SA gets the shaft???

[lazy8s]

Seems to me that all the plans that Wex had for Republic can be done using CHQ. Am I wrong?

That is exactly right, that was the our point with wanting to kill RP. There can still be a RP Air to fly business that can not be flown by CHQ contractually for non-compete reasons. However, J4J was voted in and the flying can all be done by one list.

Lazy8s

 

[the turtle]

It's interesting that you bring up Midway...according to published reports, Midway has until Sept 23rd to have an exit plan acceptable to their BK judge. Just wondering, since Wex has capital invested (BEHIND U, it's important to add), do you CHQ fellas see Wex letting Midway fall since the new TA allows for CHQ/Republic growth? DCA ops has said that Midway will cease ops on the 24th. How does Midway with thier CRJ fleet work with CHQ? Do you guys even care? Seems the Midway guys can't catch a break!

 

[saab340]

Lazy8

In fact Chq does do crew planning for SA and a few other things the planes our lease to SA through Chq also the Hanger is lease to SA through Chq and payroll is done at Chq.

 

[dav8or]

Re: A little reality check!!

Shuttle is NOT part of CHQ!!!

Read that first line 3 times and then continue.

Shuttle is owned by Wexford Capital. As is CHQ, as was National (to a degree).

Wexford also has $$ in Midway.

They HAD $$$ in Frontier, however, F9 was sick of the Wexford way and bought their shares back (years ago).

Shuttle is closer to us than you think. If we are not brothers then we dam* sure are cousins. They fly the same pos Saab we did, some of our guys are still there after the 9/11 firing and SA is basicly a scape goat for our leases. I think SA was designed to fail just to get us out of the leases and make us look better if and when we go public. At the least we owe them a side letter with hiring rights. They made a stand and that show what type of character they have. Remember you were not too many numbers away from being there yourself. They're teamster and they should be welcome at CHQ if anything happens to SA because of thier vote.

 

[I.P. Freley]

I do find it a little bit more than interesting that the CHQ TA (at least that which has been put on flightinfo) says something along the lines of "all flying for RAH will by done by the CHQ seniority list". It's already been pointed out that SA is not an RAH company... So theoretically SA could become Republic. By what method I could only guess (Sale of the certificate? Name change? Royal blessing from Queen Elizabeth?), but it IS a possibility... And it appears that this is just about the only silver lining in what appears to be a very, very dark cloud around these parts right now.

If one is to believe the crew room gossip, we are going to be disappearing at the end of October if USAirways doesn't renegotiate our deal and give us more money. I find it hard to believe that USAirways would so easily give up on us, especially since as recently as August we are the #1 performing Express prop operator in the whole system when you look at on-time and completion factor. Whom would replace us on such short notice? Presumably this has been allowed for, as I doubt USAirways assumes that we will continue, and some contingency plan is already in place should we pull out of the system in six or seven weeks, but it seems likely that they would want us to continue since our numbers are so good... At least for the short term.

So... I am not so sure that I believe the late-October shut-down theory, but I also don't believe we are in the long-term plan for USAirways (and by long-term I mean beyond the next 12 months).

So what is to come of us? Believe me, I wish I knew, or at least had an inkling. It is truly maddening to not know what to expect even in the near-term. More crew-room gossip suggests that an announcement is forthcoming from the front office sometime next week, and I do in fact believe THAT since we haven't seen any official company response to the result of the vote. I hope the response is definitive enough for me to figure out whether or not it's really time to look for another job.

 

[I.P. Freley]

TWAer...

I will reserve judgment until I see a copy of the final CHQ TA, but I will say this: While I won't say "we have been sold out by the CHQ pilot group", I might end up on the side of "we got sold out by the CHQ MEC." I do know that there was a campaign to get our lists merged or at least secure preferential hiring for SA pilots at CHQ if we were shut down, but I'm led to believe that neither of these things made it into your TA. You have to understand that the SA group as a whole was pressed, albeit unofficially, to toe the line with a fuzzy feeling of brotherhood and vote down OUR TA because, as one CHQ pilot told me in person, "we need to stick together and present a united front against Wexford", or words to that effect. Before you say "well the words of one pilot mean nothing", there is the suggestion, and a strong one, that similar sentiment WAS communicated in discussions between our union representatives, but of course I have no evidence to back this up, just rumor. It is painfully clear who had the most to gain and the most to lose in voting for the respective TA's, as I don't believe CHQ was ever threatened with shutdown and/or liquidation if they didn't "play nice". You may be gladdened that the SA pilot group sent an unequivocal message to management/Wexford, but you do recognize that the ramifications of that vote could be the death knell for our fine little company... Whilst you expand and continue to show good finanacials as a result of OUR taking the losses that are rightly yours because they are YOUR Saab leases. I and everyone else here understands our place in the pecking order, but we did expect that at some point our hard work would pay off with some jet flying that you all aren't able to do for scope clauses or other reasons, but it appears now that the wording of your TA keeps all the jet flying for yourselves (and I guess the Republic flying, too) and leaves us with little future other than liquidation... At least that is how it appears to the bulk of the pilot group. So, since your negotiators understood all of the above and still managed to not include any bailout for the SA pilots (who are in the same union, of course, if not the same local), it appears that we were left hanging.

I believe the above is what is meant by SA pilots when they decry CHQ for turning their backs on us. It is no reflection of the vast majority of the pilots, but of your negotiating committee. Again, I can't solidify my own position before I see the CHQ TA or indeed find out what is REALLY to come of SA, but I do hope this explains "our" feelings.

I invite further comments from either side of the great Wexford divide.

 

[KingAirer]

I ask this out of Ignorance: What power did the CHQ MEC have to dictate what another outside company does? Wouldnt that be like CHQ MEC deciding that ACA now becomes a one list with CHQ! ..I know they are linked by wexford and as mentioned above as "close relatives" but they are still different companies. Also remeber that the TA was decided on before your concession vote was counted. This last week of the CHQ TA was most likely for the lawyers to review.

 

[I.P. Freley]

KingAirer,

You are right, the CHQ MEC does not have carte blanche to add anyone and everyone to their list, of course, but your example of ACA is quite wide of the mark for several reasons... First ACA is not Teamsters, they are not part of Wexford, and they have nothing at all in common for any other imaginable reason except that they both have a Delta contract.

SA and CHQ, however, share the same union, the same corporate parent, and CHQ had a strong interest in seeing that we don't undercut them or take their flying (or, for that matter, vote for pay cuts that could conceivably give flying to SA that "belongs" to CHQ). I understand of course that they have their own best interests in mind, but in pushing us to have a united front (be it unofficially or officially), there is also the possibility of opening up something as innocuous as preferential hiring, which to the best of my knowledge is nothing more than guaranteeing us an interview.

If that is not included in their TA, which it appears it ain't, well that's where the frustration comes from 'round these parts.

I should add that this is not intended to be any kind of flame bait, I am just airing the concerns of a large part of the SA pilot group. I hope you understand that the feeling is that we are fighting for our existence here, and a minor handout from our brothers would have been appreciated.

Like I said, I invite discourse on the topic, but hopefully not angry, invective-filled discourse. I am simply trying to explain in detail what a short "so much for brotherhood" comment can't possibly do.

 

[I.P. Freley]

I am not so sure that "new ID cards" is anything more than a coincidence, but I of course can't pretend to know if there is any greater significance to it.

As for the ground schools, well, last I heard the proposed ground school for Sept. 15th (or 16th?) has been postponed indefinitely.

Any conflicting information is welcome, as I simply can't get enough gossip from my coworkers these days.

 

[KingAirer]

No anger here, just a good discussion from an outsider looking in.

Do you think the SA pilots wouldve voted for the concessions if a few CHQ pilots wouldnt have pushed for a united front? I think it wouldnt have matter one but b/c concessions at the regionals is crazy anyways, and I think the SA pilot knew and saw this. I think it had little to do with a few CHQ pilots telling everyone to stand tall and united.

 

[I.P. Freley]

I wasn't accusing you of being angry, Kingairer, I apologize if it came off that way... I was just preparing myself for the inevitable p-o'd posts of a CHQ pilot who would misread what I said, which I imagine is inevitable at this point.

You are right, though, in that it is unthinkable that the vote would have been much different if CHQ wanted a "yes" vote, but the fact of the matter is that they likely wanted a "no" vote and boy oh boy did a no vote come down the pike. 93% is pretty hard to misinterpret...

Like I said, I'm just putting it out there, whether or not it is strictly correct. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds for both pilot groups.

 

[I.P. Freley]

>>>Anyone who "expects" CHQ to do for the SA pilot group "'cause we could've made it worse for you if we folded" is a boob--and of such low moral character as to be a prime candidate for mgmt.<<<

Your barbs are sharp as ever, StopWexford.

However, I do question why you are now referring to one or more of our esteemed union reps as "boobs", as they (again, one or more) are the ones who campaigned for CHQ's union negotiators to help us secure employment down Indianapolis way if we stood firm and got chucked out on the street for it. I hear that our union's home office is investigating the various possibilities of our being integrated in some manner, if some possibility indeed exists. There's that low moral character again.

Or do you have yet more inside information? Are one of our beleagered union reps getting promoted to the front office?

 

[dispatchguy]

Re: Fuel for the Fire

...all of us at SA have to get ANOTHER new ID card, this time in landscape, rather than portrait format.

...must be completed by 01 November 2003.

...when queried as to what the name of the company would be on said ID cards, we were greated with "No Comment".

...another new hire class is scheduled and another is being put together.


Draw any conclusions you like.

They were interviewing at Fort Fun on this past Saturday (yes on a weekend), so draw your own conclusions...

 

[Skull-One]

I for one hope that (at the worst) SA gets stapled to the end of the CHQ "Master Seniority List" (ahead of all J4J hires). The Seat Lock stipulation that CHQ has on the 145 can apply to SA on the SAAB. In that way, SA pilots can look forward to eventually flying a jet and both sides can worry less about whipsawing.

I can't speak for all, but most CHQ pilots want to see SA taken care of (protected). Nobody that I have spoken with has said, "Screw Shuttle."

 

[I.P. Freley]

That's good to hear, SkullOne. Many here are now dreading looking for a new job... And feel rather like the yard puppy left tied to a stake behind the shed. I'm very happy to see that the pilot group at CHQ apparently has us in mind. And if those SA pilots that want to continue working for Wexford have a crutch in the form of Chautauqua, so much the better.

But here's a question- Does your new TA have pay scales that would apply to the Saab? I was presuming that if CHQ "took the Saabs back" that what that REALLY means is that they park them, not fly them. If you couldn't make money on them before, and we apparently can't now, what makes anyone think CHQ would in the future? I would guess that taking them back, if it happens, means taking them to a place like Memphis to join their brothers and sisters on the ramp at the Embraer facility, looking all plugged up and forlorn.

Anyhoo... I guess it's time to just wait and see. All this is just rampant speculation until we get "The Word".