Strikefinder
Captain Backfire
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2002
- Posts
- 114
Well, surplus, I certainly am willing to recognize that I had you pegged incorrectly, and for that I apologize. Our opinions seem to be very much more on the same page than I would have thought.
There is often a disconnect, I believe, between the reasons that people have presumed that the CHQ pilot group has taken certain actions and what I believe are the underlying reasons that they took place. The current J4J agreement was put in place due to circumstances which were rapidly falling out of control during our contract negotiations, and it was not a "growth fast plan" like most of the outsiders seem to have a consensus about. I'm really tired of having to go around and deal with people that honestly believe that I or anybody else would have "run over their own mother" for an upgrade. While I appreciate that our company has grown as quickly as it has, our ratification of the previous J4J agreement was not based on accelerated growth, it was based on a feared "Freedom Airlines" whipsaw and loss of our jobs to an entity owned by our parent making less significant wages. I know that you understand this, but there are many who do not, and those people aren't willing to believe that the current CHQ pilot group would not support more expansion or bigger aircraft under any cost. We have never stood for that.
Again, CHQ is a diverse group and I do not have my finger on the pulse of its entirety. The more vocal among our group on both our message board and in our crew rooms do not support the expansion of J4J for all of the reasons that you outlined here. There may be exceptions, and if it comes to a vote, the quiet majority may surprise me. From my standpoint, however, I am not inclined in any way to approve any expansion of the J4J program.
To clear one point up (which was also brought up to me in a PM), I do not think that all MDA pilots are uninterested in coming to CHQ/Republic, but rather that they are not interested in participating in the J4J program as it currently stands. What I have heard (standard disclaimer) is that only a half-dozen or so signed up to come to CHQ to fly the EMB170. As it stands, the only issue remotely on the table is the number of aircraft operated under the current J4J agreement, an agreement which has only elicited a half-dozen takers. I don't see why the pilots would allow Republic to operate 190s in exchange for J4J. Perhaps there was something else on the table to encourage them to do so. In any case, the rationale behind an approval by the U pilots to expand our J4J program is not something I have any ability to control.
If we refuse expansion of the J4J program, I do believe that the EMB190s will possibly, even likely, end up at a competing carrier under J4J rather than on our list without strings attached (like J4J). Even threatened with the loss of the growth altogether, I'm not shaken of my view of capitulating to a J4J expansion. If Mr. Bedford wants more aircraft, the terms under which they are operated are clearly outlined in our Collective Bargaining Agreement. Should he want to amend those terms, he will need to provide something far more compelling to me than a few "shiny new jets" that I will not be flying anyhow.
Finally, I disagree in principle that there should not be a sense of industry solidarity, though I would agree that in practice that no such thing exists. I do not have intentions of facilitating growth of my airline by squarely taking aim at another pilot group, nor will I lose sleep if the U pilots manage to keep the EMB190 our of our hands. In fact, should they negotiate to take control of the USAirways aircraft we currently operate, then I am sincerely happy that they were able to negotiate for that degree of control. I certainly won't be bantering about on a message board like this about how the U pilots "stole back our flying" or that they weren't welcome in my jumpseat.
I don't believe that control of these aircraft is or ever was a primary or principle concern of the mainline unions. It should be, and in my opinion, it is more important salary and work-rule protections that are likely being traded in exchange for the scope relief. If the U pilots allow their company to operate with larger aircraft as an affiliate, there's nothing that I can do to stop it, and as such do not feel any sense of indebtitude to their pilot group. As such, an extension of the J4J protocol is not necessary or warranted at this time. Perhaps this opinion comes as a surprise to those that want to put me and my colleagues out of their jumpseats.
I do not know who this "Guppy Killer" fellow is, or if he is a CHQ pilot at all, but I can say with sincerity that his views are not representative of the pilot group at large. I apologize to anyone who actually takes this individual seriously, and I'm genuinely embarrassed that we have him in our employ if, in fact, we do. Were I in charge of hiring, I would seriously doubt that such an individual would have made it through the interview.
There is often a disconnect, I believe, between the reasons that people have presumed that the CHQ pilot group has taken certain actions and what I believe are the underlying reasons that they took place. The current J4J agreement was put in place due to circumstances which were rapidly falling out of control during our contract negotiations, and it was not a "growth fast plan" like most of the outsiders seem to have a consensus about. I'm really tired of having to go around and deal with people that honestly believe that I or anybody else would have "run over their own mother" for an upgrade. While I appreciate that our company has grown as quickly as it has, our ratification of the previous J4J agreement was not based on accelerated growth, it was based on a feared "Freedom Airlines" whipsaw and loss of our jobs to an entity owned by our parent making less significant wages. I know that you understand this, but there are many who do not, and those people aren't willing to believe that the current CHQ pilot group would not support more expansion or bigger aircraft under any cost. We have never stood for that.
Again, CHQ is a diverse group and I do not have my finger on the pulse of its entirety. The more vocal among our group on both our message board and in our crew rooms do not support the expansion of J4J for all of the reasons that you outlined here. There may be exceptions, and if it comes to a vote, the quiet majority may surprise me. From my standpoint, however, I am not inclined in any way to approve any expansion of the J4J program.
To clear one point up (which was also brought up to me in a PM), I do not think that all MDA pilots are uninterested in coming to CHQ/Republic, but rather that they are not interested in participating in the J4J program as it currently stands. What I have heard (standard disclaimer) is that only a half-dozen or so signed up to come to CHQ to fly the EMB170. As it stands, the only issue remotely on the table is the number of aircraft operated under the current J4J agreement, an agreement which has only elicited a half-dozen takers. I don't see why the pilots would allow Republic to operate 190s in exchange for J4J. Perhaps there was something else on the table to encourage them to do so. In any case, the rationale behind an approval by the U pilots to expand our J4J program is not something I have any ability to control.
If we refuse expansion of the J4J program, I do believe that the EMB190s will possibly, even likely, end up at a competing carrier under J4J rather than on our list without strings attached (like J4J). Even threatened with the loss of the growth altogether, I'm not shaken of my view of capitulating to a J4J expansion. If Mr. Bedford wants more aircraft, the terms under which they are operated are clearly outlined in our Collective Bargaining Agreement. Should he want to amend those terms, he will need to provide something far more compelling to me than a few "shiny new jets" that I will not be flying anyhow.
Finally, I disagree in principle that there should not be a sense of industry solidarity, though I would agree that in practice that no such thing exists. I do not have intentions of facilitating growth of my airline by squarely taking aim at another pilot group, nor will I lose sleep if the U pilots manage to keep the EMB190 our of our hands. In fact, should they negotiate to take control of the USAirways aircraft we currently operate, then I am sincerely happy that they were able to negotiate for that degree of control. I certainly won't be bantering about on a message board like this about how the U pilots "stole back our flying" or that they weren't welcome in my jumpseat.
I don't believe that control of these aircraft is or ever was a primary or principle concern of the mainline unions. It should be, and in my opinion, it is more important salary and work-rule protections that are likely being traded in exchange for the scope relief. If the U pilots allow their company to operate with larger aircraft as an affiliate, there's nothing that I can do to stop it, and as such do not feel any sense of indebtitude to their pilot group. As such, an extension of the J4J protocol is not necessary or warranted at this time. Perhaps this opinion comes as a surprise to those that want to put me and my colleagues out of their jumpseats.
I do not know who this "Guppy Killer" fellow is, or if he is a CHQ pilot at all, but I can say with sincerity that his views are not representative of the pilot group at large. I apologize to anyone who actually takes this individual seriously, and I'm genuinely embarrassed that we have him in our employ if, in fact, we do. Were I in charge of hiring, I would seriously doubt that such an individual would have made it through the interview.
