Originally Posted by
Waves
The problem is that Management has firmly adopted the "Too expensive to operate as mainline aircraft" philosophy.
And to me, the other part of the problem is we keep agreeing with that philosophy by giving them the original, not to mention more and/or larger rj's over the years. That is something we
do have control over. Our votes on these TA's.
I doubt there is a pilot here that doesn't want those 76 seaters to climb aboard the mainline.
I'm not so sure about that one. The "mentality" or thought process or whatever you want to call it that resulted in those original rj's being given away seems to be alive and well still at times.
I also don't see it as somehow our fault.
Definitely disagree here. Somewhere along the way,
pilot's and alpa opened that 50 seat rj genie-in-the-bottle by voting yes. Not blaming you Waves, but we most certainly are to blame along the way for this. Smaller turbo-props should have been the end of the line for regionals. I again ask those 50 seat rj "yes voters:"
what was the excuse?
Just ask one of our former furloughed pilots if he/she would have been "above" flying a mainline 76 seat RJ. NOT
The former furloughed pilots weren't the ones that opened the bottle. I would have been fine with a 50 seat rj
at mainline
before the furlough. Again Waves,
not specifically talking to/accusing you but at least Carl has the cajones to admit that wrong-doing.
Some want to fix it, but imho, this TA does not do it. It furthers the problem, the philosophy you mentioned, by making the outsourcing more profitable with more large rj's. And no, it is not my only issue with the ta lest I be labled a "single issue voter."