Webslinger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2002
- Posts
- 119
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Republic
- Thread starter Webslinger
- Start date
- Watchers 3
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
embraerjetpilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Posts
- 301
panampilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Posts
- 56
Webslinger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2002
- Posts
- 119
Before everyone steps up on their "High horse" to give me a piece of there mind, perhaps some of you can swallow your pride for 2 seconds and please explain the relationship of Republic to Chataqua. I understand that Republic owns Chataqua, is that correct? And if so, (please excuse my ignorance), why would Republic by their own birds if they are operating under the chataqua name. Any insight is appreciated. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers gentlemen. I hate scabs and would never consider a company that does so. I am just another pilot looking to make a decent living like the rest of us.
Strikefinder
Captain Backfire
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2002
- Posts
- 114
Republic...
As a Chautauqua pilot, I'm very concerned about the creation of Republic Airlines. Of course, I'm somewhat biased and I hope that you examine both sides of the issue, though the more time I've spent here trying to give our management the benefit of the doubt has lead me further in support of our union's (Teamsters) position on Republic.
Our company (CHQ) is owned by a holding company called Republic Airways Holdings (commonly called RAH). This, in turn, is owned by another holding company, known as Wexford Capital, which also owns Shuttle America and shares in several other carriers, such as Midway, I believe. As of right now, the only thing that RAH owns is Chautauqua.
Chautauqua pilots were given the opportunity last year to sign on with the Jets for Jobs program to acquire more regional jets for our US Airways side of the operation. For a variety of reasons, our pilot group decided against taking part in the program. I wasn't employed by Chautauqua at the time, but I'm told by many of those who were here that there were concerns about pay for the US Air mainline pilots who were brought on by the program, seniority and furlough issues, among other things. It was disappointing in some ways that this program was not instituted, as growth in any form is good for our company's pilots.
Because our management wanted to implement Jets For Jobs anyhow, they have elected to create another airline, dubbed Republic Airlines (note that this, like Chautauqua, would be owned by Republic Airways Holdings), whose only existance would be for the express purpose of complying with Jets for Jobs. On the surface, it seems innocent enough; In fact, because our holding company would then be complying with J4J, Chautauqua could actually acquire a few more (9, I believe) US Airways jets to be operated entirely by Chautauqua pilots.
Were this all that was involved, there wouldn't be much of an issue. However, based on our contract negotiation situation and the all-too-similar sounding issues at Mesa with Freedom, our pilot group smelled a rat. While our management maintains that Republic is only in existance for the express purpose of complying for J4J (from CEO Bryan Bedford's weekly updates), our CEO Wayne Heller has told the news media that Republic will be competing for many contracts (note: against Chautauqua), and it has been strongly rumored that Republic was one of the carriers to bid on United's Express flying. Keep in mind that Republic wages have been set lower than Chautauqua's, and as nearly all other things are equal (same infrastructure, same aircraft, etc.), Chautauqua could not readily compete. We forsee a whipsawing like what happened at Mesa where management comes to us in a year or two, once Republic has been well established, and offering our flying for Delta, US Air, or American to Republic unless we take pay and work rule concessions, despite the fact that we are among the worst paid pilots per type and size of equipment in the industry. It is one thing to compete in a captalistic marketplace, but these tactics are being employed for one purpose--to make our management more money at the expense of our pilot group.
The Jets for Jobs agreement has changed since Chautauqua's pilot group originally voted it down, and as many of our concerns were addressed in the changes, our union put our another vote on our desire to participate with the changes being implemented. It overwhelmingly passed, partly because of the changes, and partly because we believe it is superior to the creation of Republic. Furthermore, we believe it effectively calls management's bluff. If they were being truthful about Republic's purpose, then it no longer has any viable reason for existance. Despite this and ALPA's endorsement of our ratification of J4J, Republic Airlines trudges on.
Our pilot group is currently voting on a strike resolution because of Republic's threat as well as constantly stalled contract negotiations that have gone on for nearly two years. The company has repeatedly and recently walked away from the bargaining table and failed to entertain our proposals. We are not asking for unreasonable increases in pay or ridiculous work rules. We are looking for an industry standard contract and for expansion to continue here at Chautauqua so long as we remain a competitive and quality product in the aviation community.
Should Chautauqua pilots strike, and I sincerely hope that it will not come to that, we fear a variety of possibilities. There have been thoughts that our probationary pilots would be fired and offered positions at Republic Airlines to help undermine our collective bargaining abilities. This has already happened at Shuttle America shortly after September 11, and the end result is now Shuttle pilots being asked for ridiculous pay concessions or facing liquidation (whether the company sincerely means these messages of doom and gloom is left to the reader). We fear that our routes might be taken up by Republic or Shuttle. We feel that pilots who would participate in this sort of activity are involved in an attack on our ability to preserve our jobs and a reasonable standard of living. While the term "scab" is used rather freely and often incorrectly nowadays, if circumstances were to fall as I've described, we are talking about genuine acceptance of struck work.
If you are considering working for Republic, or if you interview at Chautauqua and they offer you a position there (I have no confirmed reports that this has or will happen, but we fear it is a possibility), please carefully consider the consequences of your actions to both yourself and your future as a pilot as well as our futures here at Chautauqua. We truly value much of the support that has been expressed from other carriers, and we understand that we have not always seen things eye to eye in the past, I think we all agree that our actions will better not only Chautauqua, but the industry as a whole.
I am always interested in dissenting points of view. I hope that my rant has given you some sorts of insights into our concerns with Republic. Otherwise, safe and happy flying, and good luck working through the landmine infested field that the aviation industry has become.
As a Chautauqua pilot, I'm very concerned about the creation of Republic Airlines. Of course, I'm somewhat biased and I hope that you examine both sides of the issue, though the more time I've spent here trying to give our management the benefit of the doubt has lead me further in support of our union's (Teamsters) position on Republic.
Our company (CHQ) is owned by a holding company called Republic Airways Holdings (commonly called RAH). This, in turn, is owned by another holding company, known as Wexford Capital, which also owns Shuttle America and shares in several other carriers, such as Midway, I believe. As of right now, the only thing that RAH owns is Chautauqua.
Chautauqua pilots were given the opportunity last year to sign on with the Jets for Jobs program to acquire more regional jets for our US Airways side of the operation. For a variety of reasons, our pilot group decided against taking part in the program. I wasn't employed by Chautauqua at the time, but I'm told by many of those who were here that there were concerns about pay for the US Air mainline pilots who were brought on by the program, seniority and furlough issues, among other things. It was disappointing in some ways that this program was not instituted, as growth in any form is good for our company's pilots.
Because our management wanted to implement Jets For Jobs anyhow, they have elected to create another airline, dubbed Republic Airlines (note that this, like Chautauqua, would be owned by Republic Airways Holdings), whose only existance would be for the express purpose of complying with Jets for Jobs. On the surface, it seems innocent enough; In fact, because our holding company would then be complying with J4J, Chautauqua could actually acquire a few more (9, I believe) US Airways jets to be operated entirely by Chautauqua pilots.
Were this all that was involved, there wouldn't be much of an issue. However, based on our contract negotiation situation and the all-too-similar sounding issues at Mesa with Freedom, our pilot group smelled a rat. While our management maintains that Republic is only in existance for the express purpose of complying for J4J (from CEO Bryan Bedford's weekly updates), our CEO Wayne Heller has told the news media that Republic will be competing for many contracts (note: against Chautauqua), and it has been strongly rumored that Republic was one of the carriers to bid on United's Express flying. Keep in mind that Republic wages have been set lower than Chautauqua's, and as nearly all other things are equal (same infrastructure, same aircraft, etc.), Chautauqua could not readily compete. We forsee a whipsawing like what happened at Mesa where management comes to us in a year or two, once Republic has been well established, and offering our flying for Delta, US Air, or American to Republic unless we take pay and work rule concessions, despite the fact that we are among the worst paid pilots per type and size of equipment in the industry. It is one thing to compete in a captalistic marketplace, but these tactics are being employed for one purpose--to make our management more money at the expense of our pilot group.
The Jets for Jobs agreement has changed since Chautauqua's pilot group originally voted it down, and as many of our concerns were addressed in the changes, our union put our another vote on our desire to participate with the changes being implemented. It overwhelmingly passed, partly because of the changes, and partly because we believe it is superior to the creation of Republic. Furthermore, we believe it effectively calls management's bluff. If they were being truthful about Republic's purpose, then it no longer has any viable reason for existance. Despite this and ALPA's endorsement of our ratification of J4J, Republic Airlines trudges on.
Our pilot group is currently voting on a strike resolution because of Republic's threat as well as constantly stalled contract negotiations that have gone on for nearly two years. The company has repeatedly and recently walked away from the bargaining table and failed to entertain our proposals. We are not asking for unreasonable increases in pay or ridiculous work rules. We are looking for an industry standard contract and for expansion to continue here at Chautauqua so long as we remain a competitive and quality product in the aviation community.
Should Chautauqua pilots strike, and I sincerely hope that it will not come to that, we fear a variety of possibilities. There have been thoughts that our probationary pilots would be fired and offered positions at Republic Airlines to help undermine our collective bargaining abilities. This has already happened at Shuttle America shortly after September 11, and the end result is now Shuttle pilots being asked for ridiculous pay concessions or facing liquidation (whether the company sincerely means these messages of doom and gloom is left to the reader). We fear that our routes might be taken up by Republic or Shuttle. We feel that pilots who would participate in this sort of activity are involved in an attack on our ability to preserve our jobs and a reasonable standard of living. While the term "scab" is used rather freely and often incorrectly nowadays, if circumstances were to fall as I've described, we are talking about genuine acceptance of struck work.
If you are considering working for Republic, or if you interview at Chautauqua and they offer you a position there (I have no confirmed reports that this has or will happen, but we fear it is a possibility), please carefully consider the consequences of your actions to both yourself and your future as a pilot as well as our futures here at Chautauqua. We truly value much of the support that has been expressed from other carriers, and we understand that we have not always seen things eye to eye in the past, I think we all agree that our actions will better not only Chautauqua, but the industry as a whole.
I am always interested in dissenting points of view. I hope that my rant has given you some sorts of insights into our concerns with Republic. Otherwise, safe and happy flying, and good luck working through the landmine infested field that the aviation industry has become.
Chautauqua's contract with Delta prevents Chautauqua from flying for any other major airlines without Delta's permission, except for the airlines for which Chautauqua already flies (AMR, US Airways, used to be AWA).
RAH would therefore need another subsidiary with its own certificate to bid for UAL business, completely independent of the Jets for Jobs issue, and completely independent of whatever whipsawing tactics RAH might (or might not) be using.
You can look it up for yourself in the SEC filings that RAH made last year in anticipation of the never-completed IPO.
RAH would therefore need another subsidiary with its own certificate to bid for UAL business, completely independent of the Jets for Jobs issue, and completely independent of whatever whipsawing tactics RAH might (or might not) be using.
You can look it up for yourself in the SEC filings that RAH made last year in anticipation of the never-completed IPO.
Strikefinder
Captain Backfire
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2002
- Posts
- 114
The other company *is* Republic. I understand what you're trying to say, that Chautauqua could not bid for United business (or any others) anyhow. While that very well might be the case, it is my understanding that there is nothing to prevent Republic Airlines, once established, from bidding on the Delta flying that Chautauqua is currently doing.
From Bryan Bedford's weekly update, dated January 31:
"Q. Are there any plans to expand Republic beyond Airways?
A. No."
Really? Plans apparently change quickly, as shown by their bid on United work. I think much of our concern is the conflicting information that we've gotten from the company from the beginning, as well as the underhanded tactics used to create the company. Though you might say that time will tell what our management's true intentions were, based on the history of our relationship as well as the consequences of allowing Republic to operate if our pessimistic assumptions are correct, I believe that we need to get the issue ironed out now, before flying starts up at Republic.
From Bryan Bedford's weekly update, dated January 31:
"Q. Are there any plans to expand Republic beyond Airways?
A. No."
Really? Plans apparently change quickly, as shown by their bid on United work. I think much of our concern is the conflicting information that we've gotten from the company from the beginning, as well as the underhanded tactics used to create the company. Though you might say that time will tell what our management's true intentions were, based on the history of our relationship as well as the consequences of allowing Republic to operate if our pessimistic assumptions are correct, I believe that we need to get the issue ironed out now, before flying starts up at Republic.
It's the same ol' situation!
2 things.
1: Does anyone KNOW that Rupublic has bid on United flying? Yes, it's likely, but is is FACT?
2. The whole relationship b/t what happen at Mesa Air Group and what is now happening at Wexford is even more similar than you might think.
Mesa Air Group (MAG) was the parent company of Mesa, CC Air, and Air Midwest. Mesa and Air Midwest were on the same pilot list, CC Air wasn't.
First MAG tried to offer concessions, ERJ's, and growth to CC Air (while the Mesa/Air Midwest pilots were starting negotiations). CC Air, paid more than Mesa, wasn't about to get paid LESS than Mesa, and voted it down. Then JO told them he was gonna' let their contract expire and fold the company. CC Air then changed their tune, and ratified a concessionary contract to save their jobs. DW refused to sign it, CC Air sued ALPA and lost, and JO folded CC Air while starting up Freedom. All this was while Mesa was in negotiations! Mesa ended up accepting a contract that gave them small increases in every section but 1 (but didn't get a higher pay than Commair, Skywest, etc. and thus drew the wrath of other regional pilots), put Freedom on their list, got re-hire rights for all the former CC Air pilots, and negotiated scope that puts all future Mesa Air Group flying on their seniority list.
Change the names: Mesa is CHQ, Mesa Air Group is Wexford, Freedom is Republic . . . and CC Air is Shuttle America.
Good luck guys, b/c I thought Mesa did an ok job with their contract (the jobs for CC Air, the scope and potential growth prospects) . . . and the whole industry says Mesa is the devil incarnate (pay rates and guaranteed days off not raised enough). I can't wait to see how CHQ comes out of this.
-Boo!
Please, no replies about the Mesa contract's quality. This is a CHQ thread, and the Mesa contract has already been flogged to death elsewhere
2 things.
1: Does anyone KNOW that Rupublic has bid on United flying? Yes, it's likely, but is is FACT?
2. The whole relationship b/t what happen at Mesa Air Group and what is now happening at Wexford is even more similar than you might think.
Mesa Air Group (MAG) was the parent company of Mesa, CC Air, and Air Midwest. Mesa and Air Midwest were on the same pilot list, CC Air wasn't.
First MAG tried to offer concessions, ERJ's, and growth to CC Air (while the Mesa/Air Midwest pilots were starting negotiations). CC Air, paid more than Mesa, wasn't about to get paid LESS than Mesa, and voted it down. Then JO told them he was gonna' let their contract expire and fold the company. CC Air then changed their tune, and ratified a concessionary contract to save their jobs. DW refused to sign it, CC Air sued ALPA and lost, and JO folded CC Air while starting up Freedom. All this was while Mesa was in negotiations! Mesa ended up accepting a contract that gave them small increases in every section but 1 (but didn't get a higher pay than Commair, Skywest, etc. and thus drew the wrath of other regional pilots), put Freedom on their list, got re-hire rights for all the former CC Air pilots, and negotiated scope that puts all future Mesa Air Group flying on their seniority list.
Change the names: Mesa is CHQ, Mesa Air Group is Wexford, Freedom is Republic . . . and CC Air is Shuttle America.
Good luck guys, b/c I thought Mesa did an ok job with their contract (the jobs for CC Air, the scope and potential growth prospects) . . . and the whole industry says Mesa is the devil incarnate (pay rates and guaranteed days off not raised enough). I can't wait to see how CHQ comes out of this.
-Boo!
Please, no replies about the Mesa contract's quality. This is a CHQ thread, and the Mesa contract has already been flogged to death elsewhere
Strikefinder
Captain Backfire
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2002
- Posts
- 114
In all fairness, I don't have inconclusive proof of Republic's bid on United flying; It was second-hand knowledge, and we all know how reliable that is. However, Wayne Heller, our COO, did tell some of the local press that Republic had plans to expand to a variety of code-shares, despite what Bedford specifically told us as I demonstrated above. I did see the story, and I'll try to find it again to support my assertions.
As I've said, it is possible that Republic's existance is as innocent as our management is making it sound, but only time will tell, and I'd hate to be wrong. I agree that this situation reeks of Mesa Air Group, and I'd like to cut the head off of this monster before it gets out of control.
As I've said, it is possible that Republic's existance is as innocent as our management is making it sound, but only time will tell, and I'd hate to be wrong. I agree that this situation reeks of Mesa Air Group, and I'd like to cut the head off of this monster before it gets out of control.
Last edited:
Webslinger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2002
- Posts
- 119
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
