This whole concept is absolutely absurd, and when the mainline carriers and ALPA decided to go for scope when COMAIR received their CRJ-200s the Genie was forever out of the bottle. It is TOO late! The ONLY way this would work would be a massive integration of the seniority lists of the codeshares involved into UAL's list. That obviously isn't going to happen. When are you are all going to wake-up and realize that management only wants the cheapest possible lift and the highest possible yields per RPM...You know airline mgt. 101. This pisses me off more than it makes me think this actually still a worthwhile way to make a living.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Looks like CAL/UAL MECs want the RJs
- Thread starter johnsonrod
- Start date
- Watchers 45
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
79%N1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,441
Who's going to fly the 600 RJ's? All new hires? Right, that will work! Why do all these mainline guys want the Regional guys to lose their jobs? I literally feed my family with the money I earn as a Regional Capt. I would lose my home and car as well as most of my belongings if my company disappeared and I had to apply as a first year RJ FO at a major (or possibly Capt if enough positions were available, etc. But at first year pay) How is this good for many people? You guys at the major are flying big airplanes for more money now, but you want a safety net at my expense!! Now, if lists were integrated and people kept their seats at the "new major" then that is different. Why wouldn't you guys like that?
Yuppyguppy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 934
Good one PUNK. How bout all the 10-11 year mainline pilots working for first year wages at your s h itty regional. Great Attitude. Enjoy working being captain for a few more years then back to 1st year pay.
79%N1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,441
Ok dou(h! I'm a punk, huh? Hardly. Because I ask under this plan who will fly all these planes? Doesn't seem workable to me. And so 2 wrongs make a right? Guys take a chance to move along and it doesn't work out so blame the regional pilots and seek to punish them. And I ask what is truely in it for guys already flying at mainline? A place to land if the crap hits the fan at your company, but at the loss of EVERY job at the UAL/CAL regionals?
But go ahead and call me names for asking a question.
Shrek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,640
Alot of emotion surrounding this issue no doubt. If this survives - it will be transitioned over YEARS as the contracts expire. That will give you plenty of time to move on to a new carrier (yep 1st year sucks anywhere you go) or to APPLY at UAL when we start hiring again.
This flying was ours to give and hopefully take back. I understand where you are coming from (I was at TSA for 3 years myself) but if you can't get your financial house in order over the next couple of YEARS than I don't know what to tell you.
No name calling from my end though -------- and it is far from final language in the JCBA as well.
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Like losing 70 pounds.....
It took a lifetime to get fat, and losing the weight isn't easy and takes time. There are no quick fixes.
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Are you a Skywest pilot?
79%N1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,441
No....
DwayneWorthless
The Supreme One
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Posts
- 113
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Keep in mind.. the regionals are vendors... just like companies that provide fuel... regionals provide lift.... that lift is part of relaxed scope... it is what it is.... When regionals get expensive, they themselves get outsourced....
If a someone wants to be a pilot the most likely course is the regionals...
In this free market, is a pilot group obligated to secure employment of others? Having said that.... those who are ALPA regional carriers can have a dialog with ALPA legacy carriers to secure preferential interviews or even employment.....
I still say that none of this bodes well for pilots at the regional level. Anyone with more than 5 years of seniority would have a lot to lose in if this plan were to come to fruition. Obviously, the majority of us would want to be at major because that is where the pay, benefits, etc...are superior to what we have at a regional.
There are other ways around this if the justification is safety and standardization, however this costs money...LOTS of money from a training/flight standards perspective. I don't believe that this proposal is under the auspices of trying to achieve a true "single-level of safety" that is a tenet of both ALPA and also government (FAA policy). At least this is what both organizations like to say to the press and flying public. Anyone that truly believes that is naive at best and stupid at worst. "single-level of safety" is a myth.
What this all about is the reality facing the piloting profession in the United States and where most of the flying has been heading, the "regional" (this moniker is also obsolete given they mainline routes now). Now that "Open Skies" has become law, we face the very real possibility of cabotage or the so-called "6th freedom" under the Bermuda II agreement (I think that is correct) that defines what a flag carrier can and cannot do.
After all is said and done...2012 age 65 retirement spike flattens, what is going to be left is a whole lot LESS mainline jobs. So, cabotage, open-skies, reduction of capacity, reduction of jobs, etc...Is putting pressure on ALPA to re-trench and cater to the pilots that pay the most dues and butter their bread. I support ALPA and am an ALPA member, but I am learning more and more that irregardless of what propoganda comes out of national. ALPA is geared toward the legacies. They have a lot of work to do to convince many of us in the dregs of aviation otherwise. They want all the protections, all the security of maintaining their position. As we simply called it in the military, "a rice bowl issue"...
Regards,
ex-Navy Rotorhead
There are other ways around this if the justification is safety and standardization, however this costs money...LOTS of money from a training/flight standards perspective. I don't believe that this proposal is under the auspices of trying to achieve a true "single-level of safety" that is a tenet of both ALPA and also government (FAA policy). At least this is what both organizations like to say to the press and flying public. Anyone that truly believes that is naive at best and stupid at worst. "single-level of safety" is a myth.
What this all about is the reality facing the piloting profession in the United States and where most of the flying has been heading, the "regional" (this moniker is also obsolete given they mainline routes now). Now that "Open Skies" has become law, we face the very real possibility of cabotage or the so-called "6th freedom" under the Bermuda II agreement (I think that is correct) that defines what a flag carrier can and cannot do.
After all is said and done...2012 age 65 retirement spike flattens, what is going to be left is a whole lot LESS mainline jobs. So, cabotage, open-skies, reduction of capacity, reduction of jobs, etc...Is putting pressure on ALPA to re-trench and cater to the pilots that pay the most dues and butter their bread. I support ALPA and am an ALPA member, but I am learning more and more that irregardless of what propoganda comes out of national. ALPA is geared toward the legacies. They have a lot of work to do to convince many of us in the dregs of aviation otherwise. They want all the protections, all the security of maintaining their position. As we simply called it in the military, "a rice bowl issue"...
Regards,
ex-Navy Rotorhead
ohplease!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Posts
- 1,477
That's all fine...take back all the flying and the planes but, bring the crews with them in their current positions. Put up fences to protect QOL issues on both sides.
If mainline mgt can make $$$ with current regional pay rates and work rules, they can make $$$ with those planes and crews added onto the"bottom" of their list. Even with the current crews at their current rates...
It's a win-win-win. No more mainline furloughs, no regional crews furloughed, and mgt continues to make $$$$ ( maybe even more if they shed the added cost of regional mgt and operating expenses )....oh yeah, eventually, all the flying will return to is rightful place......mainline.....and oh yeah ( take 2 ), add those 7000 regional pilots to the 10000 or so mainline pilots ( now pulling in the SAME direction TOGETHER! ) and I'd say we'd have some pretty good opportunities to change the future of this career positively for the first time in quite a while...
Or, we can all keep acting the punky kids in the sand box grabbing at every toy in site screaming mine, mine, mine
I'm just sayin'
I applaud your optimism and outlook for the future, I don't share your view. Not because I don't like it. It's because of the reality in which we fit into the structure of an airline as employees. We are simply put a cost to be controlled , and management isn't going to even begin to consider this unless there is a true benefit from a cost structure perspective. The only way this would be viable from my point of view would be an integration of the seniority lists. There is no way on God's green earth that is going to happen, because you will be hard-pressed to see any mainline guy willingly being junior to a regional pilot on one list.
I am willing to give it some time and see what this thing looks like when they roll-out a plan. However, my level of trust is at rock-bottom given the shady way I have seen airlines negotiate.
whatitdoing?
Are you awake? Good
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Posts
- 795
Sure, there's plenty of former ASA people at CAL that suffered like everyone else for the first few years at CAL. It felt like a cactus being forced up my rectum slowly with no lube. Hurt like hell and I'll have leakage for years to come. But I seriously doubt you'll see anyone leave CAL for greener pastures. Contracts get renewed, people retire, movement happens, and things get better. As bad as it's been, I'd still rather be at a major than a regional.
79%N1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,441
And just what rate do you think you will get at mainline??? Probably less, and WAY LESS when they bring you in at first year pay!
suupah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Posts
- 1,779
I whole heartedly agree with this move. I fully support small airframes to support smaller markets or provide higher frequency to shuttle markets, however, the benefits to the business should be derived through the efficiency of the aircraft being flown or the nature of the market being served and NOT by gutting the quality of life of the employees.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
