United Continental loses 70-seat jet ruling

By Aaron Karp | January 6, 2011

United Continental Holdings, parent of merger partners United Airlines and Continental Airlines, said it would comply with an arbitrator's ruling that placing the CO code on United Express flights operated with 70-seat regional jets violates the terms of the labor pact between Continental and its pilots. The accord prohibits CO from contracting out any flying on aircraft with more than 50 seats.

Arbitrator Richard Bloch said United Express flights slated to launch from CO's Houston Intercontinental and Newark hubs this week aboard 70-seat jets can't be sold or marketed by Continental. The flights will still operate but tickets will have to purchase through United, UCH said.

Discuss this news 16

05 Jan21:47

So who lost in the ruling -

By Anonymous

So who lost in the ruling - the flights will operate as United, and Continental is United. The money goes into the right pocket instead of the left. Continental has a long history of violating contracts and busting unions, the new CEO is just trying to hold up the reputation. Outsourcing is here to stay.

05 Jan21:54

More judicial activism that

By Cole Matthews

More judicial activism that need to be shut down. VOTE them OUT NOW

05 Jan22:44

"Judicial activism"???? This

By Anonymous

"Judicial activism"???? This was an arbitrator, the services of which was contractually agreed to by both parties.

Vote whom out?

05 Jan23:20

more united management

By Jim

more united management actions against employees, their main goal in life after taking the cash.

06 Jan00:11

Comments by Mr. Mathews shows

By Anonymous

Comments by Mr. Mathews shows lack of knowledge. Maybe he should take a contract law class. Activism is usually claimed by the losing side. Maybe the fact is, the contract is poorly written. Activism would have been had the judge ruled opposite, not following the contract.

06 Jan00:18

Maybe if the union would

By rogeryyc

Maybe if the union would someday realize that hurting the airline only hurts them in the end they would try to make comprimises instead of trying to shut down the airline as usual.

06 Jan00:47

This whole CO/UA merger is

By Anonymous

This whole CO/UA merger is BAD. I have heard nothing at all good about it. The old-time CO pilots and Flt attendents say Jeff is worse than Lorenzo.

06 Jan03:28

I don't know, Cole, I guess

By Bruce Sanchez

I don't know, Cole, I guess that no matter what any management or other fat cat wants to do, it is OK, and if it violates a contract that pesky working people have negotiated--tough luck. Who needs contracts, courts or judges--just let the big boys dictate everything and we'll all be way better off.

06 Jan08:00

Unless contracts are upheld,

By Anonymous

Unless contracts are upheld, they and all other agreements are meaningless. We get what we negotiate, not necessarily what we want or need.

06 Jan09:34

No pilots were displaced from

By Flyee

No pilots were displaced from their jobs and no airplanes were removed from service for this aircraft repositioning. It would seem reasonable to allow the merged company, CO/UA to be able to position it's fleet as it chooses to become more competitive.

Seems the airline was simply trying to maximize revenue by putting the best size aircraft on appropriate routes, which will lead to better job security and increased profit sharing for these same pilots who are complaining.

Does the union or the pilots think they "won" when all they succeeded in doing was inflicting financial harm on their airline?
Airline unions attempt to demonize management at every opportunity in order to gain more loyalty and increase it's membership. Unions try to pull every nickel out of the airline which is one of the reasons airlines in the US have lost Billions over the decades and are nowhere near achieving sustained profitability and giving job security for it's employees.
How about the airline unions working to gain job security for the workers they represent, rather than working towards sucking the life out of the airline.

06 Jan10:11

Proper ruling. Despite what

By In the ether

Proper ruling. Despite what the airline claims, those 50 and 70-seat aircraft cost more to operate than the larger 737s, and they are being used for inappropriate missions in markets that are big enough for the larhger jets. As a result, Continental's domestic operations have the highest unit costs in the system and consequently (according to the airline's books) lose money despite healthy revenues. There is no reason for Continental to operate as many of these claustrophobic, uneconomical airplanes as they do, other than to keep down their roster of pilots and flight attendants.

06 Jan10:23

This ruling was made by an

By Bob

This ruling was made by an arbitrator so it can hardly be judicial activism! The arbitrator simply applied the contract, and made his ruling accordingly.

06 Jan17:19

Ether, You clearly do not

By Really?

Ether,

You clearly do not understand airline economics or demand fluctuation. Yes a 737-800/900 does have a lower PER SEAT cost but the TRIP COST is about twice that of a 70 seat jet. Yes, the EWR-IAH market is 'big enough for larger jets'; at 8am, 9 am, 5pm and 6pm. Not at 11am, 1pm, and 2pm. Allowing the airline to fly the 70 seat jet in these lower demand phases stregthens the schedule as a whole and actually allows MORE 737 flying, not less. Asking the airline to schedule a 737-800 for a 55 pax demand during these shoulder times is beyond ridiculous.

07 Jan16:06

It is not an issue of forcing

By Anonymous

It is not an issue of forcing an airline to utilize a particular size aircraft on a route. Its an issue of honoring a contract you made with your employees. If those employees sacrificed other issues ie. retirement, pay, healthcare, to lower costs in exchange for job security then why doesn't United/ Continental want to honor the contract they signed?
You can't determine the proper size aircraft based on the volume of traffic you assume a route will support (price will dictate this, not time of day the flight operates - just ask Southwest - air transportation has a huge elasticity of demand).
Sensible airline economics would suggest lowering your unit costs by operating the larger aircraft, charge less for the seat, increase demand, and capture more market share.
A market such as EWR-IAH is exactly the reason a 70 seat RJ should not be in New York airspace. The system is overloaded due to ATC, airspace, runway and gate constraints, operating the flight when demand is 55 pax dictates not operating the flight at all, combining it with the previous and next departure, and easing the delays that occur daily in the Northeast.

11 Jan10:13

Interesting commentary that

By Anonymous

Interesting commentary that shows the historical conflicts between labor and management. I believe that the "loser" in this decision is the CO customer who is caught in the middle and must now adapt to pricing and booking on UA for this aircraft only.

19 Jan23:36

Uhmm... I have been a

By iklindo

Uhmm... I have been a commuter at Continental since day one. Our planes are beyond full almost every day on every flight. I ride the jumpseat more often than in an actual seat. So if there are 737's with 100, 75 or even 50 open seats, please tell me where they are flying to and maybe I will consider a change of address.