Actually CHQ's J4J protocol already allowed 170s, so even in its original form the MDA transaction could have happened. LY, Chautauqua doesn't "pretend" to be mainline anymore than the carriers flying Dash-8s from MDT to PHL or SAABs from CAK to PIT.
Republic Pilots Ratify J4j Amendment
- Thread starter HighFlyerMiami
- Start date
Capt Morgan
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
elixir said:
How very wrong. ALPA came up with J4J. CHQ did not invent it or even like it. It was shoved down on us. We did vote no the first time. ALPA persisted. The only thing that we can now be accused of is protecting the scope in our contract. That is what we learned from ALPA's mistakes. You can hate us all you want for being less godly aviators, but we have learned from the ALPA mistake and we sould not be villified for standing by our contract. In fact ALPA pilots, esp. the junior ones involved in this mess should see that if thier own union had behaved in the same manner as ours non e of this would be going on.
Light Years
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,878
- Reaction score
- 0
Those Dash 8s are owned by US Airways, so they aren't pretending to be anything. You could call them the DeHavilaad division and the Canadair division if PDT/PSA didn't happen to have thier own certificates.
And those Saabs are operated in a split cost/revenue arrangement with US Airways. Colgan Air also brings it's own route authorities and slots to the equation for the US Airways network. While they arguably replace WO flying, they bring something of thier own to the deal- money, EAS routes, a profitable route network between New England and the Cape, and DCA/LGA slots.
CHQ, Mesa and TSA are different. RJ flying is a capacity purchase with guaranteed profit. In other words, US just purchases the space and uses it to replace existing flying. The RJ provider assumes no risk at all, recieving a guaranteed profit regardless of load factors or quality of service. They simply replace service (and jobs), but under the same public brand, usually for cheaper than the actual company.
And those Saabs are operated in a split cost/revenue arrangement with US Airways. Colgan Air also brings it's own route authorities and slots to the equation for the US Airways network. While they arguably replace WO flying, they bring something of thier own to the deal- money, EAS routes, a profitable route network between New England and the Cape, and DCA/LGA slots.
CHQ, Mesa and TSA are different. RJ flying is a capacity purchase with guaranteed profit. In other words, US just purchases the space and uses it to replace existing flying. The RJ provider assumes no risk at all, recieving a guaranteed profit regardless of load factors or quality of service. They simply replace service (and jobs), but under the same public brand, usually for cheaper than the actual company.
Arguing the merits of contract vs. wholly-owned or revenue-sharing vs. fee-for-departure is more than a little capricious; ultimately any flying done in my E145, a Dash-8, or a J41 is not being performed by mainline employees. Does the overlying corporate structure really matter?
elixir
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 0
Thats a good point, as it all boils down to outsourcing of jobs..period. CHQ, while you may be technically correct on the abortion known as J4J, you had to approve 190 rates...no? You couldnt have had them existing as the aircraft has never flown. So while you may split hairs with me over semantics, the fact is that you had to pull a few strings of your own to get this deal to float...and you did so....whatever that entailed. I'm not fingerpointing here, I'm just saying don't play like you guys had no choice...everyone always has a choice of some kind...at least acknowledge it and take what hits you will for it.
Actually Elixir, the current CBA has had 190 rates since it was signed in October of 2003. No change to those rates with our approval of the amended J4J protocol.
From our pilot group's standpoint, this latest change was entirely about the attached LOUs, which will greatly improve our QOL on the existing airframes.
Admittedly the 190 rates in our CBA are short-sighted, and I'm one of the people who voted for it in 2003 thinking there was zero chance we'd see that size airframe at the regionals during the life of this agreement. As you correctly pointed out, the 190 wasn't even flying then.
From our pilot group's standpoint, this latest change was entirely about the attached LOUs, which will greatly improve our QOL on the existing airframes.
Admittedly the 190 rates in our CBA are short-sighted, and I'm one of the people who voted for it in 2003 thinking there was zero chance we'd see that size airframe at the regionals during the life of this agreement. As you correctly pointed out, the 190 wasn't even flying then.
Capt Morgan
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
elixir said:
Yes, we did have 190 rates in our contract. They were there long before there was a J4J deal that had anything to do with E-190s. They were a last minute addition to our contract before closing. They were managements idea and if you care to look they beat Jet Blues rates. What of it? That had nothing to do with USAirways. We had a chance to grab rates that kicked the crap out of the industry rate at the time for such an aircraft (one that didn't even exist and can't be on our cert. more than one year before the rate becomes amendable again). Remember, not everything that goes on here at CHQ/Rep revolves around USAirways.
elixir said:
CHQ pilots applied to ALPA and was turned down. IBT was then brought on property. Don't blame the IBT because this would be much different if ALPA represented the CHQ pilots. Very costly mistake by ALPA.
Don't expect any regional to enforce scope at a mainline carrier. That is the job of each individual union, mainline or regional. The IBT representing CHQ will enforce its own scope, not that scope of others. Don't give up scope and expect others to refuse allowed flying. Scope erosion accelerated when ALPA allowed RJ's at the regional level. Yet another ALPA mistake.
IBT didn't invent J4J, ALPA did. You made the rules and now your blaming us? Blame ALPA!
Your directing your anger at the wrong group. You need to be blaming ALPA.
elixir
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh no worries there, I blame ALPA almost entirely...99.5% for it's tailspin. In case you misread my post, I indicated that this whole situation was "greased" by ALPA. And I also fully realize it's not "your" job to uphold another union's scope...I get it...trust me. What is disturbing is that all "regionals" including yours in all it's forms, are edging upwardly into what has historically been known as "mainline waters"...is it your fault? of course not. The long-term effects of this are yet to be seen, but I think it certainly includes spending the rest of your career at your ever-increasing present employer...as mainline slips into relative obscurity. An old sage once told me"take the best job offer in front of you at the time"...of course, that didn't really address the "morphed" conditions we are seeing today. I'm curious, if you indeed had a 190 rate in 2003, as it's just getting a type cert now, how did that come to pass? And by what crystal ball was your management operating? The fact that it was even "penciled in" last minute is telling of what your management groups' motive's were back then. I guess it boils down to this: it's not directly your responsibilty to police language that ALPA has ignored altogether, but, under these specific circumstances, you guys on the line will assuredly be met unfavorably by outsourced and REFURLOUGHED mainline pilots...and who could blame them...this is about as in your face as it could possibly get....you don't have to apologize, but be advised not to get smug either...just some advice. While this wasn't your idea..as pilots...you have "enabled" the further demise of a group of pilots and FA's who have already given all there is to give....sleep well.
