New CAL Flying
 

I'm out in the middle of nowhere with limited Internet and no Transition agreement; is the following addressed in that document? This would be difficult to stomach if I were a UAL furloughed pilot. I know they will be
Hired at CAL, but that is AFTER all the CAL pilots are recalled, some of whom will be doing this flying.

CHICAGO, Nov. 17, 2010 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines today announced that it will begin daily nonstop flights between Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) and Ft. Lauderdale (FLL) and West Palm Beach (PBI), Fla.; and between Denver International Airport (DEN) and Ft. Lauderdale on Feb. 17, 2011. *

"These flights will offer Chicago and Denver travelers convenient access to the beaches of South Florida," said Jim Ferea, Continental's managing director of domestic planning.*"They will also give South Floridians additional options for reaching the Mile High City with connections to Colorado's world-class ski resorts."

The new flights complement Continental's existing service to Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach from its hubs in New York, Houston and Cleveland and Continental Connection service, operated by Gulfstream, from Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach to destinations in Florida and the Bahamas.

The rumor is that UAL will be picking up some Latin and S.American (maybe even Asian) flying out of IAH. I think the issue is addressed in the TPA and as long as block hours remain at a constant ratio, they're in compliance.

This was bound to happen sooner or later!

Tell you what you guys can have these dinky Florida turns if we keep both EWR-TLV's. I can promise you a 400 will be on that sooner rather then later...

Will be nice when the posts start sounding like one company instead of 2 seperate groups fighting over every route.

Problem begins when CAL continues to take delivery of aircraft before the merger is complete. How much flying can you continue to swap if CAL is adding block hours and adding pilots while UAL is not? This will become rather uneven rather quickly. The only route I have heard was IAH-LIM.

Unfortunately the merger is complete, we have to live with it. I think you mean until the SOC/JCBA?

Exactly. How is that JCBA doing?:(

Kind of like he said/she said...

Seems to me the real issue is this route swapping allows Jeffy to
take the gains of "synergies" without conceding anything to our respective labor groups.
Lets stay focused on getting a great Jcba (capital J for "Joint")
and then there will be plenty of new flying opportunities for all of us

P.S.
Thanks to all the great UAL crews on my recent commutes to work.
Its nice to have a civil discussion of all of these issues, and makes me feel like we can eventually enjoy working with one another

That's exactly what I was thinking as well.

Glad you are finding our pilots hospitable. I've found the same with the CAL pilots. Very gracious.

+1 from the CAL side. Don't let the opinions of a few on a forum persuade you to believe one thing or another.

Per the T & P A:

"In each consecutive six (6) month period during separate operations beginning on the Merger Closing Date, the ratio of aircraft block hours
scheduled to be flown by United to the aircraft block hours scheduled to be flown by Continental, will equal or exceed ninety percent (90%) of the same ratio for the same six (6) month period during the period May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2010 (excluding United’s 737 scheduled aircraft block hours during the period May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2010). The applicable scheduled aircraft block hours for the period May 1, 2009 through April 30, 2010 are shown in Attachment C."

The ratio doesn't have to stay the same as it can go down to as low as 90% of the premerger ratio.

Won't matter for two reasons; (a) TPA expires July 2011. (b) They'll be outsourcing everything to Skywest by then.

Hey - one guy sees what's happening. Scope is circling the drain via the "end sweep" happening right now. Skywest 76 seater base at IAH. Republic/Shuttle America 76 seater base at EWR.

Why aren't the MEC chairmen seeking injunctions against this until a JCBA is reached?

PIPE

I'll tell you why............because they are too busy working on greivances filed years ago concerning miniscule payclaims and crap like that. And management KNOWS it takes FOREVER to get anything done if they violate our contract, so they have NO fear of retribution for YEARS. Sad, isn't it?:(

If it matters, even a little:

From this week's CAL MEC update:

"Finally this week, the scheduling and procedures for the expedited arbitration on the Scope violation have been finalized. The hearing will be held the second week of December, with a decision rendered no later than Dec. 30, 2010, well prior to the flight start dates."

While I would love to see an injunction filed, frankly I'm nearly ecstatic that we're doing something. The expedited grievance has a Dec. 30 resolution deadline - well prior to the start of proposed flying that is in violation - and picketing just prior to Thanksgiving. This may be the most we can do right now thanks to the RLA and if there's any justice in the world the arbitrator will see it for what it is - a clear violation of our scope. But at the very least I hope it sends a message to Smisek and co. that we're serious about fighting outsourcing - in both our current contract and the next - and without discussion the only 70+ seat flying to be done will be done by UAL pilots.

Here's the TA:

Good to hear. Please trust me when I say that the vast majority of my fellow SkyW guys/gals are not overly pleased in being used as pawns in this mess. Every pilot I have talked to supports you guys in this mess.

From the outside looking in, I hope ya'll can come together in a big way and get this JCBA done quick in an amiable way. I know that the new UAL/CAL is not without its issues (ride in JS every week from DEN-ORD) but man I still dig that company. Hold on to that scope and keep fighting the good fight.

Just one regional guys perspective. Cheers-

The TPA expiring in July is bad for the UAL side of the house.

CAL has block our protections built in to our contract, section 1 merger and fragmentation clause, UAL does not so the expiration of the TPA would not protect UAL's flying. After the TPA expiration, the CAL pilots could refuse to fly any shifting of flights that is beyond what the TPA specified, but I don't know if that would be legal and thus mgmt could get an injunction?

So lets hope that we get a JCBA before then or an extension of the TPA when we vote down the first JCBA TA.......

Happy to see that we're finally allowing the JNC to do its work without EITHER MEC meddling in the process so that maybe we'll at least have a TA to vote down by July.

That may be why the ratio is 90% for UAL. Until the SLI is complete, "CAL's" aircraft deliveries can't be flown by "UAL's" pilots.

Of course Litigator Smisek is not honoring our scope clause so why would we expect him to honor the TPA or merger and fragmentation sections of our scope clause.

The other rumor I have recently heard is that IAH-NRT will be going to a 747 soon.

FWIW, on the airliners.net site someone seems to have posted that UAL will start an SFO-IAH-LIM round trip with the 763 starting in Feb.

Just looked in Apollo.

UA 854 is for sale starting 17FEB. 2 class 767 from IAH to LIM. (It's the 2 class that UA has been using to the islands)

Just saw that as well. Makes my first post moot. It appears that the flying shifting is more a function of rightsizing routes than any attempted whipsaw. That's good news to me, and I'm sure to our furloughed brothers and sisters. Hopefully they will all be back soon

It will be run as a through flight SFO-IAH-LIM replacing a current CAL 757 which I'm sure will be immediately redeployed to replace that 50-seat RJ from say IAH to LIT?? ;)

Who cares as long as they replace the RJ's like the skywest (UAL) LAX-IAH UFB...

As soon as a new contract is reached all of the hub to hub flying should go back to mainline, that is in the present contract. With the integration of CO and UA hubs, this should bring back a lot of flying in and of itself.

Not to nit-pick...but all UAL code rjs are limited to max certificated 70 seat / 80K pound aircraft with the exception of the E-170 which must fly with only 70 seats. IOW, no "76 seaters" currently fly the UAL code, only 70 seaters.

Think it is actually that they can only be configured with 66 seats.

I welcome the layover in IAH and Lima but am very interested in seeing Guam for the first time. Sure those are coming for UAL 747 pilots.

Actually, the present contract specifically allows hub-to-hub codeshare flights on large jets. That has been going on for years. 70-seaters flying codeshare from IAH is not new.

[QUOTE=JMD16;904816]Think it is actually that they can only be configured with 66 seats.[/QUOTE

Negative. It is just as I said. I am reading it directly from 1-K-22. 70 seats and 80K lbs. The CRJs are configured for 6/60 but the EMBs are 6/64.

Yes, but the 70 seaters were flying from IAH to a UAL hub and with a UAL code. This new flying scheduled for Jan is from IAH to a spoke city with a CAL code. A clear violation of CAL ALPA's scope clause.

Highly doubt it. NOBODY flies 74's into Guam anymore. We feed the NRT 777 with 73 700's and 800's.