Airline Pilot Central Forums - What to do about Contract Violation

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - What to do about Contract Violation (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/54580-what-do-about-contract-violation.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 898545)

Interesting thing I just thought of...

Are any of the United guys getting up in arms about the Colgan Q400's (with 76 seats I believe) being flown ORD-CLE. Isn't that a clear violation of United's scope??

No, of course they aren't. The Q400's are allowed under CAL's scope clause.

When we do sign a JCBA, odds are that all the current regional aircraft will be grandfathered in, or the scope clause will be a mix of what it is at the two carriers today (allowing some 70 seat jets and some 76 seat turboprops). But until we sign the JCBA, I don't think we have any leverage in complaining. The fact is that the company is operating within United's scope clause by operating the Skywest 70 seaters, and the company is within Continental's scope clause by operating the Colgan 76 seaters.

No, you are missing the boat again. Flying a Colgan plane with 76 seats from CLE-ORD is not an issue. Now if Colgan started flying a Q400 out of ORD-DSM and tried to open an ORD base for the Q, we'd be having the same argument.

The "Home base" of that flight is CLE, just as Skywest has been able to fly CRJ700's into IAH for years now as long as it was from a UAL hub.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMerchant (Post 898549)

Very good point!

No its not. See my post above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxlF16 (Post 898548)

Thanks for pointing this out, I will ask my LEC rep about this! If it is a violation (or anywhere close) to our scope then we SHOULD be raising hell! I honestly don't know the answer since we haven't had to deal with large Turbo Props.

FWIW, you ALWAYS have the right to complain when you're contract is being violated. You win some and lose some, but it's always a lengthy process to get resolution. A 'win' could give extra leverage for other things.... A loss could backfire and make the contractual fix more costly... Or the entire issue may be OBE.

Nope. See my post above as well. The flight is a CAL flight out of CLE. If it was a UAL flight out of ORD, we'd have a problem. THAT is what is being done with the Skywest flying out of IAH. Opening a crew base and doing it as CAL flying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iahflyr (Post 898545)

The fact is that the company is operating within United's scope clause by operating the Skywest 70 seaters, and the company is within Continental's scope clause by operating the Colgan 76 seaters.

Wouldn't that also imply, by extension, that the company is violating the A++ JV agreement (which it isn't) because they're two separate companies? There is no more revenue sharing or conflict with CAL's contract, because it's one holding company. Now that the holding company receives the profits from both the Colgan and Skywest flying, they would seem to move from "code share" to "complementary carrier" status in both contracts. It doesn't make sense that they should be able to say, on one hand, the A++ JV restrictions no longer apply because it's one company, not a joint venture, then turn around and claim the Skywest flying doesn't violate CALs contract, and the Colgan flying doesn't violate UALs contract because they're separate companies. Then again, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so I'll let the union lawyers argue their case.

I think this whole deal is that company is trying to get us to pay to stop something they know they have no right to do. Don't fall for it MECs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMerchant (Post 898538)

That being said, I do think you too are ready to pull the trigger when your MEC sends out the marching orders. The other half of your MEC, United, has publically cautioned your MEC. That tells me even they have reservations about the validity of whether or not this is a violation....Wendy isn't a fan of us and would take glee in joining the attack on us. I suspect they have looked at this as I have and don't see the violation.

Swing and a miss. Great read into a completely unrelated topic there Joe. Ever think about working for FOX News? You are a great reader of mainline MEC psychology. Then again you have been to Herndon...:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 898783)

OK, since you asked.....Here is my opinion based on my ALPA experience...

ALPA is complicent with management in creating this mess.

Randy Babbitt told me and admitted in an interview with AirInc. that it was a mistake to allow the outsourcing of turboprop flying. He said that the Eastern MEC was approached about the outsourcing of regional turboprop flying to cities like MCN, CSG, ABY, VLD, etc....The Eastern MEC wasn't interested in flying Beech 99s and Metros...Mistake number one by the elitist mainline folks....

Early 90's, the RJ comes around....starts replacing TPs on some routes...No problem, it only seats 50 people....We don't care and we don't want to fly "little jets"....Mistake number two by the elitist mainline folks....

Mid 90's, Air Willy, ASA, and BisEx start flying Bae146s.....Mainline pilots start to take notice for the first time...A day late and a dollar short....They try to use scope as a remote control to control size of aircraft...Mistake number three by the elitest mainline pilots...

When I got hired by ASA in 1994, it only took 2 years for a senior ASA captain to make parity at a mainline carrier....Now it takes about 5 to 6 years....Many of us have now made a career at the "regionals" because ALPA and the mainline pilots were too good to fly "little airplanes"....

Fast forward to this current "emergency"...Remember, a failure on YOUR part does not constitute an emergency on my part...Now due to YOUR failures on scope issues, you decide to attack junior Skywest pilots...many of which will be furloughed United pilots....Sorry, but that dog won't hunt with me....The first Skywest pilot who is denied the jumpseat, will result in me denying every CAL and UAL pilot the jumpseat....You decide, but be careful with your decision..

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMerchant (Post 898538)

The other half of your MEC, United, has publically cautioned your MEC. That tells me even they have reservations about the validity of whether or not this is a violation....Wendy isn't a fan of us and would take glee in joining the attack on us. I suspect they have looked at this as I have and don't see the violation.

Can you point us to a source for this statement?

I hope it's not the post someone put up earlier that was out of context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckyt1 (Post 898891)

Can you point us to a source for this statement?

I hope it's not the post someone put up earlier that was out of context.

Sorry Chucky...hard to keep all the nasty comments between your two MECs straight...Sounds like things are getting nasty between you two...Maybe you should patch things up with your fellow pilots before you go after the junior Skywest pilots for a problem YOU and your fellow mainline pilots created......

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMerchant (Post 898860)

OK, since you asked.....Here is my opinion based on my ALPA experience...

Actually I didn't ask for your opinon. You are a career regional capt which means you went through two big hiring cycles yet stayed right where you are now. That makes any of your opinions on CAL-UAL MEC matters about as relevant as a drunk @hole in the stands at a Buffalo Bills game...