Midatlantic Article

[pitguy74]

Beaver County Times on MidAtlantic

 

[Light Years]

............

 

[PITbull]

Good job Bobbie!

 

[BottomFeeder]

Momma always said " what comes around goes around"

First ...Ashby

Does it make you wonder who will be next?


Mr. Glass please push your call button...could you gather up your belongings and get out of the company.

 

[goodgirl37]

Good job Bobbie!

[post="284484"][/post]​

You have got to be kidding!!!! good job!!!!! I don't quite think so PITBULL she is not your spinoff and hasn't done what you have or perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation - The problem is we have 3 people who are just a little to nice to go to bats for us! Basically thanks to Bobbi we are getting screwed up the a*s once again!!!!! um IT HURTS SOOOO GOOOODDDD!!!!!

 

[PowerUpPowerDown]

Good job Bobbie!

[post="284484"][/post]​

BOBBIE RIGGLE BEING AFA LEC,MEC, IS AND WAS A SAD DAY IN AVIATION HISTORY. IT JUST GOES TO SHOW YOU THAT IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH F/A TRAINING, RARELY WORK, BE FURLOUGHED, THEN COME TO "MIDATLANTIC", AND REWRITE HISTORY AND SUDDENLY ACT AS IF YOU WERE ONCE "FLIGHT ATTENDANT" OF THE YEAR(AT LEAST IN HER WORLD), IT CAN BE DONE!!!!!!

 

[CaptainRon]

I have read many of the comments written on this web-site as well as others in regards to the MAA / REP deal, and I would like to add my viewpoint.

There are alot of Pilots at CHQ/REP/S5 that would like to see ALL of the current MAA pilots brought over to REP to staff the current aircraft that THEY currently fly regardless of whether it is an Asset sale, or transfer of flying. Many of us agree that there is plenty of growth available for future flying at US Airways as well as Delta and United.
I see no reason any further pilots should have to go looking for employment because of this deal.

I think the confusion would be, and is in regards to several issues:
1. J4J - If taken this route it would only be 50% of the pilots and we do not believe that is fair.
2. 100% brought over with the aircraft. This I believe to be the fair way to handle this situation; however, after these pilots are transferred with the aircraft REP should not be responsible to add any further furloughed pilots to the REP certificate due to the detrimental effect that could cause to our current seniority list.
3. Pilots seniority comming from MAA to REP should recieve their MAA seniority date (date of training at MAA on the E170) This seems to me the fairest way to integrate the seniority list onto the CHQ seniority list. Pilots comming with the aircraft would retain their position ie CPT or F/O within REP until such a time that they could hold a position per the CHQ seniority list. This will protect the MAA pilots current positions.
4. Each pilot should be allowed their own room for training.
5. Training contract - This is a tricky subject due to the fact that I am sure many pilots will begin searching for better employment, and REP should not have to foot the bill for those who do not sincerely wish to fly for REP, but just using it for a way to pay the bills till something better comes along. Exactly how long, and how much should a training contract be? I just don't have an answer to that.

Please keep in mind, the pilots are BEHIND the MAA pilots and wish to see them all employed but to managment this is business, and to pilots this is quality of life. These two ways of looking at a given situation do not always have the same view.

Good luck to the pilots at MAA. We your CHQ/REP/S5 brothers support you in your battle to have things done right! ALL OR NONE!!!!

 

[foreright]

I have read many of the comments written on this web-site as well as others in regards to the MAA / REP deal, and I would like to add my viewpoint.


Please keep in mind, the pilots are BEHIND the MAA pilots and wish to see them all employed but to managment this is business, and to pilots this is quality of life. These two ways of looking at a given situation do not always have the same view.

Good luck to the pilots at MAA. We your CHQ/REP/S5 brothers support you in your battle to have things done right! ALL OR NONE!!!!

[post="284724"][/post]​

Thanks for the support!
What I question is if this is "business" for management why would they not want to take 100% of the pilots currently trained? It would save the company a ton, and at 1-2 years seniority it would be much cheaper than a chq/sa pilot with 4-5 years going through a full training program? It just doesnt make any sense. Thanks again for your support, I wish you were running your company!
ALL OR NONE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rico]

Captain Ron...

It is too bad that the IBT does not share the opinion of it's membership then. But then again, with our having to get a lawyer to slap some sense into our own ALPA I understand how that can happen.

A negotiated settlement that is somewhere between JFJ and a full on ALG/Mohawk LCC merger still is the best option for ALL parties involved.

The result of which would be best for your company, your pilots, and those of us at MDA... especially long term.

But as usual, Union "Leadership" seems to be more of a hinderance than help.

 

[Light Years]

THere's no such thing as a "MidAtlantic seniority date"... your date of ire is youe (shock) actual date of hire with the company, US Airways. You can't invent a seniority date from when someone happened to return from furlough, what a joke.

 

[CaptainRon]

THere's no such thing as a "MidAtlantic seniority date"... your date of ire is youe (shock) actual date of hire with the company, US Airways. You can't invent a seniority date from when someone happened to return from furlough, what a joke.

[post="285068"][/post]​

READ then reply please!


I stated that I was referring to the date of training on the E170.

I just don't see anyone at CHQ/REP agreeing to an ORIGINAL D.O. H. from U being a "Fair" integration number. I do not even see the NMB (National Mediation Board) agreeing to such a thing.

We would like to see all the pilots brought jobs intact to REP, but please work with us and not fight against us. Together we can come up with good ideas. We must both put away our hurt feelings and anamosity.

We at CHQ/REP are conserned that we were put into this position to begin with. This should have been a U mainline issue. The scope being changed was not given by the REP/ CHQ mangement or pilots. The U pilots made this agreement change with THEIR managment. We at CHQ/REP are simply dealing with the fallout that was and is continuing to be thrown our direction.

As of Friday 7/29/05 our CEO made the following statement to us:

"We received informal news today from US Airways and America West that they are sending out a formal request for proposal for a regional carrier to operate up to 25 E190s for the merged carrier. Our current agreement with US Airways contemplated Republic operating these aircraft for them, but our CBA with the IBT does not presently allow us the ability to do that. We have asked our IBT to approve a side letter amending our CBA to allow Republic to operate the E190 and do so within the established parameters of US Airways LOA91 (Jets for Jobs). Had we already had this side letter completed we would not now be in the situation of having to compete with Mesa, Skywest and Air Wisconsin for flying that was already coming our way. If we do not get a side letter passed by the end of August we will lose any opportunity to operate the E190 for Airways. I am strongly encouraging the IBT pilot council to get this out and ratified quickly." per Brian Bedford


We do not expect to ratify this change to our J4J agreement (LOA91) until several quality of life and contract issues are dealt with.

In closing, we would like to assist, and will continue to try to help as many furloughed pilots as we can, but we too have reached our limit of what is acceptable until we resolve many oustanding issues.

 

[700UW]

The national mediation board has nothing to do with seniority intergration.

That is to be negotiated between the parties or arbitrated.

 

[Light Years]

READ then reply please!
I stated that I was referring to the date of training on the E170.

[post="285158"][/post]​

Yes you did, and I told you that's ridiculous. So someone who was more senior, so furloughed later, and came to the 170 later would have a "seniority date" lower than a junior person who was trained on it months before? Or a guy who was tied up in a J4J position would be junior to someone who wasn't?

These employees have worked for the same company for anywhere from four to fifteen years. You can't just make up "commuter style" seniority dates at a whim and fancy.

As for being fair, if you buy big airplanes from a big, legacy airline that's been around for 70 years, that's what you get. If you want junior, high turnover you buy a Shuttle America. Why is it fair to reduce or eliminate someone's seniority because you happen to be 26 and five years into the industry?

 

[CaptainRon]

Yes you did, and I told you that's ridiculous. So someone who was more senior, so furloughed later, and came to the 170 later would have a "seniority date" lower than a junior person who was trained on it months before? Or a guy who was tied up in a J4J position would be junior to someone who wasn't?

These employees have worked for the same company for anywhere from four to fifteen years. You can't just make up "commuter style" seniority dates at a whim and fancy.

As for being fair, if you buy big airplanes from a big, legacy airline that's been around for 70 years, that's what you get. If you want junior, high turnover you buy a Shuttle America. Why is it fair to reduce or eliminate someone's seniority because you happen to be 26 and five years into the industry?

[post="285171"][/post]​

Your seniority if for YOUR company, not mine. Your US Airways seniority has nothing to do with CHQ/REP/S5. The argument over Transfer of flying vs. Asset sale is not what I am trying to open dialogue about.

Please read my last post again and help me discuss the "Meat" of the article, the addition of the E190 to be bid out to the Regional airlines.

What is the best way to handle this situation. We are saddened by the fact that we must deal with this. But deal with it we must. IF CHQ/REP/S5 does not figure a way, that will not stop an open bid for these aircraft, it will go to another low cost airline. If the erosion continues where will it stop? Its not about whether or not Regionals getting big shiny new aircraft, its about why are we getting BIGGER and BIGGER aircraft, and what can be done to stop it. Also, how can we work together for the mutual benefit of our pilot groups to reach an agreement.

So please Light Years work with me on this and not against. Don't hate.

 

[Light Years]

What is the best way to handle this situation. We are saddened by the fact that we must deal with this. But deal with it we must. IF CHQ/REP/S5 does not figure a way, that will not stop an open bid for these aircraft, it will go to another low cost airline.

[post="285181"][/post]​

Uh, are we supposed to be upset that someone other than Republic might get aircraft? It doesn't make any difference now who flies them! Republic is already getting, let's see, 10% of the US Airways fleet, and the most valuable slots and gates they have. That's more than anybody in thier right mind would be comfortable with.

LET someone come in and fly them cheaper than Republic. Maybe they'll be so profitable doing it they can buy your planes and offer you an interview.

I'm sorry, but give me a break.