Re: RAH
04-14-2011, 07:47 PM
#231
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Republic, Shuttle, and Chautauqua have been operating as a single carrier transportation system for several years. Republic has been operating 86 seat 175's for Airways for many years. Delta pilots never saw a problem with their scope with that situation. Chautauqua has been DBA US Airways well before we ever had a Delta contract.
However, 86 seat Midwest E175s are not a scope violation for Delta. 98 seat E190s and larger are. The way I read our contract and given when the first E190s were acquired from UsAir you're looking at mid 2010 as being the start of the violation.
Also, ALPA has argued this in front of the NMB:
ALPA states that in the time frame since the Board’s findings in Chautauqua Airlines, 37 NMB 148 (2010), RAH has begun to integrate its Midwest and Frontier brands operationally, and is using both MWA (Republic d/b/a Midwest Airlines) and Frontier mainline planes, equipment only used in branded operations, to provide that integrated service.... This ongoing integration of operations has now integrated Frontier/Lynx into the single transportation system, so that the system today includes the Carriers (CHQ, Shuttle, RA, Frontier, Lynx) “plus Midwest.” ALPA believes that the intertwined nature of RAH’s two types of operations make the finding of a single transportation system the only result consistent with the RLA’s representation structure.
RAH and UsAir are different airlines and ownership. It's not Frontier that is the problem, it's CHQ and Shuttle. Frontier and RAH can do all they want, they just can't operate CHQ and Shuttle or any other of their carriers for Delta.
RAH could have CHQ, Shuttle and RA flying and never be in violation of the scope clause at Delta. Their aircraft size up until the E190s was in compliance.
I agree that if you think it's a scope violation then you should fight to get it changed or fixed to your liking but just as American pilots found out when the 170's were originally on the Chautauqua certificate they will just move more stuff around or put all their 145s operating for Frontier on the Republic or Frontier certificate.
I hate to say it but Bedford isn't going to close up Frontier because of your scope, whether you win a grievance or not... The arbitrator at best is just going to tell Republic how they need to move some planes around to certificates that don't affect Delta. But if it's really a fight that your pilot group is fired up about then it's a fight worth fighting. Good luck...
04-14-2011, 07:57 PM
#232
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,269
You didn't have to use all those words to say that CheckEssential was correct. Did you think we would look at all those words of yours and not recall that they didn't respond at all to CheckEssential's point? Your telling us that we don't understand our contract as well as some "expert" lawyer was...well, silly.
Fair enough. I'll stop preaching the actual facts, if the "burnt out regional pilots" stop hurling epithets such as:
- Major pilots threw the junior pilots under the bus
- Senior major pilots sold scope to pad their own paychecks and retirements
- Etc, etc.
Carl
Fair enough. I'll stop preaching the actual facts, if the "burnt out regional pilots" stop hurling epithets such as:
- Major pilots threw the junior pilots under the bus
- Senior major pilots sold scope to pad their own paychecks and retirements
- Etc, etc.
Carl
Either way I agree with you that regional is bad and it's lessening my chances at a mainline career. I also never said any of the stuff you quoted above and all I've been saying is that it's gonna take the collective force of mainline pilots to reign in scope. If the flying is there then there will be regionals. If the flying isn't there then there won't be regionals. Its simple economics. If you want to let off some steam and talk down to some pilots your time may be better suited at aviation colleges and flight schools. Like I said we get it, we live it everyday...
04-14-2011, 08:03 PM
#234
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,269
Actually we have been paying attention.
However, 86 seat Midwest E175s are not a scope violation for Delta. 98 seat E190s and larger are. The way I read our contract and given when the first E190s were acquired from UsAir you're looking at mid 2010 as being the start of the violation......
However, 86 seat Midwest E175s are not a scope violation for Delta. 98 seat E190s and larger are. The way I read our contract and given when the first E190s were acquired from UsAir you're looking at mid 2010 as being the start of the violation......
Now what's stopping ALPA from going for the jugular?
If you think it's because of a conflict of interest can't you file some kind of DFR suit?
Are you, Carl, and the few on here the majority or are you the few who actually get it and want to do something about it?
When can we expect to see the legal proceedings begin?
04-14-2011, 08:07 PM
#235
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You're right I'm not a lawyer like you mainline guys so forgive me. But let me get something straight with you. I do hope that the Majors take back or hold the line on scope in their new contracts. I'm not some iPod wearing maverick who gets excited when the regional I fly for signs a new contract for additional flying. The only thing I get excited for are my days off or when one of my peers starts class at a Major. My goal is to end up at a Major at some point and I realize that with every new airplane flown at a regional it's several mainline jobs that won't be available to me. My whole argument started with the fact that if the Major airlines keep putting out capacity agreements to bid on there will be companies out there willing to take the work. In turn there will be pilots who are going to take those jobs. Nothing you can really say to stop that at the regional/bottom level. I think most pilots these days know what they are getting themselves into when they sign on with a regional. In my humble opinion the path of least resistance to bringing the flying back is by voting no on any contract that allows any more of it or even better shrinking the amount that is currently out there. And if you want the latter you better be willing to spend some serious negotiating capital to get it back. You're high if you don't think that management isn't going to fight very aggressively to at least keep the flying where it is and most likely dangle some short term QOL or financial gains to relax it a bit more. All of us at the "regionals" know the situation, we don't need some guy flying a 747 to tell us "how it is." We live it and deal with the BS everyday... And if I one day decide to be a martyr of the industry, quit, and take some garbage job flying urine samples at night in a 172 there's just going to be some punk ready and willing to do my job for even less than I'm making now. Preaching to a bunch of burnt out regional pilots does nothing but drive a larger wedge between the "regional" and "mainline" pilots.
So let me just turn this around slightly, not every major pilot voted yes to scope erosion for pay nor is every regional pilot an ipod loving, no-hat wearing, 300-hour wonderkid from Embry Riddle Daytona Beach who thinks the world owes him a jet. Not every contract with scope erosion was signed with the promise of pay raises either btw, some were but if you remember the famous line "we have to pass the law to find out what's in the law." Fog of war, apathy, not knowing the implications and I'm sure a lot of other stuff goes into a contract. Seems to happen every time at every airline... imho.
What is going on, whether you look at the Delta Pilots Association thread or Latest and Greatest about Delta is you will see guys from up and down the seniority list at Delta fighting the organization that continues to negotiate TA's and promote contracts as "sign this because this is the best we can get and if you say no I'm really scared what might happen but I can guarantee it won't be better." Guys say they heard that in 1996 and to an extent in 2008, but I also heard it during Coex's negotiations. Ironic eh? Same exact "this is the best, doom and gloom if you don't sign" thing.
The one organization that represents both the airline pilots and outsourced airline pilots is supposed to protect the interests of all. So before pilots are blamed, take a look at D.C. where the former President of ALPA was making $503,000 a year to put an end to lithium batteries in the cockpit or something.
Now I know this differs from what I wrote above about even ALPA saying RAH was STS. I think that's profound, but it's because they were looking out for the interests of Midwest pilots. But we'll take that plus the other evidence and expect those who are in elected power to run with it.
For more info: http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2011/38n039.pdf
04-14-2011, 08:09 PM
#236
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Thanks for clearing that up a bit. I do appreciate the logical response that wasn't full of emotion.
Now what's stopping ALPA from going for the jugular? ALPA's conflict of interest.
If you think it's because of a conflict of interest can't you file some kind of DFR suit? Maybe
Are you, Carl, and the few on here the majority or are you the few who actually get it and want to do something about it? No, most of the guys I fly with talk about this stuff.
When can we expect to see the legal proceedings begin? You'd probably see a DPA union drive or maybe, as some maybe or maybe not jokingly say, an IBT drive!
Now what's stopping ALPA from going for the jugular? ALPA's conflict of interest.
If you think it's because of a conflict of interest can't you file some kind of DFR suit? Maybe
Are you, Carl, and the few on here the majority or are you the few who actually get it and want to do something about it? No, most of the guys I fly with talk about this stuff.
When can we expect to see the legal proceedings begin? You'd probably see a DPA union drive or maybe, as some maybe or maybe not jokingly say, an IBT drive!
04-14-2011, 08:15 PM
#237
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Mind you, Delta's contract allows for 255 70+ seat regional jets of which 120+/- depending on the situation 76 seaters. If you're airline, say RAH, flies a jet larger than 76 seats then it's what we consider not permitted but it's permitted as long as it's not flown for Delta, doesn't compete with Delta on a given route and isn't certified for more than 106 seats and actually configured for 98 seats or more.
If RAH was ousted from DCI those jets and flying go to another DCI. But if the contract is in violation that has to be addressed otherwise you're giving the green light for every contract carrier to do this very same thing.
Also - most imho of the pilots who bother to come to an anonymous internet forum and discuss topics, whether they're pro-ALPA or not, would not take pay to erode scope. Just a hunch. But remember that's never how a contract is presented in TA form as it may be hidden in a 16,000 word section 1 or come through a surprise LOA or it might actually be written but never enforced.
.
If RAH was ousted from DCI those jets and flying go to another DCI. But if the contract is in violation that has to be addressed otherwise you're giving the green light for every contract carrier to do this very same thing.
Also - most imho of the pilots who bother to come to an anonymous internet forum and discuss topics, whether they're pro-ALPA or not, would not take pay to erode scope. Just a hunch. But remember that's never how a contract is presented in TA form as it may be hidden in a 16,000 word section 1 or come through a surprise LOA or it might actually be written but never enforced.
.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-14-2011 at 08:28 PM.
04-14-2011, 08:22 PM
#238
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,269
Mind you, Delta's contract allows for 255 70+ seat regional jets of which 120+/- depending on the situation 76 seaters. If you're airline, say RAH, flies a jet larger than 76 seats then it's what we consider not permitted but it's permitted as long as it's not flown for Delta, doesn't compete with Delta on a given route and isn't certified for more than 106 seats and actually configured for 98 seats or more.
If RAH was ousted from DCI those jets and flying go to another DCI. But if the contract is in violation that has to be addressed otherwise you're giving the green light for every contract carrier to do this very same thing.
Also - most imho of the pilots who bother to come to an anonymous internet forum and discuss topics, whether they're pro-ALPA or not, would not take pay to erode scope. Just a hunch. But remember that's never how a contract is presented in TA form.
If RAH was ousted from DCI those jets and flying go to another DCI. But if the contract is in violation that has to be addressed otherwise you're giving the green light for every contract carrier to do this very same thing.
Also - most imho of the pilots who bother to come to an anonymous internet forum and discuss topics, whether they're pro-ALPA or not, would not take pay to erode scope. Just a hunch. But remember that's never how a contract is presented in TA form.
04-14-2011, 08:35 PM
#240
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Its the ordinary line pilots who are insisting that the contract be enforced.
We may or may not succeed in forcing ALPA to act.
Moak doesn't want this battle. So far, he's been able to just ignore the rank and file. Some of us have been yelling about this since the day RAH bought Frontier and Midwest out of bankruptcy. Its hard to generate enough pressure with limited communication tools and the general level of apathy out there.
This time might be different though.
ALPA's been insisting RAH is "not a single carrier" for a long time but this NMB ruling saying that they are has a lot of people taking a second look.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
