Cal mec special update (scope)
 

Just received this update. Despite the cease and desist issued by CALALPA, it's safe to say the company has given us the finger regarding the 70 seat RJs and CAL scope. Reach out to the pilots of Skywest and Shuttle America. If this won't unite us, nothing will. Get involved. Stay unified. Call your reps. Stay tuned for SPSC updates...especially as Thanksgiving approaches. ;)

Frats,

LifeNtheFstLne
CAL 757/767 FO

CAL MEC SPECIAL UPDATE- NOV 10,2010 ALPA: The Pilots Union




Nov. 10, 2010


SCOPE UPDATE 2
On Monday, we gave you an update on the status of Continental’s plan to place the CO code on United Express flights using 70-seat jets to and from CLE, EWR, and IAH. We told you that we had exchanged information and formal arguments related to the issue and that we had provided a deadline (today) for receiving confirmation from management that they had ceased and desisted with their plans.

We received a communication from management today, but it did not include their intent to cease and desist. To the contrary, they fully intend to move forward with their plans. In light of their ill-advised decision to proceed and as we have forewarned, we will now begin work on taking the appropriate legal actions available to us in the coming days and weeks. Watch for more details from the union soon, beginning with information for upcoming SPSC events in EWR and IAH later this month.

In order to provide you with information about our stated reasons why management’s plan is in violation of our CBA, as well as the points provided by management, we are summarizing the communications that were exchanged last week. The summary is outlined below.

Our position is that Section 1, Part 3-A of the CBA clearly prohibits the Company action, unless it is authorized by some other Part of Section 1. No other Part of Section 1 authorizes the Company course of action, as none of the express carriers performing the work is a Company affiliate; only 50-seat and turboprop flying, not 70-seat jet flying, is permitted by Part 4; and flying to a Company hub (if not to or from a hub of the other carrier) is not permitted by Part 5.

The Company relies on Part 7, arguing that it is flying by another air carrier while participating in a Complete Transaction in accordance with Part 7. It is our position, however, that while Part 7 specifies rules for separation and merger of mainline operations, Part 7 does not change the rules in Parts 4 or 5 for operation of Express carriers or Complementary Carriers. Nor does Part 7 license Continental to permit United Express carriers SkyWest or Shuttle America to carry the CO code without observing the limits in Parts 4 or 5, because neither of them is a “participant” in a Complete Transaction. Neither express carrier is acquiring any part of Continental, nor is it becoming a Parent of the Company. Nor is Continental acquiring Control of assets of either carrier. Further, if either of these air carriers were participating in a Complete Transaction with the Company, that participation would trigger a series of obligations that the Company has not applied.

The Company also argues that following the merger closing, United and Continental will each continue to operate as an air carrier, but they are not prohibited from integrating their marketing, reservations systems and livery, ultimately marketing and operating their service under a blend of the United name and Continental livery. But this argument relies on general actions associated with a merger to dissolve specific protections at the heart of the CBA, as well as mixing those actions which the Company can undertake now with those that must wait until after a JCBA (and integrated seniority list) are reached. Ultimately, their actions are not an effort to transition Continental and Continental Express operations to the single UA code, but to replace 50-seat jets in Continental hubs with 70-seat jets and to connect them with Continental flights, branded as Continental flights under the CO code, strictly as a way of carrying more passengers and thus making more money.

Of course, Continental can always operate its own 70-seat jets under the CO code by doing so under the Continental CBA with Continental pilots. But if they do not do so, we have insisted that they act in accordance with the Continental CBA until and unless changed. Additionally, as we have mentioned in previous communications both to our pilots and to management, we have no reservations about using the full range of legal vehicles available to bring resolution to this issue and ultimately prevent outsourcing in violation of our current CBA.

One Union. One Voice.

Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman

Ah, it seems the "new United" is drawing from Tilton's play book. Let's hope legal recourse works. Unfortunately, hard won experience would suggest that management's 'alternate reality' of the CBA will become reality. Just look at the recent decision regarding Aer Lingus.

There seems to be a lot of animosity against the Skywest pilots but not for the Shuttle America pilots. My guess is its because Skywest pilots have repeatedly voted down ALPA representation and independent union representation. I wouldn't be surprised if ALPA has reached out to the Shuttle America pilots through the IBT to coordinate whatever strategy they come up with to fight this. If Skywest pilots were ALPA, or just unionized, they too would be able to participate in discussions happening right now between the SPCS, CAL ALPA, UAL ALPA, XJT ALPA, ASA ALPA, Mesa ALPA, TSA ALPA, Colgan ALPA, Commutair ALPA (ALL UAX/CALEX ALPA carriers) to coordinate whatever the SPSC and CAL ALPA come up with as a total game strategy and specific tactics to be used to fight this on ALL fronts. Whatever this strategy is, this information and direction will be dessimanted quickly to all the ALPA carriers involved through the SPSC to exert as legal much pressure possible to UAL management and we wouldn't have this infighting between fellow professional pilots. At some point, we all should band together for the betterment of the entire industry and stop being passive about it just because its convenient.

Just a thought.

So one has to wonder, is there any incentive or "synergy" to get a JCBA when there are so many wonderful places to start flying 70 seaters out of. Doesn't seem like they know what some here think and should be a result of the JCBA, the end of 70 seat flying.

I suspect they will get as much 70 seat flying on the CAL side as possible before the JCBA finally passes.

How MECs (both of you): HOW ABOUT WE GET THE BANDING/UNBANDING ISSUE RESOLVED AND START FOCUSING ON THE REAL ENEMY WITH ONE UNIFIED VOICE!

KC

There is no contract violation here. CAL has been putting the CAL code on Mesa and Skywest 70 and 90 seaters for quite a while now....

Ironically, the new hire FO's that will probably end up flying for SkyWest in IAH are going to furloughed United pilots.

I think the term for this is Charlie Foxtrot.....Something that has become all too familiar within the ALPA "family"....

WOW! You're right. I guess there is no violation.

I'm gonna call the CAL MEC chairman, and Mike Abram (the scope specialist at ALPA national who wrote CAL's scope clause) and tell them they're wrong.

Thanks for the info.

By the way, with all that superior brain power, why are you flying for a minor player and making so much less than your HUGE CRANIUM can obviously attract. I mean you could at least be a cheif pilot with that kind of brain power. Maybe even one of those 150k+ government employees that have exploded on to the scene here in the last couple of years.....

They are putting on their game face to keep the natives happy...In the end, there will be United Express 70 seaters in every United hub...

Guys.......now you know where the fight is. MGT has just slapped us in the face at the very early stages of a massive merger. This is a test and BOTH sides need to Unite! Enough internal bickering. This is the time to determine the outcome of this merger on the pilot side.

I fully expect massive participation from both sides via SPSC.

Be ready!