@F9,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I wish the best for all of you involved in this mess. Along with many outsiders, I hoped that your forced marriage could result in a successful carrier with a career path starting at 37-seat jet FO (or 72-seat Dash) and leading all the way to 320 captain. Although it was a completely different regulatory environment, far too many people forget that in the 1960s several mainline carriers operated equipment ranging from the dc-3 through 707...

Obviously there are many obstacles to that hope; the economy, the management or mis-management of the brand from leaders applying FFD experience to a stand-alone operation, and conflicting career expectations/desires of the various pilot groups. I'm not sure that hope is completely dead, but it certainly is on life support.

I am by no means a fan of the IBT in general; when I worked there we had a completely ineffective local hamstrung by official corruption and general lassitude from National. This lead to arbitration losses, greivances being poorly pursued or not at all, and generally a complete lack of any effective representation. I think what you see now vis a vis the relationship between RAH and the IBT is management which became too used to steamrolling the pilots, and representation which is now determined to reverse that trend. Thus, the conflict. I would certainly argue from a labor standpoint that RAH management began taking advantage of us long before the pilot group became militant. It's entirely reasonable to approach your relationship with new management from a non-confrontational perspective; just realize the native RAH guys used to do the same, and keep your eyes open.

Finally, a brief apology; I felt your comment about the 190 arbitration was heavy-handed, but your posts on this subject have been overall fair and well-thought. I hope for all of you involved there are more people on both of the sides that can take such a reasoned approach. Best of luck to all of you.