Defending Chautauqua

[TWAER]

ANY CONTRACT THAT HAS JUNIOR MANNING IS WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!


I don't care if you make 100K a year, you are selling out people who are low on the list. If you accept it, you have lowered the bar in my view.


You see how most things in contracts are subjective. You may not like our compensation but I would have voted NO on any TA that had junior manning. Junior manning at you company COST us compensation. Not an opinion, just facts. They(management) wanted JM, but WE DID NOT. We gave up pay to not have JM in our contract. But you know, if pay is the #1 thing you want, go for it. But when your TA comes out and passes, I have no doubt people will find things in it to say you lowered your so called bar.

 

[I.P. Freley]

Walpaper,

The above is all nice and good if they don't use other means... How about if the release, which you sign, has a note on it that says "Captain So-And-So Contact Crew Scheduling"?

What if your FO has gone missing and you call crew scheduling to find out if s/he has been replaced, or if the flight is going to be delayed, and they nail you then?

What if scheduling is doing something screwy to your FA and you call to set the situation straight, and they say "Oh, by the way..."

What if you call to check in for your trip the day before, and they say "Oh, by the way..."

What if you call maintenance about a discrepancy, they put you on hold to talk to the maintenance supervisor, and when they pick up again it's *surprise!* crew scheduling?

What if dispatch sends out a station manager to intercept you on the last leg of your pairing as you kick the door open when you get to your base?

It's really easy to say "it's your own darned fault", but it's not really that simple.

 

[OldManPilot]

Call the Chautauqua contract whatever you want. I hope the rest of you continue to force your companies to pay you more and more and more. It just makes it easier for us to grow.

We are in this as a business, to grow and prosper which is exactly what we are doing. Being the highest paid obviously isn't the best way to go. So far all I have seen is High Pay = No Growth. That works great if you are senior at your company, but it sure does nothing for those looking for a job, or to move from the right seat to the left.

Keep up the good work!!!!!!

 

[Sam Fisher]

Call the Chautauqua contract whatever you want. I hope the rest of you continue to force your companies to pay you more and more and more. It just makes it easier for us to grow.

We are in this as a business, to grow and prosper which is exactly what we are doing. Being the highest paid obviously isn't the best way to go. So far all I have seen is High Pay = No Growth. That works great if you are senior at your company, but it sure does nothing for those looking for a job, or to move from the right seat to the left.

Keep up the good work!!!!!!

You just summed up this rampant disease that is ongoing in our industry.

Do you get profit sharing since you are so concerned about your company's growth?

High Pay = No growth...why? Because of this "cost plus" contract carrier environment where they pin "growth" possibilities on pilot pay. Pretty sad if you ask me. It is a bidding war and he who bids the lowest gets the business. I bet you guys would fly 737's for $60/hour in the left seat if it meant growth.

As for the Junior Man comments...there is no way that having a Junior Man clause costs you or doesn't cost you money. Plain and simple. The company WILL staff its flights, one way or another. Ever been reassigned during your trip? Extended?

Sam

 

[kepjet]

Yeah because you got a raise when you guys were awarded the additional flying from DAL last week. What a fool. I bet your management loves you, all the way to the bank! Tell me, would you gladly fly struck work to grow as well, so you could be a SCAB AND A WHORE?

Walpaper,

You bring up a lot of good points with your earlier posts. I enjoy reading both sides of this argument. However, when you use the "S" word directed at people who have never crossed a picket line (nor ever will), you lose a lot of credibility. You are talking about a very serious issue here. I, along with many other CHQ folks contributed to your strike fund and if you are implying we would cross a picket line to grow, you are dead wrong. Let's keep the "S" comments out of this discussion.

On a lighter note, what's the difference between a whore and a b!tch? A whore will give it to anyone, a b!tch will give it to anyone but you! An oldie but still a goodie.

 

[RegionalFA]

You just summed up this rampant disease that is ongoing in our industry.

Do you get profit sharing since you are so concerned about your company's growth?

High Pay = No growth...why? Because of this "cost plus" contract carrier environment where they pin "growth" possibilities on pilot pay. Pretty sad if you ask me. It is a bidding war and he who bids the lowest gets the business. I bet you guys would fly 737's for $60/hour in the left seat if it meant growth.

As for the Junior Man comments...there is no way that having a Junior Man clause costs you or doesn't cost you money. Plain and simple. The company WILL staff its flights, one way or another. Ever been reassigned during your trip? Extended?

Sam

I won't knock my profit sharing checks.

 

[mckpickle]

Right now they raised their bar.

This blows my mind. CHQ really thinks they raised the bar. Sorry honey they came in about 5-10K a year below the bar. And that shiney new EMB 170 that showed up to take people for rides.... nice carrot.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

Minor correction coming...

I've read (most of) this post with interest. One glaring error that seems to be taken as gospel is that you can't quantify the cost of work rules:


By looking the "whole" contract, you allow for subjectivivity. Anyone can make numbers say what they want them to. By looking at one specific item, you get exact comparisons. The numbers don't lie.

and:


those aspects of the contract ARE subjective. You know what? It's the pilot group WITH the contract that has to decide how those factor in.

Let me give the benefit of my experience as a former regional airline negotiator. Work rules are by far more costly to the company that straight pay rates. That's why companies will almost universally pay higher rates to avoid expensive work rules. Examples of some of the more expensive are trip and duty rigs.

As far as not be able to quantify the cost of work rules, or their being "subjective", I'll admit I'm dumbfounded. I can't begin to know where such a strange thought originated. ALPA contains an entire department called "Economic and Financial Analysis", and let me tell you, they can give you a dollar amount to the penny! For that matter, so can I, or any other negotiator that's been through the George Meany school. It's very basic math, usually accomplished through spreadsheets. I had a laptop with me during negotiations, and I often plugged in new variables at breaks to see how they affected the bottom line.

The poster who said to look at the WHOLE contract was absolutely correct. That is the only method that will yield true numbers.

In the end, it's only that particular pilot group that can determine if a contract suits their needs or not. Different pilot groups have different priorities.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I won't knock my profit sharing checks.

How is your profit sharing figured out over at CHQ? What is the gross payout to employees? Are you paid a 401k match on your profit sharing? (I know the answer to this one) If you go to a mortgage broker, will they factor the profit sharing check into your income for purposes of determining how much you qualify for? (I know the answer to this one too)

Sam

 

[ERJDRVR]

UPandDown hit it on the head.

We VOTED 95% to hit the streets. We STUCK to our guns.
We got a MUCH improved contract in a post 9/11 enviroment.
As a whole we received many many improvements on our contract. Better than most.
Could we have got more $$, Hell yes we could have BUT at what cost? Us nor you have that answer.
It is funny how 90% of the shots taken by you guys aimed at CHQ are by the WHOLLY OWNED carriers. (Most of those by uneducated FO's who only know what a loud mouthed captain has told them)

You guys always bitch that we stole "YOUR" flying. Listen 1st of all, 99% of your carriers were independent at one time until your parent bought you up to STEAL/SUBSTITUTE/FEED mainline flying.

BTW, how many of you smart guys know that mother Delta has an inside agreement for a LARGE chunk of CHQ stock when they go public? (UH-OH) Guess what???!?!?

Leave the BS to MNGT. Fly the plane, that's what we do.








Chautauqua Airlines

OUR JOB IS TO STEAL YOUR WOMEN AND FU&K YOUR FLYING

 

[kepjet]

BTW, how many of you smart guys know that mother Delta has an inside agreement for a LARGE chunk of CHQ stock when they go public? (UH-OH) Guess what???!?!?





Anywhere from 39 to 69% of Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. (CHQ's parent co.) automatically goes to Delta Air Lines when RAH Inc. goes public. Can we switch sides in the wholly owned vs. contract carrier war when this happens? Will CMR and ASA still want all of the flying to go to the wholly owned carriers since we could potentially be one too?

 

[Sam Fisher]

BTW, how many of you smart guys know that mother Delta has an inside agreement for a LARGE chunk of CHQ stock when they go public? (UH-OH) Guess what???!?!?

Anywhere from 39 to 69% of Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. (CHQ's parent co.) automatically goes to Delta Air Lines when RAH Inc. goes public. Can we switch sides in the wholly owned vs. contract carrier war when this happens? Will CMR and ASA still want all of the flying to go to the wholly owned carriers since we could potentially be one too?

What is your source and reference to this statement? Wexford Holdings owns CHQ/Republic. Wexford has yet to make a public statement about its intentions with respect to CHQ. I'm sure all options are being examined, from an IPO to a sale to an independent investor. Time will tell.

Frankly,my prediction is that CHQ does indeed get involved in the UAL 70 seat business - but at what rates might everyone ask? Well 5 year Captains on a 70 seater today would make $64.35/hour. If you guys were to get 99 seaters, a 5 year Captain would make $70.79/hour. Ouch. But an even bigger ouch is the FO...who gets paid the same if he flies the 135 as if he flies a 70 seater or 90 seater. And to boot, he tops out at 4 years. Hmm. Sorry guys, you can rationalize it all you want, but I think you fell way short in this arena. Nice work on binding the holding company but I am honestly of the belief you guys bought growth with those rates. You would have had the Q OF L regardless.

Sam

 

[Stearmandriver]

...even though, as I said, we are fairly compensated.

FAIRLY compensated???

FAIRLY COMPENSATED?????????????????????????????

HOLY CHRIST!!!!!!!!

There is not a single pilot flying regional jets in this COUNTRY who is fairly compensated! The fact that some of you think you are is the single biggest problem facing this industry and our livliehood! I'm not going to bash you for feeling you had to sign a particular contract; I mean, I wasn't there and if you have reason to believe it was a good idea, then that's your business. But you can't sit here and tell me that you REALLY BELIEVE you are earning a wage commensurate with your level of education, specialized training, experience, and responsibility. Many corporate pilots out there are earning practically double what we all are for flying airplanes that are, in some cases, half the size. Why is this? They work for companies that understand what it means to pay people for their knowledge, experience, and professionalism. Guys, WE DO NOT.

Someone at COEX posted a graph on our website a couple years ago that I wish I had now. It showed hourly pay rates as a function of aircraft size, from the 777 down to the ERJ. The rates for the 777, DC-10, 767, 757, MD-80, and 737's were pretty exactly linear. That is, they were obviously calculated using the same formula, so that if you wanted the pay rates for any new piece of equipment, you could just extend the pay line until you hit the number of seats in the airplane in question, and there was your pay. Do you know what a 5th year captain of a 50 seat jet should be making, using this graph? Around $120/hr. Remember too, these are CAL numbers, and CAL is the lowest paid major airline out there right now.

So... can anyone honestly tell me that they feel they're being compensated fairly if they're being paid around HALF the wage most other pilots in the industry would make for performing EXACTLY the same job?????

The sickest thing about this arrangement is that we did it, and are still doing it, to ourselves. True, there have been changes in the business environment that airlines operate in (deregulation was the single largest one), but guys, there are only a certain number of people qualified to do this job. WE HAVE THE POWER TO FIX THIS PROBLEM, if we would just grow up and stop accepting pay that would INSULT a comparably trained professional in any other field. Do you know that in the 80's the average commuter airline TURBOPROP driver made more than a Mesa RJ pilot does TODAY? The airlines can whine all they want about cost-cutting, changing pax demand, etc. The truth is, if we stood firm, they'd have no choice but to pay us. Airplanes don't move without pilots. Sure, in the end the average ticket price would go up, less people would fly (although not as many less as you might think; one or two Amtrak or Greyhound trips across the country would do wonders to loosen up the pursestrings for most pax), and there might be less pilot positions available, but at least they'd be WORTH HAVING!

It's astounding, really, how short of a memory most humans have. Less than a hundred years ago, flight of any kind was the biggest marvel in the world. Less than 50 years ago, airline pilots were some of the most respected, best compensated professionals in the world. And precisely because we've done our job so well, so safely, and so reliably for so long, people today regard airline travel as a mundane event that shouldn't cost more than, oh, $29.95 or so. Likewise, company execs don't understand why we should expect to be paid any better than bus drivers (and here's another statistic: around half of us RJ pilots (FO's) make significantly LESS than NYC bus drivers).

Sigh... but as someone was nice enough to inform me in a previous thread, there are kids lined up around the block to take my $28k/yr RJ job, so I should just quit my b*tching, right? And after all, I have the PRIVLEGE of flying a sexy glass cockpit jet, right? I mean, not only do they ALLOW me to do that, they even PAY me a (slave level) regular wage! Oh boy! I'm gonna go spank off over my ERJ manual now!!! Maybe then I'll be able to fall asleep and forget the nightmare of an industry I worked 10 years to get myself into!

 

[OldManPilot]

Please explain to me why this childish argument about "The Bar" does not go on in the Majors section of Flightinfo? Do you see American, Delta, United attacking JetBlue? Nobody attacks their company saying that their low fares are because their pilots make less money. They simply have a more streamlined business model which allows for less expensive operating costs. This is also true at many Regional airlines. There is more than simply what pilots get paid. There is fuel costs, maintenance, office costs etc.

What I am trying to say, is it is great if you make more money, but just because one makes 2 - 4 dollars an hour more is not a reason to attack with this "Lowering the bar" argument.

Lets end it here and now, and get back to treating each other with respect and dignity.

I would NEVER treat a jumpseat rider with the kind of disrespect that happens on these threads. I hope that this berating of each other ends on these threads.

Have a great carreer, I am finished with the Regional threads until once again they get back to being professional in content.

 

[CatYaaak]

Re: Re: Defending Chautauqua

FAIRLY compensated???

Do you know that in the 80's the average commuter airline TURBOPROP driver made more than a Mesa RJ pilot does TODAY? The airlines can whine all they want about cost-cutting, changing pax demand, etc. The truth is, if we stood firm, they'd have no choice but to pay us."

I remember in the late 80s monthly gross salaries for turboprop-commuter flying ranging from $900 to $1200/ month for new-hire F/Os. Inflation hasn't been that high in the ensuing years. The fact is, commuter/regional pay scales have ALWAYS sucked and I can't believe anyone is suprised to find out they are almost impossible to raise. Sure, 50 seats generates more revenue than 19 (which used to be the norm), but you have to factor in today's lower-than-ever ticket prices (sometimes even UNadjusted for inflation) and more expensive-to-aquire and DOC aircraft that are the standard now. Flying those shiny new jets instead of run-out Shorts and Metros comes at a price, like it or not.

What HAS changed, however, is that with the forecast being major airline hiring will be non-existent for years to come, the reality has set in for many that nobody's going to be pinning on a shiny set of Delta (or any other) wings on their chest anytime soon, that having turbine time up the ying-yang after a certain point doesn't mean squat, and a career with the regionals is something they are probably relegated to.

Since you speak of the truth, here it is; you don't go to work in a vacumn. In a market economy the priority always has been and always will be in any industry to sell the product 1st, and if you're lucky, make you happy 2nd. How nice it could be if they could do both and sometimes it happens, but there it is. Face it, the "product" they sell....airline travel.....pretty much sucks for a pax from the moment you arrive at a terminal to the moment you leave the other one at your destination.

With that as a given, ticket prices matter, so you can forget about suddenly raising prices to fund a raise because an ever-larger percentage of travelers driving ticket prices is the flip-flop crowd, not Brooks Brothers. The gravy train of business travelers (historically the FOUNDATION of non-elastic airline revenue) and they find alternatives whenever they can because in addition to airline flying being a hassle, the time they spend doing it is 100% non-productive. Because the airlines have done their job so poorly, the market has come up with more efficient alternatives for those with the ability to pay. There're never coming back in numbers.

In the end, management cares more about getting the passenger to choose your airline rather than another than your happiness because the way they see it, you voted a resounding "YES"on your current pay scale and QOL issues when you accepted the job offer they gave you. They don't care if you have built umpteen zillion jet hours now that would have made you competitive for the majors in the pre-9-11 world, or that you're sick of driving your airport beater car and living with 5 other guys in a crash pad. No, they just have to keep those pax flip-flopping onto your airplanes rather than the ones over at Brand X or staying home, and if that means buying jets and/or keeping prices low they're gonna prioritize your current needs and wants to second fiddle just like they've always done. After all, everyone there agreed to work for them, and that's the sad truth.