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

Many Midwest flights aren't Midwest at all

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
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!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top