Shuttle Am/ chataqua

[StuckInASaab]

Shuttle Seniority

#1 / 10/28/1998
#9 / 7/20/1999
#17 / 11/6/2001
#25 / 1/21/2002
#33 / 4/22/2002
#41 / 11/4/2002
#49 / 7/21/2003
#57 / 10/6/2003
#65 / 2/2/2004
#73 / 7/20/2004
#81 / 9/10/2004
#89 / 2/14/2005

Most Jr captain / 7/21/2003

 

[Weasel Keeper]

Weasel,

CHQ CONTRACT
SCOPE (PAGE 1.2, PARAGRAPH 2)

"...all present and future flying...by the company, the company's parent or any subsidiary...SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE PILOTS ON THE CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES PILOT'S SYSTEM SENIORITY LIST..."

Thanks CHQ-FO.

 

[I.P. Freley]

You guys are talking like this is a done deal..."Dont bid the jet yet" etc....CAre to fill us in on details?

I don't know any more than anyone else (which isn't much), but it sounds like it IS more or less a "done deal". My suggestions in the prior post were just based upon an assumed DOH merge, wasn't trying to stir anything up.

For people who live in Ft. Wayne, for instance, it would make sense to stay on the Saab as long as possible... Just to keep from having to move bases when transitioning to a jet (it seems unlikely that FWA will even be SERVICED by the 145 or 170, much less be a base).

That's all I was getting at.

 

[generaltso]

My suggestions in the prior post were just based upon an assumed DOH merge, wasn't trying to stir anything up.

I wonder if TWA pilots assumed a DOH merge?

 

[StuckInASaab]

I wonder if TWA pilots assumed a DOH merge?

TWA and AA weren't represented by the same national union, therefore there was no conflct of interest in AA asking for less than DOH from the TWA guys and gals. It is however a very large conflict of interest for the teamsters to ask the teamsters to accept a staple, when the reason for the merger would be to use the other company's certificate, not just to obtain the assets of a bankrupt carrier.

 

[generaltso]

The real question is: will this be put to vote by CHQ pilots? If so, I think there is little chance of a DOH integration.

Now I don't know if there is a section of Teamster rules that already lay out how a integration would happen between two companies that are both part of the same union. Does anyone know?

 

[Beantown]

The real question is: will this be put to vote by CHQ pilots?

Why would this go to a vote? Can anyone tell me one merger that went to a pilot vote? I have never heard of one. -Bean

 

[flyboy9967]

Sorry guys, but Intergration between two companys with the same union is not a voteing issue.

 

[FlyingDawg]

My personal opinion-

Chq will operate the 135/140/145.
170's will go on the Republic certificate that will be issued by the end of June.
The SA certificate will be used for 190 flying.

That way RAH will circumvent scope language any carrier has against flying larger aircraft.

 

[StuckInASaab]

My opinion with no information to back it up...

Chq will operate the 135/140/145.
170's will go on the SA certificate
The Republic certificate will be used for 190 flying.

And I will fly the mighty SF-340 until at least 04/2009 when the airframes timeout (on the SA certificate).

I think this will happen because RAH does not have the 190 yet, or the republic certificate...so if both show up at the same time then there is no need to move aircraft off certificates again.

 

[cargoflyr69]

Bump!

100th post! This is the longest thread on Shuttle America that i can ever remember!

p.s. big announcement IS this thursday (per the company website)

 

[StuckInASaab]

Hold your horses cargoflyr69, I think that was meant in a kidding manner. I wouldn't count on anything JUST YET.

 

[tyuwerty]

I don't think that any official word will be coming down until this is locked up. RJET will most likely make the whole thing public to investors and employees in one fell swoop.

 

[rk772]

For people who live in Ft. Wayne, for instance, it would make sense to stay on the Saab as long as possible... Just to keep from having to move bases when transitioning to a jet (it seems unlikely that FWA will even be SERVICED by the 145 or 170, much less be a base).

That's all I was getting at.

I remember back when CHQ was phasing out the SAABs. There were a few pilots who decided to hang on to the SAAB as long as possible. When CHQ flinally turned over all the remaining SAABs, these pilots were fired out of seniority so that CHQ would not have to send them to training in the ERJ.
They were given jobs with Shuttle. Great group of guys, I flew with all of them as Shuttle. Sucks, what CHQ did to them. If the SAAB is going away, I'd get out of it ASAP before they pull some more crap like this.

 

[StuckInASaab]

Nice Avatar tyuwerty, I had hoped that all Shuttle and CHQ guys and gals that feel that fair integration is in the best interests of all pilots, would do the same at least temporarily.

The CHQ pilots that were fired out of seniority off the saab in 2001 were given their jobs back, as long as they hadn't signed their seniority away. I would think that the union, once we are one, would have our backs if that was tried again.

 

[tyuwerty]

What happened to those Saab guys was wrong. Were any Captains fired? Was it only FO's? Were they probationary? I think that without the effects of 9/11 to fall back on it would be hard for a repeat of that situation. I believe that the Union won the case in arbitration and all of the guys are back except for anyone that signed away their seniority or were given a job at Shuttle.

 

[shotgun172]

A couple things-

a) The CHQ guys that became Shuttle guys. Everyone's favorite Uncle Wexford fired those guys out of seniority because they were on the SAAB, and within the one year probabation; so they were easy to get rid of - cheap and easy, since CQA was switching over to ERJs anyhow, and temporarily fat on pilots, it saved them a few bucks. This stunt wasn't in and of itself illegal, but it was certainly uncool of them to do that, and that lesson should be kept in mind, as future dealings with these same Wexford dudes are on the horizon, for everyone.

b) The potential hostility/animosity between CQA and SA pilots.
I've been hearing from a few CQA guys (friends) about how SA tried to under bid CQA's ERJ 170 flying. -not true. Now, back about a year ago, CQA's pilot group was scared because uncle Wexford was threatening them to go to SA with the flying if they didn't play nice during contract negotiations. This was when we as SA guys started getting noticed in the crew rooms and hallways, and through Union channels. We started hearing things like "teamsters", "unity", "stand together", "whipsawing". We were treated like we were important. I tell you what, I learned what a fat chick feels like at closing time. So, okay, it sounded good to us, we played along, kept on keepin' on, and didn't do anything uncool to the CQA guys. So then CQA gets the good contract, and we got left out in the cold.
And that's how that was. No, we didn't go to Wexford and try to undercut CQA so you guys can drop that crap right now. Like I.P. Freely said, that 10% cut was just to keep our doors open, on the Saabs!, once again, uncle Wexford put the pistol to our head. Oh and that note, let me cut this one off before is happens-- Yeah, the SA jet pay is lousy, but let me justify. When our contract was signed it was in 1998, SA was a happy little Mom and Pop airline out of New England with 1 to 3 airplanes (depending on the timing/story) and about 20 pilots. Once again, enter stage left Uncle Wexford and his pistol, and "sign this contract or else"... So, they are thinking, jets?, what jets?, so naturally, that part of the contract was glossed over, along with other short comings, in the hopes of keeping the doors open.

The point being in all of this,

1) DOH or a ratio weave, whatever- it doesn't matter, the SA list will be hardly noticed on CQA's much larger list.

2) We had better **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ed sure drop this hard feelings crap now and get together while we have got (might have) the chance. If we were to all get on same proverbial page here and merge lists, it would very likely prevent future whipsawing.

Can't we all just get along-neck?

 

[Stepclimb]

A few questions about the details, assuming all of this plays out:
1. After the merge, all pilots would be employees of Chautauqua, but some would fly on/under the SA certificate? Am I understanding this correctly?

2. With 2 certificates, 2 management teams are still needed; CEO, president, chief pilot etc--I'm guessing there would still be 2 distinct "corporate cultures" wherein pilots from the 1 group could transition between the two as they move up in seniority. Will this be the case?

3. "I'm getting a little verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves..I'll give you a topic: Rhode Island, it's not a road, nor an island...discuss!"
-Stepclimb

 

[Axel]

This stunt wasn't in and of itself illegal

Actually, it very much would have been illegal, had not a certain very important ball been dropped. Exerpts follow, full text at:
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/search_opinions.htm Search term "Chautauqua"

IP 01-1617-C M/S Teamsters v Chautauqua Airline
Judge Larry J. McKinney Signed on 12/5/01

INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION AND PRINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF )
TEAMSTERS, ) )
Plaintiff, ) vs. )
) CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES, ) CAUSE NO. IP01-1617-C-M/S
) Defendant. )

"...General Counsel for and Secretary-Treasurer of Local 747, testified that he determined for strategic reasons not to serve any § 6 notice during the required time period, which also happened to be the time period during which the pilots were considering the tentative agreement. _______ did not serve the notice because he felt that doing so would somehow interfere with the approval process.

"Under the RLA, when a collective bargaining agreement is about to expire and one party desires changes in its terms, that party must serve notice of those proposed changes on the other party under § 6, 45 U. S. C. § 156. ...

"...(4) The Court DENIES the Union's motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to its claim
that Chautauqua unlawfully failed to participate in NMB-sponsored mediation. The Union failed to serve § 6 notice on Chautauqua, and there is no evidence that
Chautauqua waived its right to insist upon such notice...."

English version: No § 6 notice meant no NMB mediated negotiations meant no status quo restrictions and the 125 firings were upheld.

And here's a sobering thought: The same lawyer still "represents" the CHQ guys as well (I believe) as the SA guys.

 

[I.P. Freley]

1. After the merge, all pilots would be employees of Chautauqua, but some would fly on/under the SA certificate? Am I understanding this correctly?

Yep, that's what it looks like.

2. With 2 certificates, 2 management teams are still needed; CEO, president, chief pilot etc--I'm guessing there would still be 2 distinct "corporate cultures" wherein pilots from the 1 group could transition between the two as they move up in seniority. Will this be the case?

I think so. It's a different certificate so it would need all the FAA required positions to be filled. Most of the operations people, management, CrewSked, dispatch, MX control, TechPubs, etc., I assume at the VERY least those will stick around more or less as-is in FWA. Certainly there's no reason to upset the status quo until such time as the Saabs eventually go away, though I wonder what happens to the guys/gals turning wrenches and working in the parts department in The Fort.

Pilots could move from one company to another as their seniority and desired allow...

Though the real question is what will happen with the flight attendants. They aren't unionized, CHQ's are, and how exactly do you staff the 170's? Current CHQ FA's who "quit" and go to SA? Train the current SA FA's in the 170? "Seat lock" the SA FA's and hire newbies to staff the 170? Some combination of the above?

3. "I'm getting a little verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves..I'll give you a topic: Rhode Island, it's not a road, nor an island...discuss!"
-Stepclimb

Get a grip on yourself, man! All this brotherhood is getting to yer head!

 

[I.P. Freley]

I've been hearing from a few CQA guys (friends) about how SA tried to under bid CQA's ERJ 170 flying. -not true. Now, back about a year ago, CQA's pilot group was scared because uncle Wexford was threatening them to go to SA with the flying if they didn't play nice during contract negotiations. This was when we as SA guys started getting noticed in the crew rooms and hallways, and through Union channels. We started hearing things like "teamsters", "unity", "stand together", "whipsawing". We were treated like we were important. I tell you what, I learned what a fat chick feels like at closing time. So, okay, it sounded good to us, we played along, kept on keepin' on, and didn't do anything uncool to the CQA guys. So then CQA gets the good contract, and we got left out in the cold.

Hello, exactly!

This is what is so irritating about the "SA tried to undercut us" argument. We were never presented with anything that would've been used against the CHQ pilot group... The CHQ group was (we heard) threatening to give SA some of that precious CHQ flying, but they never came to the SA group and said "take these concessions and you'll get the flying that CHQ is supposed to get". Don't blame the pilots, you silly geese! Blame BB.

And you're right, there sure was a lot of "brother", "unity" and other BS going on for a couple of weeks there at the end of '03. What we got out of it was a 10% pay cut for the Captains to keep the doors open... And what, two weeks later, CHQ's whole pilot group got a raise. Funny how the "brother" stuff stopped when CHQ realized they didn't have anything to fear from SA... After that it became "sucks to be you, you don't deserve any better anyway, what YOU do has nothing to do with what WE do". At least that was the attitude of SOME... Some on flightinfo especially. Don't want to paint the whole group that way, because that would be neither accurate nor fair.

When our contract was signed it was in 1998, SA was a happy little Mom and Pop airline out of New England with 1 to 3 airplanes (depending on the timing/story) and about 20 pilots. Once again, enter stage left Uncle Wexford and his pistol, and "sign this contract or else"... So, they are thinking, jets?, what jets?, so naturally, that part of the contract was glossed over, along with other short comings, in the hopes of keeping the doors open.

I think the SA pilot contract was actually whipped up and signed in the late fall of '01, right around 9/11... When Wexford said "if the pilots don't have a contract, we won't buy them, and then there's no more Shuttle". At the time SA was in bankruptcy, had pilots on furlough, and was flying only a small handful of airplanes (as in you could count them on one hand with fingers left over). The unsaid part (I would say the ugly part) of that contract was that the pilots at SA at the time voted for a contract that guaranteed them a lock on the pay on the Dash... for noticeably more money than the Saab rate (based upon number of seats)... And relegated everyone hired after that time to the "B scale", that which is shown in the contract. At the time BB was threatening CHQ with the SA rates, I showed our jet scale to a very, very senior "Old Shuttle" guy (meaning he'd been with SA for a whopping five years at that point), who said upon seeing them, "I'm making more than that NOW".

Hmmmm...

In the end, SA's jet rates are an utter irrelevancy as SA never got them, and now that they will (might), the pilots would get paid as per CHQ's contract, not Shuttle's. What BB did, waving a copy of the abysmal jet rates in the SA contract at the CHQ group a year and a half ago, is the fault of BB... Not anyone at SA.

 

[StuckInASaab]

Anybody heard anything new about this whole rumor?