Republic Airlines to Operate Embraer 190AR Jets for Midwest Airlines

[CitationLover]

I think you also started it from MCI initially, and then may have added it from MKE. That 717 doesn't have the best range, which is why they think the E190 will be a better fit. Air Canada flies it from JFK to Calgary (or flew it, now it is a minibus), and also from Toronto to SEA. It has the range and about the right number of seats for a lot of markets. I wish we at mainline were getting some.

Bye Bye--General Lee

SEA from MKE/MCI was started together. MKE was a day trip, MCI was a MCI turn in the middle of a 4 day. What are the numbers for the 190AR?

One can only hope the 190 does fall back to Midwest pilots. I'll believe it when I am back in ground school (as TH today mentioned a possible "our fleet plan announcement" soon). No one is holding their breath though.

 

[GOULET!]

CL you will be past age 65 before Midwest pilots will be flying the 190s.

 

[Ratherbsurfing]

Delta doesn't own Midwest, they own a minority stake in the company. TPG, a private equity group owns the controlling interest in Midwest. So even if Midwest were to put 190's on their certificate they wouldn't be Delta airplanes. I don't think that with the current DAL scope language anybody can operate 190's in DAL colors except DAL mainline unless their is a loophole for Midwest in their somewhere. I don't understand why TPG even bothers to keep the Midwest operating certificate and all of the associated costs of flight operations since they seem to be subcontracting out all of the lift anyway. Midwest seems to be well on it's way to becomoing a "virtual" airline where all they own is the brandname and the marketing rights.

I think this will set a new (low) standard for 100 seat pay rates. We now have 100 seat FO rates that top out at $37 and are the same as the FO rates for aircraft half the size. Now every company will argue that they need the same FO rates on narrowbody aircraft in order to be competitive. What the hell were the Republic guys thinking when they agreed to fly the 190 (an airplane that wasn't even on the property or allowed by most of their code share partners at the time) for the same rates as the 170 and the same FO rates as 50 seaters. They might as well throw in 737's and A-320's at the same rates in case the company gets some of them.

Nobody asked me or anyone else here what we thought of flying a 190. And I, like a thousand plus others, wasn't here when the last contract was negotiated allowing for 99 seat aircraft to be flown for about a hundred bucks an hour combined. Furthermore, myself and my coworkers, as well as every other airline pilot in the United States, are as much the victims here as the midwest folks. Do you really believe this to be our career aspiration? Do you really believe we want the increased responsibility, workload, and aggravations of operating a larger jet without more and just compensation for all? The framers of our last contract left a little to be desired, which I hope to play a part in remedying in the not too distant future. That being said, we were sold down the river long ago and are playing the only hand we can in order to win the pot, the evermore elusive seat at a major, which thanks to the greedy dimwits of yore, is an evermore receding pinprick on the horizon. . .

Good luck to all the folks at midwest. One more small step in the giant leap downward of the American standard of living.

 

[CitationLover]

Nobody asked me or anyone else here what we thought of flying a 190. And I, like a thousand plus others, wasn't here when the last contract was negotiated allowing for 99 seat aircraft to be flown for about a hundred bucks an hour combined. Furthermore, myself and my coworkers, as well as every other airline pilot in the United States, are as much the victims here as the midwest folks. Do you really believe this to be our career aspiration? Do you really believe we want the increased responsibility, workload, and aggravations of operating a larger jet without more and just compensation for all? The framers of our last contract left a little to be desired, which I hope to play a part in remedying in the not too distant future. That being said, we were sold down the river long ago and are playing the only hand we can in order to win the pot, the evermore elusive seat at a major, which thanks to the greedy dimwits of yore, is an evermore receding pinprick on the horizon. . .

Good luck to all the folks at midwest. One more small step in the giant leap downward of the American standard of living.

While I appreciate the sentiment, please do not state this. When you lose your job due to this, then perhaps you can make this statement. Our senior FO's, who are now furloughed, were making sometimes 3x as much as their FO counterparts at Republic who are not victims here.

 

[Monster Buck]

Well hopefully this is a wake up call to all seniority numbers to to view scope in their next contract as the most important section to shore up. I would like to use a whole team of paid outside attorneys just to write this section as iron clad as possible.

When I was at Mesaba if we hadn't had the good scope that we had we would have had Big Sky doing the same thing and putting Mesaba out of business. But due to Mesaba scope both Big Sky and those shat holes over at the fake parent company went out of business since they couldn't do anything the rest of their lives except fly 19 seats anywhere. It wasn't the Big Sky pilots fault, they didn't do it, it was the shat holes over at the fake Mesaba parent company that bought them. But it was our job(Mesaba pilots) to scope our own work. Not thiers to refuse it. It can work, if the energy and resources are applied. Funny thing is I remember at the time there were many pilots at Mesaba during the contract negotiations not wanting to spend the energy on the scope and many wanted more in the pay scale. They said that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Silly boys, it was the only thing that held up in the bankruptcy that saved our AZZ! Hopefully more now see that it is absolutely necessary. Hourly compensation is great.....as long as you still fly the plane!

 

[JohnDoe]

Thanks DAD. Wow, the MEC likes to call me while I'm in Stuttgart and tell me what exactly they are doing...... Guess what? WE ARE ALL MAD ABOUT IT. Moak now knows he can't make any of those moves again or will get skewered. We, along with our Ex-Northwest bretheren are all against giving away scope. They may try to see what they can get, but I would have to say that the majority will not give it away again. Thanks for caring....

Bye Bye--General Lee

Obviously NOT all of you are mad about it. If ALL of you were mad about it, you ALL would have contacted your reps to have him voted out/removed. Didn't happen this time, and didn't happen the last, what, 2-3 times scope was given away? Seems not enough of ALL of you are mad enough. How many more scope giveaways have to happen? There already haven't been enough?

Also, not ALL of the ex-northwest bretheren are against giving away scope. If they were, they wouldn't have erased that BS "line in the sand" and allowed compass to exist. Or unlimited 50-seaters....or 76 seat avros....or....on and on.

With regards to your usual condescending comment in the form of "thanks for caring...": My a$$ will be one of the first to be on the street again when lee "rjs are good for delta" moak gives away scope yet again. How about you general??

 

[JohnDoe]

Furthermore, myself and my coworkers, as well as every other airline pilot in the United States, are as much the victims here as the midwest folks. Do you really believe this to be our career aspiration? Do you really believe we want the increased responsibility, workload, and aggravations of operating a larger jet without more and just compensation for all?

I won't be as "PC" as Citationlover was:

Bullsh!t!! You are not a "victim" like every other airline pilot in the United States.

 

[michael707767]

With regards to your usual condescending comment in the form of "thanks for caring...": My a$$ will be one of the first to be on the street again when lee "rjs are good for delta" moak gives away scope yet again. How about you general??

The sad thing is Moak will give away more scope. Count on it.

 

[Mr.B]

I think you also started it from MCI initially, and then may have added it from MKE. That 717 doesn't have the best range, which is why they think the E190 will be a better fit. Air Canada flies it from JFK to Calgary (or flew it, now it is a minibus), and also from Toronto to SEA. It has the range and about the right number of seats for a lot of markets. I wish we at mainline were getting some.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Why would somebody in Stuttgart be on the web adding to an already pathetic 12,000 posts. GO OUT AND GET A BEER.....loser. (Or coffee....WHATEVER for crying outloud)

 

[curtaindriver]

Son, your Captains are flying the E190 today for $98 an hour. I wouldn't be bragging about that in public, if I were you.



Hopefully, B6 E190 pay rates won't be used against US!



Of course, they will. They already have.



Amen. The E190 Jungle Jet is the prime threat to ALL of our livelihoods, even jetBlue pilots. A 100 seat jet for $98 an hour? Scandalous.

We'll revisit this subject of JBLU in a couple of weeks....should be remedied. We shall see


CD

 

[USC328]

Well, they cannot fly them on a route served by Delta. From the contract 1.D.2.C

"operation in the United States for 106 or fewer passenger seats and configured with 97
or fewer passenger seats (provided that any jet aircraft configured with between 71
and 97 passenger seats is not flown for the Company or any affiliate and is not flown
on a city pair that is served by the Company or an affiliate) or a propeller driven
aircraft configured with 72 or fewer passenger seats, and is operated on its own behalf​

or pursuant to agreement with an air carrier(s) other than the Company or an affiliate"

Reading this 1.D.2.C above, am I missing something? The Republic E190 DOES NOT fall into this category. It says 106 or fewer passenger seats AND configured with 97 OR FEWER seats...The E190 meets the first criteria, but not the second. It will be configured with 100 seats. So please correct me, but I see this rule as not applicable to the E190 operating on city pairs that are served by the Company or an affiliate.

 

[aircowboy]

Our MEC is telling us they are using a Loophole in our scope that does not protect us from Holding Companies.

 

[profit]

Well hopefully this is a wake up call to all seniority numbers to to view scope in their next contract as the most important section to shore up. I would like to use a whole team of paid outside attorneys just to write this section as iron clad as possible.

When I was at Mesaba if we hadn't had the good scope that we had we would have had Big Sky doing the same thing and putting Mesaba out of business. But due to Mesaba scope both Big Sky and those shat holes over at the fake parent company went out of business since they couldn't do anything the rest of their lives except fly 19 seats anywhere. It wasn't the Big Sky pilots fault, they didn't do it, it was the shat holes over at the fake Mesaba parent company that bought them. But it was our job(Mesaba pilots) to scope our own work. Not thiers to refuse it. It can work, if the energy and resources are applied. Funny thing is I remember at the time there were many pilots at Mesaba during the contract negotiations not wanting to spend the energy on the scope and many wanted more in the pay scale. They said that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Silly boys, it was the only thing that held up in the bankruptcy that saved our AZZ! Hopefully more now see that it is absolutely necessary. Hourly compensation is great.....as long as you still fly the plane!

This is a really good point. Those above control the scope below. It may have sucked for Big Sky, but it was for the greater good. But the "feed" carriers won't ever scope themselves out of anything. And if a feeder were to scope themselves out of a job, there will be numerous other carriers who are ready to take that flying.

I think the bottom line is that the parent carrier is the only one to secure the scope.