CHQ E190's

[BenderGonzales]

I wish I was a chief pilot so I could sit around on Flightinfo.com all day.

Oh wait...I do sit on flightinfo.com all day. But I dont get paid for it!!!

 

[8HourPilot]

Another thought......

Does anyone out there think that if CHQ/S5/REP passes up the whole 190 thing, some other regional wont pick it up. We all know that Mesa would bite, though with the rapid withdrawl from Airways flying, one could hold that in doubt. Air Wisconsin has a good payscale in place for that size A/C.
Furthermore, does ANYONE think that mainline is actually gonna fly these things, when the FIRST thing they did was say they wanted it outsourced.

 

[LegacyDriver]

The notion that Bedford had the CHQ pilot group over a barrel with J4J is laughable. Look how long it has taken them to get Republic up and running. No sir, we had BB by the short hairs with the strike vote. We should have taken it to the mat and demanded the changes required.

Instead he rattled his sabre at us (just as he is doing to those of you still there now) and people got scared. He bluffed us. Going on strike would have given CHQ pilots insurmountable leverage.

It is a tragically lost opportunity.

 

[FlamingFUPA]

The notion that Bedford had the CHQ pilot group over a barrel with J4J is laughable. Look how long it has taken them to get Republic up and running. No sir, we had BB by the short hairs with the strike vote. We should have taken it to the mat and demanded the changes required.

Instead he rattled his sabre at us (just as he is doing to those of you still there now) and people got scared. He bluffed us. Going on strike would have given CHQ pilots insurmountable leverage.

It is a tragically lost opportunity.

Coming from somebody who was run out of the company, i think we will take your opinion with a grain of salt

 

[LegacyDriver]

Take it any way you like.

 

[BoilerUP]

Although I wasn't associated with CHQ at the time, I think LD hit this one squarely on the head. The pilot group blinked once before in the face of the threat and BB is hoping they blink again. Hopefully in 2007, the whole group will share a strong unified voice through the EXCO and negotiating committee.

With the growth of the E170/190 market at RAH, the pilot group will once again have the opportunity to up the ante. Unless other carriers can get orders for the E-jets and have an operation up and going within the next 2 years, RAH will have the market cornered. I think raises for the 70/90 seat CA in the 20-35% range with FO raises running 35-60% (depending on plane and longevity) are not unreasonable.

I hope everybody who is on the CHQ master list come October 2007 can put their differences aside and stand as one in UNITY.

 

[Crzipilot]

To the one that said he thought everything bigger than a 170 was scoped to mainline. Well that was true...but it changed...it's now 190/900 can be flown by affliates, everything else bigger at mainline.

And the doufus talking crap to the CP.....layoff...

 

[Skaff]

Skywest managers were meeting with US Airways last week. Jerry wants bigger equiptment. With over 1/2 a billion in the bank, US Airways is looking for more shareholders.

 

[pilotpayne]

Skywest now too...boy I hope awac dosen't get the shaft again....
We'll be stuck with these 50 seaters forever.

 

[surplus1]

Get out your history books, folks, since yet another misunderstanding is being dragged out...

Thanks, but there is not as much misunderstanding as you think; at least not on my part.

Of course, the problem was, Bedford had us by our, ahem, packages and the threat of an alter-ego being created pushed the Chautauqua pilot group to reexamine the J4J contract that had been updated, took the lesser of two evils, and signed a revised version in hopes of eliminating the alter-ego status of Republic. <<>> The bitter pill we swallowed was to surrender a part of our seniority provisions to the J4J pilots, who were given protections not afforded them at their relative seniority in certain situations.

This I have understood fully from the day you did it. While I never "liked" it, I do not blame you for doing it. You were not the first and therefore you had no choice. The first (MESA) didn't make a stand and left you with no other option. I agree with the decision you made at that time. It was the only sensible thing to do; you had no other option.

I can't speak for the pilot group on the whole, but there are a lot of vocal opponents to the idea of expanding the J4J program at CHQ. Again, this is not meant to be a slap in the face to the MDA pilots. I do not see any particular benefit for us to sign away more of the scope and seniority provisions of our current agreement solely in exchange for more aircraft.

As you already know I'm not a CHQ pilot at all and I don't really know what your pilot group now thinks about J4J. I only know what I hope it will think, and that is: Since you no longer have the alter ego problem you should not relinquish any more of your seniority to anyone (unless your company is involved in a merger). The present situation is not a merger and it is not the acquisition of another airline. It is the purchase of some assets, period.

I have nothing against MDA pilots but I will say, without hesitation, that they are the cause of their own problems in this case. They created MDA; they gave up their longevity to do it, they invented J4J, a vehicle expressely designed to force pilots at other airlines to abrogate their seniority in favor of USAirways pilots (which is what MDA pilots are). As far as I am concerned the entire J4J concept is no more than the organized and deliberate theft of seniority. It was not done accidentally, it was done deliberately.

Unfortunately, the pilots of some airlines were forced to accept this travesty (as you were). However, that's over and done with. You are no longer in that position, you do not have to give another inch and, in my opinion, you should not give another inch. If the situation was reversed, there is no doubt whatever in my mind that they would not do it for you.

Nor do I have any particular inkling to go after any more flying (and certainly not concede any part of our agreement to acquire such flying) in larger aircraft, for both reasons of industry solidarity and a desire to motivate Mr. Bedford to elicit positive changes in blatant violations of our work rules and bargaining agreement.

First - I agree completely that you should not give up any part of your agreement in an effort to encourage your company to stop violating your agreement. That would be a sign of weakness that would have the effect of causing more violations than whatever you have now.

Second - I disagree with your concept of "industry solidarity". There is no such thing! If there was such a thing, you would not have had to accept J4J in the frist instance; it would never have been proposed. The only "solidarity" you should consider is that of your own pilot group. If you fail to protect your own interests, you can rest assured that no other pilot group will do it for you. If the MDA pilots should have an opportunity to take your seniority and your jobs on terms acceptable to them, they will do so, and they won't worry for 10 seconds about "industry solidarity". In fact they are counting on your naivete' allowing them to get away with it. It is time for you to prove to them that you've broken the code of what they are trying to do and say NO.

That does NOT mean that I don't think you should hire them. If you have vacancies I would have no problem at all with your hiring them in preference to others if that's what you want to do. However, they have no "right" to that and they certainly have no right to come to your company with super seniority, no matter how many airplanes your company buys from USAirways or any other source.

That having been said, if your company can get additionally flying then you should do that flying, regardless of what aircraft it happens to be in. That includes the EMB-190. That's not taking anything from them, they have no EMB-190's. You also are not taking the EMB-170 from them. It is their own company that has decided to shut down that program and sell the equipment.

If your company decided to shut down a program tomorrow and their company purchased the aircraft, you can bet any amount you want they would not be giving you super seniority and they would not refuse to fly those airplanes. That is proven by what they have already done. And don't forget, they have already agreed to undercut the wages of every regional operating 70-seat equipment by agreeing to fly those airplanes for 1st year payrates (at EGL). They were obviously not concerned at all about "industry solidarity" or how their decision would affect other pilot groups. They took care of number one, i.e., themselves. Well, now they should have no complaints at all if somebody else takes care of themselves first.

As for their "scope", if that had not been carried to rediculous extremes in the first place, they would not have this problem today. The problem is created by their Union with their full knowledge and consent. Now they don't want to live with the consequences? Tough T T. Don't worry about their "scope". It has changed before and it will change again. You need to worry about not letting them shaft you because of it; nothing more.

With the apparent lack of interest on the part of the MDA pilots to fly here, I don't know why the USAir pilots would agree--with or without a J4J provision--to allow us to fly them.

They will agree to it for the very same reason that you had to agree to their J4J theft of your seniority. They will have to, just like you had to. That's what they don't like.

Don't think for a moment that they have a "lack of interest" in flying at your airline. They do have an interest, they just want to do it on their terms at your expense. That's what you need to understand, and prevent.

Perhaps a court has eliminated such scope in order to make U more competitive, and I'm out of the loop.

You're not out of the loop, the BK court has not eliminated their scope (at least not yet). It is being eliminated by reality becuse it was the wrong kind of scope to begin with. You din't cause that, they did.

If not, however, I sincerely hope that ALPA will settle the issue where it ought to be settled--at mainline.

That's exactly right. You have nothing to do with it and it should not cost your pilot group anything to solve their problem.

If Chautauqua is offered such aircraft with the consent of the U pilots, then it has quite frankly gone too far already.

In my opinion, which you can tell is not "humble", if your company buys those aircraft (EMB-170 or EMB-190) they should be flown by your pilots, with or without the consent of the U pilots. If their company bought those airplanes they would not ask for your consent nor would they care if you gave it or not. Why should you?

So, to answer your questions (see quote):
1.We don't
2.Though I wouldn't have put it so colorfully, yes
3.Who said we were interested in this at all?

# 1 - I'm very happy to hear that.
# 2 - That's great! For a while, some of you had me worried. I hope your fellow pilots share your views.
# 3 - Hopefully you will be "interested" in whatever is good for your pilot group.

From this post, I hope you will understand that my "problem" is not a lack of understanding. We may have a difference of opinion on the solutions, but I understand what's going on very well indeed.

I wish you nothing but the best. Stick to your guns and cover your own six.