Originally Posted by
Riddler
The fact is quite simple: there's no shortage of people who are lining up for a chance to fly for an airline that pays $19,800 for the first year. And it's the same airline that had no shortage of volunteers to open up an IAH base and help Smisek illegally outsource CAL flying. Yup, I'd say that qualifies as a "whipsaw" carrier. That's not the same thing as saying that 100% of its pilots are worthless... but the collective actions of the group speak for themselves.
If I offend you, then I'm sorry. If my logic is invalid, then by all means educate me. If I used offensive language, then report my post to a moderator. But if you just don't like what I said, then feel free to ignore my post.
Riddler,
I guess my main issue with your stance is that you seem to be singling SkyWest out when in fact the problem runs deeper than one airline, it is the epitome of the regional enigma. Shuttle America has contracted to do 66 seat lift out of Newark in the same way SkyWest is operating out of IAH and in both cases, although it certainly doesn't comply with the spirit of the law, apparently it complies with the letter. I'd love to see a judge slap Smisek a big fine for clearly violating CAL's scope, but a contract is only as good as the legalese used in it and perhaps the ALPA lawyers didn't think the new United would stoop this low, thus necessitating the need for more specific prohibitions against 50+ seat jet flying.
The issue we're discussing will likely blend into the evolution of the commuter to a regional and how it is now actively threatening jobs at the majors. Most of us at regionals want to move on, so we understand the irony of the flying we're doing. That being said, I take responsibility for being a part of this destructive machine and I can only hope that the guys and gals at the legacy carriers vote for stricter scope clauses in the future, because you can be certain that SkyWest hasn't dealt their last ace yet.