What to do about Contract Violation
11-09-2010 | 07:25 AM
#82
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
I asked a benign question as to who you work for, and you gave me a minor resume of your accolades. I am not here to play charades with you. I merely asked a question....nothing more, nothing less!
As far as answering your 'questions', or taking your opinion as "fact".....I believe I was more than clear on how I will go about this issue and let those who are a 'bit more qualified' (let the legal council interrupt the language) to make those decisions in direction that my Union/MEC will follow....just so there's no confusion, that would be CAL ALPA. It appears that your are looking for answers, did you fail to read what I wrote to YOU earlier concerning this issue during the course of the thread?? If you 'missed' that, I'll cut-n-paste it for you.....
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.
11-09-2010 | 07:35 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: CRJ200 Capt.
What part of "out of pure curiosity" is not registering???
I asked a benign question as to who you work for, and you gave me a minor resume of your accolades. I am not here to play charades with you. I merely asked a question....nothing more, nothing less!
As far as answering your 'questions', or taking your opinion as "fact".....I believe I was more than clear on how I will go about this issue and let those who are a 'bit more qualified' (let the legal council interrupt the language) to make those decisions in direction that my Union/MEC will follow....just so there's no confusion, that would be CAL ALPA. It appears that your are looking for answers, did you failed to read what I wrote to you earlier concerning the issue during the course of the thread?? If you 'missed' that, I'll cut-n-paste it for you.....
I asked a benign question as to who you work for, and you gave me a minor resume of your accolades. I am not here to play charades with you. I merely asked a question....nothing more, nothing less!
As far as answering your 'questions', or taking your opinion as "fact".....I believe I was more than clear on how I will go about this issue and let those who are a 'bit more qualified' (let the legal council interrupt the language) to make those decisions in direction that my Union/MEC will follow....just so there's no confusion, that would be CAL ALPA. It appears that your are looking for answers, did you failed to read what I wrote to you earlier concerning the issue during the course of the thread?? If you 'missed' that, I'll cut-n-paste it for you.....
In other words, READY, FIRE, AIM....Got it.....
11-09-2010 | 07:45 AM
#84
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
So you admit you don't know if it is a violation yet, and you admit that you aren't an expert in this issue...YET you and some of your cohorts have already tried and hung the Skywest pilots and have threatened them with "lists" and jumpseats.
In other words, READY, FIRE, AIM....Got it.....
In other words, READY, FIRE, AIM....Got it.....
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.
If your going to attempt to 'twist' my words, please don't do it when I have the quote in B&W for you to compare side-by-side. Telling "half truths" (or quotes in this case) as to what I say is NOT the way to win friends/or confidence.
It only hurts your credibility pal.
11-09-2010 | 08:11 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: CRJ200 Capt.
Come on Joe.....
If your going to attempt to 'twist' my words, please don't do it when I have the quote in B&W for you to compare side-by-side. Telling "half truths" (or quotes in this case) as to what I say is NOT the way to win friends/or confidence.
It only hurts your credibility pal.
If your going to attempt to 'twist' my words, please don't do it when I have the quote in B&W for you to compare side-by-side. Telling "half truths" (or quotes in this case) as to what I say is NOT the way to win friends/or confidence.
It only hurts your credibility pal.
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.
I apologize for lumping you in, but I don't apologize for attacking those of your fellow pilots who are attacking the Skywest pilots...
11-09-2010 | 08:15 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
From: 787 Captain
Sorry SoCalGuy, I guess I did lump you in with your cohorts. It's hard to keep track of everyone, and most of your fellow pilots on this board and on FI board fit what I typed.
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.
I apologize for lumping you in, but I don't apologize for attacking those of your fellow pilots who are attacking the Skywest pilots...
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.
I apologize for lumping you in, but I don't apologize for attacking those of your fellow pilots who are attacking the Skywest pilots...
If you're referring to the Wendy Morse quote from a previous post, you've taken it out of context. She was referring to the 'standoff' over pay structures and the alleged comments made by Capt Baron to the UAL MEC. If she has made some other public caution to the CAL MEC over this issue, please point it out so I can make a few phone calls and voice my displeasure....
11-09-2010 | 08:16 AM
#87
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,734
Likes: 12
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.
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.
11-09-2010 | 08:21 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
From: 787 Captain
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.
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.
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.
11-09-2010 | 08:22 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: CRJ200 Capt.
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.
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.
11-09-2010 | 09:50 AM
#90
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
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.
... 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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wolf
Regional
10
02-18-2008 05:27 AM
