• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

Anyone have the J4J/E190 Vote count?

SF340Guy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Posts
148
Total Time
+8000
Anyone know the results of the IBT 747 vote to allow the expansion of J4J? Just curious.
 

Chicken Taco

User.... of What??
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Posts
110
Total Time
6200
Not released yet by the IBT as of this evening. Even our EXCO guys are unaware. Not implying anything, just stating the facts. Things that make you go hmm....

..CT
 

bvt1151

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2002
Posts
937
Total Time
3000
Wow. Where was that supposed big contingent of CHQ pilots opposed to extending J4J at the expense of the other airlines?

Very disappointing.
 
M

mnalpha

j4j is just the mainline mec screwing others and not allowing the majority to options they deserve. Just because you loose your job, should not mean you are first in line anywhere else. I really hate mainline mec, bunch of fags.
 

mdanno808

Maika'i Card Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Posts
563
Total Time
5000
********************************************************
 
Last edited:

Axel

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Posts
1,132
bvt1151 said:
Wow. Where was that supposed big contingent of CHQ pilots opposed to extending J4J at the expense of the other airlines?

Very disappointing.
You would have been critical regardless of the outcome. On behalf of airline management everywhere, I would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your contribution to the continued success of our Divide and Conquer strategy. Tool.

mnalpha said:
j4j is just the mainline mec screwing others and not allowing the majority to options they deserve. Just because you loose your job, should not mean you are first in line anywhere else. I really hate mainline mec, bunch of fags.
Ramblings of a madman or too much beer

LOA 91 calls for Alleghany-Mohawk integration if there is a "change of control" of Mid Atlantic or for j4j if the assets are sold.

My understanding (which admittedly is certainly incomplete and is most probably flawed) is that the UMEC expected their U DOH in Alleghany-Mohawk integration. That would have displaced 90% of the CHQ seniority list. I am led to further understand that the UMEC refused to entertain any proposal other than that. You can't fault the CHQ guys for balking at that.

The UMEC has filed a grievance (and the arbitration hearings began early this week) asking to decide whether this transaction is a change of control or an asset sale. Depending on the arbitrators decision, it will either be j4j or A-M; per the LOA to which the U pilots agreed.

Even though the U pilots agreed to it when they ratified all the LOA's regarding J4j, it remains basically a staple job with some CA seats, slightly higher FO pay and some limited furlough protection. On the other hand, U DOH would knock down, as I said, all the CHQ guys hired after 1998 300-ish places.

I do not believe either group has behaved well.

And everyone learn how to spell "lose' and "loser."
 
Last edited:

say again

I love her ARSE!!!!
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Posts
4,006
Total Time
5500
Axel said:
And everyone learn how to spell "lose' and "loser."
What a "looser" !!!! All in good fun, couldn't resist!!!! Poor spelling is part of what makes flightinfo so great:) !!!!!
 

Axel

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Posts
1,132
say again said:
...Poor spelling is part of what makes flightinfo so great:) !!!!!
I'm not the spelling police. That one just sets my teeth on edge for some reason. :)
 
Last edited:

bvt1151

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2002
Posts
937
Total Time
3000
Axel said:
You would have been critical regardless of the outcome. On behalf of airline management everywhere, I would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your contribution to the continued success of our Divide and Conquer strategy. Tool.
Apparently you were not involved in several of the other discussions regarding this topic in which CHQ pilots swore this would not pass. Don't rant about things you don't understand.
 

Axel

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Posts
1,132
bvt1151 said:
Apparently you were not involved in several of the other discussions regarding this topic in which CHQ pilots swore this would not pass.
Actually I was. They had no idea how anyone would vote except themselves. Not the point.

bvt1151 said:
Don't rant about things you don't understand.
I understand. You have been consistently critical of the CHQ group and as such have made yourself the tool of management. Don't you think management knows they can get more from us if they play us off against each other? Stop helping them. CHQ/Mesa/SKYW are not the enemy. All the " (insert favorite bottom-feeding, bar-lowering whore group) haters" posting their vitriolic rants are perpetuating management's stategy of Divide and Conquer. Indeed I understand perfectly well
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
BVT

As I recall reading, most CHQ pilots said they would probably vote YES because they were getting something without giving up anything.
 

chrisdahut24

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Posts
134
Total Time
1500+
bvt1151 said:
Apparently you were not involved in several of the other discussions regarding this topic in which CHQ pilots swore this would not pass. Don't rant about things you don't understand.
BVT, you are a complete tool that has the least understanding of the situation. While many CHQ pilots has expressed the sentiment that we don't want to see 90+ seat flying at the regional level (as have many other regional pilots), We have no control over who gets 90 seaters. The decision has already been made that 90 seaters will be flown by regionals with the relaxation of scope at mainline. If you think by turning down the offer we voted on would help "save the industry", you have truly lost it.
 

StarChecker

Warp this...
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Posts
481
Total Time
Enough
bvt1151 said:
Apparently you were not involved in several of the other discussions regarding this topic in which CHQ pilots swore this would not pass. Don't rant about things you don't understand.

Please please please post these discussions where any of us "swore" anything about this not passing.

We gave up nothing with this vote....God dammit will you please just get lost.
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
OldManPilot said:
anyone waiting for E190's at CHQ/REP/S5 may have a long wait. I don't think the J4J deal for those aircraft are going to fly unless the company agrees to correct some current problems first. The pilots at CHQ/REP/S5 are tired of the abuse and refuse to jump for the "shiny new airplane" ploy.

Just wish we didn't have to deal with the E190's. They should be mainline aircraft!
cracker said:
If it's one thing I can guarantee, concessions aint' gonna' happen at CHQ/REP/SAC. We already need to bump the scales up as it is. His "threats" are very familiar...we heard it back in the day about the 145's.
Most of the people posting on that thread were not RAH pilots, and you know nobody takes "E170GuppyKiller" seriously as all he posts is flamebait.

The LOA includes J4J but the pilots didn't give up anything and got a few things in return, including system-wide buddy passes and the ability to transfer intra-certificate (pending FAA approval). The company corrected some problems and the pilot group reaps the benefits. Did you even read the proposal on the IBT website? There were no concessions involved in this vote, unlike Comair's recent package which has been discussed at length on this board ("its not a pay cut for growth its a pay freeze, but its okay because our rates are still higher than xxxx).

No RAH pilot should have to justify their vote to you or anybody else, but people get "defensive" when they hear the same old tired nonsense being repeated time and time again from people who choose to ignore the big picture. The loudmouth 1% at CHQ gives everybody else a black eye, but its like that anywhere, and those who complain the loudest seem to be the most jealous.
 

Axel

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Posts
1,132
That thread was not about this j4j vote. It but concerned a passage in CHQ's spiritual leader's weekly sermon to the faithful. In the past, he has told his flock that the heathen pilots had queered some deals (most notably the United code share) when the heathen pilots refused to take concessions in order to land the deal. Funny he seems to land the deals anyway. Hmmm.

He tried that in this case (MDA acquisition) also and was met with stony silence, as the referenced thread accurately depicts. The j4j vote was his fallback and was much less than the tithe he originally requested. The CHQ group stood their ground and the j4j vote was the result.

SO- Noone said they would vote against the j4j. They said they would not take concessions to get more planes.

And they didn't, with the caveat that it is arguable that giving up half the seats on the new planes is a concession.
 
Last edited:
Top