Republic Pilots Ratify J4j Amendment

Rico

Veteran
Jun 8, 2004
1,006
0
I was not in whatever negotiations that were held, so I can only go with what my side has told us. I do know is that in both our union and pilot's group's opinion this was not just an asset sale. So in our opinion it was our pilot group coming down from the ALG/Mohawk LCC provisions in the interest of reaching an agreement between the parties (prior to having to go to arbitration).

Seems harsh, but you either fight to keep your contractual protection, or you do not. Remember that this is a little bigger than just 300 some odd MDA pilots, this is somewhat precedent setting in which a portion of a mainline carrier is bought outright by an affiliate.

Think about it in these terms, say this relentless erosion of scope continues, and instead of E-170's we were talking about your holding company buying up both the planes and flying of a larger narrowbody aircraft like the B737...

Such a thing is not so far fetched

In that case, would you feel differently about the efforts of our pilot group to maintain the senority we earned, the position we bid, the flying we did...? Would it seems different to you because you did not operate that large of an aircaft yet...?

I dunno, I would assume that threashold might seem different to you for some reason, but in reality, it should not. We are afterall Mainline US Airways pilots and the E-170 is a mainline US Airways aircraft (dont let the express painted on the side fool you)

What happens now sets the tone for what could happen in the future, not only at US Airways/AWA, but UAL, DAL, NWA, CAL, and AAL too... Think about that for a second or two.

So if the ALPA negotiators pressed to maintain as much of the remaining fragmentation protection that our US Airways CBA had left after two BK's, I would not sweat them quite so much if I were you

So sorry if such a thing seems a bit harsh to you and your fellow pilots. But our being out of a job, or airline managements being able to easily outsource yet more mainline flying seems kinda harsh to us...
 

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,488
NC
USA320Pilot said:
HighFlyerMiami:
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,†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
[post="296455"][/post]​
Facts? What facts?

Jim has always used etiquette, I don't believe you can say the same.
 

CHQDRVR

Member
Apr 23, 2004
45
0
Rico:

Obviously we are both going on what our respective sides have told us. I said a couple threads back that I think selling the jets out from under you is not "fair and equitable", regardless if it triggers an asset sale vs. change of control or not. I don't blame y'all for fighting for that, regardless of the aircraft size. I think Allegheny/Mohawk with fences would benefit both groups. The more I hear the more I tend to believe that ALPA purposely pushed an integration plan they knew was untenable to us (the CHQ/IBT group). It almost seems they wanted to force arbitration...

Regardless I don't have any specific ill-will towards your group; the constant characterization of my pilot group as a bunch of 22-year-olds looking to grab your seats is both inaccurate and tiring. Just trying to do my part to counter the misconceptions. Fly safe.
 

careerfurloughee

Advanced
Apr 7, 2004
233
0
USA320Pilot said:
HighFlyerMiami:


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.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="296455"][/post]​

USA320Pilot,

This reads like your resume. I seem to remember a certain letter to the editor that got you in some hot water and didn't you get suspended from the ALPA web board for "misrepresenting information" ? As for your third charge, anyone that has read your posts knows how badly you will twist information to promote your own agenda.


Careerfurloughee
 

ClueByFour

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,566
37
www.usaviation.com
USA320Pilot said:
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.
[post="296455"][/post]​

Perhaps because what First Officer Pollock and the AWA ALPA guys think really does not matter? They can say anything they want about the -170 flying, but unless ALPA wins that arbitration, the flying is gone. Outside of the arbitration, neither MEC nor NC can stop it. ALPA bluster does not equal a "key point."

Perhaps BB does not believe that the AAA ALPA Chairman's word constitutes fact. History would prove him right on that point (how's your pension, anyway)?
 

careerfurloughee

Advanced
Apr 7, 2004
233
0
USA320Pilot said:
HighFlyerMiami:


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


Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="296455"][/post]​


Simple question. Have you USA320Pilot ever "experienced a furlough" ?

Careerfurloughee
 

Rico

Veteran
Jun 8, 2004
1,006
0
Regardless I don't have any specific ill-will towards your group; the constant characterization of my pilot group as a bunch of 22-year-olds looking to grab your seats is both inaccurate and tiring. Just trying to do my part to counter the misconceptions. Fly safe.
Well, I cannot sday that hard feelings towards your pilot group will go away anytime soon over here. Call it the difference in situations, where your airline is growing as the mainline carriers you replace shrink.

As for the "Characterization", hard to shake pal. You might have some guys with some experience, but we have everyone with lots of experience, some with decades of it.

Being as on a recent ORF overnight, a conversation was held with one of your E-170 Captains flying under Shuttle America, with a whopping 17 months under his belt since he was hired (his words)... And the fact that twentysomething E-145 crews are the norm for us to observe in PHL and DCA... And the fact that many of your new hires have come to you via the pseudo-pay for training routes disguised as University flight training programs... You can kinda understand where we get our cues from.

Tell you what. I have 15 years of professional flying under my belt, 12 of which were in the airlines, 6 of which were as a captain. Riddle Grad, Two types, over 10K in total time, and coming up on 1000 hrs in the E-170... And I am what I would consider inexperienced in comparison to most of my MDA counterparts.

So excuse me if I (and many others) precieve you guys as inexperienced in comparison to both myself and those I fly with at MDA...

Midatlantic obviously is the most experienced "express" carrier there is, because it is in reality just mainline pretendeing to be express, not an express carrier like your own pretending to be mainline.

Harsh, yeah. But true.
 

CHQDRVR

Member
Apr 23, 2004
45
0
Rico said:
Well, I cannot sday that hard feelings towards your pilot group will go away anytime soon over here. Call it the difference in situations, where your airline is growing as the mainline carriers you replace shrink.

As for the "Characterization", hard to shake pal. You might have some guys with some experience, but we have everyone with lots of experience, some with decades of it.

Being as on a recent ORF overnight, a conversation was held with one of your E-170 Captains flying under Shuttle America, with a whopping 17 months under his belt since he was hired (his words)... And the fact that twentysomething E-145 crews are the norm for us to observe in PHL and DCA... And the fact that many of your new hires have come to you via the pseudo-pay for training routes disguised as University flight training programs... You can kinda understand where we get our cues from.

Tell you what. I have 15 years of professional flying under my belt, 12 of which were in the airlines, 6 of which were as a captain. Riddle Grad, Two types, over 10K in total time, and coming up on 1000 hrs in the E-170... And I am what I would consider inexperienced in comparison to most of my MDA counterparts.

So excuse me if I (and many others) precieve you guys as inexperienced in comparison to both myself and those I fly with at MDA...

Midatlantic obviously is the most experienced "express" carrier there is, because it is in reality just mainline pretendeing to be express, not an express carrier like your own pretending to be mainline.

Harsh, yeah. But true.
[post="296755"][/post]​
Riddle grad, and you bash the people coming from University training programs? Pot, meet kettle, eh?

As to the rest: Yep, we've got 17-month captains on the E170 at S5 right now. For the captain seat that's the junior airplane right now, due to seat locks and growth vs. shrinkage. (That's right, the 145 fleet here is SHRINKING, not growing). I'm not arguing relative experience here, just the characterization of the group as young pilots hungry for everyone else's flying. Re-read the quote you used.

How much experience did you have, and how old were you when you started your airline career at Allegheny? The difference in your experience then and now is that the e145 and 170 have unfortunately become the entry-level airplane into airline flying, where the j31s and Metroliners and Dashs were 15 years ago. BTW when you took the flow-up to MDA and started flying an F28-sized airplane for 37/hour did you think you were "destroying the industry" or keeping another mainline pilot furloughed longer? Or were you taking the options available to you in a radically changed industry? If the source of your distaste towards CHQ pilots is the relative state of our respective companies, well, you've been in the industry long enough to know better. That's right up there with me blaming a mainline pilot for caving on scope so I could fly a 50-70 seat jet here instead of on the mainline property.

BTW I fully agree that MDA is mainline pretending to be Express. No one here at CHQ is pretending to be mainline, though. I don't view that as a harsh statement unless you buy into the fiction that working at an Express/Connection carrier defines you as a lesser person. Only a few misguided souls on this board seem to hold that view.
 

St. Leibowitz

Member
Aug 19, 2002
60
0
ERAU class of 83
83-85 CFI
85-87 night freight
87-89 charter
89-99 corporate TP and jet
99-present CHQ (now E-145 CA)
13000+ hours

I paid for my schooling and licences. I did not pay for my job. Ever. Got fired from a CFI job because I refused to. I worked hard to get here and I work hard now.

I declined an offer from a "legacy" carrier in April of 2001 because I paid attention to the financial news and I was nervous about starting over. It was a good decision.

Not all CHQ people are salivating over this deal. Not all of them are even happy about it. Some think it stinks. Based upon what I have learned from this thread, I am not sure either group has an accurate picture.

I'm sorry for the repeated hosings the mainline guys have been, and are being, subjected to. I'm not going to quit my job in protest.

You're painting with a broad brush, Rico. We have our brats, but I've seen the brats everywhere. Not all the brats are at CHQ and not all CHQ people are brats.
 

elixir

Senior
Jun 2, 2005
385
0
I've been watching you guys banter for a few days and I have an observation for you both:

You are both arguing sides of a difference that is totally unresolvable at this point...

And that is:
1) "regionals" are no longer "regional"
2) the equipment is no longer "entry level" as has previously been known
3) the "expected" flow-up to a major is gone, so those pilots are optimizing their options right where they are today.
4) respect for the "heirarchy" previously enjoyed by "majors" is gone.

As such, and being furloughed from U, working at Mesa....(again)...I have lived, and am continuing to live from a dual perspective. The position of the MAA pilots is PERFECTLY understandable....although no longer "enforceable" in todays environment. And the CHQ/REP guys are simply doing what everybody with an untethered leash do these days...run with it. ALPA has "waffled" it's way out of the kitchen altogether...leaving a path of wreckage that we haven't seen the end of yet.

REP people....feel free to do what ALPA's slumber has allowed...but there is a price to pay long-term. If the price is acceptable, you have been given the keys to larger and larger planes...at the expense of the people who (historically speaking), should be flying them...

I personally hold ALPA and managements together jointly responsible for the state of this issue, but mostly ALPA...as we used to have a type 3 payscale at MAINLINE...which would be more than adequate to cover all the 170 and up flying currently being debated.
 

Light Years

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
2,878
0
www.usaviation.com
CHQDRVR said:
No one here at CHQ is pretending to be mainline, though. I
[post="296892"][/post]​

OK, then what are you? When someone buys a ticket from IAD to IAH on United, or PHL-SYR on US Airways, who are they expecting? Do you sell tickets? Buy fuel? Have marketing? Worry about competition? Route structure? Brand? Worry about making a profit?

No. You pretend to be whoever you are contracting for (please don't call it a "codeshare", because a codeshare is a completely different thing).

So yes, you do pretend to be other airlines, that is what you are paid for. :unsure:
 
Jan 1, 2004
67
0
Light Years said:
OK, then what are you? When someone buys a ticket from IAD to IAH on United, or PHL-SYR on US Airways, who are they expecting? Do you sell tickets? Buy fuel? Have marketing? Worry about competition? Route structure? Brand? Worry about making a profit?

No. You pretend to be whoever you are contracting for (please don't call it a "codeshare", because a codeshare is a completely different thing).

So yes, you do pretend to be other airlines, that is what you are paid for. :unsure:
[post="296905"][/post]​

OK so LightYears what do you want the people at CHQ to do? An honest, reasonable answer please. Continuous insults are not helping the cause for anyone.
 

elixir

Senior
Jun 2, 2005
385
0
Here's a simple explanation for all the confusion:


ut·source Audio pronunciation of "outsourcing" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (outsôrs, -srs)
tr.v. out·sourced, out·sourc·ing, out·sourc·es

To send out (work, for example) to an outside provider or manufacturer in order to cut costs.


Because ALPA has failed so incredibly miserably to hold itself together, it's no surprise they're reaping what they either sowed, or allowed to be sowed for them.

You CHQ folks had an opportunity to kill this deal by voting NO on the J4J protocol, which is the enabling instrument of this deal...and one of the few places you guys actually had a choice in the matter. You did what you did...too late to ask now "what you should do"

Since IBT is involved, I guess it's no surprise...although ALPA is so numb it wouldn't have mattered if it was an ALPA carrier in question.