CHQ E-170's, The Future?

[aewanabe]

Teamsters, Chautauqua, Republic.....what a joke!!!

Jeez, dude, give it a rest. Your hatred of CHQ is well known, and we've already been over the relative merits of Trans States vs. CHQ. What, did we turn you down at your interview or something? While I'm not a big fan of Teamsters national, we've got a good MEC and great individual reps busting ass to make this a great place to work. Oh, I forgot you're one of the few that thinks you're hot **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** because you've got ALPA on the property... ask the boys and girls at Comair or any of the US WOs how great ALPA national is right now. (And need I remind you about the CQFOs?)

Meantime, chill out, you can reapply in 6 monthsD

As far as the AA scope, that is a legitimate issue and one I'm surprised our management has overlooked. OTOH, BB has hinted more and more recently that he sees the growth in the 70-seat arena (duh); maybe someone decided getting rid of 15 junk E140s in a dead hub was worth the cost.... Personally, 90 percent of us here at CHQ would be happy to see the AA code-share go bye-bye. (Speaking for those of us who don't live in STL). Our pass bennies on AA suck compared with the other code-shares, the airplane pays less in the left seat, and the flying should really be Eagle and AA's anyway. (Really, BOS-STL in an EMB? Who the fvck thought of that?!) Not to mention the well-known love and happiness in the disfunctional AMR family.

 

[surplus1]

I would love to see your management (CHQ) tell the APA to shove thier scope clause where the sun don't shine.

That kind of "scope" is not really scope at all, it's pure mainline BS and greed. Somebody needs to tell them off, just like Indy told UAL to go to he!!. Maybe Indy will have a rough time and maybe they won't make it, but I sure hope they do make it and I'm pulling for them.

In any case, it is better to go down fighting for yourself than to keep taking it in the rear from a bunch of greedy self-serving sob's. Whether they are bean counters at United or pilots at AA doesn't matter.

Now, all you APA loyalists can flame me all you wan't. I love you just as much as you love me.

 

[Airpiraterob]

will definitely be interesting to se how this turns out.

anyone have a news release direct from CHQ about this intent to fly the 170? i've seen releases from RJET holdings about republic only, and APA material. anything from the mouth of CHQ?

 

[Stick Man]

767's first post - in 1/04

Trans States Airlines
Hi, I would like to know it is to work to TSA.
I've heard good and bad things. I have an upcoming interview and any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks


767's 1st post - He's only been at TSA for like 8 mos. !!! What a retard - he must know so much about the business (said with a sarcastic tone). He dares to write drivel re: CHQ. It's a small world 767, and we all have friends that have friends. We'll find your name eventually. And your name will find it's way onto our lists.

 

[StarChecker]

Another interesting post from 767200...

"I applied to CHQ for 4 years. From having 900 TT hours and 200ME, to having 3700TT, 700ME, 1700TURBINE PIC, and a type rating. I never even got a call or a postcard. I have no idea what "the minimus" are. Maybe you need a letter from someone inside?"


That's from last month.


And another piece of the puzzle fits into place. With your attitude...thank God we didn't hire you. Take the hint...ASS!

 

[Bayoupilot]

As far as the AA scope, that is a legitimate issue and one I'm surprised our management has overlooked. OTOH, BB has hinted more and more recently that he sees the growth in the 70-seat arena (duh); maybe someone decided getting rid of 15 junk E140s in a dead hub was worth the cost.... Personally, 90 percent of us here at CHQ would be happy to see the AA code-share go bye-bye. (Speaking for those of us who don't live in STL).

Well, as someone who DOES live in STL, I would be sorry to see it go. I understand if the company believes it's in the best interest to get rid of the codeshare, but I don't see it if we've got to leave that much money on the table. As I understand it, we own those 140s, and if AA drops us without cause, they have to buy those 15 birds from us at market price. If we go and terminate it, then I'm pretty sure we don't get those good terms and we've got 15 140s that no one else will touch. This can't be good for the company, and I would be surprised if BB is going to walk away from it without smelling like a rose.

Then again, it's been pretty obvious for a while that STL/AA isn't one of our higher priorities. Maybe the man does have a plan.

 

[ERJDRVR]

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!!!

So wise and so bitter after 8 short months???

 

[I.P. Freley]

Less than 8 months, probably, if s/he interviewed in January. At best, that's six months, assuming a Feb class date.

Not to mention living in a glass house. When you work at a company that furloughed dozens of pilots out of seniority order after 9/11 (by EQUIPMENT, instead, furloughing prop people first and jet people a month later), perhaps you shouldn't be pointing fingers quite so vigorously. At least CHQ had to pay off the fired pilots in a settlement... TSA didn't give a nickel to the people that were sent packing a month earlier than they should've been because they happened to be in the J41... Not that they had to, of course, but you get the idea.

Some people I know got an extra thousand dollars out of the deal for having the good fortune to be on the jet in those unfortunate times... That's an extra month's training pay for sitting at home, mind you.

 

[shuttlecraft]

this is only rumor. i heard that Shuttle America will take delivery of the ERJ 170 insteand of RP bec of its dilema with APA and AA.

 

[Mongolikecandy]

this is only rumor. i heard that Shuttle America will take delivery of the ERJ 170 insteand of RP bec of its dilema with APA and AA.

Do your parents know you are using the computer?

 

[Be200pilot]

thats a nice rumor

 

[KingAirer]

Any mention of CHQ getting jet yields a rumor that Shuttle America is getting jets.
Riddle Me this...Do you really think Shuttle is going to pay to get a 170 program up and running, train pilots, bring them on property, all while RP has been doing the same thing. So now youve spent money twice, all to save AConnection.

 

[BoilerUP]

CHQ has been spending a ton of time and effort to set up a E170 training program in the last 3-4 weeks. It is my understanding CHQ could not use the materials developed by Republic, they needed their own training program. All so the 170s can be on the CHQ certificate for what, 1-2 months (hypothetically)? Will CHQ 170 crews who have already been flying the line have to go all the way through REP 170 indoc and systems/sim training once Republic gets their operating certificate and the planes get transferred? Nobody seems to know the answer to this question.

Lots of FAA officials on the sign-in sheet at Corporate every day, and lots of closed-door meetings. Its gonna be an interesting few months...

 

[FlyingDawg]

Here's some rumor from RAH HQ.

When AA took over the TWA contract for the STL flying, nothing was ever added about the APA scope limitation to the size of aircraft CHQ can fly. One must remember at the time US scope limited the size. US scope limits were eventually lifted and only DL codeshare limits the number of seats CHQ can fly at 70. The aircraft can even be certified at more than 70 seats but the seating config can only be 70.

Now Bedford is gearing up for a fight if AA is forced by APA to challenge it. Nothing in the AA contract limits the size of aircraft. A court would rule in CHQ favor because of this oversight.

Management has been asked why the need for Republic if CHQ gets the EMB170 on its certificate, if they are so sure they will win in court. Answer: Larger aircraft must go to Republic because of codeshare limitations.

Yes- Its gonna get interesting!

 

[surplus1]

I'd love to see RH take on the APA. It's time this sort of nonsense come to stop.

 

[Cleared Direct]

AGREEMENT
between
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
and
THE AIR LINE PILOTS
in the service of
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
as represented by the
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Effective: May 1, 2003


SECTION 1

RECOGNITION AND SCOPE

B. Definitions

4. Commuter Air Carrier

The term "Commuter Air Carrier" refers to any Air Carrier utilizing 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 an aircraft type operated by an Air Carrier otherwise meeting
the conditions in the preceding sentence is recertified with a maximum
passenger capacity of greater than 50 passenger seats, the Air Carrier
operating said aircraft shall remain a Commuter Air Carrier so long as it
operates said aircraft with no more than 50 passenger seats.

C. SCOPE

1. General.

All flying performed by or on behalf of the Company or an Affiliate shall be
performed by pilots on the American Airlines Pilots Seniority List in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, except as expressly permitted
in provisions D. – K. below.

D. Scope Exception: Commuter Air Carriers

1. Commuter Air Carriers and Section 1 Limitations.

The Company or an Affiliate may create, acquire, maintain an equity position
in, enter into franchise type agreements with, and/or codeshare with a
Commuter Air Carrier, and flying by any such Commuter Air Carrier shall not
be subject to the limitations of Section 1.C. above, so long as any such
Commuter Air Carrier operates in accordance with the limitations set forth in
this Section 1.D.

2. American Eagle, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc.

American Eagle, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. may operate, in the
aggregate, no more than 43 ATR 72 aircraft or other turbo prop aircraft
certificated in the United States and Europe for a maximum passenger capacity
of between 51 and 70 seats, without losing their status as Commuter Air
Carriers.

3. Purpose; Intent of the Parties.


a. Primary Purpose.

The primary purpose of a Commuter Air Carrier is either to provide
passenger and/or cargo revenue feed to Company flights and/or to enhance
the Company’s overall market presence.

b. Role of Commuter Air Carriers in Company’s Development.

The parties recognize that Commuter Air Carriers have played a role in the
development of the Company as the world’s premier airline. Additionally,
the Company and the Association acknowledge that the passenger feed
provided to the Company’s domestic and international system strengthens
the Company, thereby providing enhanced career opportunities to American
Airlines pilots.

c. Markets in Which the Company Cannot Earn an Adequate Return on
Invested Capital

The Company will operate American Airlines service in markets where such
service can earn an adequate return on invested capital. This provision will
not require the Company to operate a particular service, but instead, if the
Company could operate a service and earn an adequate return on invested
capital, the Company may not place or maintain the Company code on such
service by a Commuter Air Carrier. Notwithstanding this prohibition, if the
Company orders additional aircraft to fly such a route, the Company may
place or maintain its code on the route or frequency during the time
between order and delivery of the additional aircraft. Similarly, if the
Company is procuring an airport slot, gate and/or other route authority to fly
such a route, the Company may place or maintain its code on the route or
frequency during the time required to procure such a slot and/or authority.

d. Parties to Meet in the Event of Problems.

It is not the intent of either the Company or the Association to limit the
expansion of Commuter Air Carriers in developing new markets. If at any
time it is determined that these provisions are impeding the ability of
Commuter Air Carriers to fulfill their primary role in support of the
Company’s system, the parties agree to promptly meet and discuss
appropriate modifications to this Agreement.

---------------------------------------


LETTER JJ (6)

AmericanAirlines®

September 22, 2003
Captain John E. Darrah
President
Allied Pilots Association
14600 Trinity Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 76155

Re: Trans States Airlines – ATR Exception (Section 1.D.2)

Dear John:

This letter modifies the agreement between the Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) and American Airlines, Inc. (“Company”) dated May 1, 2003 regarding Section 1 - Scope. Specifically, the parties agree to make an exception in which Trans States Airlines (“TSA”) may operate, in aggregate, no more than three (3) ATR 72 aircraft or other turbo prop aircraft certificated in the United States and Europe for a maximum passenger capacity of between 51 and 70 seats, in the American Connection Operation in STL without losing its status as a Commuter Air Carrier.

The parties also agree that TSA may replace and/or substitute these aircraft with like or similar aircraft.

Sincerely,
/signed/
Mark L. Burdette
Director - Employee Relations
Agreed:
/signed/
John E. Darrah
President
Allied Pilots Association

 

[surplus1]

And your point is? Looks like the only part of that which "might" be relevant is Section 1.B.4.(a). Given that CHQ is not operating any aircraft with more than 50-seats as a "franchise" for American, this language is vague. The APA's interpretation is ambiguous.

What is the exact language that you see as prhibiting CHQ from flying the E-170 for United? What language, if any, would prevent Republic from flying the E-170 for United?

I think the APA is "stretching" well beyond its reach.

 

[KingAirer]

Id be curious to see what the AMR-CHQ contract looks like. Im not a contract lawyer, but looks like AMR could be sued either way.