How is Life at Gojets?

[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.