FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Continental OnePass (Pre-Merger) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger-488/)
-   -   Tomorrow is [2-Sep-2008], massive ramp down of domestic schedule (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/861575-tomorrow-2-sep-2008-massive-ramp-down-domestic-schedule.html)

supermasterphil Sep 2, 08 8:45 am

Thanks for the clarification.

At the beginning of this year, airlines in Europe were complaining they can't find enough pilots. One of them was LH, just to let everybody know! Not sure if working in Europe is an alternative for those guys.

ConciergeMike Sep 2, 08 11:01 am


Originally Posted by doobierw (Post 10297118)
The company is trying to relax our scope clause (RJ flying, partner airline codeshare, etc.) and wanted ALPA to relax scope in exchange for those jobs.

DRW

Is the attempt to relax scope a hint (or a wish on CO's part) that larger regional jets are in the works? Scope would have to be adjusted to get something akin to an E170/E190 type to be operated by non-mainline, no?

doobierw Sep 2, 08 12:16 pm


Originally Posted by ConciergeMike (Post 10298119)
Is the attempt to relax scope a hint (or a wish on CO's part) that larger regional jets are in the works? Scope would have to be adjusted to get something akin to an E170/E190 type to be operated by non-mainline, no?

I don't know any of the details on what the company wants. I do know (only from an ALPA update provided us) that the company came to the union and offered no furloughs for some scope relief.

My personal opinion is that the company has this massive gap coming between ERJs and 737-7/8/900s and they would like to bring a lot of 170/190 type aircraft on property. CAL ALPA's stance is that if they come online they will be flown by CAL pilots at CAL wages. The company would of course like for them to be flown by someone at RJ'like wages....

I truly think this will be the largest issue to be dealt with on our contract negotiations.....

DRW

(Apologize for the thread creep...)

craz Sep 2, 08 12:22 pm


Originally Posted by doobierw (Post 10298667)
I don't know any of the details on what the company wants. I do know (only from an ALPA update provided us) that the company came to the union and offered no furloughs for some scope relief.

My personal opinion is that the company has this massive gap coming between ERJs and 737-7/8/900s and they would like to bring a lot of 170/190 type aircraft on property. CAL ALPA's stance is that if they come online they will be flown by CAL pilots at CAL wages. The company would of course like for them to be flown by someone at RJ'like wages....

I truly think this will be the largest issue to be dealt with on our contract negotiations.....

DRW

(Apologize for the thread creep...)

Since at least some RJs or is it all are flown by non-CO crew, meaning the planes belong to XJ or some other Regional.(The Qs too)

What would happen if that Regional not owned by CO gets a fleet of the 190s or even 733s. Does the contract forbid CO from using those types of planes if they arent flown by CO itself? with CO crews

craz Sep 2, 08 12:27 pm


Originally Posted by supermasterphil (Post 10297223)
Thanks for the clarification.

At the beginning of this year, airlines in Europe were complaining they can't find enough pilots. One of them was LH, just to let everybody know! Not sure if working in Europe is an alternative for those guys.

alot of the European carriers use AirBus while the CO guys are trained and licensed for Boeing. So 1 it will mean back to school for them. 2- it would also mean probably alot less in pay then what they were used to and Europe even with the strengthening US$ is still alot more expensive then being Stateside. 3- dont think too many will want to relocate their whole family especially any that have kids still in the school system. Then again some might not have any choice.

radonc1 Sep 2, 08 12:27 pm

Cleveland especially is going to lose a lot of flights


These cuts will affect me quite a bit. What really makes it bad is that the connections are now at least $100 more than the direct flights but you get no choice in taking a NS or a connection :confused:. For example, CLE-BOS goes to one NS a day (around 9AM). If you want to go any other time, you have to conect in EWR and pay a premium of $120 or more to take it. So you get it both ways, having to connect and having to pay more.

In my worthless opinion, if you are going to inconvience me by makng me connect, at least have the decency to charge me the non-stop rate (or give me back the NS).

craz Sep 2, 08 12:32 pm


Originally Posted by radonc1 (Post 10298732)
Cleveland especially is going to lose a lot of flights


These cuts will affect me quite a bit. What really makes it bad is that the connections are now at least $100 more than the direct flights but you get no choice in taking a NS or a connection :confused:. For example, CLE-BOS goes to one NS a day (around 9AM). If you want to go any other time, you have to conect in EWR and pay a premium of $120 or more to take it. So you get it both ways, having to connect and having to pay more.

In my worthless opinion, if you are going to inconvience me by makng me connect, at least have the decency to charge me the non-stop rate (or give me back the NS).

I flew a few times CLE-MHT which is appx an hour North of BOS theres also PVD appx an hr South. think its RJs only but it might at least offer you some better flight times

randidliyo Sep 2, 08 1:01 pm

I"m here in Chattanooga (CHA) waiting for my Delta flight and eavesdroping on the last flight out for CO.

The agent is explaining why the rount is cancelled and she said, "Yeah, they're always full!"

If they're always full then why are they cutting it?????
If it's priced too low....and always full.....then CO isn't charging enough for the flights. Why didn't they raise the prices in order to me profitable and THEN decide if the loads justify it.

I JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND.

"Yeah, tey're always full" Maybe ther really arent, i'd like to know.

randidliyo

ConciergeMike Sep 2, 08 1:28 pm

I smell sarcasm.

ijgordon Sep 2, 08 1:30 pm

What I find perhaps most interesting is that nowhere on rkkwan's lists is Las Vegas. No cuts to LAS service, hmmm. McCarran arrivals have been running down 5-7% for the last few months and overall Vegas visitation down 1-3% (suggesting some of the air arrivals falloff is connecting pax on US or WN). The outlook is somewhat bleak, so interesting that CO hasn't cut back capacity. Perhaps their yields have been healthy...

jaw1858 Sep 2, 08 1:42 pm


Originally Posted by radonc1 (Post 10298732)
For example, CLE-BOS goes to one NS a day (around 9AM).

My September Skyguide shows, post-September 2:

CO1467 weekdays, around 7:30 am (733/735)
CO130 MThF, 11:25 am (73G)
CO1030 except Sat, 3:24 pm (738)
CO230 except Fri/Sat, 7:15 pm (733)

and other flights on weekends. . .

fozz Sep 2, 08 1:54 pm


Originally Posted by ijgordon (Post 10299138)
What I find perhaps most interesting is that nowhere on rkkwan's lists is Las Vegas. No cuts to LAS service, hmmm. McCarran arrivals have been running down 5-7% for the last few months and overall Vegas visitation down 1-3% (suggesting some of the air arrivals falloff is connecting pax on US or WN). The outlook is somewhat bleak, so interesting that CO hasn't cut back capacity. Perhaps their yields have been healthy...

The biggest cut yet to come is the cut of US's last bank of flights and that will have a huge impact. I suspect most of the reduction in McCarran's overall capacity will come from that cut alone. There's gotta be at least 20-25 red-eyes that US currently runs that will *poof* be gone.

CO 1E Sep 2, 08 1:55 pm


Originally Posted by craz (Post 10298705)
Since at least some RJs or is it all are flown by non-CO crew, meaning the planes belong to XJ or some other Regional.(The Qs too)

What would happen if that Regional not owned by CO gets a fleet of the 190s or even 733s. Does the contract forbid CO from using those types of planes if they arent flown by CO itself? with CO crews

IIRC, the scope clause, for practical purposes, means that CO cannot operate or contract to operate any aircraft that seats more than 50 passengers without using CO pilots at CO wages. That would mean that they cannot go into the marketplace and just outsource all CO operations to other, less expensive carriers who would operate for less than CO would pay to its regular pilots and for mainline aircraft.

PSU Mudder Sep 2, 08 2:12 pm

US, king of cheapness at any cost, operates E-190s as mainline with F cabins. CO should consider the same to fill the gap in the fleet.

KD5MDK Sep 2, 08 2:48 pm

If they have a mental block against operating them at mainline wages (or are afraid of setting a precedent) I can see why the economic arguement for that doesn't win out.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.