Enormous Cultural Gap.
 

3 stories that highlight for me the unbelievable gap in pilot and company mentality between L-UAL and L-CAL


Story 1)

L-CAL gate agent comes into the cockpit in EWR on a 767 bound for Europe and says

CSR: "Captain, just so you know, we upgraded an angry premium customer to first class and used the crew rest seat."

UAL Captain: "Well, just so you know this plane isn't moving, until we have our rest seat open."

CSR: "You're serious?"

UAL Captain: "Yes."




CSR then went crying to his boss, but ultimately the passenger was moved, and 3 days later when they returned EWR Chief Pilot said to the Captain (and this is paraphrased):

Chief P: "At Continental we take care of our customers and that's not the way we do things."

L-UAL-Captain: "At United we follow the rules."




Story 2:

This one I was personally involved in. I overheard a L-CAL captain talking on the phone in ops in IAD. The issue was whether or not they needed a 3rd pilot to go IAD to Manchester, England since they had a 3rd pilot for the return leg. Now I may have my facts wrong here and if so I hope some CAL pilots will correct me, but it is my understanding that Section 5-I-6 should now be fully implemented. The L-CAL captain was told by the crew desk that the id had been constructed in February before the rules were in effect so it was legal. The CAL crew flew with only 2 pilots in direct violation of 5-I-6 because the crew desk said it was ok. At a minimum most UAL pilots would have gotten an order to fly, and more likely the majority of L-UAL pilots would have refused the trip until a 3rd pilot was added.


Story 3

The EWR Chief pilot has sent out an email that says in effect "I don't want my pilots to get in the middle of a contract dispute, and this is a blanket order to fly even if you believe the 757 rest seat should have an open seat next to it.


The contract says:


and, the EWR Chief pilot says this means the the adjacent seat shall be the last assigned seat in business-first only.

I agree there are details that need clarification regarding coach passengers not showing up, but if there are 30 unassigned seats in coach and business-first fills up that clearly does not give the company a right to fill the seat next to the rest seat, and I hope to heck CAL pilots are not flying with this situation.



Anyways, I just find the difference in culture to be surprising.

IMHO the CP was out of line. Although I have to say, without knowing the date, that implementation status, etc., I can't know what the actual rule was at the time. Further, maybe the EWR CP didn't know the rule from the UAL side-----if so clearly a mistake on his/her part.

Was it a pairing that carried into March? I'm not going to take the time right now, to go look at the LOAs, but I think that all of the implementation stuff started/starts with a "Bid Month," so a Feb pairing on a carryout is a grey area.


Yeah, I have a problem with this one also. However, on the CAL side, our history has been to fly now, grieve later. Further, we just can't have 12000 pilot interpreting the contract their own way. This is why we pay union dues, so that the individuals in union management can fight/resolve these issues for us.

UAL new hire class company paid steak dinner in private room, nice welcoming to United speech, presentation of coat wings, shirt wings and hat device in 'jewelry' box with a professional photographer. Also given lapel wings for suit. (Not what is was compared to the 90s and earlier, but still nice and respectful)
CAL new hire class pass out one set of coat wings wrapped in a plastic bag in indoc class. Pay for your own scrappy wing embroidery on shirts, if you choose. Welcome to CAL. :rolleyes:


UAL: retirement photo of pilots' jet in a frame matte, about 20x24. Fellow pilots write nice comments and well wishes, with plenty of space.

CAL: cheesy 8x11 printer paper of pilots ID photo that says Congratulations on retirement. Hardly any room for comments. The paper looks like a page out of kids 5th grade year book. :rolleyes:

Bottom Line: UAL is a gentleman's airline compared to scruffy CAL. Not saying UAL doesn't have it's capital/labor issues, but there is a considerable difference.

No, it happened last week and the pairing was a March pairing for sure.

In regards to this story, I'd really be interested to know what the intent of the language is as it was negotiated at the table. Not sure what side is the truth, but devil's advocate:

The contract does not say that the company can only sell BusinessFirst minus 2 seats on the airplane. The contract says that we are entitled to one and that the one next to it must be the last one assigned.

So, the company sells 15 high-value premium seats with 14 being assigned and one being held. I'm not sure that means that the company also has to sell out coach. Fifteen people fork over thousands to sit in BF or First and because passengers don't show up in coach a first class passenger has to be downgraded?

I can't imagine this was the intent of the language, but I could be wrong I admit.

This is it.... right here. And understandably why there are 'c'aptains at CAL and Captains at UAL. Disappointing. :(


CAL 'c'aptains call the hotel and make sure the van is on the way... multiple calls if needed...

UAL Captains wait 30m, no van, get a cab, expense it. Result: van is there waiting. Regardless, 30m after block in, UAL pilots are driving to the hotel, one way or the other.


What is interesting is the CAL pilots complain like bad a** tough guys, but when it comes to action.... well.... :rolleyes:


EWR CPO attitude towards pilots: I guess if we can trust you to fly the jets we can trust you on dry cleaning expenses. :rolleyes:

Here we go. Another topic to divide us. Thanks UAL. :rolleyes:

Almost funny listening to the ual side but in reality most are not viewed that way by the rest of the industry, it is considered a weak group. Not trying to flame but I have not seen the majority of ual pilots act like what I read above in a long time. Heck they approved this contract that says plenty.

Regardless of where or for who one flies....

We pay ALPA lawyers to verify and proof contracts our negotiating team is working on for us their clients. Any interpretation or subtle language is absolute BS. Why do ALPA pilots always get the same old story from ALPA after the fact. " Well you know, that is not quite what that means and we are working on it......" YGTBFSM!!!!

Calling BS on this one, if the seat is permanently blocked, no CSR would do this.
Probably happened that way, the deal is that the flight isn't operating every day, so the return, which is over 8 hours, wasn't built into the pairing. Since no leg was over 8 they didn't put an IRO on it. This has since been brought to the attention of whoever is in charge of the constructing the pairings. Both the company and union agreed that it should be augmented even though no leg is over 8 hours on the pairing (ID), but have also agreed that because the pairings were built that way for March, they would leave them and fix it in April. BS, but the JIT agreed to it soooo....


We have been getting orders to fly for this on every flight that has been operating not in compliance with this section of the contract. You call, and within minutes you have a written order to fly signed by the EWR chief pilot. I've had it once, and then followed up with the grievance. I don't know what your issue is here, the pilots are doing as the union has directed by requesting an order to fly for each and every flight that goes out like this, and management has responded by ordering each and every pilot on the crew an order to fly. Personally, I think it is a little stupid, because the outcome of requesting the order is now a fait accompli, it is obviously going to go to a presidential grievance, requesting the order to fly isn't delaying the flights at all, but if the union wants me to do it, I do it. Hopefully, this isn't the way orders to fly will be issued in the future, but whatever.