To the OP, yep, UAX sucks. It's sucked forever, just like Fred Flinstone said. It was funny when I came to XJT in 05 from what used to be a UAX carrier. CA's would say things like "we're CAL's redheaded stepchild", or "CAL treats us like crap", etc. These guys had NO idea what so ever what it was like to to be treated like crap by the mainline carrier you feed for. None what so ever.
Originally Posted by
johnso29
Wait! What?! I worked for ExpressJet from Nov 04-Feb 08. I was a EWR FO-IAH FO-EWR CA-ONT CA and the only place I never had to wait for rampers was ONT. It was quite common to wait for rampers in EWR and IAH. Maybe this has changed in the last year or two, but it certainly was common to wait when I worked at XE.
Yo power user, as has been mentioned. Being back in the COEX world, the ramp situation has gotten better than when we left COEX. Less wait time for rampers now. Actually knida nice. CAL probably FINALLY figured out that having XJT planes sit on the ramp cost them money.
Originally Posted by
Cycle Pilot
This is normal for United. Working for Skywest we got to see the stark contrast of how Delta and United operated. United is a joke. The management has completely destroyed that airline.
Agreed, I've flown UAX, COEX, and DelCon. I always thought that DAL treated both the Delcon carriers I've worked for relatively decent.
Originally Posted by
Slaphappy
And people wonder why expressjet has the highest costs in the industry and headed towards bankruptcy.
What year are you in?
Originally Posted by
Tumbleweed
I had heard Express got the United contract for essentially a loss (less than what Mesa was getting). I might be wrong though. Anyway, perhaps that is why a lot of those perks are being left out compared to what services are rendered by CAL.
Really? Where did you "hear" this? Think about it, with the cash position that XJT is in, combined with the BK threshold, do you REALLY think that XJT could do 30+ airplanes of flying at a loss for 2+ years? Can't happen.
Originally Posted by
Slaphappy
If that were true then XJT wouldn't be taking a loss to for flying at the same rate skywest could have done it for a profit.
See above.
Originally Posted by
Slaphappy
Lastly you can poke fun at us for having 70 seaters but as you've seen in the last two years your company has shrunk because they are still set on only flying an obsolete airplane, and for your information we do get paid more to fly the 70 seaters than the 50 seaters.
Seriously? Are you really happy that your company has 70 seat planes on property? You ever have aspirations of moving on from this "entry level job"?
As far as your 50 seat rates go, yep, you FINALLY get paid more to fly the larger airframe. But something tells me you are ignorant, oh so ignorant that that wasn't always the case. Ask some of the guys that have been there a while. You know, back in the UAL BK days. Ask them about the "18 month pay freeze", and how long that really lasted. Ask them about flying 70/90 seat equipment at 50 seat rates. Rates that were below other 50 seat operators. As well as the disastrous effects that had on other pilot groups. Get a clue bud.