No more CHQ and GJs Jumpseaters

[jumppilot]

You just wrote the best post I have ever seen on Flightinfo.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

ALPA allowed the regional jets to be farmed out.

There should NEVER have been anything bigger than a Dash 8 (and i'd argue even THAT) that should have been outsourced.

If the airplane says US Airways on the side -- should be flown by pilots on the US Airways seniority list.

If the airplane says Delta on the side -- should be flown by pilots on the Delta seniority list.

etc...

ALPA is solely to blame for the destruction of the air line pilot profession. As a result we are left with lower-middle class garbage jobs for garbage companies who (due to competition) are unwilling to provide good benefits or meaningful retirement.

ALPA "solely?" What about the APA and the IACP (prior to CAL pilots going ALPA...they were independent)? Should they have not be accused with blame as well since AA and CAL have a veritable armada of RJ's?

-Neal

 

[jimcav]

The origional poster of this thread said he would not allow these guys on his js. I did not see ATP in his credentials which leads me to believe that he is an fo. Isn't it the CAPTS call as to whether or not somebody rides the js?

 

[h25b]

ALPA "solely?" What about the APA and the IACP (prior to CAL pilots going ALPA...they were independent)? Should they have not be accused with blame as well since AA and CAL have a veritable armada of RJ's?

-Neal

You are correct that they are at least all partially responsible, but I believe ALPA got the ball started with Comair ...

 

[bvt1151]

For God's sake man, answer my question !!! We're all waiting. How do you prevent an airline from doing what CHQ did with Republic.

Perhaps you should read my post before you reply to it. You look awfully silly asking a question that was answered already.

...so ComAir's group doesn't see everything coming, either.

Your point is muddy at best, pointing fingers at CHQ for not seeing the future while your own group doesn't either... Ignoring history... Claiming CHQ was unaffected by 9/11 or the recession... Loudly proclaiming half-truths (CHQ's 90-seat rates are NOT lower than ComAir's 50-seat rates, unless you pointedly use only FO rates)...

Doesn't anyone read posts before they reply anymore?

CHQ's 90 seat rates for pilots are lower than Comair's 50-seat rates. You may have forgotten that it requires both a Captain and an FO to fly aircraft, and therefore both pay rates are included in my analysis. Let me be clear, (since you apparently don't have the patience to go back and read a thread before you reply) CHQ will pay less for pilots flying the 190 at identical seniority than Comair pays for 50-seat pilots. Thats CA's + FO's. This forces people to look at the whole story, rather than hiding behind only the Captain's rates.


Assuming you won't read the above, hopefully you'll read single lines...

Answer this, if CHQ's substandard contract was not the fault of the CHQ pilots, then whose fault was it?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the CHQ pilots need to take responsibility for their own actions. Nobody but CHQ pilots were responsible for signing that contract, and to say you had no choice is a cop-out. If you were left with no choice, then you failed to prevent being backed into a corner. Regardless of what was going on six years prior, the CHQ pilots failed to plan six years ahead. Nobody's fault but your own.

Now you're going to fly 90-seat aircraft for less than other carriers fly 50-seat aircraft, and you think its because you had no choice? Open your eyes to the plain and simple fact that your contract is little (if any) improvement over Mesa's. Not even the Skywest pilots will fly 90-seaters for less than 50-seat pay, and they're non-union!

But you had no choice.

 

[h25b]

Perhaps you should read my post before you reply to it. You look awfully silly asking a question that was answered already.



Doesn't anyone read posts before they reply anymore?

Now you're going too far... Calling me "silly" ???

Everyone else must have missed the part where you answered the question as well and we have just moved on to confirming you're full of it. I'm done...

You've got a lot to learn.

 

[I.P. Freley]

Doesn't anyone read posts before they reply anymore?

Nah, reading your posts really doesn't supply anything approaching information, so why should I read them? You don't read MINE, as you continue to say "you" and "your contract" etc. in response to my posts, when I already pointed out to you that I don't work for CHQ, have never worked for CHQ, am not subject to CHQ's contract, never have been subject to CHQ's contract, and probably won't ever work for CHQ.

But skimming your mostly senseless blabber is vaguely entertaining, so please keep peppering this board with your half-truths, fabrications, and finger-pointing. Better still, keep calling other people "silly", since you have no concept of the old "pot calling the kettle black" thing.

 

[brew3departure]

Holier than thou?

Wow...five pages and still going.

I'm going to try to address the people who have written things I disagree with, but with the pages of *hit, it's going to take a little while.

Funny that the original post was talking about jumpseating. Unless you're a scab, and honestly, the only way I would know is if you came up to the cockpit and told me, give me a break. People talk a good game on here, but when it comes to execution, if you want to actually deny the jumpseat to every CHQ and g-ojets guy who walks up, be my guest. It's still a small industry, word gets around, and a big war starts.

People are just trying to get to work. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I know Mesa is a pretty popular group to bash -- but as many forget, Mesa is ALPA, right? What did ALPA do to prevent Freedom? Nothing. So, okay, I can hear the argument now - they were allowed to form Freedom because the _contract_ allowed it to happen. Fine - lesson learned, right? All contracts that are signed from now on have to have some clause to prevent that sort of thing.

Hmm...last time I checked, CHQ got that - and they paid _dearly_ for it. How much compensation was given up? I have no idea, but it was enormous.

So, BVT1151, you're just off base on this one. To say that the CHQ pilots didn't do anything to stop Republic? Or that they _waited_ and then reacted? The pilots were in CONTRACT negotiations at the time! I've written this several times on here before -- but would you argue that it would be BETTER for everyone if Republic was an alter-ego airline like g-ojets is going to be?

It's easy for Comair folks to throw stones. You guys set the almighty bar high - but you truly opened the floodgates for the portfolio concept that Delta and many others have adapted. I remember when United had Air Wisconsin, UFS, and Great Lakes...and that was _it_. Last I checked, Airways has 8 or 9 airlines that use the express banner, and it's just about that many for United also. Thanks. You got your pay raise because you struck - an admirable accomplishment. But don't think for a minute that some of the blame for all of this doesn't lie with you. What did _you_ do to prevent Delta outsourcing it's regional flying?
If you're going to chastise the CHQ pilot group for "allowing Republic to happen" - don't you, then, deserve a lion's share of the blame for Skywest, ACA/ACJet, Mesa, CHQ, and Shuttle flying for mother Delta? It doesn't all come down to pay - you guys got your pay, and really, I am happy for you. This argument is flawed though - and it's just as crazy to blame you for striking as it is for you to blame CHQ for Republic.

Fuelflow - don't exert your bitterness on making a horrible career decision on all of us. You reap what you sow...

The 170 and 190 rates are bad. Do I think they will get better? Yeah, I do. I don't know what would be enough to satisfy people on here. Maybe we'll find out in a few years.

Drewblows and the inthewind or inthemind guy - whoever that is. You don't want to come to CHQ? Good - no one is forcing you. Does it make you feel better to come on here and say "Yeah, I interviewed there but I didn't go." Good for you, do you want a cookie? I hope you're happy flying 135 or anywhere else. Seriously, though, no one on here cares about your decision to interview and _not_ accept.

I'm not looking to ignite another flame war here. The ridiculous subject of this thread pulled me in, and I guess that's why we love Flightinfo. Some moron who's a student in a 152 can post something inflammatory and uninformed, and the flame wars begin. And I'm just as guilty as everyone else.

-brew3

 

[Vandelay]

Man... those are impressive FO payscales for 190s.... I think most get paid more for flying 50 seaters.

Essentially what happened when Chitaco took the contract was they sold out all their future pilots (FOs) since everyone that voted for that thing knew they would be captains in short period of time with that kind of contract.

 

[Corbon]

Man... those are impressive FO payscales for 190s.... I think most get paid more for flying 50 seaters.

Essentially what happened when Chitaco took the contract was they sold out all their future pilots (FOs) since everyone that voted for that thing knew they would be captains in short period of time with that kind of contract.

Nooooo...is that what we did? Thanks for explaining it to me. I never heard it explained with such detail like that before. I hate myself now that I realize what I have done.

 

[StarChecker]

Essentially what happened when Chitaco took the contract was they sold out all their future pilots (FOs) since everyone that voted for that thing knew they would be captains in short period of time with that kind of contract.

It's amazing how every CHQ critic knows everything that's going on inside our company. They know the union leaders involved, the management people involved and their personalities and motivations.

I wouldn't dare make any assumptions about what's going on over at CMR, or ExpressJet, or Mesa, or anyplace else. I have no idea what was going on or who was involved when these contracts where negotiated. So please, unless you know what you're talking about...STFU. Thanks a bunch.

 

[AAflyer]

ALPA "solely?" What about the APA and the IACP (prior to CAL pilots going ALPA...they were independent)? Should they have not be accused with blame as well since AA and CAL have a veritable armada of RJ's?

-Neal

Neal,

It was ALPA who let the cat out of the bag, then IACP, lastly APA conceeded in the 97 contract. Eagle was one of the last airlines to get RJs, and like everyone else uses as an excuse, "once the cat is out of the bag, we needed to do it as well to stay competitive." Eagle by the way has had the last RJ delivery, how many more does COEX have?

Lastly, why don't you take a look at the ratio of RJs to Mainline at Eagle and American, vs CAL and COEX, we have substantially less.

AA

P.S. I thought the COEX and CAL pilots back in the mid 90s were in the same union "IACP", so who actually let it happen over their?

 

[arthompson]

Ok I've avoided this but I have to respond. IACP represented all of the the CO/COEX pilots and they were all essentially on one seniority list (at least thats how I understood it when I worked at COEX).

StarChecker- While I agree with your statement regarding people outside CHQ let me say this. The most **Vocal** Critics on this board of PCL are CHQ employees. So this definatly works both ways.

Adam

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal,

It was ALPA who let the cat out of the bag, then IACP, lastly APA conceeded in the 97 contract. Eagle was one of the last airlines to get RJs, and like everyone else uses as an excuse, "once the cat is out of the bag, we needed to do it as well to stay competitive."

CAL's contract was signed June 25, 1998. When was AA's signed? 1997, no? And CAL's contract signed in 1998 was the one that authorized unlimited 50 seat jets under the CAL code. Are you sure your order is correct? I seem to remember "Scope" buttons borne by AA pilots.

My only point with my statement was that blame cannot be cast in any one direction (ALPA)...but at all of the mainline unions, which in the late 90's extended to APA and IACP.

Eagle by the way has had the last RJ delivery, how many more does COEX have?

About 14 out of 274 total.

Lastly, why don't you take a look at the ratio of RJs to Mainline at Eagle and American, vs CAL and COEX, we have substantially less.

On a ratio basis, yes you have less...but that doesnt remove the fact that Eagle operates 295 aircraft, of which all but 61 are jets. This doesn't count Tran States or CHQ's aircraft operating as Connection. This is moot however...as I just wanted to spread blame around to everyone - not just "ALPA."

P.S. I thought the COEX and CAL pilots back in the mid 90s were in the same union "IACP", so who actually let it happen over their?

We were...but CAL had many more reps than Express. Now we are still in the same union, just a different MEC. Notice I said "IACP" and not "CAL" though.

I still don't know what your point is...mainline pilot groups as a whole did not fall on their sword over the RJ issue. The one who did the best in the scope arena ended up doing the worst financially (USAIR).

-Neal

 

[Dangerkitty]

CAL's contract was signed June 25, 1998. When was AA's signed? 1997, no? And CAL's contract signed in 1998 was the one that authorized unlimited 50 seat jets under the CAL code. Are you sure your order is correct? I seem to remember "Scope" buttons borne by AA pilots.

The 1997 Contract signed by the APA gave RJ's to Eagle but the ratio was tied in with Mainline aircraft and growth. This ratio limited the amount of RJ's that AMR could and WANTED to give to Eagle prior to the 2003 Concessionary contract.

The 2003 Concessionary contract gave unlimited 50 seat and below RJ's to Eagle and anything above that to Mainline AA. The only exeption being that the 25 Orders and 25 Options of the CRJ-700 go to Eagle if the APA and AMR couldn't come up with a cost neutral way for Mainline to fly them. Well, as we all know an agreement couldn't be reached so Eagle still flies it. I doubt AMR will exercise their 25 options however.