soc-hpjester
Senior
Looks like HP is flying extra sections phx/clt due to lack of metal on the east or high loads. Any ideas ?
Schedule Synergies
- Thread starter FutureUScapt
- Start date
CLTBWIDAYSYR
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 499
- 9
Did I miss something? When did West ever serve PHL-SEA?
soc-hpjester
Senior
STARTED ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO, USED TO AN EAST ROUTE.
Who cares anyway? Is anyone losing their job because of this??? No.
Also, West will not be flying PHL-SEA, but will have the new PHL-PDX route. East was going to fly PHL-PDX, but since east doesn't fly there, there is nothing set up (i.e. Sabre). Since SHARES is already in place, it makes sense to let west fly that route.
L
luvn737s
Guest
The lower the total block of flying hours or shorter average block times, the more flight segments become necessary to fill out a line of flying. Is it easier to build a 10 piece jigsaw puzzle or a 10,000 piece one? An abundance of long legs yields "better" (more productive) schedules, generally.
But the implied message is clearly to adopt the east cost saving measures or expect more eastward erosion. As long as the airlines are separate the growth and benefits provided by the 190's and additional 757s are off limits to westies.
But the implied message is clearly to adopt the east cost saving measures or expect more eastward erosion. As long as the airlines are separate the growth and benefits provided by the 190's and additional 757s are off limits to westies.
MarkMyWords
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,900
- 1
The extra sections PHX-CLT-PHX on US West metal were set upi to cover a US East airplane that was broke in PHX and was going to be out of service for 18-24 hours. US West had a spare airplane and was going to run the extra sections to accomodate customers that would have been affected by US East cancellations. I say "going to run" because the US West Captains (2 different C/O's) refused to fly the trip because they felt they were a contract violation. We have been doing East-West extra sections to cover one anothers flying during irregular operations for many months. US East has flown routes like FLL-PHX, PHX-LAX, DCA-PHX, etc when there were mechanical issues that caused a cancellation. US West has done the same, running extra sections from PHX-PHL, PHX-PIT, etc to cover US East when we had mechanical issues that caused a cancellation.
These extra sections are NOT a contractual issue, since they are West airplanes, with West Crews or East airplanes with East Crews. Every time one of these extra sections ahve been set up, the East usually operates flawlessly, but the West crews are always balking at the "extra" flying. This recent PHX-CLT-PHX extra section ended up canceling, after inconveniencing 160 customer for 8 hours, all because some Pilot(s) were unable to comprehend what is allowable and what is a contract violation.
Elevation
Veteran
- Oct 21, 2002
- 869
- 32
Better get your facts straight Mark, AWA can't fly to CLT because it's a ALT only authorized airport. It has to be run as a charter(and all that goes with requirements) under supplimental rules.
Well Well the GAG/EAST will not be happy
supercruiser
Advanced
- Dec 5, 2002
- 213
- 11
They ARE a contractual issue. You clearly have never read the transition agreement, or have and choose to ignore the parts you don't like or didn't negotiate. Or someone told you it wasn't a violation, and you take it as fact. This quote is directly from the agreement:
"The current and announced flying, as of the effective date of this agreement, between points west of the Mississippi River and the State of Hawaii will be flown by America West pilots. The current and announced flying, as of the effective date of this agreement, between points east of the Mississippi River and Europe or the Caribbean will be flown by US Airways pilots. Notwithstanding the above, up to two daily round trips to Europe, up to two daily round trips to the Caribbean, and one daily round trip to Hawaii may be flown by pilots of the other airline."
The agreement does NOT allow extra sections to be flown by the opposite company to cover irregular operations on either side, despite the fact that it has been done. It is a violation and is being grieved by both sides. The transition agreement has a lot more in it than just saying we can't fly each other's aircraft. I suggest you read it(all 27 pages), and comprehend what it says, so you won't make such ignorant statements, and attempt to goad pilots to violate the agreement both sides agreed to.
supercruiser
LCC_#1
Veteran
- Nov 16, 2005
- 1,771
- 0
Right or wrong, what a bunch of BS!!
The TA should have had exceptions like this. Cancel a full flight, piss off all the customers, and send them off to other airlines all because everyone's fear. There is a big difference in transferring flying illegally and adding a flight because "the other side" had to cancel a flight. Does anyone in ALPA have an ounce of common sense when putting together a TA. "No that's MY side of the country...NO, that's mine. No it's not! Yes it is!! MAMA!!!
Do ANY of you think the passenger gives a hoot what equipment their on or who you worked for? You think they care about your union or TA? Hell, no!!
:rant: :rant:
supercruiser
Advanced
- Dec 5, 2002
- 213
- 11
Of course you don't care, you just want to get where you're going. You wish there were no unions, work rules, etc, or anything that would impede the company providing you with tranportation. You wish the company could do anything they want anytime they wanted with the 2 fleets and emplyee groups, but the fact remains that they are two separate airlines for the moment.
Do you think ALPA negotiated this transition agreement by themselves? The company could resolve this issue anytime they want by having Jerry Glass discuss this with the joint negotiating committee. But no they stonewall and do it anyway and force the unions to file grievances, which take forever until enough time passes to make the point moot.
The bottom line is you should be mad at US Airways management for not resolving this with ALPA the first time it happened. They COULD but they DON'T WANT TO. Get it? They'd rather play this game with the unions with you customers caught in the middle.
So it's better to allow our passengers to be inconvenienced? Common sense HAS to come into play (oh wait . .we're talking about unions here .nevermind). Crews get paid when their trips are cancelled and people won't lose their jobs over this.
Is it better to rebook our passengers on other airlines?
The quote you provided only talks about flying to/from H I, Europe, and the Caribbean. It does not mention flights between PHX & CLT
"The current and announced flying, as of the effective date of this agreement, between points west of the Mississippi River and the State of Hawaii will be flown by America West pilots. The current and announced flying, as of the effective date of this agreement, between points east of the Mississippi River and Europe or the Caribbean will be flown by US Airways pilots. Notwithstanding the above, up to two daily round trips to Europe, up to two daily round trips to the Caribbean, and one daily round trip to Hawaii may be flown by pilots of the other airline."
Am I missing something?
I've read the above paragraph 6 times, and I fail to see how a PHX - CLT extra section could possibly violate it.
The above speaks to service to Hawaii, Europe, and the Carribean.
Please tell me this isn't what APLA is basing its grievance on.
Am I missing something?
I've read the above paragraph 6 times, and I fail to see how a PHX - CLT extra section could possibly violate it.
The above speaks to service to Hawaii, Europe, and the Carribean.
Please tell me this isn't what APLA is basing its grievance on.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sun Country Airlines after first NMB Mediated session- Latest: CorvetteMan