Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Skywest Commences CO Hub Flying For UA As Planned  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24707 posts, RR: 46
Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14492 times:

Last week there was a thread about Continental ALPA arbitration regarding planned Skywest 70-seat RJ flying at CO hubs.
Sadly as the discussion degenerated it was locked.
CO Loses 70 Seat RJ Arbitration (by flyhossd Dec 30 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Very early on I mentioned the arbitrator ruling was merely a small bump in the road, and United would simply rebrand all the flying under the UA code banner instead of the CO code.

Well that is exactly what is happening and the flying is moving forward commencing tomorrow January 4th.

Here is a Q&A that was sent out:

Quote:

Q. How will this affect SkyWest?
A. The ruling affects the marketing of SkyWest-operated flights. SkyWest-operated United Express flights with the CO code to and from IAH for Jan.4 start-up will now be identified and sold solely as United flights.

Q. What will happen with our IAH flights on January 4th?
A. These flights will continue as scheduled. They will operate in SHARES (CO reservation system) as United flights. Since it is in SHARES, ground and gate handling can continue to be provided by Continental employees or a third-party ground handler.

Q. Will customers know about the change?
A. United is reaching out to all customers for whom they have email addresses. However, boarding passes for customers may print with the CO flight number. As a result, we expect that for a transitional period the former Continental flight number and the new United flight number will alternate for these flights on airport information screens.

Q. Will our onboard announcements or service change?
A. No. Flight attendants and flight crewmembers will utilize the current script and procedures.

Q. What changes will there be for the IAH gates operating these flights?
A. First, United is ensuring these flights are identified as United at departure and arrival gates using United signage. Second, stations will continue to facilitate customer check-in. Starting immediately, these flights are no longer being sold as Continental flights and will be available as United flights. However, customers will continue to check in with CO.

Q. Do these steps comply with the arbitrator’s ruling?
A. Yes. We continue working closely with United as they complete the UA/CO integration and merge.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUSXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1009 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14450 times:

So..... does the arbitrator's ruling have ANY TEETH at all to it? Or have they just found a way around the scope? I would assume that the new UA/CO ALPA would probably come to terms with scope relating directly to monthly block hours rather than airframes... as I just don't see them being able to successfully negotiate out any of the 70 seaters.


xx
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14390 times:

It becomes ever clearer what Continental had to gain from the merger with United. It is clearly viewed as an opportunity to lower costs by sidestepping existing industrial negotiations or even arbitration rulings, and it clearly is not going to be considered to be contempt of court, which is what it would be found to be in most other advanced countries.

It will be interesting to see where this ends, because the effects on staff morale may be enormous, as it becomes obvious to them that the carrier will do it's utmost to erode their hard-earned employment rights and job security. I wonder how many of the employees consider the CEO to be "Man of the Year"?

I had thought that the merged carrier would develop into a larger Continental, but the behaviour of the management team may lead to a situation in which we are left instead with an oversized United. Many of us from outside the USA consider all airline management in the USA to be incompetent lemmings, but believed that the management of CO and SW and HA were of an altogether higher calibre. I'm no longer convinced that CO's management actually merits such respect.

This reinforces the view that all US airline management is engaged in a race to the bottom, with plummeting spending on quality driving down service standards reducing yield levels ever lower, and with the airlines having occasional successful quarters only by virtue of collusion to cut capacity and double charge passengers for basic features of the aviation experience like fuel, baggage and sustenance.


User currently offline30west From Brazil, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14109 times:

Quoting USXguy (Reply 1):
So..... does the arbitrator's ruling have ANY TEETH at all to it? Or have they just found a way around the scope? I would assume that the new UA/CO ALPA would probably come to terms with scope relating directly to monthly block hours rather than airframes... as I just don't see them being able to successfully negotiate out any of the 70 seaters.

Yes the ruling matters, the flights aren't for sale in CAL reservation system, they don't show up.

They are in the UA reservation system.

As far as scope if they want to operate as one airline they have no choice but to negotiate 70 seat scope.

30west


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14087 times:

Quoting USXguy (Reply 1):
So..... does the arbitrator's ruling have ANY TEETH at all to it? Or have they just found a way around the scope? I would assume that the new UA/CO ALPA would probably come to terms with scope relating directly to monthly block hours rather than airframes... as I just don't see them being able to successfully negotiate out any of the 70 seaters.

Just what 30west said. The ruling does have teeth to it.

Now, a question I have: would a passenger booking themselves on, say, ORD-IAH-EZE have to go out of security, claim and check their bags and go back into the airport if they'd flown the ORD-IAH segment on a United 70 seat jet? By the ruling, I interpret it as they'd have to do that.


User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14037 times:

Quoting 30west (Reply 3):
Yes the ruling matters, the flights aren't for sale in CAL reservation system, they don't show up.

They are in the UA reservation system.

As far as scope if they want to operate as one airline they have no choice but to negotiate 70 seat scope.

Can't United just slowly take the planes out of Continental and into United...say 20 per month? Don't merge the carriers, just eliminate the Continental pilots and if they want to fly still, they have to reapply at United under United rates? This would save the new UA a ton of money as now the CO pilots would have no seniority and they would also have the 70 seat scope? Basically a big in your face to continental pilots for being a pain in the butt? Remember, this isn't necessarily my viewpoint, just an observation and/ or question?


User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14042 times:

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 4):
Now, a question I have: would a passenger booking themselves on, say, ORD-IAH-EZE have to go out of security, claim and check their bags and go back into the airport if they'd flown the ORD-IAH segment on a United 70 seat jet? By the ruling, I interpret it as they'd have to do that.

no way...they still have interline baggage agreements. Just like if you flew AA LAX-DEN and then connected onto UA DEN-ORD.


User currently offline30west From Brazil, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13994 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Very early on I mentioned the arbitrator ruling was merely a small bump in the road, and United would simply rebrand all the flying under the UA code banner instead of the CO code.

You and I discussed this months ago and I pointed out this issue , you said it was nothing back then. You're sticking with this is still nothing ? It was a major blow to scope negotiations.

Since the CAL FFs and corporate contracts cant even see the flights in CAL's res system do you really think that will have no effect on the profitability of marginal rj flights, especially with rising fuel prices?

In a few months there will be no one on these flights. The FF in IAH isn't going to go on UA website to look for a flight from IAH to his destination he is going to look on the CAL website. The UA FF in ORD will see a flight IAH to ATL( for example) but why would he buy a ticket ORD-IAH-ATL when he can go ORD-ATL direct, unless he's on a mileage run.

They will simply operate these flights at a loss until a new pilot contract is settled and this situation is taken care of.

This was simply to draw a line in the sand and see what ALPA would do and what the arbitrator would do about it.


User currently offlineadxmatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13980 times:

to goboeing..... ua and co have an interline agreement. the bags will be checked through.

what gets me is that the flight is still held in shares and check in is with continental.

cgeck in should be with united and handled by whomever handles united flights.


User currently offline30west From Brazil, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13956 times:

Quoting joeljack (Reply 5):
Can't United just slowly take the planes out of Continental and into United...say 20 per month? Don't merge the carriers, just eliminate the Continental pilots and if they want to fly still, they have to reapply at United under United rates? This would save the new UA a ton of money as now the CO pilots would have no seniority and they would also have the 70 seat scope? Basically a big in your face to continental pilots for being a pain in the butt? Remember, this isn't necessarily my viewpoint, just an observation and/ or question?

No that can't be done. First the current CAL contract forbids it and second the recently signed transition and protocol agreement requires CAL to keep 100% of the flying block hours at CAL until new agreement.


User currently offlineeraugrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13951 times:

So Skywest will be flying ExPlus birds out of IAH? Wow where are all these UA birds gonna fit especially during Irregular ops?

Desmond in ILM,



Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13906 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 2):
it clearly is not going to be considered to be contempt of court, which is what it would be found to be in most other advanced countries.

Really and what other more advanced countries are you talking about here?
United is able to operate ANY route it wants to operate, how is that contempt of court?
BTW just to be clear since you don't seem to even get the basics, this was not an order from a Judge in a court of law.

Quoting koruman (Reply 2):
Many of us from outside the USA consider all airline management in the USA to be incompetent lemmings

LOL!!!!!
Really, what proof do you have of this? It would seem to me that airlines all over the world look up to airlines in the US since they send people over to see how we do things and be trained constantly.

Quoting koruman (Reply 2):
but believed that the management of CO and SW and HA were of an altogether higher calibre.

Check your airline codes, being such a major player and an insider of the industry I would think you would know at the very least the correct airline codes!

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 4):
Now, a question I have: would a passenger booking themselves on, say, ORD-IAH-EZE have to go out of security, claim and check their bags and go back into the airport if they'd flown the ORD-IAH segment on a United 70 seat jet? By the ruling, I interpret it as they'd have to do that.

No they do not.

Quoting joeljack (Reply 5):
Can't United just slowly take the planes out of Continental and into United...say 20 per month? Don't merge the carriers, just eliminate the Continental pilots and if they want to fly still, they have to reapply at United under United rates? This would save the new UA a ton of money as now the CO pilots would have no seniority and they would also have the 70 seat scope? Basically a big in your face to continental pilots for being a pain in the butt? Remember, this isn't necessarily my viewpoint, just an observation and/ or question?

I don't know if this could happen but I do know that it will NOT happen. Management at UCH continue to work with both sides towards a viable integration. Despite the horror you see on these forums things are actually going pretty smooth.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offline30west From Brazil, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13886 times:

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 4):
Now, a question I have: would a passenger booking themselves on, say, ORD-IAH-EZE have to go out of security, claim and check their bags and go back into the airport if they'd flown the ORD-IAH segment on a United 70 seat jet? By the ruling, I interpret it as they'd have to do that.

It depends on how they bought the ticket. But if tickets are purchase separately interline wont happen and you have to recheck but if your using a site like KAYAK or ORBITZ that's putting different carriers together it should interline the bags.


User currently offlinenyc2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 662 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13886 times:

Quoting 30west (Reply 7):
You and I discussed this months ago and I pointed out this issue , you said it was nothing back then. You're sticking with this is still nothing ? It was a major blow to scope negotiations.

Since the CAL FFs and corporate contracts cant even see the flights in CAL's res system do you really think that will have no effect on the profitability of marginal rj flights, especially with rising fuel prices?

In a few months there will be no one on these flights. The FF in IAH isn't going to go on UA website to look for a flight from IAH to his destination he is going to look on the CAL website. The UA FF in ORD will see a flight IAH to ATL( for example) but why would he buy a ticket ORD-IAH-ATL when he can go ORD-ATL direct, unless he's on a mileage run.

They will simply operate these flights at a loss until a new pilot contract is settled and this situation is taken care of.

This was simply to draw a line in the sand and see what ALPA would do and what the arbitrator would do about it.

Simple solution. Oversell the CO flights and walk people to the UA flight leaving 15 min later.



Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offline30west From Brazil, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13825 times:

Quoting nyc2theworld (Reply 13):
Simple solution. Oversell the CO flights and walk people to the UA flight leaving 15 min later.

With ideas like that you will be running Southwest airlines someday, simple and effective.

P.S. Dont tell WHQ about it they will steal it from you and say they thought it up, like the time I met the person that came up with the red carpets/ priority boarding lanes for UAL. She was proud of herself, then I said I had worked at CAL at one time and they had it first she replied yes but our carpets are red theirs are blue.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24707 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13817 times:

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 4):
By the ruling, I interpret it as they'd have to do that.

 
Of course not. Bags would be interlined as with any other UA-CO connection.

Quoting 30west (Reply 7):
you said it was nothing back then.

I don't recall the conversation, but I have not and still don't see any impediment to the flying. As with the company I disagree with the arbitrators interpretation, but life goes on and there is a pretty benign work around which was always apparent. Shift it all to United code.
Sooner or later everything will be under the UA banner anyhow, this just expedites the movement of the Express flying. Soon I'd say look for ExpressJet flying to be wrapped under a single banner also to keep things simple.

Quoting 30west (Reply 7):
In a few months there will be no one on these flights. The FF in IAH isn't going to go on UA website to look for a flight from IAH to his destination he is going to look on the CAL website. The UA FF in ORD will see a flight IAH to ATL( for example) but why would he buy a ticket ORD-IAH-ATL when he can go ORD-ATL direct, unless he's on a mileage run.

The flights are in Shares. Once the schedule load goes in(should be over the weekend) they simply will carry the UA code. You won't need to look at UA.com to find itineraries that marry up. Also for those concerned about dual carrier CO-UA bookings on 3rd party sites, remember CO-UA are in the process of codesharing on ever more flight segments. So you can have an all UA itinerary on flights operated partially by CO for example. This again can hasten that.

For the fuel, if it starts to bite look for the culling of more mainline ops, not RJs, esp the 70-seaters which have proven their worth. Its the larger planes that bleed bigger bucks. With RJ you can still maintain a good network footprint at lower total cost. Anyhow both CO and UA have some pretty decent long term RJ agreements in place. The capacity flexibility is on the mainline side, not express carriers.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13793 times:

The Early morning IND-EWR flight is one of them on the E70 .It is mostly Businessmen flying to NJ or NYC for the day not conecting so they will figure it out ...Check in at CO fly on UA..and they will get some Upgrades to First class...

A bigger plane was really needed on this route with some FC seats or at least a chance to get in them..

Cant stop progress... CO/UA needs to be on par with the others...with these high yield pax


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13775 times:

Quoting nyc2theworld (Reply 13):
Simple solution. Oversell the CO flights and walk people to the UA flight leaving 15 min later.

A modus operandi of a true world class airline.


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13754 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 11):
Despite the horror you see on these forums things are actually going pretty smooth.

I don't pretend to know how the negotiations between UCH management and the pilots of CO & UA are going behind the scenes, however the fact that one of the pilot groups and management just had to go to arbitration over a contract issue would not suggest smooth. If the negotiations were going as smooth as you suggest, I would expect that there would have been no disagreement regarding the scope clause to begin with and if they did I have a disagreement I would expect that a solution could have been reached without going to arbitration.

* I know a little about negotiations and without any inside knowledge of this particular negotiation, I am confident that both sides pushed the issue to maximize their leverage on the scope clause during negotiations. One thing is certain, there is nothing smooth about the scope clause issue in these negotiations. They may or may not have everything else figured out, but scope is major roadblock right now.


User currently offlineberyllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13721 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 2):
I had thought that the merged carrier would develop into a larger Continental, but the behaviour of the management team may lead to a situation in which we are left instead with an oversized United. Many of us from outside the USA consider all airline management in the USA to be incompetent lemmings, but believed that the management of CO and SW and HA were of an altogether higher calibre. I'm no longer convinced that CO's management actually merits such respect.

"Incompetent lemmings"...
UA/CO management has crunched some numbers, analyzed some data, and has come to a conclusion that at this time it would make good economic sense to replace 50-seat aircraft with 70-seat aircraft on certain routes. They want to do this switch because they see that action as beneficial for the company, for its overall competitiveness, and therefore, for the vast majority of its employees.
Now, let's see what CO pilots are up to in this situation.
They would not fly those 70-seat planes themselves (sure, they are mainline pilots and it is not a "royal thing" to fly those ERJ or CRJ, it would be so below them). But, at the same time they would do all what they can to prevent their regional brethren to fly those routes either. They would create as many obstacles as possible for the management when it tries to do this 50-to-70 switch.
UCH management has found a way around this 50-seat scope (at least for the time being), and has branded this 70-seat flying as UA-only flying. CO has nothing to do with it. These are not CO flights. These are UA flights, and THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF CONTINENTAL SCOPE WHATSOEVER.
However, CO pilots want to create an impression as if there is a violation - "Hey, these 70-flights are supposed to have CO code. They go to CO hubs. They connect to flights, flown by CO"...
"I won't do this flying myself, but I won't let you do it either" - that's the position of CO pilots in this situation. They act like saboteurs, and it is quite disgusting.


User currently offlineDC8FanJet From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13713 times:

Don't forget that all CO flights have a UA codeshare flight number, so the Explus flights show as UA to UA connections
to CO flights.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13671 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 18):
If the negotiations were going as smooth as you suggest, I would expect that there would have been no disagreement regarding the scope clause to begin with and if they did I have a disagreement I would expect that a solution could have been reached without going to arbitration.

You are missing an important fact here, this is not the joint CBA we are talking about, this is a CO issue with the CURRENT CO contract.

When I say things are going smooth I don't mean both slide love each other and go out for a drink afterward! Of course ALPA is going to act like anything management puts out is the end of the world for their members, and the airline is going to say anything ALPA offers will bankrupt the airline on day one, this is just how things work. But overall there is progress being made and things are being worked through.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13641 times:

I think I'll stick with "incompetent lemmings", thank you.

No American airline executive has been able to obtain a senior post with any major international airline in the last decade, while the likes of Qantas, BA, Emirates and Etihad all have foreign senior management. In that time, however, almost every single major US airline except American and Southwest has gone bankrupt.

The global Market has voted with it's recruitment: no American airline executive is considered to be employable in any management capacity. It's one of the reasons why I am surprised by the continual bonus payments to these failed executives: it's not like anyone else would employ them, so why divert money which could go on better services or better staff pay to these guys?

Returning on topic, how do you justify flouting the CO RJ arbitration, only to divert the savings into the pockets of senior management who couldn't even get a job as a janitor anywhere else in the airline world?


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13605 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 22):
No American airline executive has been able to obtain a senior post with any major international airline in the last decade, while the likes of Qantas, BA, Emirates and Etihad all have foreign senior management.

Why would they go to Qantas, BA, Emirates, or Etihad when they can go to United Healthcare and make $100 million a year?

(Richard Anderson if you're not familiar)


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13605 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21):
You are missing an important fact here, this is not the joint CBA we are talking about, this is a CO issue with the CURRENT CO contract.

I'm not missing anything. Until a joint CBA is negotiated the current CO contract remains in effect and it is the starting point for the negotiations on a new contract. The bottom line is if this wasn't a sticking point for both sides, they wouldn't have gone to arbitration.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21):

When I say things are going smooth I don't mean both slide love each other and go out for a drink afterward! Of course ALPA is going to act like anything management puts out is the end of the world for their members, and the airline is going to say anything ALPA offers will bankrupt the airline on day one, this is just how things work

Going to arbitration is a not a PR move.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21):
But overall there is progress being made and things are being worked through.

This may very well be true and I don't doubt it, but lets not trivialize the fact that they went to arbitration. There is nothing smooth about arbitration during a contract negotiation (it means the sides have some serious disagreements and the inability to work through them).


25 LAXintl : You realize foreign industries tend to pay significantly less then their US counterparts for executives right? Hence not much interest to go overseas
26 Post contains images beryllium : Just off the top of my head... Collins - COO of Wizz Air... I think he is American... I am sure there are others out there as well... Also, not every
27 stlAV8R : This is not true. Airlines can add segments to your itinerary that you may hold on a separate ticket. A simple notification to the airline of your se
28 Hiflyer : Believe there is some shuttle america in this with e170 as well. IMHO the arbitrator ruling was a win for UA as it defined/boxed in the CO pilot contr
29 ADent : UA flights seem to be more $$ than the same airplane with CO codes (could just be the route I was looking at). No FF miles for CO people on UA metal (
30 The777Man : Not true. As Star Alliance partners, FF miles can be earned/redeemed for either carrier AND counts towards status as well. The777Man
31 nyc2theworld : Not to mention they also honor each other's elite status when it comes to upgrades and such. If CO an sell a mixed CO/UA itinerary on their websites
32 futureatp : Today in PHX, Skywest is going to run a IAH-PHX-IAH with a CRJ 700. The airplane is supposed to use CO's gate 8 in terminal 2 and be ramped by CO's co
33 drerx7 : Are the flights at IAH operating out of B? I'd like to see pics of a bunch of UA birds at IAH.
34 apodino : I was just thinking, the reason the UA pilots couldn't get tougher scope is because of the timing of the bankruptcy filings. CO's was many many years
35 kl911 : What's the whole point anyway? Why dont they have their own regional airline, like KLM Cityhopper, Air France Regional etc etc? Somehow i think the wo
36 dl767captain : I'm actually on a flight from ATL-IAH (then on to sAN) this afternoon on CO. A while ago I noticed that it would be operated by "skywest dba united ex
37 beryllium : It is true today just as it was in the 90-s. The pilots are focused solely on what they perceive as their "constitutional right" - "These are OUR rou
38 Post contains images kl911 : I'm sure ATL has no lack of bars and restaurants... so dont worry. It's not the end of the world is it?
39 goldenstate : US airline management teams operate in the toughest competitive environment in the world and I would submit to you in all seriousness that more than
40 DashTrash : They're Teamsters over there. Not sure what your recourse is, but I'm sure someone in CS could help you. You don't have the slightest clue what you'r
41 Post contains images stlAV8R : Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall CO pilots saying that they HAVE to fly 737s or larger. Just like AC and US, an E-Jet can be mainl
42 Coairman : Exactly. No big deal. When you pull up availability for a CO itinerary the computer reservation automatically loads the UA 70 seat jets along with CO
43 LDVAviation : As a Sr. Manager at a US Carrier (years ago) you made low 6 figures? If the US carrier was United, this changes my mind completely about the pilot's
44 dl767captain : It's just another reason I fly Delta and not UA and now not CO (the new UA).
45 malaysia : Yes and No, maybe the top offs are much lower, but usually foreign carriers pay more than US carriers for management level positions in the US and ha
46 beryllium : You come to the grocery store and see 2 identical bottles of wine (same booz, same label). One of them cost $10. The other - $20. Which one would you
47 junction : Then why do you fly them:
48 drerx7 : Please lets keep this thread civil. There is a lot of good information in this thread, as it was in the other one, that gets deleted by the overprotec
49 koruman : Virtually every US carrier has managed to go bankrupt in the last two decades just competing against one another, let alone in an environment where b
50 junction : FYI....The UA Express Flights at IAH are using Termial B in the northeast "banjo" where alot of the ground level gates are.
51 Post contains images IAHFLYR : Yep, saw a CRJ7 sitting at the gate this morning on the way past Terminal B.....Love to be a fly on the wall of a crew area of B!
52 drerx7 : Does this mean that all UAx ops will be moved over to B - including the CR7s from ASE/ORD/DEN/IAD and E70s from ORD/DEN/IAD/YUL? I flew on a CR7 for
53 IAHFLYR : Rumor had it that all the CRJ7 SkyWest operations that were flying under a CO flight would park at Terminal B at IAH while the remaining SkyWest flig
54 Hiflyer : Looks like another win for UA mgt...there is no provision in the IAM ground contracts that UAX flying has to be handled by UA personnel....in fact it
55 LAXintl : We're talking about executives. In broad terms for practically every industry from health care, to entertainment to manufacturing to banking pay high
56 SonomaFlyer : Bringing regional jets in house isn't an option I think due to the cost structure involved, even if the mainline pilots were willing to take less $$.
57 beryllium : Exactly.
58 GoBoeing : Actually, if mainline pilots flew them for the current payrates, which they would, the entire thing would cost less. The overhead of having a separat
59 apodino : Personally, the solution I see for this is simple, if its your paint on the side of the plane, you fly it period. So if it has United paint on the sid
60 tozairport : DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! The significance of the ruling is that UA cannot put the CO code on the 70 seat RJ's out of CO hubs. This re
61 flyhossd : I'm don't understand what you're asking here. The RJ flying has already been outsourced - do you want proof of that??? Because you still haven't prod
62 Hiflyer : Absolutely wrong....many many whole stations are gone because ALPA gave up the RJ flying....thousands have been furloughed/moved from small stations
63 SonomaFlyer : I think there's more to the issue than the payrates for the pilots. My post assumed a few things so someone please correct me if I'm wrong: 1. Under
64 Post contains images apodino : I made this exact point in the locked thread about this same issue. Because the regionals are flying for more than one carrier typically, they can ma
65 flyhossd : I'm also aware of just the opposite after-effect. That is, protecting the mainline flying has meant keeping mainline agents. And is there some reason
66 tozairport : The UAL pilots gave up the 50 seat RJ's back in 1998 for the promise of more widebody flying. "You want RJ's or do you want -400's" was the mantra. W
67 CO2BGR : Some of you have NO CLUE that 99% of mainline pilots would LOVE have 70 seat jets being flown by their pilot group. CAL has payrates for such airplane
68 joeljack : The new United needs the larger RJ's to complete with US Air and Delta. I absolutely love the E-175 that delta has. Great plane!! I hate with a passio
69 Hiflyer : No...they lost out during the downsizing way before any CO/UA talks. ALPA MEC sold the group down the river on a pension already dead from the ALPA i
70 beryllium : That's because some of them (like DL employee groups, for instance) understand that they will be much better off without union representation. You ar
71 apodino : Not really. The ORD hub is 100 percent mainline staffed on both mainline and express, and rumor has it SFO is going that way as well. American made P
72 apodino : DL really simplified their fleet structure with the NW merger. The two airlines had only one common fleet type prior, the 757. Now the new DL operate
73 flyhossd : Not a theory at all. I am aware of one such circumstance where mainline station positions (gate and ramp agents) were saved just last week. Again, wh
74 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : It does say Compass, you just can't see it from the gate...
75 beryllium : You are talking about a different issue. You are talking about a merger between DL and NW - both of them had their own fleets before the merger, and
76 tozairport : No, the guppies were parked after the first round of merger talks with Continental. When the airlines decided not to go ahead with the merger at that
77 adxmatt : Continental dispatchers did have scope in their contract. We arbitrrated the Q400's and lost.
78 Post contains images ChicagoFlyer : Look, does not matter how you feel about this issue--there's no way 70-seat aircraft are going to be flown by mainline. Imagine I am UCH negotiator a
79 apodino : If by soft hours you mean hours for canceled flights, at my carrier which is a regional, if a flight is on a pilots schedule, he gets paid for it reg
80 Coairman : I was wrong about the ruling not being a victory for the CO pilots union. I checked availability for flights between IAH and ATL and all the CR7s oper
81 beryllium : Sure... That's exactly the spirit we are talking about here... UA/CO management sees these SkyWest flights as beneficial for the company, and CO pilo
82 LAXintl : Why dont you wait a little bid. GDS schedule loads are done weekly so it will either be this weekend, or next before data can be updated.
83 nyc2theworld : No need. From continental.com - Important notices
84 Coairman : Sorry.... I am not familiar with what a "GDS schedule" is. Can you explain more in detail about this process? Thanks.
85 kl911 : AS a European A.netter I have been following those subjects for years now, and i can only conclude that Unions and incompetent, overpaid managements,
86 ordbosshog : I am not even going to touch that quote.... It just reeks of Ignorance... Sure this whole thing is a mess that all sides involved have a hand in, but
87 USXguy : Airline schedule files are only updated once a week thru a clearinghouse, called OAG - Official Airline Guides, for the global distribution systems a
88 par13del : I don't think the pilots care about the size of the a/c, just who is doing the actual flying. I see USA management bring such to the US even further
89 beryllium : You mean their order of B787 and A350? Those are not additions. Those are replacements. B787 will replace B767 in the fleet. A350 will replace B747.
90 par13del : I am missing the difference, if you replace two a/c types with two new types you maintain your existing cost structure, if you replace two a/c types
91 beryllium : I am not sure I am following you here... What do you mean "If you replace 2 types with 1 type"? What replacement we are talking about?
92 par13del : The 767 and 747 can be replaced with one type, the A350 or even 777. 777's have been replacing 747 in some airlines, and the A350 is being touted as
93 beryllium : I guess I have missed the initial question... Anyway, as I said, efficiences achieved by outsourcing are exactly those efficiencies that occur when y
94 koruman : I think you would find that the likes of Qantas and Singapore Airlines would initially focus on routes between the five or six main hubs in the USA a
95 XJET : The has been a last minute change to the February schedules. This has delayed the bidding of Feb. schedules at XE... The planned shift of ERJ-145s fr
96 drerx7 : A way that UCH can compensate for the ruling is to begin mainline United flights from IAH to certain cities based upon traffic flows from the CR7 flig
97 Post contains images RyanairGuru : Actually we don't. It only applies to international flights (a la EK trans tasman), and the USA *does* have that: NZ LAX-LHR. UA is not allowed to ca
98 koruman : [quote=RyanairGuru,reply=97]Quoting koruman (Reply 94): We have that in our Market, and consumers and staff alike are grateful for it. Actually we don
99 LAXintl : I notice this note was sent out -- By now you have heard of plans by the new United Airlines to operate some 70-seat United Express flights out of Con
100 tozairport : I didn't get that note but it doesn't really matter. So many lies, so little time. They have no appreciation for the had work we do. If they did, man
101 Coairman : I agree that the larger 70 seat jets could provide more feed for mainline flights as the current seat capacity difference between a 50 seat RJ and CO
102 par13del : Cabotage within the US are domestic flights, the number of flight between non-hubs is also huge, certainely the US market is not comparable to AUS-NZ
103 CO2BGR : The key is that 70 seat jets have not just been replacing 50 seat jets, but also 737s, thus directly costing mainline jobs. The 147 on furlough were a
104 par13del : Obviously those in control of both UA and CO did not think that this difference in scope requirements was any big deal, it certainely does not appear
105 flyhossd : It's my understanding that not all of CO's furloughed pilots are back to work. All do have class dates, however. Next, I expect to CO to hire from th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Babies Flying For Free As Lap Passengers posted Thu Oct 16 2003 02:47:32 by SunValley
Last 733 Flying For CO posted Sun Mar 7 2010 20:16:36 by iahcsr
OAG Changes 7/24/09:AA/AS/B6/CO/DL/F9/NW/UA/YX+ posted Wed Jul 22 2009 22:29:23 by Enilria
CO/UA Merger, Is CO Just Waiting For NW To Vanish? posted Tue Mar 3 2009 23:00:06 by NorthstarBoy
It's Time For UA And CO posted Sat Nov 18 2006 07:24:56 by Lufthansa
Any UA Expansion Planned For MIA? posted Sat Mar 4 2006 02:33:23 by NWairlnk07
Deadline For UA To Decide On UAX Flying posted Sat Jan 8 2005 21:41:31 by ATWZW170
UA/US, Post Merger, Hub Flying... posted Tue Sep 26 2000 06:04:38 by John
OAG Changes 12/17/2010:AA/AM/AS/CO/DL/F9/FL/UA/US posted Thu Dec 16 2010 06:22:17 by enilria
OAG Changes 5/13/2010: AC/AM/B6/CO/DL/LH/NK/UA/US posted Thu May 13 2010 11:12:07 by enilria