordered to cease and desist advertising and placing the CO code on such flights.”

We are of course pleased with the arbitrator’s decision and the fact that the language and intent of the CBA that was negotiated by ALPA was affirmed. We are additionally pleased that the system for resolving such disputes worked as intended and that our strategy for handling this issue was affirmed as well. No doubt there will be complex compliance issues following the arbitrator’s decision that we will be monitoring closely. We will continue to provide any updates as needed.

Happy New Year.
One Union. One Voice.
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman

 

It actually depends on the circumstances, as you said, you don't know the story.

A big thumbs up to this captain for his spirit of unity, thank you for doing the right thing. Another reason the Skywest guys/gals should consider organizing.

 

Nope. The flights being flown that still have the CO code on them are totally illegal. We will see what the consequences are for those entities that knowingly flew flights that are illegal per the arbitrators decision. Those entities include United management, Skywest management, and possibly Skywest pilots. "My management told me to do it" may or may not hold up when the punishments get handed down.

United and Skywest had the choice NOT to fly those flights when it was discovered that the CO codes were still on there. They chose to do it anyway. And you want the union to do what? Ignore it? Do you think management would ignore it if the pilots did something that they had JUST been ordered not to do??

PS. Call you rep and ask them what UAL's contract proposal for you is. If you aren't totally disgusted, then, well.... I'm not sure what else there is to say

 

No it isn't if it carries a CAL code Mr Hero. That has been happening and is a clear violation of the arbitrator's decision. Seeing you as a voice of authority is worthy of a chuckle. But then again I have no doubt that if Larry K wanted to loosen scope in Contract '02, you would of asked him how much.
And some people are blind sheep that permanently run the company line while Sismek laughs to the bank. Funny how these people usually have IAH associated with them at CAL...

 

keep in mind also, Republic was doing EWR stuff with a CO code out of STL going to EWR. and yes, they were at the CO gates