Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

XJT undercut AWAC?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-18-2009, 06:27 AM
  #91  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: ERJ CA
Posts: 41
Default

Originally Posted by JoeyMeatballs
hahah, why you so salty brotha? Don't worry I am sure there will be another RFP out there soon that you and your brothern will be able to swoop in and take from everyone.............

but seriously we are starting to sound like girls, its almost cute how we all are defending the companies that we work for, when in reality we are ALL WAY OVERWORKED and UNDERPAID.........
Agreed, time to go to work and get overworked and underpaid, good day!
pjflyer is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 07:44 AM
  #92  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,611
Default

Originally Posted by ebl14
There is one very important pilot group that XJT undercut, a group with hundreds of furloughs, a far better contract than XJTs. The United pilots are the ones who got screwed, stop this regional-regional who is better than who crap.
You never go full retard...

Tell me exactly how one regional replacing another regional's lift "undercuts" the mainline any more than previously done? Don't get me wrong - I'd like UAL to recapture small jet flying just as much as anybody else, but IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN without 1. significant, unified labor action, 2. a major change in management attitude, and 3. additional UAL ALPA concessions to recapture that scope which has already been sold/given away/taken/otherwise lost.

And other than payrates, from what I hear from friends who work at UAL (or worked there until their furlough), XJT has better workrules than UAL's narrowbody pilots enjoy.
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 08:15 AM
  #93  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Kenny's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Professional Expat
Posts: 326
Default

Originally Posted by ebl14
You are all so immature and quick to look down your nose at your brethren at other carriers. I can't believe some of you have demonstrated the "moral character" to hold an ATP.
Thanks so much for the self righteous, sanctimonious indignation. And from a Pinchanickle pilot no less.....
Kenny is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 09:06 AM
  #94  
Gets Weekends Off
 
duvie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP
You never go full retard...

Tell me exactly how one regional replacing another regional's lift "undercuts" the mainline any more than previously done? Don't get me wrong - I'd like UAL to recapture small jet flying just as much as anybody else, but IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN without 1. significant, unified labor action, 2. a major change in management attitude, and 3. additional UAL ALPA concessions to recapture that scope which has already been sold/given away/taken/otherwise lost.

And other than payrates, from what I hear from friends who work at UAL (or worked there until their furlough), XJT has better workrules than UAL's narrowbody pilots enjoy.
FWIW boiler I think the United pilots are working on getting mainline flying on 90 seaters. They wouldn't have to renegotiate their scope agreements for this because I believe 66 seats is currently their max.

DISCLAIMER, the following is pure speculation. I think the biggest obstacle United pilots will face in trying to fly 90 seat A/C is SkyWest management. I believe our management is testing the waters with their agreement with AirTran in regards to a "you sell the tickets and we'll operate our own codeshare flights" type of arrangement. It is my personal believe that our COO sees our future growth in the 100 seat market as a codeshare partner rather than a regional affiliate.

I'm not sure how to stop this new trend in the regional industry, but I think its already well under way.
duvie is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 09:12 AM
  #95  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
Default

Originally Posted by duvie
FWIW boiler I think the United pilots are working on getting mainline flying on 90 seaters. They wouldn't have to renegotiate their scope agreements for this because I believe 66 seats is currently their max.

DISCLAIMER, the following is pure speculation. I think the biggest obstacle United pilots will face in trying to fly 90 seat A/C is SkyWest management. I believe our management is testing the waters with their agreement with AirTran in regards to a "you sell the tickets and we'll operate our own codeshare flights" type of arrangement. It is my personal believe that our COO sees our future growth in the 100 seat market as a codeshare partner rather than a regional affiliate.

I'm not sure how to stop this new trend in the regional industry, but I think its already well under way.
^ What he said
JoeyMeatballs is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 09:16 AM
  #96  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Splanky's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: Moving backwards
Posts: 220
Default

YouTube - Southpark They took our jobs our dogs & broke our jaws HQ
Splanky is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 09:59 AM
  #97  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Maddog FO
Posts: 653
Default

Comparing on time percentages between regionals is pointless. Unless your company provides the ground service for your own flights like the majors do, don't even bother with it.
Roper92 is online now  
Old 11-18-2009, 10:43 AM
  #98  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,611
Default

Originally Posted by duvie
FWIW boiler I think the United pilots are working on getting mainline flying on 90 seaters. They wouldn't have to renegotiate their scope agreements for this because I believe 66 seats is currently their max.
UAL ALPA already owns 71+ seat scope...with the exception of the "AWAC Quota".

1-K-10 "Feeder Carrier" means a Domestic Air Carrier that,
when engaged in code sharing with the Company:

1-K-10-a Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes an
engine with an external propeller ("Turbo/Prop Aircraft")
other than Turbo/Prop Aircraft that are certificated for
seventy-eight (78) or fewer seats and have a maximum
permitted gross takeoff weight of less than seventy-five
thousand (75,000) pounds; and

1-K-10-b Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes a
turbine-driven engine without an external propeller ("Jet
Aircraft"), other than Small Jets

1-K-22 "Small Jets" means (a) Jet Aircraft that are
certificated in the United States of America for seventy (70)
or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight
of less than eighty thousand (80,000) pounds
and (b) up to
eighteen (18) specific aircraft with certificated seating
capacity in excess of seventy (70) seats operated by Feeder
Carrier Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. ("AWAC").
These
eighteen aircraft are identified as the "AWAC Quota".
Currently, the AWAC Quota is filled by BAe-146 aircraft with
the following tail numbers: N463AP, N179US, N181US,
N183US, N606AW, N607AW, N608AW, N609AW, N610AW,
N611AW, N612AW, N614AW, N615AW, N616AW, N290UE,
N291UE, N292UE, and N156TR. AWAC may replace any
aircraft within the AWAC Quota with:
(i) any other BAe-146 or
AVRO 85 aircraft each with no more passenger seats than
were carried in the actual operation of the replaced aircraft,
or (ii) any other aircraft with a maximum certificated seating
capacity in the United States of eighty-five (85) seats and a
maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United
States of up to ninety thousand (90,000) pounds.
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 12:17 PM
  #99  
Gets Weekends Off
 
duvie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP
UAL ALPA already owns 71+ seat scope...with the exception of the "AWAC Quota".
I'm truly glad for that, but regionals are finding loopholes. These are dynamic times and I think the airline landscape may be quite different in 5 years. Just look at what regionals were five years ago vs their respective present day sizes.
duvie is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 12:20 PM
  #100  
Line Holder
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Ford GT, Right Seat
Posts: 56
Default

Yes, they did.
The Stig is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Flyin'Finn
Regional
16
09-25-2009 04:15 PM
cs757200
Regional
17
08-06-2009 04:22 AM
UrbanCowboy69
Regional
33
11-27-2008 07:21 PM
wannabepilot
Regional
23
09-11-2008 06:34 PM
BoilerUP
Regional
110
09-06-2008 08:11 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices