12/4 Starting to make sense
09-26-2014, 11:22 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 360
There is another way to look at the AAG request for scope relief: they are asking for something that they know they won't get, but they will get the pilots to give up something fairly expensive in their quest to get their flying back.
In exchange for not getting 89 seats at a regional, the company might get the pilots to sign for less money; they may get a longer contract. IOW, this could be a profitable throw-away for the company. If they don't get the relief they want, it's going to cost the pilots something.
Be careful what you wish for...because you just might get it.
In exchange for not getting 89 seats at a regional, the company might get the pilots to sign for less money; they may get a longer contract. IOW, this could be a profitable throw-away for the company. If they don't get the relief they want, it's going to cost the pilots something.
Be careful what you wish for...because you just might get it.
09-27-2014, 02:49 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,013
There is another way to look at the AAG request for scope relief: they are asking for something that they know they won't get, but they will get the pilots to give up something fairly expensive in their quest to get their flying back.
In exchange for not getting 89 seats at a regional, the company might get the pilots to sign for less money; they may get a longer contract. IOW, this could be a profitable throw-away for the company. If they don't get the relief they want, it's going to cost the pilots something.
Be careful what you wish for...because you just might get it.
In exchange for not getting 89 seats at a regional, the company might get the pilots to sign for less money; they may get a longer contract. IOW, this could be a profitable throw-away for the company. If they don't get the relief they want, it's going to cost the pilots something.
Be careful what you wish for...because you just might get it.
09-27-2014, 03:40 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 1,114
You, and many here, show your ignorance. RAH/Mesa currently have approximately 35-38 aircraft grandfathered in that were flying 88 paxs in the airways system. Those same planes could fly today with 88 but AAG chooses to keep them with first class.... That was done long before PSA or PDT agreed to fly aircraft with 76 
....... So again get some facts straight before casting stones.... Further more understand what could be done already with NO scope relaxation if DFW higher ups wanted to.
....... So again get some facts straight before casting stones.... Further more understand what could be done already with NO scope relaxation if DFW higher ups wanted to.
09-27-2014, 05:34 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,097
You, and many here, show your ignorance. RAH/Mesa currently have approximately 35-38 aircraft grandfathered in that were flying 88 paxs in the airways system. Those same planes could fly today with 88 but AAG chooses to keep them with first class.... That was done long before PSA or PDT agreed to fly aircraft with 76 ....... So again get some facts straight before casting stones.... Further more understand what could be done already with NO scope relaxation if DFW higher ups wanted to.
....... So again get some facts straight before casting stones.... Further more understand what could be done already with NO scope relaxation if DFW higher ups wanted to.
09-27-2014, 05:58 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,352
09-27-2014, 06:03 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,097
And Meyers post was referring to grandfathered planes flying for Airways. But since you asked, no, even with be 190's, no planes have ever had 88 seats.
What else would you like to be educated on?
09-27-2014, 06:37 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 187
However, these airplanes had 88.
09-27-2014, 07:20 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,707
Have to disagree with you on the certainty of this ardvark. 89-seaters are essentially mixed-class E-190's and if APA agreed to this for anything, there would be a pitchfork party by the line pilots with them as the main course. I understand as an Envoy lifer who plans to ride that carrier into the ground this would be good for you, but you're premature in your assumptions.
APA was told delta +3%, no profit sharing and scope relief.
If management offers delta +3% and profit sharing the squeeze is on apa. it is, it has and always will be about money.
09-27-2014, 08:11 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 1,114
Oh that's right they had what 80? MESA had 88 though I'm fairly certain. So the fact remains they were in place long before PSA/PDT. Regardless the points the same they already could have it as they're grandfathered in. Care to debate that? The only reason they have less is because 3 years ago they added first class.... Again RAH/Mesa certainly jumped all over that long before anyone else did....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
deadstick
Flight Schools and Training
15
04-28-2006 05:02 PM
