SkyBoy1981 said:
I've made 3 points since I've started with this thread:
1) CHQ survives by undercutting other airlines for work, as they have lower operating costs.
2) The E170 rates are not up to par with where they should be (you even stated this yourself).
3) CHQ has the potential to cost other pilots their jobs when they undercut others for work (which is something I hope the ALPA Fee for Departure Task Force can help resolve...but I'm not holding my breath).
Those are the issues that I have with the company. Please, point out the inaccuracies in these 3 statements without rambling on into a novel of other BS such as your superior experience level, my "juvenile" personality, and my future career plans which are irrelevant to what we're talking about.
1) This is true, partially. We were not the lowest bidder on CAL flying. End of story. We used to survive, but that's before you were flying airplanes. Now we grow because we have what the market wants at the prices the market wants them. This is the same reason AirTran, SWA, JetBlue, Spirit and others are growing. All that means is that the executive suite is doing its job. However, other airlines like TSA, Great Lakes, Commutair, as examples aren't growing, even though they have the lowest costs.
2) The 170 rates were "up-to-par" when the contract was signed. While we didn't have any airplanes, the rates were industry standard. The standard is now changed and we don't have a chance to renegotiate mid-stream. This is a fact of having a contract. You hedge your bets, then ride them out.
3) As far as losing jobs, it could also be looked at as creating jobs. You can swing it either way. Now that I shot your
stealing my XJT job argument into swiss cheese, you are now a purveyor of industry kum-bah-yah. This argument can be made for pilots at
any carrier that is growing and increasing market share, while others are downsizing. We're your flavor of the week. Also, if you think ALPA cares 2 rat turds about you, you're nuts. Look at how they negotiate scope clauses at two ALPA carriers. They sacrifice the lower-paid regional pilots by writing scope clauses at mainline to limit your career expectations and income levels. Ask yourself this: "Why didn't ALPA force onelist when CoEx was a wholly-owned?" "Why didn't ALPA force Hensen Aviation, Penn Central and Jetstream (Piedmont, Allegheny and PSA today) on to the Master Seniority List when they became wholly-owned subsidiaries?" "How did the prior two rhetorical questions affect the ability to advance in the careers of those pilots?"
I would like to write shorter posts, but I can't. The amount of knowledge to convey can't be done in 2 sentences. I don't know why I waste my time. No presentation of an abudance of facts is going to change how you think.
Your experience level directly relates to this, because your lack of knowledge on the subject matter is very evident. I don't know very much about how to run an airline, or why they do some dumb stuff they do. What I do know, is that if you don't know what has been done before, you can't use the collective experiences (I usually term this "hangar flying" when I talk about stuff) to make your situation better. Also the fact you know nothing about my company further illustrates why you should stop making statements and further embarassing yourself.
Also the top two major holders of XJT stock are: Continental Retirement Plan and Continental Airlines Inc.
