|
Relax. No one is going to start a jumpseat war or start any kind of a "list". Such actions certainly won't have the support of the union or even the majority of the more level-headed pilots. Outsourcing to the 70-seaters is our own fault. Well, actually it's UAL's fault;) But if we don't stop the incursion in IAH there will most definitely be no one to blame but ourselves and our MEC. Latest MEC updates and communications from JP are very encouraging. Sounds like the fight will be on. Finally.
|
Jay Pierce:
... 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. Wendy Morse: Also, a member of the CAL-MEC issued an ultimatum – never the best approach to doing business ... Smart money goes with Wendy on this one. |
Originally Posted by bfull
(Post 898362)
Jay Pierce:
... 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. Wendy Morse: Also, a member of the CAL-MEC issued an ultimatum – never the best approach to doing business ... Smart money goes with Wendy on this one. Good on JP....I would bet most (if not ALL) CAL pilots support him on this subject by standing firm on behalf of HIS group pilot in protecting mainline flying under OUR present/standing CBA. 'Nuff said. |
Originally Posted by bfull
(Post 898362)
Jay Pierce:
... 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. Wendy Morse: Also, a member of the CAL-MEC issued an ultimatum – never the best approach to doing business ... Smart money goes with Wendy on this one. |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 897961)
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.... 4. Complementary Carriers Operating Aircraft Smaller than Eighty (80) Seats. A Domestic Air Carrier that only operates aircraft with an FAA certification of fewer than eighty (80) seats may engage in Complementary Carrier Flying on jet aircraft with an FAA certification of less than eighty (80) seats and may operate such flights under a Marketing Agreement, without inclusion of such flights in a Complementary Carrier ASM Ratio specified in Paragraph 1 above, provided that the Domestic Air Carrier: a. Does not operate such Complementary Carrier Flying to or from a Company Hub; (CLE, EWR, IAH and GUM as defined in our CBA) b. Is not an Affiliate of another Complementary Carrier; c. Does not operate any flights under the designator code of another Complementary Carrier; and d. Does not operate any flights under a Revenue/Profit Sharing Agreement with another Complementary Carrier. 5. Company Hub Flights. The Company will not permit Complementary Carrier Flying between Company Hubs or to or from a Company Hub (except for Hub to Hub Flights). |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 898429)
Here, I believe, are the relevant paragraphs of our scope section:
4. Complementary Carriers Operating Aircraft Smaller than Eighty (80) Seats. A Domestic Air Carrier that only operates aircraft with an FAA certification of fewer than eighty (80) seats may engage in Complementary Carrier Flying on jet aircraft with an FAA certification of less than eighty (80) seats and may operate such flights under a Marketing Agreement, without inclusion of such flights in a Complementary Carrier ASM Ratio specified in Paragraph 1 above, provided that the Domestic Air Carrier: a. Does not operate such Complementary Carrier Flying to or from a Company Hub; (CLE, EWR, IAH and GUM as defined in our CBA) In addition, when the XJET transaction goes thru, XJET will no longer fall under 4A as Atlantic Southeast operates aircraft certificated for more than 80 seats. What other "carriers" are there besides "Complementary Carriers"? What does United fall under in the CAL scope section as you are putting the CAL code on their airplanes? It also appears that the Mesa 90 seat flying operates outside of this section too. |
Originally Posted by bfull
(Post 898362)
Jay Pierce:
... 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. Wendy Morse: Also, a member of the CAL-MEC issued an ultimatum – never the best approach to doing business ... Smart money goes with Wendy on this one. |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 898455)
With all the public bickering going on between Wendy and Jay, maybe you folks need to worry about each other rather than attacking junior Skywest pilots who will mostly be furloughed United pilots....Just a thought....
Just out of pure curiosity, who is it that you are a "CRJ-CA" for?? |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 898464)
Joe....
Just out of pure curiosity, who is it that you are a "CRJ-CA" for?? |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 898477)
I'll give you a hint...It's an ALPA carrier owned by Skywest Inc...and I experience negotiating ALPA contracts and scope language...I've spent more than time in Herndon than I care too....Why do you ask?
Thanks for the info. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:09 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands