eightdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- Posts
- 157
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and when you strike, not one rw airplane will fly any of that struck work.
If the E-190 is not an RJ... then why can they get away with paying those pilot 30-50% less then our 99 seat 717. Answer me that jacka$$.
If the E-190 is not an RJ... then why can they get away with paying those pilot 30-50% less then our 99 seat 717. Answer me that jacka$$.
The DC-9 has no equal
hahahahaha
what is the struck work? you already fly most of our routes. how are you going to differentiate?
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.
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.
Ask ALPA.
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.
why "especially Republic pilots"? and i'll ask again. what do you suggest as the next move for both 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.
why don't you have scope language in your contract to prevent all of this garbage?
Ask ALPA.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An ERJ-190 cannot.
my pilot group (aa) did this very thing in 1998 and, while the union got slapped with a fine, they got what they wanted.
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.
If the Republic pilots' union had any balls at all, they would stage some kind of work action against this.
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.