Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CHQ and probation

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
No, I caught the "opinion" part. It doesn't change my position. Unfortunately, in this world, most of us have to get our facts second-hand, from other people. I agree that it's tough to get the whole story, but simply avoiding discussion on the matter because we lack all the facts doesn't help anyone either.
 
There's no right or wrong opinion right ?

Point is that it's pretty evident that CHQ is somewhat ruthless when it comes to giving people a taste of the canning process. I don't think every airline is like this, and there may be some that are even worse (none that I know of) but hopefully posts like these make people aware of what goes on in these airlines, 100% factual or not doens't really matter, just know that if you go to CHQ don't count on the company taking good care of you that's all, it sucks for the poor guy that got the shaft, but from what I have heard he's not alone ....
 
TheBigH said:
from what I have heard he's not alone ....
Even more reason to get as many of the facts as possible.

In this industry, where seniority is everything, I consider unjustified terminations a very serious issue. Whether this particular case was unjustified, I can't say. Regardless, though, just as I consider it valuable to research NTSB accident reports to ensure that I don't make the same mistakes, I think it's valuable to discuss the conditions that lead to a person's termination. I never suggested anyone's opinion was wrong, I just disagree with it.
 
Reserve is not rest and it is not duty. This also applies in the CHQ contract.

I'm not sure about the details of this incident, but it should be noted that your legal to work for 16 hours after the time your reserve starts. Duty however doesn't start until you show up for work (limited to 14 hours in the CHQ contract). So one could start duty 2 hours after reserve started and still be legal under the FAR's and the contract.

Again I'm not sure this is what happened.
 
The union is supposedly still waiting on the phone call tapes regarding the conversation with our scheduling and FO in question. As it turns out, the company is having difficulties locating the recordings. Things that make you go HHmmm.

Either way, the FO is getting outside counsel for this matter, since our union is pretty much no help at all for Probies. More that several of our pilots have stated that they are willing to help the FO financially with the outside lawyer, which obviously shouldn't have been needed.

But, as Flying Dawg has stated, most of us are really not to sure what really happened. Chinese telephone, two sides to every story, etc.
 
Hey Bluto...you still flyin out of PS Cali? I'm flyin for CHQ now and love it, hows SW treatin ya?? call me its been a long time
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top