Poll: ExpressJet or Chautauqua?

[RP170]

All I am saying is that at our level seniority does not determine what aircraft you can hold. Why should one's payrate for the next few years be chosen at random. I agree that the fo pay rates at rah are low, but I am not going to fight for higher pay on the 170 at the expense of 145 fo's.

The hiring mins were higher back when they first starting hiring for the 170 (ATP mins) than they were for the 145. That could be an argument for haveing 2 separate FO's rates at RAH. Everyone in my 170 class also had prior part 121 experience.

I won't vote "Yes" on our next contract unless the FO rates are significantly higher or there are 2 FO pay scales for the 170 and 145. And the theory that "it's not a big deal because everyone upgrades in less than 3 years" is BS too. We are going to start having a lot of guys stuck in the right seat here very shortly.

 

[Baronman]

I won't vote "Yes" on our next contract unless the FO rates are significantly higher or there are 2 FO pay scales for the 170 and 145. And the theory that "it's not a big deal because everyone upgrades in less than 3 years" is BS too. We are going to start having a lot of guys stuck in the right seat here very shortly.

Finally somebody with some sense....

 

[freeflyer14]

The hiring mins were higher back when they first starting hiring for the 170 (ATP mins) than they were for the 145. That could be an argument for haveing 2 separate FO's rates at RAH. Everyone in my 170 class also had prior part 121 experience.

I won't vote "Yes" on our next contract unless the FO rates are significantly higher or there are 2 FO pay scales for the 170 and 145. And the theory that "it's not a big deal because everyone upgrades in less than 3 years" is BS too. We are going to start having a lot of guys stuck in the right seat here very shortly.

Having 2 pay scales for the 145 and 170 FO's would also require removing the seatlock for FO's. The company isn't going to spend more than they have to for training on this issue, so it ain't gonna happen. Sad but true...

 

[hoover]

One other thing: CHQ starts contract negotiations very soon. Things are likely to get very dicey around here as the company is making money hand over fist and we as a pilot group feel we have palyed a major role in the companies good fortune. We are expecting nothing less than an industry leading contract now that we are not staring down the business end of an alter ego carrier this time around.

Every pilot group says this when contract negotiation time comes around. So tell me: What have the CHQ pilots done, collectively or individually, to play a "major role" in the company's good fortune? I'd like to hear some examples.

 

[ATRCA]

And that's many of us thought about ACA's management when they decided to start Independence. Look at us now. Don't believe the "we have good management" hype.

Curious, do you really think that what XJT is doing is the same as what ACA/Indy did?

How many aircraft were producing fee for departure revenue the day Indy started operations? The answer is none. That is a far cry from 205. We have more aircraft flying CAL colors than Indy had in their fleet. While I have no idea where all of this is headed, dedicating 45 or so aircraft to a different venture while generating 80 million a year in fee for departure revenue.............well you get it. Big difference.

In the end, handing over your only valuable asset to another company to operate in your stead is not a business plan. Giving up those 69 aircraft left XJT mgt with no options -vs- attempting to provide additional revenue under the cover of a very lucrative CPA agreement. It may be unsucessfull in the end but worth the attempt for sure.

 

[dojetdriver]

Curious, do you really think that what XJT is doing is the same as what ACA/Indy did?

How many aircraft were producing fee for departure revenue the day Indy started operations? The answer is none. That is a far cry from 205. We have more aircraft flying CAL colors than Indy had in their fleet. While I have no idea where all of this is headed, dedicating 45 or so aircraft to a different venture while generating 80 million a year in fee for departure revenue.............well you get it. Big difference.

In the end, handing over your only valuable asset to another company to operate in your stead is not a business plan. Giving up those 69 aircraft left XJT mgt with no options -vs- attempting to provide additional revenue under the cover of a very lucrative CPA agreement. It may be unsucessfull in the end but worth the attempt for sure.

I'll take this a step farther and probably clarify what he meant with his statement. When ACA was operating under Fee per Departure with UAL/DAL, the managment was VERY good at not only getting those contracts, but getting very favorable terms for us in them. Kerry Skeen and Tom Moore new what they were doing, in THAT arena. I'm not talkjing about I-Air, I'm talking about running an airline with a legacy code-share ageement. The terms that UAL was offering just pre-I-Air were terrible. They would have done to us what they did AWAC. And I doubt that ACA would have been able to buy somebody's flying back then in 2003/2004. Nobody wanted one of the most expensive regionals out there.

There were so many protections for ACA, very similar to the CPA with CAL. However, like at aXJET, it's always very easy for management to blame CAL for something that seems like crappy management. "well, CAL wants this and we have to give it to them per tthe CPA" ect, or, "CAL has done this with whatever and we have to comply because of the CPA blah blah blah." It's very easy to pump up your management when they are operating something that has a graunteed profit.

I'm not saying that XJET is heading down the same road that ACA was, far from it. So all you dorks that want to make the comparison, let it go. But it's very easy to pump up your management team when they are not really responsible for everything, ie; XJET's current situation. When thay are 100% accountable for the prosperity of a company (not 25%, for now) and not dependent on a CPA or FPD, their true leadership ability and business sense will come out.

 

[drift diamond]

Pick the one on the verge of growth so that you can upgrade and move on (if that's your intent). Look at the history and b.o.d.'s. You might be able to predict individual intentions by the history of the investors (emphasis on "might"). Bedford could well be on the verge of satisfying another "restructure" elsewhere ... in or out of the industry. He's cocked and ready to move on. May mean difficult days ahead for Chaniqua?

 

[Hypoxik]

.....

 

[Corbon]

You know what, hopefully you guys can read. Look at the differences in the contracts. If your still not sure, then your an idiot and Id rather have you go to CHQ.

We have a good bunch at XJT and I dont want sh$$heads coming here anyway!

Interesting how you IAH CRJ's are old ACA planes. You pieces of dog#$%

Oh ya, the people getting on on with XJT all have about 1200 or more hours, so take your academy crap and shove it

If you're going call people idiots, then maybe you should make sure your post doesn't make people think you are the idiot. That is all. Carry on. XJT is lucky to have you.

 

[Hypoxik]

Ive relaxed now thanks.

One of those days.

 

[ERJFO]

All I am saying is that at our level seniority does not determine what aircraft you can hold. Why should one's payrate for the next few years be chosen at random. I agree that the fo pay rates at rah are low, but I am not going to fight for higher pay on the 170 at the expense of 145 fo's.

This is why you would want to go with a senority based rate system... Like they use at Horizon. Lets say that 40% of the airplanes are 170s and 60% are 145. The top 40% of F/Os in terms of senority would be paid 170 pay regardless of the airplane and the other 60% would be paid 145 pay regardless of the airplane. This helps the company because they don't have to re-train F/O's all the time and it helps the F/O's because well, you are getting a fair deal.

Having 2 pay scales for the 145 and 170 FO's would also require removing the seatlock for FO's. The company isn't going to spend more than they have to for training on this issue, so it ain't gonna happen. Sad but true...

My reply above is an example of how it can pay to educate yourself before you say "we'll never get that!"

 

[145EXR]

dont forget our override at xjet for charter..if selected you will get 18/hr plus 90 hr guarantee..for me thats 73.28+18x90 for 98,582/yr...charter pilots will also be home based starting in may...same override for fos..charter is min 14 days off a month