?? about XJ and Colgan

v1valarob said:
Someone correct me if I am wrong since I wasnt around when Pinnacle purchased the Qs, but as far as I know the Qs were PURCHASED by Pinnacle. They are NOT CAL airframes. We arent playing a shell game with CAL.

We bought the Qs and CAL was the first one to sign a contract with them. As far as I know when CAL signed that first contract they also asked for rights to our next batch. However the ones after that can go to whoever picks them up first.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't entirely make sense. Why commit to a multi-million dollar venture without a customer on board?

Pinnacle purchased the airframes, sure, but that's why Colgan was sold to Pinnacle- Colgan wanted the planes, but couldn't get the financing together.

It's all a very convoluted, complicated thing. The end result, however, if we, as pilots, have all been boondoggled into accepting less and doing more.

All of us. When somebody in the industry accepts less pay for a bigger airplane, we're all taking a hit, if only indirectly. It maintains the precedent that we're all worth less and less as aviators.

For the most part, Colgan pilots have been driving to reverse that trend- they know they're on the front line in the war for 'taking it back'. That's why even after I was long, long, gone, I still went out to help with the organizing drive on my own time.

Pilots getting upset at each other won't really do much good. We fight, bicker and posture all day and all night, but it does nothing.

Until we realize our common enemy is management we'll never get anywhere.

One pilot gloating to another that they're out of work because their company made a decision that they had no control over is insensitive, short-sighted, and rude.

Might be you, next time, after all, and this is a very small community.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Edit: Oh... I can sense your sarcasm now
Click to expand...

I was half way sarcastic half way not.

And as for my comment about Pinnacle owning the Qs, it wasnt meant as a slam. Someone mentioned above me that CAL owned the planes, but I was trying to point out that that was untrue.
 
Can't we all just get along? Colgan guys; don't be so sensitive about a few pricks. XJT guys; don't be pricks. especially now. The end.
 
If I remember right, *prays* Lord send me help from OTP, CO was offered it too but they wanted 737 rates for it. Which in all reality if they had done that probably would have saved them money in the long run for a lost airframe.

Anyhow, yeah, anytime XJT/XE is losing flying to a company giving their pilots a ton less, I cry a little.

CryingIndian.jpg
 
jynxyjoe said:
If I remember right, *prays* Lord send me help from OTP, CO was offered it too but they wanted 737 rates for it. Which in all reality if they had done that probably would have saved them money in the long run for a lost airframe.

Anyhow, yeah, anytime XJT/XE is losing flying to a company giving their pilots a ton less, I cry a little.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the CAL pilots being offered the Q's (I highly doubt it) but, It doesn't surprise me that the union (in a good, but also bad way) would only accept SNB pay for them. That's been the mantra coming from them about getting 70+ seat RJ's on property, SNB or else.

edit: CAL does their pay thing a little differently. There are 3 scales, small narrow body, Large narrow body, and widebody. Different airframes have been allocated to the different groups, not by seat count. MD-80s and 738s are the smallest LNB airplanes (also A320s and 734s). SNB covers the 733, 735, 73G, and also DC-9s, BAC-111, and BAE-146. None of the current big RJs have been specifically allocated into SNB pay.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't entirely make sense. Why commit to a multi-million dollar venture without a customer on board?
Click to expand...

Pinnacle and sense don't belong in the same sentence together. They've already agreed to buy more Qs without a partner to fly them for. At least, not one they'll admit to yet.
 
I was under the impression that the large capacity TP's were in the 2004 contract for the IAH flying. Thus feeding the persistant Saab 2000 rumors etc..
 
kellwolf said:
Pinnacle and sense don't belong in the same sentence together. They've already agreed to buy more Qs without a partner to fly them for. At least, not one they'll admit to yet.
Click to expand...


They did? I know about the next 15 (16 with the replacement) that are for CAL, I know they bought slots for some more, but I haven't heard that they bought the planes... ?
 
Trenary conceded yesterday in a meeting with ATW editors that operating an additional 15 turboprops for any of its partners is "a fairly bold goal considering the market" but said the company wants to take advantage of delivery slots starting in 2010 and feels the aircraft will make economic sense. "We're talking to all of our airline partners about the Q400," he said. "Fifteen are reserved for Continental. The other 15 we can take anywhere we want." He stressed that placing the aircraft is a "goal" and that a definitive announcement will not come until "the customer says they'll take the airplanes."
Click to expand...

Really depends on who you talk to and how you read between the lines.
 
L-16B said:
They did? I know about the next 15 (16 with the replacement) that are for CAL, I know they bought slots for some more, but I haven't heard that they bought the planes... ?
Click to expand...

You are correct. They have bought the options for the next CAL batch. We have options after that, but have not committed to actual airframes yet beyond that.
 
Jets have always paid more than props. ALways have, always will. Take the scope clause at CAL for example. No 70seat flying other than props. IT tells me that they don't think props are as important as jets, and the advent of the RJ that flies 3/4 across the country wasn't taken into account. Is it wrong? Yup. Is it going to change? Nope. Even ALPA negotiates for different rates on props than jets.

Colgan rates suck. There is no doubt about it. I have no doubt the the CJC MEC has new pay rates at the top of the list of things to fix. Horizon has great rates, but correct me if I'm wrong ,they only have 10 pay periods a year. I doubt that XE's prop pay rates were industry leading back in the late 90's and early 00's. As far as XE pilots being bitter, sorry to hear about the furoughs and paycuts. I have 2 of my friends from there on the street. But if someone thinks 15 q400's brought it on, you are nuts. Branded flying and the lowest bidder game brought you back into the regional world with the rest of the carriers.

I think ALPA has got to make a stand with Colgan for better LTP rates to set the bar high for future carriers. I think outside of CJC, only horizon will have a comparable fleet of LTP's. Lynx? wow, they pay even less than CJC. I'd like to see the q400 rates the same as a 70seat RJ. Maybe in lieu of 3407, people will start to see that 70 seats is 70 seats, regardless of powerplant type. my .02
 
dingo222 said:
Jets have always paid more than props. ALways have, always will. Take the scope clause at CAL for example. No 70seat flying other than props. IT tells me that they don't think props are as important as jets, and the advent of the RJ that flies 3/4 across the country wasn't taken into account. Is it wrong? Yup. Is it going to change? Nope. Even ALPA negotiates for different rates on props than jets.

Colgan rates suck. There is no doubt about it. I have no doubt the the CJC MEC has new pay rates at the top of the list of things to fix. Horizon has great rates, but correct me if I'm wrong ,they only have 10 pay periods a year. I doubt that XE's prop pay rates were industry leading back in the late 90's and early 00's. As far as XE pilots being bitter, sorry to hear about the furoughs and paycuts. I have 2 of my friends from there on the street. But if someone thinks 15 q400's brought it on, you are nuts. Branded flying and the lowest bidder game brought you back into the regional world with the rest of the carriers.

I think ALPA has got to make a stand with Colgan for better LTP rates to set the bar high for future carriers. I think outside of CJC, only horizon will have a comparable fleet of LTP's. Lynx? wow, they pay even less than CJC. I'd like to see the q400 rates the same as a 70seat RJ. Maybe in lieu of 3407, people will start to see that 70 seats is 70 seats, regardless of powerplant type. my .02
Click to expand...


Not trying to rip on you Dingo....but which is it? Always have/ will....or there is merit in a seat rate?

I don't believe the former is a valid argument anymore. Sure, back when transport props where still pistons....and the turbojets were new and quirky....a different rate per type was valid. This just isn't the case now. The LTP's, and to a lesser extent the smaller TP's, are flying at near-jet performance. The distinction between the two lines is blurry. Rate per seat is a very valid point. Moreover, it could be said LTP's are much more economical to operate and therefore deserve every bit as much as the comparable jets.

Yes, our rate for the Q are high on the negotiating committee's hit-list....as are major improvements in work rules.
 
I hear ya cruise, I just don't think that "new" way of thinking will permeate the old school types who are sitting across the table. Look at the q- rates and how they were derived. CJC used mesa dash 8 rates, ATR rates from the 1990's, and others that were not comparable to the q400. The ATR rates at eagle and ASA are not comparable to equal capacity jets. Better rates? sure. Will they ever be equal to a jet? Doubtful. just my .02. I hope for everyone in the industry i'm wrong
 
Cruise and I are 33% of your MEC. I assure you that I wouldn't send a TA to the pilot group unless is shows some serious improvements for our pilot group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top