WOW!!
That's the best flaming I've gotten in a while. Perhaps I should clarify my personal position:
I FLY THE THING, I DON'T MAKE THE BUSINESS DECISIONS!!!!!
I do not personally have a hand in taking away any mainline flying, and believe me, I would be much happier if I were on the seniority list of Delta operating these planes than as a contract carrier with limited hope for advancement to a major carrier due to the shift in aircraft allocation.
We do NOT contract ourselves for the lowest possible dollar. Our per block hour rates, while not as high as some carriers, are substantially higher than others. If you want race to the bottom, we are not the leaders. Nothing close. Our most recent contract had a large raise in it, and last I checked, we were sitting well above median in the pay scales. I agree that the scales are still too low overall, and when we were offered a contract with small raises three years ago, I voted NO, as did the majority of my co-workers. To accuse us of "stealing work" from a wholly-owned carrier is total bullcrap. We have never signed a code-share or expansion agreement that has resulted in the direct loss of ANY flying at another carrier. As for the replacement of props with RJ's, I can't help the fact that U Group didn't choose to offer them to the in house carriers first. Sorry.
As for the uniforms, can't help you there either. I'm a member of our Uniform and Appearance committee, and am aware of ALL of our clothing initiatives and policies. Our agreement with U group requires that we wear the U style uniforms. This means navy pants and coats and silver stripes. We have our own brass, which looks similar but clearly says "Chautauqua." Remarkably, this is also the exact same uniform that one third of the induatry wears. When the options are basically black and gold or navy and silver or white, there are only so many possible combinations. The other code shares don't seem to concern themselves with such minutae as long as we look presentable and have a good product. We have tried to institute uniform changes several times, but since we are bound by code share contract to stick with the U style, that is how it will stay.
The 170 is, to the average passenger, indistinguishable from a mainline aircraft. Yes, I said it, it's the same damn thing to them. It has enough room to stand up inside, it's boarded through a jetway, and their rollaboard can go in the overhead bin. It has a first and a coach cabin, two lavatories, and 70 seats. So... How will the average passenger, who just connected from an "Airbus 737" know any different. All they care about is if they can keep their carryon bag and if they have to walk outside to get to the plane.
I am truly sorry for those of you that are furloughed from a major while we deliver more aircraft that serve the "region" of the whole US. As I said above, I would much rather be flying the 170 on the bottom rung of a major carrier's senirity ladder than at the top of CHQ's. I do agree that it's a little silly to have a 2000 mile airplane at a "Regional" but that's what we have. Maybe we can stop pointing fingers for a change and just get along. I am a Pilot first, a Teamster second, and then a company man far beyond. I welcome any of you in my jumpseat, regardless of the logo on your ID, and I hope that you will do the same for me..
..CT
[post="201225"][/post]