Howdy bumped,

Again, I looking for the specific language. The CAL pilots are making some threats without backing it up with specifics. That isn't sitting well with me.

Does everyone realize that CAL has been doing this thru "codeshare" long before this IAH issue came up. I pulled up two examples on the CAL website.

Example 1: FAT to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg could be on a Mesa CRJ900 (USAirways Express)

Example 2: MFR to IAH. Using codeshare, the first leg is on a United Express 700 (Skywest)

They have been doing this for a long time. Is it the cities of IAH, CLE, and EWR that make the difference?

CAL has been selling tickets on CRJ 700s and 900s for quite some time now....

 

Just so we're ALL clear on what your saying, and there's no guessing......

If your suggesting that the person in question is 'commuting' on a $$ purchased pass (ZED Fare, ID90, Ect....), I see your point and there's 'no-say' from the PIC on those accords.

If your alluding to the fact that they are 'offline' & 'getting' a seat in the back (and not physically on the J/S) merely b/c your carrier has a standing agreement AKA "Jumpseat/Reciprocal Agreement" and there happens to be seats in the back.....your still "J/S'ing". If he/she so wishes, the Captain can see who is listed as a "J/S'er" (and I know for a FACT at several carriers can/able to display this information via their Stby Pax listing), even if they are given a seat by the issuing gate agents.

I am not out to play "J/S Wars", nor do I think that's what needs to be done under the "Ready/Fire/Aim" method at this present time....BUT, if CAL's MEC and ALPA/outside Legal Council are able to clearly cite/show how this topic is in direct violation to their current/enforceable CBA....it's going to be taken to the next step....and 'one' of those options was mentioned earlier in this thread via the Union writings from yesterday.

For those who keep pointing out that it's "not the SkyWest guys fault", that's 'gray' at best. The phrase "Don't hate the player, hate the game" comes to mind. If this move by Mgt is proven to be an out-right/clear violation that is being taken on a valid/standing CBA.....I would tend to believe that there is going to be a lot of 'blurred' vision as to where the game begins, and the players start.....thus where the term VERY VERY Messy was born.

I can tell you this, it's not an issue that will be slid to the back burner. Time will tell.

 

Understood. Hopefully someone will post the actual language for you. The difference is that no-one has opened a crew base in IAH, CLE, or EWR to do that kind of flying. The flying was always done by a competitor in a code-share agreement. Now its being done "in-house" with a crew domicile and base in these cities. I'm sure you can agree that the XJET wasn't flying 700's out of IAH, CLE, or EWR ONLY because it was prohibited by the CAL scope clause. Well, now Skywest comes in and starts doing exactly that based on it being "United". I'm sure you can see the difference in this vs. USAirways Express flying a CRJ900 into IAH with a CAL codeshare on it.

Cheers

 

How much wiggle room is left on the ratio of rjs to United block hours is left? These rjs are United express and have been redeployed from Ord is the way it looks to me. I think in mgt eyes, the jets don't have CAL express painted on the side and they think they are pulling a fast one.

 

I think you're missing the point. This is United Express flying, not CAL Express flying. CAL has been putting it's code on 70 seat United Express flying since before United and CAL merged. To those at CAL making threats, I suggest you get your facts straight.

 

You are correct, that is what I meant, I was referring to listing as a non rev. I never list Jumpseat unless it looks like I won't get a seat in the back and I don't think I should take the non rev risk. I am referring to actually being a standard non rev out of uniform, wearing jeans and a t-shirt and never even listing jumpseat therefore never having to "request the jumpseat" . On my airline this is a free benefit we have, so I don't have to actually purchase the ticket, but I have been on a Continental flight (I'm a travel companion or whatever its called) and purchased the $12 ticket rather than jumpseat. I don't always do that on Continental, there were just certain circumstances that made that the best option that day. Anyway that is all beside the point of my post, there are other means for people to get to work, like driving, living in base, other airlines, etc. I just don't think denying jumpseats will create an effect that will be efficient in getting what you want, and in the mean time really screw over other pilots.

 

You are right, I had completely forgotten that Skywest is non union as I wrote that post. I guess its all up to Continental and United pilots to get that scope in the contract! Stay unified, and get all your pilots back on property!

 

Joe....

All good points, and you are correct, those are "Codeshares". Just so we are both up to speed, those Codeshares in which you are sighting, some come by way of the "Star Alliance" in which CAL became a part of following their departure from the "Sky Team" in Oct 2009.

Well prior to the Merger back in 2008, CAL was granted governmental "anti-trust immunity" by way of an enhanced Codeshare with UAL (can ONLY speak for the CAL side, but our Union DID scrutinized thourghly the agreement) as it's partner in the agreement. If you have been on APC for any length of time, you should be familiar that this "enhanced" code share did have a "shelf-life" that was due to expire come the end of 2010. With that date looming, then came many 'road blocks' (via CAL's SCOPE) for long term future plans involving such an agreement after which it expired.

To cite a 'few' Codeshared flights that were permissible under CAL's current CBA as a product of the former Enhanced Codeshare with UAL, or some that have come about as a by-product with USAirways via the "Star Alliance", is much different than "UAL's Jeff" opening up a 70 Seat RJ base in one of CAL's biggest hubs/bases. To say they "already" do it (and you obviously NOT having CAL's CBA as your expressed earlier), nor 'possibly' understanding the prior landscape & the legalese that were involved under those few/select segments that you cite that 'could' have been tied to "Star", or the Enhanced Codeshare.....Your theroy paints a broad stroke in which you may not be able to 'generalize' as being a uniformed reason over the entire matter.

We have all read our contracts (I would hope), and can see how at times there are things/sections that are "up for interpretation" depending on 'whos' reading it. CAL ALPA is presently going through the proper channels to have it's current Section 1 in their CBA reviewed closely (along with the company's explanation) with the individuals who are qualified to decipher if there is any violation of the subject. I can appreciate your 'zest' to want to analysis CAL's Section 1 to make your 'own ruling' (which holds about as much water as a paper bag).....but just b/c your operator puts you up at a "Holiday Inn Express", does NOT make you a seasoned/qualified Labor Contract Attorney. I for one will sit back and wait to see the outcome on this as reasoned by individuals who are a heck of a lot more qualified to call a spade a spade on the issue of 70 seaters out of IAH.

 

GB

Who knew that the tried and true method of going to a regional and then a major would be kosher prior to 2003 and scabby after! Man I'm getting dizzy trying to think with your logic!

 

And on that tone.....11/08/10

SCOPE UPDATE
This is an update on the status of management’s plan to place the CO code on United Express flights using 70-seat jets to and from CLE, EWR and IAH. As previously communicated, less than two weeks ago, we met with the Company to clearly express our objections and to formally request their contractual justification. We received their response last week, at which time we also received their request for a more complete explanation of why we believe their actions are a violation of Section 1 of the Continental CBA.

We have now provided that to the Company, along with our steadfast insistence that they confirm to us, no later than this Wednesday, Nov. 10, that they have ceased and desisted with their plans. As I have said before and I will repeat now—we are prepared to use all appropriate legal vehicles to bring resolution to this issue and ultimately prevent outsourcing in violation of our current CBA. We will provide you with additional updates as more information becomes available.

One Union. One Voice.

Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman