Many Midwest flights aren't Midwest at all

[BUDDHA145]

As much as you Republic pilots say on FI that you don't want these 190's. I have a friend who's a captain on the 170 and flies the Midwest routes that I once flew with the 717 and his response to me about the 190's. "At least I have a job and you better get use to RJ's because they're the future" He also told me as much as Republic guys show their distaste for the a/c on here, the one's he flies with are proud to be getting it.

I wish you got the balls to said his name and your's!!! but ofcourse we all cowards here hiddind behind an avatar!!! yes including my self!!!

 

[aa73]

why "especially Republic pilots"? and i'll ask again. what do you suggest as the next move for both groups?

because it is RP pilots, not them, slated to do the flying. they are already locked out. as far as what the next move is, i''ll give you an example. during "braniff christmas" in 1981 or 82, AA contracted with braniff to fly AA passengers on braniff jets, a total scope violation. AA pilots simply parked their airplanes in front of the braniff a/c, preventing them from pushing. that killed the scheme that same day. not saying this example is for you guys, but there are plenty of ways. if RP pilots led the effort, i'm sure it would gain support from other pilot groups.

 

[RobCat]

deleted

 

[deadstick]

i see. this is nobody's fault but the pilots at republic. got it. look in the mirror and ask again. you'll be talking to ALPA.

You asked:

why don't you have scope language in your contract to prevent all of this garbage?

I answered:

Ask ALPA.

ALPA lawyers were the proverbial "pros from Dover" who didn't get the language right. The devil was in the details, and it looks like Midwest's lawyers have parchments from Ivy League schools while ALPA's lawyers have business law completion certificates from some obscure northern VA VOTEC.

 

[flylike44]

You asked:


I answered:


ALPA lawyers were the proverbial "pros from Dover" who didn't get the language right. The devil was in the details, and it looks like Midwest's lawyers have parchments from Ivy League schools while ALPA's lawyers have business law completion certificates from some obscure northern VA VOTEC.

so you're telling me that every single person on the list at midwest read the scope provisions contained in their contract, and to a man they all agreed it was airtight? sorry. not buying it.

 

[jravi8tor]

I wish you got the balls to said his name and your's!!! but ofcourse we all cowards here hiddind behind an avatar!!! yes including my self!!!

Your current position suits you well considering you don't use proper english or grammar. By the way, my name has nothing to do with it. You should be more concerned over one of your own!

 

[flylike44]

because it is RP pilots, not them, slated to do the flying. they are already locked out. as far as what the next move is, i''ll give you an example. during "braniff christmas" in 1981 or 82, AA contracted with braniff to fly AA passengers on braniff jets, a total scope violation. AA pilots simply parked their airplanes in front of the braniff a/c, preventing them from pushing. that killed the scheme that same day. not saying this example is for you guys, but there are plenty of ways. if RP pilots led the effort, i'm sure it would gain support from other pilot groups.

i applaud what you guys did (i'd never heard that story before, but wow!). you said it yourself, however. it was a clear scope violation in that case (i'm not claiming that i know that for a fact, i just have no reason not to believe you). in this case there has been no violation of midwest's scope, nor has there been a violation of the republic pilot group's contract. also, we are currently in contract negotiations. unfortunately, the status quo provisions of the rla come into play here as well. with no scope violation or contract violations, and with being in negotiations and all that that entails, i ask you again. what is it you think the two groups should do?

 

[deadstick]

so you're telling me that every single person on the list at midwest read the scope provisions contained in their contract, and to a man they all agreed it was airtight? sorry. not buying it.

Last time I checked, a JD was not a prerequisite for an airline pilot. The legal nuances in such contracts take somebody with experience, not just the ability to read. It's like putting a 40 private pilot in the left seat of an airliner. Yes, that pilot can fly, but the airliner is a different type of flying and requires more skill.

SO, this is why pilot groups retain people who are experts (or suppose to be experts) in this field to work with them in contract negotiations.

 

[kf4amu]

RJ!!?? The 190 is not an RJ! It is a mainline aircraft and as such should be operated by one.

The FAA considers it an RJ, as well as the DC9 and 717.

Which really doesnt matter, as much as what types of crews fly it. Mainline crews need to be flying it for mainline pay.

 

[godsgift2aviatn]

The FAA considers it an RJ, as well as the DC9 and 717.

Which really doesnt matter, as much as what types of crews fly it. Mainline crews need to be flying it for mainline pay.

Wrong! Whoever flys it should be getting a decent 100 seat payscale.

 

[flylike44]

Last time I checked, a JD was not a prerequisite for an airline pilot. The legal nuances in such contracts take somebody with experience, not just the ability to read. It's like putting a 40 private pilot in the left seat of an airliner. Yes, that pilot can fly, but the airliner is a different type of flying and requires more skill.

SO, this is why pilot groups retain people who are experts (or suppose to be experts) in this field to work with them in contract negotiations.

there is no way that what midwest management is attempting to do is the result of a "legal nuance". try again.

to recap...it is the fault of republic pilots, ALPA, and ALPA lawyers. gotcha.

 

[CitationLover]

i would hope that your mec is keeping a vigilant eye on what routes you're flying and are scheduled to fly so that differentiating won't be an issue.

why don't you have scope language in your contract to prevent all of this garbage? i guess that's the fault of pilots at republic as well.

Hey flylike44,

Enjoy the POS "union" bosses who know everything at the Teamsters. Our "know-it-all" who sold us the our "scope" is now one of your head honchos at Teamster's Airline Division.

And as you are aware of, our scope clause (on our FIRST contract) was a standard boilerplate ALPA scope clause from when it was written. We thought we had protection, an arbitrator said differently. ANY LAWYER CAN CHEW THROUGH AN AIRLINE CONTRACT.

Glad to see you're defensive though, that implies some guilty feelings taking someone elses job for 30-40% of the pay and bennies.

 

[CitationLover]

so you're telling me that every single person on the list at midwest read the scope provisions contained in their contract, and to a man they all agreed it was airtight? sorry. not buying it.

This is the whole SELLING point of a NATIONAL union. To have a CADRE of EXPERTS at your disposal when negotiating these things. We're pilots, not lawyers. You bet a lot of us trusted our MEC and ALPA National when the FIRST contract was signed at Midwest, which contained the scope language.

But then again, why should you understand. After all your airline is built to VIOLATE scope agreements with the three certificates and multiple fleet types to circumvent DAL and AA. Blue chickens to the coop, I guess.

 

[CitationLover]

there is no way that what midwest management is attempting to do is the result of a "legal nuance". try again.

to recap...it is the fault of republic pilots, ALPA, and ALPA lawyers. gotcha.

You have NO CLUE what Midwest management is doing, because THEY DON'T EITHER. They've clearly demonstrated being reactive and not proactive.

Republic was the B plan, plain and simple. Seabury advised us to play hardball with Boeing and they yanked the 717's right away from them. Your simple removal of Frontier aircraft created the opportunity.

Fact:
IT IS THE MIDWEST PILOTS CONTINUAL DISREGARD FOR YOUR CRAPPY PAYRATES AND WORKRULES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS WHY YOU ARE FLYING THAT 190. WE WILL NOT SELL OURSELVES OUT SIMPLY TO FLY AN AIRPLANE, UNLIKE YOU WHO WILL GLADLY DO SO.

Our 60 seat DC-9 rates blow yours away. How will your contract negotiated 70 seat rates compare to those or the 88 seat rates we had (hint same as 60 seat rates). You think you'll even approach the new JetBlue rates? Get real.

 

[Captain Morgan]

You have NO CLUE what Midwest management is doing, because THEY DON'T EITHER. They've clearly demonstrated being reactive and not proactive.

Republic was the B plan, plain and simple. Seabury advised us to play hardball with Boeing and they yanked the 717's right away from them. Your simple removal of Frontier aircraft created the opportunity.

Fact:
IT IS THE MIDWEST PILOTS CONTINUAL DISREGARD FOR YOUR CRAPPY PAYRATES AND WORKRULES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS WHY YOU ARE FLYING THAT 190. WE WILL NOT SELL OURSELVES OUT SIMPLY TO FLY AN AIRPLANE, UNLIKE YOU WHO WILL GLADLY DO SO.

Our 60 seat DC-9 rates blow yours away. How will your contract negotiated 70 seat rates compare to those or the 88 seat rates we had (hint same as 60 seat rates). You think you'll even approach the new JetBlue rates? Get real.

You seem to have it all figured out, I'll tell you what, you're hired! You can slide on over to our Local and do it pro-bono. Your payment will be when your job get's reinstated. Sound good?

 

[flylike44]

Hey flylike44,

Enjoy the POS "union" bosses who know everything at the Teamsters. Our "know-it-all" who sold us the our "scope" is now one of your head honchos at Teamster's Airline Division.

And as you are aware of, our scope clause (on our FIRST contract) was a standard boilerplate ALPA scope clause from when it was written. We thought we had protection, an arbitrator said differently. ANY LAWYER CAN CHEW THROUGH AN AIRLINE CONTRACT.

Glad to see you're defensive though, that implies some guilty feelings taking someone elses job for 30-40% of the pay and bennies.

i still haven't seen or heard one suggestion as to what you want us to do. according to you our union is a joke (and on that point we agree), so looking to them for guidance isn't going to get results. you must have a plan all laid out for what we should do here, so let's hear it.

 

[PCL_128]

An ERJ-190 cannot.

There's no such thing as an ERJ-190. It's an EMB-190.

my pilot group (aa) did this very thing in 1998 and, while the union got slapped with a fine, they got what they wanted.

You also got some of the worst anti-labor case law in the history of the RLA that has hindered airline labor ever since and led to judgments like the recent UAL injunction.

ALPA lawyers were the proverbial "pros from Dover" who didn't get the language right. The devil was in the details, and it looks like Midwest's lawyers have parchments from Ivy League schools while ALPA's lawyers have business law completion certificates from some obscure northern VA VOTEC.

ALPA lawyers got the language that the MEA MEC wanted. The lawyers are the foot-soldiers, not the generals. They don't get to make the decisions, they only get to do the work to accomplish the objectives that the MEC sets. When an MEC doesn't make scope a top priority, it's not the lawyer's fault.

 

[relief tube]

If the Republic pilots' union had any balls at all, they would stage some kind of work action against this.

im betting your avg repub pilot doesn't want 190's. Who the hell would, unless you were a spineless lifer or a fella that knows nothing about airline economics.

BTW, do you know anything about union actions, cuz ya can't just take "work action" just for the hell of it.

 

[SkywayFO]

There's no such thing as an ERJ-190. It's an EMB-190.


Actually it is an ERJ 190. It is my understanding the airlines and Boeing lobbied the FAA to make sure that the Ejet family of Aircraft had the RJ in its type cert. Managment wanted to tie in as an RJ and Boeing did not want to have to compete with another aircraft for the 717 back in day. So the EMB in the 145 family became a ERJ in the Ejet family. That is just what I have been told.

 

[PCL_128]

Interesting. Everything on the Embraer website says either "Embraer 170" or "EMB-170."