How is Life at Gojets?

[CX880]

On the other forums this thread would have been stopped 6 days ago..... that's why I like flight info. Rumor has it half the Aug GJ class is former TSA guys.

 

[Turtlesfly]

NWA and Delta are merging. Compass has a flow-through. You really think NWA won't be furloughing?

Wait a minute! You accuse me of flame - you demand facts. So I gave you a fact - TSA is laying off and GJ was hiring. I asked you to defend that "Fact."

Your response: "NWA is furloughing." When pressed on it, your response changes to "You don't think NWA will furlough?"

You're telling us that the ONE fact that you stand on is a SKETCHY PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE?

 

[CX880]

Wait a minute! You accuse me of flame - you demand facts. So I gave you a fact - TSA is laying off and GJ was hiring. I asked you to defend that "Fact."

Your response: "NWA is furloughing." When pressed on it, your response changes to "You don't think NWA will furlough?"

You're telling us that the ONE fact that you stand on is a SKETCHY PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE?

GJ is hiring furloughed tsa because they're under one owner and a lot of management are former TSA employees. No one is pressuring them to hire TSA, it's not as if were being stalked by Hulas's henchmen to join GJ so that his evil plan to over through TSA pilots by formation of GJ will come into existence..

 

[Options_SLAVE]

Uh, your an idiot. That's a fact, Cap'n know-it-all.

The "FACT" is that the NMB and the U.S. courts agree with "your opinion" and the 4 or 5 others who have that opinion in this thread on this matter. Real world the opinion that you are trying to tout as "everyone" is not existant. Especially with the majors.

Two separate airlines, proven in court. Single list proven not to be legally possible. Those are the only facts. Everything else is opinions. There is nothing new to say in this thread, it's all been said, on both sides of the issue. Cobra nailed things the best with the state of the regional industry and it can not be disputed. It is absolutely hilarious and assinine that pilots who stole flying from other airlines and work for TSA say the things they've said about GoJet. But, think and say whatever you want, it makes zero difference in the real world.

There are 10 TSA furloughed pilots that will be in the August class, out of 16 to 18, I am told. The rest are probably ATA guys as the company hired every one of them that showed up at the ORD job fair.


Cheers.

 

[Turtlesfly]

Uh, your an idiot. That's a fact

hahahahahaha what a retard. If you're going to insult somebody, have a basic idea of the English language. It's "You're an idiot." Keep up the great work, union leader!

 

[lookin4better]

Hey Turtle..

I got hired at AE while AA was furloughing and parking F-100s and AE was growing .....sounds like whipsaw to me?

No difference here....life isnt fair...now back to popping your pimples and shaving with your dads razor.

 

[Turtlesfly]

Hey Turtle..

I got hired at AE while AA was furloughing and parking F-100s and AE was growing .....sounds like whipsaw to me?

No difference here....life isnt fair...now back to popping your pimples and shaving with your dads razor.

There's a huge difference. The difference is that you weren't offered a bigger plane at AA in exchange for short-cutting the seniority that AE people had, who were above you and who turned it down because it was a crappy offer and they stood strong.

 

[CX880]

Hey Turtle..

I got hired at AE while AA was furloughing and parking F-100s and AE was growing .....sounds like whipsaw to me?

No difference here....life isnt fair...now back to popping your pimples and shaving with your dads razor.

Actually though there is a big difference because GJ and TSA are totally different airlines. They're business don't conflict with one another.

 

[lookin4better]

its not about big airplanes

AE was flying smaller planes, but a huge % of AA routes with smaller planes and smaller paychecks.....

exactly word for word the same?....no....but its the same concept that you clammer about. Playing work groups against each other.

One last question...

Would you have the balls to call an ATA pilot now working at Gojet a sc#b to his or her face? Or any pilot at Gojet for that matter.....most would laugh at you.

My bet...you dont. I would love to see you try though....

I did agree with you and your thoughts on this matter in 2005 when they first started up, however , after the NMB and the court decision.....( NOT an alter ego, and NOT a violation of TSA scope clause)

I just realized how immature I was being in going along with a very small and vocal minority. I removed emotion from the equation and it is what it is.

And btw...sorry about the shaving comment....that was innappropriate. I see where your coming from, however I dont agree.

 

[Caspian27]

Two separate airlines, proven in court. Single list proven not to be legally possible.

Okay I'll bite.

Of course I agree with EVERYTHING that the courts have ruled...

How could one list not be possible between the 2 certificates? Republic/Chattaqua/Shuttle America has one list. Mesa/Freedom/Air Midwest has one list. It's the same thing. The reason these different certificates exist under the parent companies is for scope issues. It's the same reason GoJet was formed in the first place. So I ask again, if Republic Airways Holdings and Mesa Air Group can have one list why can't you legally have one?

 

[Dornier 335]

Haha. And get the TSA pilots to stop thinking that the flying they stole from eagle was stolen by G7. LoL

If I'm not mistaken, AE got 25 CRJ7 for the 10 airplanes and flying that went to Trans States.

That's ok, you can have 'em back and I'll watch the big furloughs on the AE side. Doubt that they'll ever fly again, the Hulie Jets will get a one way ticket to the desert. Gotta admire the love within (regional) ALPA; it's like a dying animal ...

 

[Options_SLAVE]

Okay I'll bite.

Of course I agree with EVERYTHING that the courts have ruled...

How could one list not be possible between the 2 certificates? Republic/Chattaqua/Shuttle America has one list. Mesa/Freedom/Air Midwest has one list. It's the same thing. The reason these different certificates exist under the parent companies is for scope issues. It's the same reason GoJet was formed in the first place. So I ask again, if Republic Airways Holdings and Mesa Air Group can have one list why can't you legally have one?

Because the scope agreement betwen AA and TSAH prohibits Trans States Airlines from operating anything with more than 50 seats. The only way TSAH, who owns TSA, could grow their business was with a separate certificate, with a separate airline, which is why ALPA lost in court and with the NMB.

 

[CX880]

Okay I'll bite.

Of course I agree with EVERYTHING that the courts have ruled...

How could one list not be possible between the 2 certificates? Republic/Chattaqua/Shuttle America has one list. Mesa/Freedom/Air Midwest has one list. It's the same thing. The reason these different certificates exist under the parent companies is for scope issues. It's the same reason GoJet was formed in the first place. So I ask again, if Republic Airways Holdings and Mesa Air Group can have one list why can't you legally have one?

Mesa and Freedom are under one list because U.S airways relaxed their scope to include 70+ seaters.

 

[FO 4 Life]

If I'm not mistaken, AE got 25 CRJ7 for the 10 airplanes and flying that went to Trans States.

You are mistaken.

 

[Caspian27]

Options,

Thanks. I know why G7 was formed; because of a seat limitation for AA. It's the same reason F8 was formed. A seat limitation for US.

Options and CX,

I am talking about a seniority list. Not one operating certificate. RAH has 3 certificates for the very same reason: Seat scope at AA. The different certificates (read: airlines) are there for the scope issues, yet they can legally have one seniority. list.

It's the exact same issue that Trans States and GoJet have. 2 operating certificates under TSAH, because of seat scope issues.

You said TSAH (read: TSA & GoJet) could not legally have one seniority list, but Republic Holdings does, and they have different cert's for the same reason.

What's TSAH's "legal" reason?

 

[Gr82Aviate]

Options,

Thanks. I know why G7 was formed; because of a seat limitation for AA. It's the same reason F8 was formed. A seat limitation for US.

Options and CX,

I am talking about a seniority list. Not one operating certificate. RAH has 3 certificates for the very same reason: Seat scope at AA. The different certificates (read: airlines) are there for the scope issues, yet they can legally have one seniority. list.

It's the exact same issue that Trans States and GoJet have. 2 operating certificates under TSAH, because of seat scope issues.

You said TSAH (read: TSA & GoJet) could not legally have one seniority list, but Republic Holdings does, and they have different cert's for the same reason.

What's TSAH's "legal" reason?

It would seem that some people choose to play "dumb" rather than admit you have a valid point...or just keep repeating the same drivel over and over again without answering direct questions!

 

[great cornholio]

Options,

Thanks. I know why G7 was formed; because of a seat limitation for AA. It's the same reason F8 was formed. A seat limitation for US.

Options and CX,

I am talking about a seniority list. Not one operating certificate. RAH has 3 certificates for the very same reason: Seat scope at AA. The different certificates (read: airlines) are there for the scope issues, yet they can legally have one seniority. list.

It's the exact same issue that Trans States and GoJet have. 2 operating certificates under TSAH, because of seat scope issues.

You said TSAH (read: TSA & GoJet) could not legally have one seniority list, but Republic Holdings does, and they have different cert's for the same reason.

What's TSAH's "legal" reason?

So they didn't have to pay the rates the TSA guys wanted. I saw an earlier post that said that it was because of TSAH and AA...well all I'm gonna say is that TSA was around about 22 years before TSAH and all of the high up management guys used to be TSA until about 3 years ago when the top guys (ie head of ins, payroll, records, recruiting etc...all magically changed from being TSA employees one day to being TSAH employees the next.

In the end HK learned from the others and did his homework and managed to find enough loopholes that somehow he legally got away with it...but that still doesn't make it right.

 

[Options_SLAVE]

Options,

Thanks. I know why G7 was formed; because of a seat limitation for AA. It's the same reason F8 was formed. A seat limitation for US.

Options and CX,

I am talking about a seniority list. Not one operating certificate. RAH has 3 certificates for the very same reason: Seat scope at AA. The different certificates (read: airlines) are there for the scope issues, yet they can legally have one seniority. list.

It's the exact same issue that Trans States and GoJet have. 2 operating certificates under TSAH, because of seat scope issues.

You said TSAH (read: TSA & GoJet) could not legally have one seniority list, but Republic Holdings does, and they have different cert's for the same reason.

What's TSAH's "legal" reason?

The TSA pilots voted against a single list.

 

[Caspian27]

The TSA pilots voted against a single list.

Options,

You're not even answering my question. in fact, you're changing what you say all the time. See reply #271 at the top of this page where I quoted you saying that "Single list proven not to be legally possible." Now you're saying it's because the TSA pilots voted against a single list at the time. That doesn't sound like a "legally impossible" reason does it?

 

[Options_SLAVE]

All the time? Now who's making incorrect statements?

OK, I concede I did say it wasn't legally possible. That was incorrect. Obviously, it would have been legally possible. The pilots were in fact offered a single list by the company, and the pilots refused holding out for other issues. As I already stated, based on what the company was trying to slip in with that proposal I don't blame them and probably would have voted the same way. I did not mean legally possible, I meant legally required. So what. Your emphasis on that point is semantic and irrelevant to the issue.

The TSA pilots gambled not wanting to make any concessions on voting in the single list and voted "no" so that they could instead force the matter through legal channels, and they lost the gamble. Game over. The matter is now closed and there will never be another such offer from TSAH, nor would the G7 pilots now vote on such a thing.

I have NOT "changed what I say all the time". Believe what you want. There are 19 pages of both sides of the argument, both of them being extremely consistent. I'm Done re-stating things over and over. Refer to previous pages and believe what you want. The horse was dead several pages ago and i don't really care anymore.

Cheers.