Republic F/A's?
- Thread starter xoxo
- Start date
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
It may just be a "corporate" standard, but if it is sometbing that is in their ops manual, then it's binding as far as the Feds are concerned. Maybe not as big of deal as an FAR, but binding, anyway.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
Piney,
That is because they do all of the flying themselves. They don't have contract express carriers picking up the slack.
And why would you say you would "cost the carrier money as well"? Aren't you one that is complaining that service went down but not the price? Well, the more money the carriers waste the more the product goes down... right?
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
There you go "trying" to hurt the very people you CLAIM to care about...the employees of US Airways. Although, the $50 is nice, after taxes it is doing nothing for me. I'd personally rather have them take the "hat trick" for the F/a/pilot group and put it into new computers for the crewrooms and not making it look like a bomb shelter.
Bottom line... So, they asked you not to put a lap top in the seatback. Is it worth acting like Rambo to show your self importance? I am not being rude, this is just so trivial. Even FF need to learn to pick their battles. This would be a stupid battle.
ItsNotThatSerious
Advanced
- Jul 25, 2005
- 121
- 0
Twice,
There is a difference in a laptop and a newspaper. I think if they are saying you cant put newspapers...etc. in the seat back pocket then they have a real problem. The real problem is most passengers who are put off by such a stupid interpretation of the rules have no idea they are on a regional airline and not the real usairways.
StewGuy86
Senior
So true....especially for the last 5 years!
FAR 121.589 is the FAR governing carry-on baggage and stowage. Under 121.589, each airline has its "approved program", thus becoming the FAR for that company.
Republic is obviously very strict with their policy.
HPs point of this FAR reads :
"Carry-on items must not be placed in seatback pockets. Seatback pockets are designed to hold lightweight objects such as safety information cards, magazines, and unused sick sacks. Items such as laptop computers, CD players, etc. must be stowed properly in appropriate carry-on stowage areas."
[appropriate areas would be the overhead or under the seat in front. Not on the lap, or the seat next to you]
I'm guessing Republic's wording of ONLY those items placed by the airline is the sticking point for their FAs.
Silly as it is, thats the rule there, I guess.
Dosen't sound like the FAs are allowed to use their common sense.
If a HP FA allowed a pax to leave their laptop or water bottle in the seatpocket, the airline would be in violation of FAR 121.589, and subject to fine if caught by an inspector.
Republic is obviously very strict with their policy.
HPs point of this FAR reads :
"Carry-on items must not be placed in seatback pockets. Seatback pockets are designed to hold lightweight objects such as safety information cards, magazines, and unused sick sacks. Items such as laptop computers, CD players, etc. must be stowed properly in appropriate carry-on stowage areas."
[appropriate areas would be the overhead or under the seat in front. Not on the lap, or the seat next to you]
I'm guessing Republic's wording of ONLY those items placed by the airline is the sticking point for their FAs.
Silly as it is, thats the rule there, I guess.
Dosen't sound like the FAs are allowed to use their common sense.
If a HP FA allowed a pax to leave their laptop or water bottle in the seatpocket, the airline would be in violation of FAR 121.589, and subject to fine if caught by an inspector.
JAXPax
Senior
It isn't the FAs at Republic interpreting the rule that way. It is their principle operations inspector (POI) from the FAA who has set this interpretation and has taken past action against flight attendants for not enforcing it.
My point exactly.
A FAs common sense would tell him/her that a newspaper in a seatpocket does not pose a hazard.
But the FA now knows they will have major hassle with a supervisor and a mark on their file if they use their common sense.
Republic FAs are replacement workers. They fly planes that used to be US Airways mainline planes flown by US Airways mainline FAs. If you are a US West or even clueless US East FA you should educate your coworkers on just exactly what Republic Airlines is.
US mainline decided they wanted EMB-170s so they bought them and recalled thier furloughed pilots and FAs to fly them. They were still mainline (manuals, jumpseating etc) but they called it "MidAtlantic Airways" Division and put US Airways Express on the side even though they are pretty much full size planes, not RJs. They operated under union contracts that were never printed and no one could ever see. All the people who came back to MAA were willing to take the huge paycut and sacrifice for the company to help them be successful... you could really tell they loved thier job because they had great service... true professionals.
Despite the huge customer response to the airplane and the crews, US Airways needed cash for management retntion bonuses . So they went ahead and sold the planes to a company called Republic which is the same as Chataqua and Shuttle America... like Mesa they fly Express for different airlines. They told the MDA people it would just be a new owner and nothing would change. Months later Republic came back and said they could interview if they liked but they were not being offered a job. Instead they hired new hires or let people transfer from Chtaqa from the RJS. Republic started taking the planes in September i think and they will all be there by May. All of the "MDA" employees- 800 at the peak will be gone, replaced by contract workers basically.
America West ALPA and AFA should have dropped the DOH issue and instead fought to keep those planes on the property. Thats 28 less airplanes to provide jobs for mainline employees. If they are smart they should demand that all EMMB flying, not just the EMB-190 be done by mainline and get the replacements off the property for good.
I wonder what Doug Parker thinks of the whole thing... there are alot of angry employees, fights in the crew room etc. Plus the Republic people dont even make any effort to even ACT like US Airways or US Airways Express. They are not only pissing off the employees now they are pissing off the passengers too, so I dont see how or why the outsourcing of those planes is worth it to anyone. Not to mention USAir pays all of the costs plus guarantees Republic a profit for every flight, so how is that cheaper than running them yourself? And you wonder why people arent so rosy on the merger... less jobs for mainline, EAST and WEST
USstew23
Veteran
Right on Fly!! I thought that I read somewhere last year that in 2 years we have the right to buy back the airplanes and the slots that we sold to Republic. It's been a while. Also my understanding was that Doug Parker wanted to keep the 170's but it was already a done deal because of the BK court. Not sure if this stuff is rumor or not, if someone is in the know please share!! Also I know that US did not take the investment money from Republic, they sold the planes and slots but said no thank you to the other.
That might just be the slots not sure about the airplanes. Bet the nasty attitude Republic's teenage FAs have been giving to the MDA people would change if they lost THIER jobs.
USstew23
Veteran
For Real!! Although I would never praise anyone losing their jobs (we all know how that feels) I do think that Republic has gotten a little too big for their britches and need to be brought down a notch. Somehow they seem to think that they are some big bad airline now. WRONG. I think they have forgotten that if the BIG airlines (UA, DL, AA, US) find no need for them then they are no longer in the picture.
The planes are history, the slots can be repurchased. Parker did say he wanted to keep the 170's but IMO that is all BS! We were in BK, all he had to do was go to the judge and say Airways needed the revenue. After all no money had actually changed hands at that point. The real reason the deal went thru is because our "talent" needed their bonuses!
The whole deal was for 100 mil or so. Since then the Sim was pulled off the table. I was told 15 million for that. That leaves 85 million. Of that half was used to pay off ATSB loan guarantees (the 170's were collateral) That leaves 43 million. I bet everyone can guess how much bonus money was given out this fall. Thats right folks Your pensions and pay cuts were given away to buy these 170's, and about 1000 employees are being shown the door again, all so the scum bags in the former CCY could get their bonuses.
Now before any accountants start claiming my figures are wrong, the point is they are close enough. Airways did not need to sell these aircraft to come out of BK.
SegmentKing
Veteran
I believe that Eastshore Aviation (Air Wisconsin) and ACE Holdings (Error Canada.. eerr Air Canada) are the only two airline investors in the *new* USAirways. If Republic or Wexford or Chautauqua or whatever they are had invested in US, you'd see a lot more flying by them right now, just as we've seen with AWAC moving into PHL and AC taking over our A330 maintenance program.
In regards to feelings on Republic, I believe there was a thread/poll about Contract Carriers and someone mentioned Republic was the most hated (hey, I'd hate to have my job outsourced too!).
I'm not a fan of this deal, but I will sleep much better at night once all the MDA guys are back in MAINLINE planes flying again, be it for HP or US. I know a lot of my friends are stuck between unemployment or moving to Phoenix (which they can't afford).
In regards to feelings on Republic, I believe there was a thread/poll about Contract Carriers and someone mentioned Republic was the most hated (hey, I'd hate to have my job outsourced too!).
I'm not a fan of this deal, but I will sleep much better at night once all the MDA guys are back in MAINLINE planes flying again, be it for HP or US. I know a lot of my friends are stuck between unemployment or moving to Phoenix (which they can't afford).
