Chip another question for ya.

[BoredToDeath]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 1:32:05 PM DCAflyer wrote:

Chip Commented: Olde''s comments are correct. Moreover, the company has agreed to ALPA''s interpretation of the contract and as I said before, the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent. I''m not going to go into the details or ALPA''s response, but I can say this model will not fly in US Airways'' colors unless the pilot group authorizes its deployment.

DCAflyer responds: Chip, I hope to hell that ALPA does not agree to the 705s being placed in any WO or express operation. The capacity of these aircraft clearly falls within the purview of what should be flown in mainline. Additionally, ALPA should not agree to add these to the mainline fleet if it would cause a reduction in the current makeup of the 279 fleet... in other words, 705s should not be the replacement of 737s or A320 family aircraft. If the company wants to bring 705s online, add them to what we already have in mainline unless, for instance, they want to replace one 737 or A320-family aircraft with two 705s. The contractual definition of small jet should not be based on who manufactures the aircraft.

----------------​

DCAflyer,

What do you mean by "The capacity of these aircraft clearly falls within the purview of what should be flown in mainline."? The CRJ700-701 holds 70 people and the CRJ700-705 holds 75 people.

If you think that a 75 seat aircraft should be flown at Mainline then how do you feel about MidAtlantic flying the EMB170?

Do you object to that, or is that O.K. because it will INITIALY be staffed by furloughed Mainline, if theres enough of them left to come back.

 

[BoredToDeath]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 9:48:14 AM Chip Munn wrote:

Bored:

Bored said: "UALPA has already given consent to fly the CRJ700, its just that they never specified which SERIES. Remember, as I proved earlier, that the CRJ 700 has two Series, the 701 and the 705. They are both the CRJ700. You can not get around that simple fact no matter how hard you try."

Chip responds: Bored, Olde's comments are correct. Moreover, the company has agreed to ALPA's interpretation of the contract and as I said before, the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent. I'm not going to go into the details or ALPA's response, but I can say this model will not fly in US Airways' colors unless the pilot group authorizes its deployment.

Chip



----------------​

You know Chip,

I'll be willing to bet that alot of the noise you guys are makeing about these 700's have to do with the fact that the WO's will not give your pilot group 100% of the seats, like you guys thought you would get. Am I close? Your pilot group is going to have to realize that you can not make ammendments to "our" contract without "our" approval.

When are you people gonna start to work with us instead of against us?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Bored:

Bored said: "I''ll be willing to bet that alot of the noise you guys are makeing about these 700''s have to do with the fact that the WO''s will not give your pilot group 100% of the seats, like you guys thought you would get. Am I close? Your pilot group is going to have to realize that you can not make ammendments to "our" contract without "our" approval."

Chip comments: Bored, with all due respect, your motivation and sentiment is transparent. Regardless, the parties agree the CRJ-705 is a contract violation and these aircraft will not fly in US Airways colors, without mainline ALPA consent. It''s to early to tell how this will work out, but our MEC and NC are discussing ALPA''s options.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[dfw79]

Does anyone else have the image of a 7 year old with their fingers in each ear screaming "CRJ-705...CRJ-705...CRJ-705."

Bored...it is obvious that some people refuse to answer issues directly, and instead revert to the spewing of ALPA''s rhetoric. What a shock.

 

[michael707767]

----------------
This is from a press release Dated May 28, 1999 off the Bombardier web site. Proof that it was known that two versions of the 700 were to be made. This is quite a few years before LOA 83, huh?


"The new CRJ700 Series airliner will also be certified in two weight-range versions to permit airline operators to match the aircraft precisely to their operations."
----------------​

Many aircraft are manufactured with different weights. Weight basically translates to range. More fuel capacity.

But, if you take a 767-300 and configure it in an international configuration which lowers to seating to below what a 767-200 seats, you have not made it into a -205.

The series number in almost every case has meant fuselage length. The CRJ-705 is nothing more than a -900 with fewer seats, no matter what they call it. Prior to the announcement of the -705 for USAir, Bombardier never said anything about a -900 with fewer seats being called a -705. It was an attempt to get around the USAirs pilot contract, plain and simple.

Hey, maybe if I remove some seats, the A-320 becomes an A-319!! Is that how it works?

 

[flyin2low]

Hey, maybe if I remove some seats, the A-320 becomes an A-319!! Is that how it works?

It would be called an A-320-705..........

 

[a320av8r]

It is determined by the certified seating capacity, not the actual seat configuration.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The way I understand it, the 705 is a 900 with fewer seats, not a 701 with more. I suspect that it is certified as a variant of the -900 as well, but I don''t know this. If so, the company would have virtually no leg to stand on. I have heard that the -705 shares the same fuselage, engines and many other parts common to the -900, which are NOT common to the -701. Does anyone really think that for an order of this potential size a vendor wouldn''t adjust something like a number designator to make the purchaser happy? All ALPA would have to do is show some kind "less than good faith" actions by the company to get around a legal contract and it could be very damaging. I suspect that the PIT and PA groups could vouch for such actions, as well. If they don''t make peace with their labor groups soon it will also be very damaging.

 

[BoredToDeath]

----------------
On 6/2/2003 6:39:00 PM michael707767 wrote:

----------------
This is from a press release Dated May 28, 1999 off the Bombardier web site. Proof that it was known that two versions of the 700 were to be made. This is quite a few years before LOA 83, huh?


"The new CRJ700 Series airliner will also be certified in two weight-range versions to permit airline operators to match the aircraft precisely to their operations."
----------------​

Many aircraft are manufactured with different weights. Weight basically translates to range. More fuel capacity.

But, if you take a 767-300 and configure it in an international configuration which lowers to seating to below what a 767-200 seats, you have not made it into a -205.

I''ll agree with you on that point. From the press release I posted you can''t tell if they are talking about two types or two Series.

The series number in almost every case has meant fuselage length. The CRJ-705 is nothing more than a -900 with fewer seats, no matter what they call it. Prior to the announcement of the -705 for USAir, Bombardier never said anything about a -900 with fewer seats being called a -705. It was an attempt to get around the USAirs pilot contract, plain and simple.

Here''s where your wrong. The CRJ900 is actually a version of the CRJ700-705. How they came up with the CRJ900 was by taking a CRJ700-701 and adding 13''4" to the body. Most of the testing of the CRJ900 was done with a CRJ700-705. The question is how far did UALPA look into the different types at Bombardier before signing LOA83. I''m willing to bet that this was an oversite on their part.

Most know I''m no fan of this Mgt., but I truely can''t see them trying to get around the contract on this issue for an aircraft of the same size that they are already putting at MDA. With 25 CRJ700-705''s, your talking about 125 extra Pax seats @ 5 extra seats a plane. Do you really think they would have thought it would have been worth it to try.

Hey, maybe if I remove some seats, the A-320 becomes an A-319!! Is that how it works?

Hey, maybe if you do that you can add more fuel and actually go somewhere. Instead of operating an Airbus like an RJ.


----------------​

 

[BoredToDeath]

----------------
On 6/2/2003 7:18:47 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

The way I understand it, the 705 is a 900 with fewer seats, not a 701 with more. I suspect that it is certified as a variant of the -900 as well, but I don''t know this. If so, the company would have virtually no leg to stand on. I have heard that the -705 shares the same fuselage, engines and many other parts common to the -900, which are NOT common to the -701. Does anyone really think that for an order of this potential size a vendor wouldn''t adjust something like a number designator to make the purchaser happy? All ALPA would have to do is show some kind "less than good faith" actions by the company to get around a legal contract and it could be very damaging. I suspect that the PIT and PA groups could vouch for such actions, as well. If they don''t make peace with their labor groups soon it will also be very damaging.

----------------​

Actually Oldie,

The CRJ200, 700, and 900 share extenseve commonality in parts and maintenance as well as all are the same type rating. The real problem which I was trying to get at was I really don''t care where these planes go as long as they stay within the group and theres equal oportunity to fly them in accordance with the original J4J agreement.

But a funny thing happened when Mgt went to UALPA to disscuss putting 70 seaters at the WO''s. UALPA decided to change the J4J agreement to suit them even more than it already does. They wanted all the jobs on the CRJ700''s. Imagine that. And they expected to get it without even consulting the WO''s ( who this directely affects). That just takes pure balls. Well when the CRJ700''s were ordered and the WO''s approached about pay rates for them, Mgt was told that UALPA cannot have all the seats, it would have to adhere to the original protocols of 50/50, no matter what plane it is. Guess what? UALPA did''nt like that, so now here we are with Chip and friends screaming contract violation.

That my freinds is the real story behind UALPA''s actions.

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 6/2/2003 6:44:03 PM flyin2low wrote:


Hey, maybe if I remove some seats, the A-320 becomes an A-319!! Is that how it works?

It would be called an A-320-705..........

----------------​

Actually it IS called an A320-222

 

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
On 6/3/2003 3:43:38 PM BoredToDeath wrote:



But a funny thing happened when Mgt went to UALPA to disscuss putting 70 seaters at the WO''s.  UALPA decided to change the J4J agreement to suit them even more than it already does.  They wanted all the jobs on the CRJ700''s.  Imagine that.  And they expected to get it without even consulting the WO''s ( who this directely affects).  That just takes pure balls.  Well when the CRJ700''s were ordered and the WO''s approached about pay rates for them, Mgt was told that UALPA cannot have all the seats, it would have to adhere to the original protocols of 50/50, no matter what plane it is.  Guess what? UALPA did''nt like that, so now here we are with Chip and friends screaming contract violation.

That my freinds is the real story behind UALPA''s actions.

----------------​

Sorry, I don''t buy it. Management plans on using the RJs to replace many of the routes which they have taken or will take mainline flying from. That makes it MAINLINE FLYING. Therefore, IT SHOULD BE FLOWN BY MAINLINE PILOTS. That''s all there is to it, and if you don''t like it, TOO BAD! Management, from day one, said that ALL the MDA flying (I believe they offered this even before it was called "Midatlantic") would be offered to mainline furloughees first. All that ALPA did was set a "scope" limit of 25 CRJ-700s, all of which had to go to MDA (because of the size, since all large RJs are going to MDA). That''s it. You, my friend, have a persecution complex. I, personally, would not go to MDA in the event that a furlough reaches me, as I can do any number of things for a better living than flying a commuter for less than half of what a mainline copilot makes.

 

[BoredToDeath]

----------------
On 6/3/2003 5:05:40 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

----------------
On 6/3/2003 3:43:38 PM BoredToDeath wrote:



But a funny thing happened when Mgt went to UALPA to disscuss putting 70 seaters at the WO''s.  UALPA decided to change the J4J agreement to suit them even more than it already does.  They wanted all the jobs on the CRJ700''s.  Imagine that.  And they expected to get it without even consulting the WO''s ( who this directely affects).  That just takes pure balls.  Well when the CRJ700''s were ordered and the WO''s approached about pay rates for them, Mgt was told that UALPA cannot have all the seats, it would have to adhere to the original protocols of 50/50, no matter what plane it is.  Guess what? UALPA did''nt like that, so now here we are with Chip and friends screaming contract violation.

That my freinds is the real story behind UALPA''s actions.

----------------​

Sorry, I don''t buy it. Management plans on using the RJs to replace many of the routes which they have taken or will take mainline flying from. That makes it MAINLINE FLYING. Therefore, IT SHOULD BE FLOWN BY MAINLINE PILOTS. That''s all there is to it, and if you don''t like it, TOO BAD! Management, from day one, said that ALL the MDA flying (I believe they offered this even before it was called "Midatlantic") would be offered to mainline furloughees first. All that ALPA did was set a "scope" limit of 25 CRJ-700s, all of which had to go to MDA (because of the size, since all large RJs are going to MDA). That''s it. You, my friend, have a persecution complex. I, personally, would not go to MDA in the event that a furlough reaches me, as I can do any number of things for a better living than flying a commuter for less than half of what a mainline copilot makes.

----------------​

Oldie,

No offense but like so many Mainline Dads, your treated like mushrooms(keeped in the dark and feed sh@t). Please read all of LOA 83 and the attachments that were made to it. Make sure you pay close attention to all the areas that concern the CRJ700, and you will realize that just about everything you just said was pure dung.

For your reading enjoyment most, if not all of LOA83, is posted on this thread as well. Unfortunately I do not have the ammendments handy.

And as far as you not going to MDA, well thats your choice. At least by not going you will open a spot for a WO pilot who will take their longevity and senoirity with them.

You know for whats its worth, when are the Mainline pilots going to realize that they are a WO too, and turn around and work with their WO conterparts instead of against us.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Michael707767:

Michael said: "Prior to the announcement of the -705 for USAir, Bombardier never said anything about a -900 with fewer seats being called a -705. It was an attempt to get around the USAirs pilot contract, plain and simple."

Chip comments: Michael, your comment is accurate. Moreover, ALPA is not inclined to grant management further scope relief and will not permit the CRJ-705 to operate, at this time.

Chip

 

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
Oldie,

No offense but like so many Mainline Dads, your treated like mushrooms(keeped in the dark and feed sh@t). Please read all of LOA 83 and the attachments that were made to it. Make sure you pay close attention to all the areas that concern the CRJ700, and you will realize that just about everything you just said was pure dung.

For your reading enjoyment most, if not all of LOA83, is posted on this thread as well. Unfortunately I do not have the ammendments handy.

And as far as you not going to MDA, well thats your choice. At least by not going you will open a spot for a WO pilot who will take their longevity and senoirity with them.

You know for whats its worth, when are the Mainline pilots going to realize that they are a WO too, and turn around and work with their WO conterparts instead of against us.

----------------
NO, you won''t take your seniority. Sorry to burst your bubble. You''d have to be hired by mainline first. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about, so you really should inform yourself. MDA is going to be operated as a division of mainline. You would have to apply, interview, resign your old job and accept one at MDA. I read this as STARTING AT THE BOTTOM, just as everyone else has to do. Most mainline guys don''t have anything against the WO guys, except for the guys like you, who feel that we owe you something. Sorry, it doesn''t work that way. Mainline guys ALL paid their dues somewhere else before getting here, and we''ll be damned before we give it up without a fight. There wasn''t a whole lot that ALPA could do while the company was in chapter 11, but it isn''t anymore, so don''t expect all the "rooling over" anymore.