Republic Pilots Ratify J4j Amendment

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
USA320Pilot said:
BoeingBoy:

Your actions are typical of the “so calledâ€￾ darksider, who is a bitter and angry pilot with an "ax to grind" due to industry changes.

It's always better to look through the windshield instead of looking at the mirror while you're trying to discredit the messenger.

By the way, I believe if you’re going to try to discredit people with misrepresenting information by not providing all of the facts at your disposal, you may need to get a little thicker skin and not be so snesitive.
[post="296072"][/post]​

Etiquette Policy

Flaming and Slamming
"Flaming" is insulting another user's post, opinions, subject, grammar, or an attempt to pick an online fight. "Slamming" is making offensive, condescending, or insulting comments about a user, product, or company (ours or anyone else's) in order to pick an online fight.

CONTINUED, LONG-TERM VIOLATION. Users may not violate the Official Rules in a systematic and continuous method. As such, within any continuous thirty (30) calendar day period, should a user violate the Official Rules four (4) times, the user shall be suspended for five (5) calendar days with the user placed on probation as outlined in Section 2.

Jim

ps....

USA320Pilot said:
Regardless, here is some public information that you could have obtained too, but conveniently left out. How can that be?

-- On August 12, AWA ALPA Negotiating Committee Chairman Mark Burdick said, “This week your Negotiating Committee continued negotiations with the company on the transition agreement in Washington, DC. They did respond with their own version, which we all believe showed considerable interest in moving on some non-economic issues. They even opened the door for discussion of mainline pilots flying the EMB-190/170 aircraft.â€￾

-- Then on August 19, AWA ALPA MEC Chairman JR Baker said on the code-a-phone, "This week both MEC’s have been meeting with the company at our ALPA offices to continue working on securing a Transition Agreement. Items we are discussing include many of the areas that the company and ALPA need to understand as we work to merge the contracts and seniority lists. Of particular concern is protection of flying for both sides and securing and bringing in-house the E-190 flying. There also may be an opportunity to capture the E-170 flying.â€￾
[post="296072"][/post]​


Do you mean you missed my post on Aug 16...

BoeingBoy said:
A couple of recent items concerning MDA.....

From AWA ALPA MEC hotline 8/12/05:

"....we see some hope in the area of E170/190 flying and intend to develop a proposal to capture that flying...."

From AWA ALPA negotiating committee update:

"They [the company - Jim] even opened the door for discussion of mainline pilots flying the EMB-190/170 aircraft."
[post="288697"][/post]​
 

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
BoeingBoy:

Typical response. Thus, if you had the quotes, which I previously posted on this forum, then why did you selectively leave them out of your initial comments? Selective integrity?

That's what I mean about misrepresentation and integrity. Your motivation and true intention is crystal clear, just like with the PA ALPA Reps.

Here's another great quote that you might want to think about. "Integrity is one of several paths. It distinguishes itself from the others because it is the right path, and the only one traveled without regret." Why? Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.

Something to think about...

Meawnhile, it's my understanding the joint ALPA TCC is well on its way to securing EMB-190’s as additional mainline aircraft, with protective language guarding against managements use of those aircraft as replacement mainline aircraft in the post emergent fleet.

Furthermore, the new US Airways and the TCC have agreed to transition agreement conceptual language to:

1) provide jobs for our furloughees to be employed at America West during the interim period between now and the time the operations are integrated, and

2) provide jobs with a recapture of some fleet protection language lost as a result of LOA 93, due to the RC4 not permitting the membership to vote on the Sept. 6 proposal, against the advice of every ALPA advisor, every ALPA MEC officer, and two-thirds of the MEC representatives.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 

St. Leibowitz

Member
Aug 19, 2002
60
0
Rico-

Thanks for the straight answer. Those can be hard to come by. It is appreciated.


It also differs significantly from what the RP group was led to believe. Never could find reference to fenced USX flying in the comms from the IBT on this subject. Not judging the veracity of either source, mind you, but the omission or absence of that very small point makes a very big difference.
 

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
Simple - they didn't apply.....

Seems you're late discovering that there's been a signed contract to sell the 170's to Republic for months since you've only mentioned it recently. A signed contract that gives Republic the final say on whether they get the 170's or not, unless ruled otherwisen't by the judge. And the judge would need a motion from US to rule on - a motion that was never filed.

So Parker, Lakefield, or you could talk about not wanting to sell the 170's all they wanted to (and you did). You could opine about the deal not going thru all you wanted to, and you did. You could talk about the IBT greed souring the deal, and you did.

It didn't mean a thing as long as that signed contract remained in place.

And it did.....

So it wasn't that something changed in "one-day, one-week, or even two-weeks." It was that something didn't change - that signed contract. Something you completely ignored till very recently.

Jim
 

CapnCockroach

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
220
11
www.usaviation.com
Rico said:
Jim...

The wonderful pilots of CHQ have done nothing more than agree to fly larger aircraft under the cushy deal that JFJ has turned out to be for them. If anything this is even more of a affirmation that they are happy with only half of the MDA pilots getting to keep their current jobs in their current aircraft on their current routes and so on...

That is, as long as the MDA guys ARE stapled to the bottom..., In which every single MDA pilot will be junior to the most recent new hire at Chaushuttle Republiqua...

Junior to the most junior guy there... Hard to call it anything other than a staple job Jim

Let me put it into perspective for you. It would be the same as if in the upcoming America West merger, every single HP pilot was senior to every single U pilot. The U pilots might get to "keep" their positions, but they would be junior to every single HP pilot... Including the most recent HP new Hire.

Now, if that "stuation"was what the AWA ALPA demanded, even though they would now be flying your old aircraft, wearing your uniforms, flying your routes out of your bases, and calling themselves "US Airways"...

Well, what exactly would you call that other than a f-ing staple job...?
Oh, BTW, the other "fun" part, is that the MDA pilots will not be able to bid into anything other than US Airways "Express" flying, whaile everyone else on the property is free to bid into the rapid growth found withg the flying CHQ/SA/REP is doing for United and Delta...

Plain and simple, JFJ was only meant to offer jobs to furloughed U pilots in return for scope relief to allow carriers like CHQ to fly USX RJ's... Not as a replacement for contractual fragmentation protection...

If Republic was buying new aircraft, GROWTH aircraft, and wanted to operate them for USX under jets for jobs that would be TOTALLY different. But they are buying OUR jets, and as such should have to abide with what little fragmentation protection remains.

THAT is what LOA 91 is about.
[post="295966"][/post]​

Uhh...hate to say this. But if it was good for TWA/AA then it is good enough for you. Deal with it.
 

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
BoeingBoy:

Go back and read my previous posts. In the past I indicated that US Airways and Republic had a signed agreement, which was the problem for US Airways if it wanted to get out of the MDA deal. In regard to the judge ruling on a motion, which was never filed, I indicated that too.

Again, please read the August 12 and August 19 public comments made by AWA ALPA.

Thanks for reiterating what I indicated before, which if you read closer is not “something I completely ignored till very recently.â€￾

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
USA320Pilot said:
BoeingBoy:

Go back and read my previous posts. In the past I indicated that US Airways and Republic had a signed agreement, which was the problem for US Airways if it wanted to get out of the MDA deal.
[post="296110"][/post]​

You're right -waay waaay waaaay back on Aug 16 you mentioned the signed agreement (actually you said "signed contract"). All of 2-1/2 weeks ago.

About the same time you were saying:

"In my opinion, I believe MDA will not be sold due to ATSB guidelines, less need to obtain additional cash, and Republic CEO Brian Bedford "nickel-and-dimeing" US Airways-America West. Reports indicate the MDA ALPA - Republic IBT pilot issues may have contributed to the EMB-170s not being transferred to Republic, but this issue is secondary to the primary points listed above."

"In addition, I understand both Bruce Lakefield and Doug Parker are perturbed with Brian Bedford and Republic "nickel and dimeing" US Airways, which could cause other repercussions. In my opinion, US Airways may reject some or all of the Chautauqua flying and replace EMB-145s with other Large RJs that have a lower CASM."

In case you missed it too, the CHQ jet service agreement is part of the same signed contract that's resulting in the 170's going to Republic.

Jim
 
OP
H
Aug 22, 2005
51
0
I have been following the MDA discussion for several weeks, and I must say that BoeingBoy has a very strong point here. The thrust of USA320's comments would have one believe that the deal was NOT going to go through...based on supposed inside information. To give MDA employees reason to believe that MDA would not be sold, and that they may keep their jobs, seems irresponsible if the information attained by USA320 did not come directly from the source, instead of via other employees who say they spoke with Parker. To now casually say that things can change in a day or a week is convienant for someone who has been posting misinformation. I feel it calls to question USA320's motives. And if there isn't a motive, and this was just the ramblings of someone who feels "in the know", then one should admit when they are flat out wrong.
 

Rico

Veteran
Jun 8, 2004
1,006
0
1. Jim... It is my understanding that the IBT agreed to and put forth to their membership this modification to their JFJ provisions only to allow further expansion of the scope and size of the program. Included in this was a number of contractual changes in "return" for their agreeing to more JFJ (As if it is some huge burden for them to endure)

Feel free to correct me, but the agreement in no way showed either the IBT's nor their membership's willingness to accept anything other than JFJ protocal on their property. So if the Arbitration goes our way, The IBT would have to agree to the much different conditions defined by LOA 91


2. Everyone else... I asked Mr Parker to his face what was the "deal with MDA", Quite simply, his hands were tied by the previous management's actions and agreements (Bruce A). The new "administration did have a different attitude (and a different financial situation in regards) towards the sale. This is confirmed by the differences in testimony from Bruce A and Jerry G, in that the two contridicted one another in regards to what was the plan for MDA. IMO Bruce A is obviously out of the loop, and only had his own actions and agreements to fall back on rather than anything that has been done since his departure.

3. IMO this could go anyway, no one, and I mean from the pilots to the major players in this have a good idea how it will turn out. What is known is that Republic will fly something for someone, and MDA will be on the US Airways property for the next year no matter what. Past that it remains to be seen how things will develop.

Interestingly, MDA can be retained by the company, and Republic can still obtain and fly theri own E-170's beside them now that Republic has purchased some of the MDA order stream. It would then be just another JFJ carrier like the others. If anyone wants my estimate of what will end up happening, that is it.
 

Hawkhunter

Veteran
Jul 11, 2005
577
521
BoeingBoy said:
Etiquette Policy

Flaming and Slamming
"Flaming" is insulting another user's post, opinions, subject, grammar, or an attempt to pick an online fight. "Slamming" is making offensive, condescending, or insulting comments about a user, product, or company (ours or anyone else's) in order to pick an online fight.

CONTINUED, LONG-TERM VIOLATION. Users may not violate the Official Rules in a systematic and continuous method. As such, within any continuous thirty (30) calendar day period, should a user violate the Official Rules four (4) times, the user shall be suspended for five (5) calendar days with the user placed on probation as outlined in Section 2.

Jim

ps....
Do you mean you missed my post on Aug 16...
[post="296083"][/post]​


BB,

It seems it depends whom the poster is and what subject manner. I was banned twice for posting " affairs in ccy". Another time when I mentioned Bruce **** to leave. Now I read much worse especialy on the NWA board and nothing happens. I will most likely be banned again. Also it takes up to three days for my post to make it to the boards. What say you Tod?.
 

CHQDRVR

Member
Apr 23, 2004
45
0
Rico said:
1. Jim... It is my understanding that the IBT agreed to and put forth to their membership this modification to their JFJ provisions only to allow further expansion of the scope and size of the program. Included in this was a number of contractual changes in "return" for their agreeing to more JFJ (As if it is some huge burden for them to endure)

Feel free to correct me, but the agreement in no way showed either the IBT's nor their membership's willingness to accept anything other than JFJ protocal on their property. So if the Arbitration goes our way, The IBT would have to agree to the much different conditions defined by LOA 91

You are absolutely correct. This vote, frankly had little to nothing to do with MDA and its pilots. Our management is convinced that 190s are coming and feels this change is vital to them coming. They have conveniently ignored the fact that US and HP both forbid the outsourcing of 190s. Our pilot group saw this as an opportunity to secure the LOUs to increase our own QOL. One small thing: although this vote really wasn't about y'alls pilot group, it included a provision for captains to be paid with MDA longevity rather than first-year scale.

As I've stated several times before, the leadership of our union would have been amenable to discussing some sort of "bubble" around US coded RW flying. Have you ever asked your reps why they demanded that we merge you wtih your respective US/AL/PI DOH into our entire master list? With no fences? Did anyone really think we would agree to that? You might be fascinated to hear what our current J4J captains already on the property thought of that proposal. (Hint: they weren't in favor of it).

I agree that if the arbitrator rules in your favor the most likely outcome will be the growth of RW as a J4J operator with the original 25 aircraft remaining on US property. That would be a better outcome for all involved.
 

CHQDRVR

Member
Apr 23, 2004
45
0
USA320Pilot said:
SoldWholeSale’s comments are accurate.


Republic may get 28 more EMB-170s, but their approach has poisoned the realtionship with ALPA and could prevent them from operating anything larger that the EMB-170/145 with no more additional aircraft added to their fleet for US Airways Express.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="295957"][/post]​
So is some other pilot group more "deserving" of operating larger aircraft than the 170? I thought the scope clauses prevented the 190 from being anything other than a mainline aircraft. I sincerely hope you continue to keep them there.

Rico: reading your response as to what MDA pilots wanted for integration, I think that would have been perfectly reasonable. We understand very well what fences are. Have you ever found out why ALPA demanded a DOH integration WITHOUT fences? It almost seems like they wanted to shove something down our throats they knew we'd spit back out. You may not have wanted the left seat in my 145, but I promise you ALPA was trying to secure it for you.
 

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
HighFlyerMiami:

Following the signed agreement to sell MDA there were discussions between senior management and labor to keep the EMB-170s, but as I said before, there was a signed agreement approved by the court. This agreement permits Republic to acquire the aircraft/slots and US Airways did not want to ask the court to reject the deal.

Doug Parker has told a number of people he wished the deal had not been done and I gave you two public quotes from the AWA ALPA MEC chairman & Negotiating Committee chairman about trying to keep the MDA EMB-170 flying in-house after the deal was announced.

Has it happened yet? No, but as I indicated if ALPA wins the grievance Jerry Glass has indicated the deal will not proceed without LOA 91 being honored.

Those are the facts.

In regard to BoeingBoy, here are the facts:

-- He is politically aligned with ALPA’s RC4 (new & old), who were just reprimanded again for misrepresentation by an MEC officer.

-- He misrepresents information too.

-- He tries to twist information and he does not tell the whole story to discredit others.

In my opinion, that is a person who lacks integrity. I believe it is not “"Flaming" is insulting another user's post, opinions, subject, grammar, or an attempt to pick an online fight. "Slamming" is making offensive, condescending, or insulting comments about a user, product, or company (ours or anyone else's) in order to pick an online fight,â€￾ when you point out the facts.

I’m not going to back into the archives and waste my time going back-and-forth in this discussion, but the has selectively picked out certain points and not told the whole story or truth. BoeingBoy failed to place the public comments made by the AWA ALPA MEC chairman and AWA ALPA Negotiating Committee chairman about the possibility of MDA and the EMB-170s not being transferred to Republic, but if he was going to write a balanced comment why leaves these key points out of his post(s)? Does that indicate integrity…I think not.

All I ask for is honesty and integrity...nothing else.

If anything, I believe BoeingBoy could be accused of “Flamingâ€￾.

Regards,

USA320Pilot