On your mark, get set - GO JETS!!

Iflyamouse

Is it time for lunch yet?
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Posts
129
Total Time
4500+
Go Jets has their certificate!

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/76F326E1AB2253B786257084001C9662?OpenDocument

************************* gets go-ahead
By Tim McLaughlin
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH​
09/21/2005

Startup carrier ************************* Airlines of Bridgeton has received clearance from federal regulators to begin flying for United Express, setting the stage for a local operation that eventually will employ 500 pilots, mechanics and flight attendants.

"The planes are painted and they're ready to go," ************************* spokesman Bill Mishk said on Wednesday. The initial flights are scheduled for the first week of October.

The Federal Aviation Administration awarded ************************* its operating certificate - N6WA249L - on Tuesday to fly 70-seat planes. That's an upgrade for St. Louis travelers used to flying on 50-seat United Express regional jets out of Lambert Field.

Initially, ************************* will operate about a dozen daily flights, most of them from Lambert Field to Denver and Chicago, Mishk said. By the end of the year, that daily total will grow to 60 flights, with about 18 from St. Louis. http://oascentral.stltoday.com/Real...3323938356330?http://newsletters.stltoday.com

In April, United Airlines announced a deal with SkyWest Airlines and ************************* to provide about 30 aircraft under the United Express banner by the first quarter of 2006.

*************************'s opportunity materialized when Air Wisconsin ended its relationship with United Express and took a stake in US Airways.

************************* is a subsidiary of Trans States Holdings Inc., the Bridgeton-based parent company of Trans States Airlines, which carries passengers for AmericanConnection, US Airways Express and United Express.

Transportation Department filings show that ************************* will be funded with $15 million from Trans States Holdings. The investment includes $5 million in equity and a $10 million loan. That money will be used to fund aircraft deposits with Bombardier and cover *************************'s pre-start expenses.

Through an irrevocable trust, Hulas Kanodia holds 60 percent of the stock of *************************'s parent company. The three children of Kanodia, the chairman of Trans States Holdings, hold the remaining 40 percent through a series of trusts, according to federal filings.

Because of its contract with American Airlines, Trans States is limited to flying planes with 50 seats or less.

The holding company set up ************************* to tap the growing demand for larger regional jets. ************************* has an order for 10 Bombardier CRJ700 regional jets, whose first six rows offer passengers more leg room.

The Bombardier order is valued at $317 million, but that could rise to $1.6 billion if ************************* exercises an option to buy 40 more planes.

************************* currently employs about 250 people, including 60 pilots who are without union representation. The airline received its operating certificate in about nine months. Other regional carriers have waited up to three years, Mishk said.
 

cforst513

Giggity giggity goo!!!
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Posts
1,854
Total Time
2100
ok, why does everyone hate this company, and why can't we type their name on this forum?
 

ren

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Posts
62
Total Time
n/a
Hey ADMIN at the HANGER!!!!!! Why CANT we spell BLOJETS on this website????
It's okay to say trans states but not gotohelljets. Why is that?? IS there some nazi with a fetish that has a hand in Hulas's pocket working for Flightinfo.com??? At least grow some semi-hairy ones and let us know why you keep editing that particular bastard-company's name. That's the least you can do for us here. Thanks. Appreciate it.
 

Rogue5

Adult Swim junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
882
Total Time
~5k
Its a form of passive-aggression.

Like keying the mic and stepping on them everytime they try to transmit (not that I would ever condone such actions)...

Callsign: "Gateway"
 

flyer172r

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Posts
948
Total Time
5000
So the article mentions how GJ gets their certificate faster than other airlines, but doesn't mention how those other airlines worked out an agreement with their own pilots to fly the airplanes. Yeah, no spin on that story. Another sad commentary on the continuing decline of organized labor in this country.
 

flyer172r

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Posts
948
Total Time
5000
FlamingFUPA said:
Much like "Military Intelligence," "organized labor" has become an oxymoron.

True dat
 

great cornholio

Are you threatening me??
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Posts
792
Total Time
3200
cforst513 said:
ok, why does everyone hate this company, and why can't we type their name on this forum?

You could do a search a find about 1 million pages on why everyone hates G@jets. Cliff notes goes like this.... United came to Trans States Airlines (TSA) last year and said hey we would like you guys to do some 70 seat flyin for us. TSA management didn't want to pay us enough to fly the 70 seaters so the union and TSA could not agree on a pay scale. Around Feb or March 2004 TSA management walked away from the pay rate table. Few months later they decided to start a new company. (To get around the APA scope clause becasue of TSA's American Connection flying) They decided not to staff the new company with TSA pilots (unlike CHQ who has 2 companies but 1 list). The off the street pilots are working for really crappy pay rates. Don't know what they are becasue no one has posted them and none of our memos had them, but I'm sure they were worse than what was given to us in the recent LOA. And G@jets does not pay block or better so thats a mean pay cut even if hourly rate was higher. Now the new guys are mostly all on 1st year pay and without block or better G@jets payroll is really small. Now they can afford to undercut TSA out of all of our United flying. Our contract is up next summer and TSA management will most likely use G@jets to make us give up a lot in our next contract so we can get the flying. It will probably be something like this "hey you guys sign this crappy contract and you can get the 70 seat flying" ...."if you don't want to sign the crappy contract then we will loose all United flying and we will furlough" So thats why everyone hates those guys.

As far as why you can't say it on here...dunno guess the moderators are worried something will get out of control and drag them into court or something. Guess they are just doin the safe CYA thing.
 

cforst513

Giggity giggity goo!!!
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Posts
1,854
Total Time
2100
great cornholio said:
You could do a search a find about 1 million pages on why everyone hates G@jets. Cliff notes goes like this.... United came to Trans States Airlines (TSA) last year and said hey we would like you guys to do some 70 seat flyin for us. TSA management didn't want to pay us enough to fly the 70 seaters so the union and TSA could not agree on a pay scale. Around Feb or March 2004 TSA management walked away from the pay rate table. Few months later they decided to start a new company. (To get around the APA scope clause becasue of TSA's American Connection flying) They decided not to staff the new company with TSA pilots (unlike CHQ who has 2 companies but 1 list). The off the street pilots are working for really crappy pay rates. Don't know what they are becasue no one has posted them and none of our memos had them, but I'm sure they were worse than what was given to us in the recent LOA. And G@jets does not pay block or better so thats a mean pay cut even if hourly rate was higher. Now the new guys are mostly all on 1st year pay and without block or better G@jets payroll is really small. Now they can afford to undercut TSA out of all of our United flying. Our contract is up next summer and TSA management will most likely use G@jets to make us give up a lot in our next contract so we can get the flying. It will probably be something like this "hey you guys sign this crappy contract and you can get the 70 seat flying" ...."if you don't want to sign the crappy contract then we will loose all United flying and we will furlough" So thats why everyone hates those guys.

As far as why you can't say it on here...dunno guess the moderators are worried something will get out of control and drag them into court or something. Guess they are just doin the safe CYA thing.
thanks, cornholio. sure took long enough to get an intelligent response...
 

lukeduke

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Posts
1
Total Time
6800
cforst513 said:
thanks, cornholio. sure took long enough to get an intelligent response...

That's because they are few and far between! And his post wasn't really that intelligent since he stated that

great cornholio said:
TSA management will most likely use G@jets to make us give up a lot in our next contract so we can get the flying. It will probably be something like this "hey you guys sign this crappy contract and you can get the 70 seat flying" ...."if you don't want to sign the crappy contract then we will loose all United flying and we will furlough"...

But also noted that...

great cornholio said:
they decided to start a new company. (To get around the APA scope clause becasue of TSA's American Connection flying)

So tell me how 'the company' can get them ANY 70 SEAT FLYING at Trans Mistakes, when they are PROHIBITED from flying 70 SEATS due to APA SCOPE??

Just an observation.
 

great cornholio

Are you threatening me??
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Posts
792
Total Time
3200
lukeduke said:
So tell me how 'the company' can get them ANY 70 SEAT FLYING at Trans Mistakes, when they are PROHIBITED from flying 70 SEATS due to APA SCOPE??

Just an observation.

I would by no means consider myself smart, but I figure it would happen the same way that CHQ is doing it where there are 2 certificates/airlines and one pilot list. As far as I know there is nothing in the APA scope that says anything about the TSA pilots not being able to fly aircraft larger than 50 seats it just says that TSA can't have that equipment on their certificate. Although I could be wrong as I have never read the APA scope clause with my own eyes.
 

KingKong2

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
80
Total Time
6000
great cornholio said:
I would by no means consider myself smart, but I figure it would happen the same way that CHQ is doing it where there are 2 certificates/airlines and one pilot list. As far as I know there is nothing in the APA scope that says anything about the TSA pilots not being able to fly aircraft larger than 50 seats it just says that TSA can't have that equipment on their certificate. Although I could be wrong as I have never read the APA scope clause with my own eyes.

CHQ is paying AA $36,000 a day for their violation, even with the REP Cert.
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
KingKong2 said:
CHQ is paying AA $36,000 a day for their violation, even with the REP Cert.

That's only because there are still E170s on Chautauqua's certificate.

The whole point of purchasing Shuttle America was to transfer the E170s from Chautauqua's certificate to stop the daily penalty to AA (because RP had problems getting their OC). Once all the airplanes are on S5's certificate, the AA fine will no longer apply. There is no covenant in the APA's contract that says those planes cannot be flown by pilots on the CHQ master list.
 

Tram

RaarR! SLM will getcha!!
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Posts
1,076
Total Time
1653Z
Heh.. I just wanted to type *************************s so that i could see it get editted.. That's pretty funny.. :)
 
Top