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 E-170's, The Future?

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

StuckInASaab

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Posts
73
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]July 22, 2004

BY FACSIMILE

Mark L. B__________
[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]Vice President - Employee Relations
American Airlines, Inc.
P.O. Box 619616 MD5624
DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616

Re: Operation of EMB-170 jets by Chautauqua Airlines

Dear Mark:

As you know, for the last several years, Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. has been a regional partner of American Airlines operating pursuant to Section 1.D. of the Scope Clause in our Basic Agreement. On July 13, 2004, Chautauqua filed an application with the Department of Transportation seeking certification to operate EMB 170 aircraft. I understand that Chautauqua intends to utilize these aircraft on behalf of United Airlines beginning in October 2004.

On behalf of the Allied Pilots Association, I want to clearly and forcefully assert that Chautauqua may not utilize the EMB 170 aircraft and continue to operate as a Commuter Air Carrier under Section 1 of our Agreement. The language of the Scope Clause is unambiguous: to be a “Commuter Air Carrier,” an air carrier must utilize “only (a) aircraft that are certificated in the United States and Europe with a maximum passenger capacity of 50 passenger seats or fewer and (b) aircraft that are not certificated in any country with a maximum gross takeoff weight of more than 64,500 pounds.” If Chautauqua operates the EMB-170, then it is no longer a “Commuter Air Carrier” under Section 1.B.4. and, accordingly, is no longer covered by the Section 1.D. Scope exception for “Commuter Air Carriers.”

I request that American immediately clarify its intent to abide by the Agreement. The parties have agreed that any violation of the APA Scope Clause constitutes irreparable injury to American’s pilots. Together, we must avoid the imminent injury threatened by Chautauqua’s apparent intent to cease operating as a Commuter Air Carrier under our Agreement.

I look forward to receiving your prompt assurances.

Sincerely,

Captain Ralph H_________
President

cc. Edgar N. J_________
[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]APA Negotiating Committee
APA Scope Committee
APA Board of Directors
[/font]


Given a choice, would CHQ choose the 170 for United or The AA Code Share?
 
CHQ Not Needed Now

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040729/295852_1.html?printer=1



Press ReleaseSource: Republic Airways Holdings

Republic Airlines Receives Amended Department of Transportation Authorization
Thursday July 29, 4:32 pm ET

INDIANAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 29, 2004--Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq:RJET - News) today reported that its Republic Airlines subsidiary has received authorization from the U.S. Department of Transportation to engage in air transportation using the Embraer 170 aircraft as a member of the United Express family under a code share agreement with United Airlines. This authorization is subject to the airline meeting the specific requirements of the FAA in order to receive its Air Carrier Certificate. Nonetheless, this is a critical step in the airlines efforts to begin commercial passenger operations.

"We are pleased that the Department of Transportation found both Republic Airlines managerially and financially fit to provide scheduled passenger air service. We look forward to completing the FAA certification process for Republic Airlines in a timely manner," said Bryan Bedford, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Republic Airways Holdings.

Republic Airways Holdings, based in Indianapolis, Indiana is an airline holding company which owns two regional airlines, Chautauqua Airlines and Republic Airlines. Chautauqua Airlines was recently named this year's Regional Airline of the Year by Air Transport World and Regional Airline World. The airline is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary of scheduled commercial passenger service. Chautauqua Airlines offers scheduled passenger service on more than 580 flights daily to 68 cities in 31 states, District of Columbia, Canada and the Bahamas through code sharing agreements with four major U.S. airlines. The all-jet airline currently operates a fleet of 88 Embraer regional jets, including 58 ERJ-145s, 15 ERJ-140s and 15 ERJ-135's. All of its flights are operated under its major airline partner brand, such as AmericanConnection, Delta Connection, United Express and US Airways Express. The airline employs more than 2,100 aviation professionals. Republic Airlines is currently in the process of completing its FAA air carrier certification. Once completed the airline will operate up to 23 seventy passenger Embraer 170 aircraft under a code share agreement with United Airlines.

Additional Information

In addition to historical information, this release contains forward-looking statements. Republic Airways may, from time-to-time, make written or oral forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements encompass Republic Airways' beliefs, expectations, hopes or intentions regarding future events. Words such as "expects," "intends," "believes," "anticipates," "should," "likely" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements included in this release are made as of the date hereof and are based on information available to Republic Airways as of such date. Republic Airways assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement.

Actual results may vary, and may vary materially, from those anticipated, estimated, projected or expected for a number of reasons, including, among others, that: Republic Airways is dependent on its code-share relationships with its major partners; terrorist attacks have harmed Republic Airways' business and may harm its business in the future; Republic Airways' code-share agreements with United will be terminated if United does not emerge from bankruptcy; Republic Airline requires an operating certificate before it can commence flying operations; if the financial strength of any of Republic Airways' code-share partners decreases, Republic Airways' financial strength is at risk; Republic Airways' code-share partners may expand their direct operation of regional jets thus limiting the expansion of Republic Airways' relationship with them; any labor disruption or labor strikes would adversely affect Republic Airways' ability to conduct its business; Republic Airways' current growth plans may be materially affected by substantial risks, some of which are outside of Republic Airways' control; Republic Airways' code-share partners may be restricted in increasing the level of business that they conduct with Republic Airways, thereby limiting its growth; Republic Airways' fleet expansion program will require a significant increase in Republic Airways' leverage and the financing it requires may not be available on favorable terms or at all; Republic Airways may be subject to additional liability in connection with its decision to phase out of revenue service its Saab 340 aircraft; Republic Airways depends on Embraer to supply Republic Airways with the aircraft it requires to expand; reduced utilization levels of Republic Airways' aircraft under the fixed-fee agreements would adversely impact its revenues and earnings; increases in Republic Airways' labor costs, which constitute a substantial portion of Republic Airways' total operating costs, will directly impact Republic Airways' earnings; Republic Airways' business could be harmed if Republic Airways loses the services of its key personnel; Republic Airways may experience difficulty finding, training and retaining employees; Republic Airways flies and depends upon Embraer regional jets and Republic Airways' business is at risk if it does not receive timely deliveries of aircraft or if the public negatively perceives Republic Airways' aircraft; Republic Airways is at risk of losses stemming from an accident involving any of its aircraft; Republic Airways will be controlled by Wexford Capital as long as they own or control a majority of its common stock, and they may make decisions with which other stockholders disagree; Republic Airways may have conflicts of interest with Wexford Capital, and because of their controlling ownership, Republic Airways may not be able to resolve these conflicts on an arm's length basis; the airline industry has been subject to a number of strikes which could affect Republic Airways' business; the airline industry is highly competitive; airlines are often affected by certain factors beyond their control, including weather conditions which can affect their operations; the airline industry has recently gone through a period of consolidation and transition; consequently, Republic Airways has fewer potential partners; and the airline industry is heavily regulated.
Contact: Republic Airways Holdings Warren R. Wilkinson, 317-484-6042
 
"this is a critical step in the airlines efforts to begin commercial passenger operations.

"We are pleased that the Department of Transportation found both Republic Airlines managerially and financially fit to provide scheduled passenger air service. We look forward to completing the FAA certification process for Republic Airlines in a timely manner,"

This isn't a certificate, they now have the authority to do it, they just don't have a certificate yet.

So the problem still isn't solved
 
The only reason $hittaqua is gettin 70 seaters is because they lower the bar. Don't you guys have a bunch of selling out to do...???
 
beech1900kid said:
The only reason $hittaqua is gettin 70 seaters is because they lower the bar. Don't you guys have a bunch of selling out to do...???
Uh.... nah, it's too easy. Only 1 airline I know of flyin' both 1900s and CRJs. Or maybe you were a Gulfstream/Pinnacle puke. In either case, well, glass houses and stones, etc.
 
"Republic Airways may be subject to additional liability in connection with its decision to phase out of revenue service its Saab 340 aircraft."

Republic has Slaabs? I know one of Wexford's companies that has 340s...but they're never mentioned along side the other children (REP/CHQ).

It's good to be red headed, and a stepchild... :rolleyes:
 
aewanabe said:
Uh.... nah, it's too easy. Only 1 airline I know of flyin' both 1900s and CRJs. Or maybe you were a Gulfstream/Pinnacle puke. In either case, well, glass houses and stones, etc.

uh....yah, it is. Is that how you talk on the radio too? 1900 and RJ's? Nope. 2 different airlines. Would you like some milk with your foot?
 
StuckInASaab said:
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]July 22, 2004
[/font]Given a choice, would CHQ choose the 170 for United or The AA Code Share?
I hope neither. Those Teamsters idiots continously lower the bar....
 
http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/PublicRelations/Hotline/hotline.asp

This is Lynne Clark, Editorial Services Manager, with the APA Information Hotline for Friday, July 30, 2004.

CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES: APA representatives met with Management this week regarding the recent announcement by Chautauqua Airlines (CHQ) that the carrier will be acquiring EMB-170s to conduct regional feed operations as a United Express carrier. Even though Chautauqua will not base these aircraft in St. Louis or use them as part of the American Connection service, APA reiterated its position that Chautauqua cannot operate a single EMB-170 and still remain a Commuter Air Carrier as specified in Section 1.D. of the contract. Management has stated their intention to comply with their obligations under the Green Book, and APA will continue to meet with the Company until the matter is resolved.
 
beech1900kid said:
The only reason $hittaqua is gettin 70 seaters is because they lower the bar
Lower the bar compared to who?? Horizon and CMR and ASA, or everybody else that makes up "industry average" (SKW who agreed to fly at 50 seat wages, or Eagle or PSA or MDA or Mesa or Mesaba)?

I suggest you check airlinepilotpay.com year 5 and 10 CR7/E170 CA rates. And remember, MAINLINE pilots are flying 70 seaters at AE rates, in the name of preserving "their" flying.

Some people can't see the forest for the trees...
 
BoilerUp,

Excellent post. Since you work for CHQ, you know most people are pissed because of our quick upgrade time and good company. Trust me, in 5 years they'll be pissed at Colgan because they are now flying E-190s for Northwest, and upgrading pilots in 15 months....the cycle never ends. CHQ is just the current airline it is popular to bash....
 
The only reason why Taco TUBE is getting any flying is because they all sucked at their last contract!!!!
 
jumppilot said:
BoilerUp,

Excellent post. Since you work for CHQ, you know most people are pissed because of our quick upgrade time and good company. Trust me, in 5 years they'll be pissed at Colgan because they are now flying E-190s for Northwest, and upgrading pilots in 15 months....the cycle never ends. CHQ is just the current airline it is popular to bash....
Great airline...short upgrade.....Oh wait, yeah, then 9-11 happens and first your great airline FIRES people instead of fourlough, then that joke of "union" you have does nothing to bring them back, until company realizes they need the people back.....duhh....great airline, huh....
Your airline, which "creates" an airline within an airline to fly the 170s. Whether you agree on scopes or not, that's a sh!t move by..."Republic".....
Yeah, "regional whore of the year"....give me a break.......
It's funny, you compare yourself with Colgan....????
Teamsters, Chautauqua, Republic.....what a joke!!!
 
767200-

Feel better about yourself now.....that's a good boy.
With as much animosity as you have.....one would think you work for Trans States or something....yea...go Hulas....
 
Let's just hope APA nails em to the wall if they try and let one slide . Sad what happens when you come in low that is next to nothing.

3 5 0
 
Nail us to the wall for what? They have no jurisdiction over what we do with another company. None of their bees wax.
 
ASH said:
Nail us to the wall for what? They have no jurisdiction over what we do with another company. None of their bees wax.
You're right. APA has no jurisdiction over what you do with UAL. APA does has something to say about what you do with AMR. Same situation as DAL and ACA.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top