Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Realyman said:BTW-You Delta folk that want to flow or come to ASA/Comair better have a lot of RJ time or forget it!!!! Winglet time too!!!! FMS, CF34 time!!!! Bling Bling time!!!
wms said:Sorry, but 10 years getting shot at does not equal 10 years of flying to mins in an RJ. "
Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true!michael707767 said:One approach, at night, in the weather, to mins landing on a carrier deck equals 10 years of flying an RJ to mins.
Except for the landing part, right!?! I love the carrier guys' landings!!! (TIC)One approach, at night, in the weather, to mins landing on a carrier deck equals 10 years of flying an RJ to mins.
This IS how it is working at AA/AE. A furloughee has the option to bid flowback at AE instead of being furloughed. You take your LOS with you for pay purposes, that is, 3 year AA FO= 3 year AE CA. However, your AE seniority is assigned when you arrive for school. All furloughees are junior to all other AE CAs (and FOs until the next class arrives).dtfl said:Now that this is a separate thread.....
American's plan was to have furloughees flow down to the left seat of an RJ - don't think that worked. .
Not to belittle military aviators, but if you bolt a few times and can't put it down on the boat, you can jettison the airplane...Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...michael707767 said:One approach, at night, in the weather, to mins landing on a carrier deck equals 10 years of flying an RJ to mins.
This kind of thing already happens at mainline carriers today. How many ultra senior guys are FO's on the 777 or 767 in stead of upgrading. At AA when they had the F-100, how many FO positions at the company paid more than or had the potential to make more than a F-100 CA? I think that this is one of those things that would just work itself out in time. Guys that purely wanted QOL could stay in the right seat, and those who wanted to be CA could go to the left seat of the RJ. The sooner we stop over anylizing why it won't work and work on making it benificial for the company to do it, the sooner that we collectively as UNION MEMBERS can stop fighting over an ever dividing pie. The only thing that we know for sure, is the way that scope has been implemented up till now hasn't worked too well. No, I haven't drank the "Good Scope, Bad Scope" KoolAid. However, one definition of insanity is repeating the same thing expecting different results. If the way that ALPA, APA, etc have tried to prevent what amounts to outsourcing has failed in the past, it will most likely fail in the future.sweptback said:However, nothing like this would work because of the payscales. Say after this was all done the Comair payscale was agreed upon for the RJ (also would never happen, but I digress). Your career progression (based solely on earning potential) would go something like this
RJ FO
RJ Captain
732 FO (or whatever the junior mainline airplane is)
and so on and so forth until you can hold 732 CA or whatever.
But what would be the point of bidding RJ captain other than pay? After all, getting PIC turbine time would mean nothing as you're already "hired" at mainline, right? Especially since 5th year mainline anything FO pays much better than 5th year RJ captain. It would be a weird system, and one that would probably not work.
While it would be nice for both sides to have one list, I don't see it ever happening.
umm, ok. Its just that simple isn't it? You know you get worked up over something that just is not that big a deal. I have flown to minimums in many aircraft, military and civilian, and it just isn't that hard.atrdriver said:Not to belittle military aviators, but if you bolt a few times and can't put it down on the boat, you can jettison the airplane...Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...
Yeah, brave men we are.atrdriver said:Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...
It's a heck of a lot easier to land on a 10,000 foot piece of concrete that stays level than a 300 foot piece thats moving, pitching and rolling.atrdriver said:Not to belittle military aviators, but if you bolt a few times and can't put it down on the boat, you can jettison the airplane...Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...
I have no doubt that you are correct. Now take that and $2 to your local airport Starbucks and it just might buy you a cup of coffee.michael707767 said:One approach, at night, in the weather, to mins landing on a carrier deck equals 10 years of flying an RJ to mins.
You'll notice that nowhere in my post did I state that landing on a carrier was in any way comparable to landing on a 10,000 piece of concrete. I feel quite sure that I would be incapable of doing so. I merely stated that there is a difference between flying a single seat aircraft that has an ejection seat and a transport aircraft with people in the back. Just like there is a difference between flying a C-152 and a Pitts. I applaud and honor the service of each and every member of our military. That having been said, they chose a career path that kept them out of the hiring at airlines, and pilots that chose a different path should not be penalized for it...Jim said:It's a heck of a lot easier to land on a 10,000 foot piece of concrete that stays level than a 300 foot piece thats moving, pitching and rolling.
Landing on a carrier takes a lot more training and skill than landing on concrete.
So you are belittlling military aviators.