Disgusting

secretapproach said:
Thanks for your comments, PCL. What is family scope?
Click to expand...

"Family scope" is the term that former ALPA President Duane Woerth coined to describe a new type of scope that could be used by mainline carriers to include certain regional partners. You might have also heard of it referred to as "brand scope." The idea is that a mainline MEC (DALPA for example) could negotiate new scope language that would limit Delta management to only using certain regional partners for feed (ASA and Comair, for example). With this limitation, management couldn't use RFPs to whipsaw a dozen different regional airlines against each other to bid for the flying. There are many different ideas as to how it could be used. My suggestion was to start off with something simple: scope language that required all regional feeders to be ALPA carriers. The problem is that the regional and mainline MECs had problems getting along. In my opinion, the major source of that problem has always been with the regional MECs and not the mainline MECs, and I've seen that first hand as a member of a regional MEC for several years. Too many regional pilots, especially regional lifers who have a nasty habit of finding their way on to too many regional MECs, have a chip on their shoulder, and they refuse to work cooperatively with their mainline counterparts. This causes the relationship between feeder MEC and mainline MEC to get worse and worse, and before you know it, the mainline MEC just doesn't give a damn about what happens to the regional guys. Until we can solve that problem, thing will only get worse.
 
meritflyer said:
You'll never ever get mainline pay at a regional so its a moot point.

Regionals shouldn't be flying, as you put it, "mainline sized aircraft". CEO's aren't idiots. They see they can get a $31 second year FO to fly their 175 at a 50% discount as a mainline pilot. Sounds good if you want to be a regional pilot for the rest of your life right?
Click to expand...


I think you completely missed the point of my posts.
 
jtrain609 said:
Pot, kettle, black.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point, John. My airline has taken over mainline routes, as has pretty much every other regional in the country other than Colgan, Bigsky, and Gulfstream. For some reason, though, we're the whipping boy despite having some of the best work rules and generally above average pay rates.

Not that anyone cares, but the level of hypocrisy that shows in the discussion of regional airlines here (definately not pointing any fingers at you) is becoming a major turnoff.
 
zmiller4 said:
That was pretty much my point, John. My airline has taken over mainline routes, as has pretty much every other regional in the country other than Colgan, Bigsky, and Gulfstream. For some reason, though, we're the whipping boy despite having some of the best work rules and generally above average pay rates.

Not that anyone cares, but the level of hypocrisy that shows in the discussion of regional airlines here (definately not pointing any fingers at you) is becoming a major turnoff.
Click to expand...

Righto, but the main company that we fly for (CAL) has limited scope to 50 seats, so if a route needs something bigger than an RJ on it, CAL is forced to throw a 737 on it instead.

Your company has turned into my whipping boy because of a lack of union, horrible pay rates on the -900's and what seems to be apathy by the pilot group. Don't get me wrong. I know your work rules are good, and believe me I'd LOVE to jump ship from Express to Skywest and drive to work instead of doing this commute, but at this juncture I won't do it because I like having my union.

The minute you guys get a legit union and start getting a real rate for your -900's my tune will change.
 
jtrain609 said:
I dunno about you Lloyd, but I'm here to show up and change things, and that requires a critical eye of what we're dealing with. You'd agree of course?
Click to expand...

As in, in aviation to change things? Or, on JC to change things?

Me? I'm in aviation because I love to fly. I'm on JC to try to help people, and "pay it forward".

I've already asked one moderator to completely remove my account, and I'm asking Doug next . . . this just isn't what I want to be a part of.

Sorry!
 
jtrain609 said:
Righto, but the main company that we fly for (CAL) has limited scope to 50 seats, so if a route needs something bigger than an RJ on it, CAL is forced to throw a 737 on it instead.

Your company has turned into my whipping boy because of a lack of union, horrible pay rates on the -900's and what seems to be apathy by the pilot group. Don't get me wrong. I know your work rules are good, and believe me I'd LOVE to jump ship from Express to Skywest and drive to work instead of doing this commute, but at this juncture I won't do it because I like having my union.

The minute you guys get a legit union and start getting a real rate for your -900's my tune will change.
Click to expand...

Kinda curious here......but as of Jan. '08, Colgan will be flying a 70+ seat TP for CAL. So why isn't this affected by the 50 seat scope???? The Q will replace the RJ on most routes....and do it for a much better (in the eyes of mgmt) CASM.
 
Most scope clauses differentiate between jet and prop flying, because prop flying usually isn't a threat to mainline jobs. The CAL CBA prohibits jet outsourcing over 50-seats, but allow prop outsourcing at that level.
 
CAL's scope is something like over 74 seats in a TPROP must be flown by CAL seniority numbers, over 50 seats in a jet.
 
It's a bit ridiculous to differentiate between jet and turboprop. After all, the turboprop is a money-making machine.....the rj.....well, not so much. If anything, the Q is much more a threat to the outsourcing of routes that 'should' be mainline-jet serviced. At least that's the way I see it.
 
jtrain609 said:
Your company has turned into my whipping boy because of a lack of union, horrible pay rates on the -900's and what seems to be apathy by the pilot group.
Click to expand...

I think you know my opinion our 900 rates, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to call out the Skywest pilot group as "apathetic". If you took almost any regional airline pilot group (yes, I know there would be exceptions) and gave them our work rules, QOL, and pay, I doubt they'd vote in a union either. Don't misunderstand me (you know how I voted), I just think that apathy is in no way more prevalent in the Skywest pilot group than it is in the vast majority of other regionals.
 
A Q can't perform the same sort of flying that a 737 or DC-9 can. In general, the Q and similar turboprops are only useful on flights of 400 miles or less. What you'll find is that the Q will replace a lot of the short-range RJ flying. It's not a suitable replacement for mainline equipment.
 
zmiller4 said:
I think you know my opinion our 900 rates, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to call out the Skywest pilot group as "apathetic". If you took almost any regional airline pilot group (yes, I know there would be exceptions) and gave them our work rules, QOL, and pay, I doubt they'd vote in a union either. Don't misunderstand me (you know how I voted), I just think that apathy is in no way more prevalent in the Skywest pilot group than it is in the vast majority of other regionals.
Click to expand...

Yeah but a union isn't just about pay and work rules, though that's what we all seem to harp on. It's about protection and negotiating power. Your work rules are great, the pay could go up, but the thing that REALLY bothers me is that lack of protection from the company. In a job where so many things can go wrong on any given flight, all of which could mean the end of your career, I think that pilots that don't think they need a union are complete fools.

So it would seem either Skywest pilots think they're impervious to busting an altitude, or they're apathetic. Your call on which, you're the one that works there.
 
jtrain609 said:
So it would seem either Skywest pilots think they're impervious to busting an altitude, or they're apathetic. Your call on which, you're the one that works there.
Click to expand...

Come on, you know very well that there's a third option--that Skywest does not go around firing people left and right for on-the-job mistakes. I heard *many* more stories of guys getting fired at Eagle than I have at Skywest...but I also saw people do a lot more stupid #### there.

Again, I FULLY recognize that this could all change at the drop of a hat, which is why I voted for ALPA. But you do know there's a difference between apathy and a lack of foresight, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top