Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : for u NWA guys out there...


1900Driver
09-06-2007, 11:22 PM
Why did go guys give up the scope cause..? Compass and Mesaba will now be flying 70 plus seats out there replacing your DC-9 jobs? why... I work for a pretty good regional now but I dont want to stay here and the way things are looking it seems like regionals keep getting bigger airplanes...


atpcliff
09-07-2007, 02:37 AM
Hi!

I'm NOT at NWA...

I don't think their scope changed in any meaningful way.

Mesaba flew RJ-85s, with 64? seats in them. They are VERY old and fuel hogs, and are being phased out. NWA's feeders were allowed to replace these aircraft as they were retired.

I think the 64 seat is the max that can be flown as feed. Anything higher has to be flown at NWA proper.

It may be that the feeders can get MORE aircraft than just replacements for the RJ-85, but if they do get more, then NWA has to buy so many mainline aircraft (at some set ratio) of a certain size to make up for the new feeder aircraft.

Some of the NWA feeder aircraft may SEEM bigger, but they are seat-restricted, which is one of the reasons that NWA will have 2 classes in their new ERJ and CRJ aircraft.

cliff
YIP

HercDriver130
09-07-2007, 02:55 AM
Well 1900 dude...since you work for such a good regional and you have been slamming guys left and right on this forum....just pray tell who do you work for?


Eric Stratton
09-07-2007, 03:08 AM
Well 1900 dude...since you work for such a good regional and you have been slamming guys left and right on this forum....just pray tell who do you work for?


are you kidding me...you're trying to slam a guy for asking why a major would give up any flying. didn't they learn their lesson with the avro and 50 seaters to begin with? (and I'm not just talking NWA here) it looks as though CAL is the only one to have learned that lesson, and it took them 275 145's to learn it too...
what's next on the list to be given up 737's? we all know what great pay everyone is getting for those 170's to 900's out their.

aircraftdriver
09-07-2007, 05:49 AM
As I understand things, the 36 CRJ-900s Mesaba is getting is a one for one replacement of the Avro's. The Avro's had 69 seats which was the previous scope clause limit. The new limit is 76 seats - so that means NW gave up a whopping 7 seats 1900 dude!

Otherwise, NW Airlinks can now fly 90 seventy six seat aircraft until certain ratios are met which would allow them to fly more (ie. more aircraft at mainline).

I agree with that mainline should fly these aircraft, but that is not a reality. Considering this, I think the NW pilots have a good hold on their flying. Compared to other legacys's, NW has a relatively small number of SJ's flying for them and the SJ's that are flying are mainly in the 50 seat range, except of course the new 76 seaters.

Eric Stratton
09-07-2007, 07:02 AM
As I understand things, the 36 CRJ-900s Mesaba is getting is a one for one replacement of the Avro's. The Avro's had 69 seats which was the previous scope clause limit. The new limit is 76 seats - so that means NW gave up a whopping 7 seats 1900 dude!

Otherwise, NW Airlinks can now fly 90 seventy six seat aircraft until certain ratios are met which would allow them to fly more (ie. more aircraft at mainline).

I agree with that mainline should fly these aircraft, but that is not a reality. Considering this, I think the NW pilots have a good hold on their flying. Compared to other legacys's, NW has a relatively small number of SJ's flying for them and the SJ's that are flying are mainly in the 50 seat range, except of course the new 76 seaters.


is that ratio "new" airplanes or "growth" of airplanes? meaning is a replacement for the 9 considered a new airplane but with no growth.

in my opinion losing airplanes while you grow is not a good hold on things...ie the ratio

aircraftdriver
09-07-2007, 08:00 AM
is that ratio "new" airplanes or "growth" of airplanes? meaning is a replacement for the 9 considered a new airplane but with no growth.

in my opinion losing airplanes while you grow is not a good hold on things...ie the ratio

Good point. I have no idea. Does anyone know?

newKnow
09-07-2007, 06:58 PM
Why did go guys give up the scope cause..? Compass and Mesaba will now be flying 70 plus seats out there replacing your DC-9 jobs? why... I work for a pretty good regional now but I dont want to stay here and the way things are looking it seems like regionals keep getting bigger airplanes...

1900, Driver,

The short answer to your question is, we gave up our scope because our senior guys convinced too many junior guys to vote for a contract that did little more than save their (the senior guys) pensions.

Question for you though. Why do you think it's ok to ask us such a question in such a demeaning way?

I doubt if you would show up looking for a jumpseat with such a question.

If you want to stay at your regional and fly your 1900 thru E-175, then go right ahead. Those of us who will still be here in the next 10-20 years will be forced to fix it and handle the business that wasn't done last year. But, don't act like we messed it up for you. We messed it up for ourselves, you are not even here (yet).

aircraftdriver
09-07-2007, 07:04 PM
1900, Driver,

The short answer to your question is, we gave up our scope because our senior guys convinced too many junior guys to vote for a contract that did little more than save their (the senior guys) pensions.

Question for you though. Why do you think it's ok to ask us such a question in such a demeaning way?

I doubt if you would show up looking for a jumpseat with such a question.

If you want to stay at your regional and fly your 1900 thru E-175, then go right ahead. Those of us who will still be here in the next 10-20 years will be forced to fix it and handle the business that wasn't done last year. But, don't act like we messed it up for you. We messed it up for ourselves, you are not even here (yet).

To get the required 10 characters to post, I say Amen.

Eric Stratton
09-07-2007, 11:16 PM
1900, Driver,

The short answer to your question is, we gave up our scope because our senior guys convinced too many junior guys to vote for a contract that did little more than save their (the senior guys) pensions.

Question for you though. Why do you think it's ok to ask us such a question in such a demeaning way?

I doubt if you would show up looking for a jumpseat with such a question.

If you want to stay at your regional and fly your 1900 thru E-175, then go right ahead. Those of us who will still be here in the next 10-20 years will be forced to fix it and handle the business that wasn't done last year. But, don't act like we messed it up for you. We messed it up for ourselves, you are not even here (yet).

how did he ask that question in a demeaning way. I just do see it.

I have to say that if you don't think giving up scope has messed it for the regional pilots and everyone who wants to work in this field, I think that is very naive. you say that you messed it up for yourselves. were you ever going to fly those airplanes?

every airplane that is given up in scope means that it will take 10 people that much longer to get to a major. there are over 1000 jets flying at the regionals right now. how many were their 10, 15, 20 years ago? the pay at the regionals is rather pathetic. those that don't think it is, go and fly from the right seat for a sustained amount of time after you can upgrade. where is the leverage for them to raise those rates. if they do, the majors just give it away to someone else.

how many jobs have been lost at the majors because they continue to give up scope. it started out with props at the regionals, then the 50 seater, then 69, now 76 and some regionals are flying 90 seaters. when does it stop? he wants to know, and if the majors keep giving away airplanes when times get tough maybe he might stay at the regional because he might just be flying 737/320's someday their.

you guys might be around for 10-20 years but the regional and new pilots will be here for 30-40 years.

Eric Stratton
09-07-2007, 11:19 PM
Good point. I have no idea. Does anyone know?

I was told that it says "new" airplanes. that means a dc-9 replacement would allow for more 76 seaters. just what I was told, haven't read it yet.

XJPILOT1
09-08-2007, 10:41 AM
1900, Driver,

The short answer to your question is, we gave up our scope because our senior guys convinced too many junior guys to vote for a contract that did little more than save their (the senior guys) pensions.

Question for you though. Why do you think it's ok to ask us such a question in such a demeaning way?

I doubt if you would show up looking for a jumpseat with such a question.

If you want to stay at your regional and fly your 1900 thru E-175, then go right ahead. Those of us who will still be here in the next 10-20 years will be forced to fix it and handle the business that wasn't done last year. But, don't act like we messed it up for you. We messed it up for ourselves, you are not even here (yet).


Well put!!!!!

XJPILOT1
09-08-2007, 10:46 AM
I was told that it says "new" airplanes. that means a dc-9 replacement would allow for more 76 seaters. just what I was told, haven't read it yet.

The CR9's are going to fly old Avro routes to begin with. The CR9 is not replacing the 9. If anything will be used in it's place it will be the E170 Compass will be flying. Also, NWA will be the launch customer for the Bombardier C-series. That was the deal made three years ago as a possible replacement for MAINLINE flying of the DC9.

newKnow
09-08-2007, 09:25 PM
Thanks, XJ.

newKnow
09-08-2007, 09:27 PM
how did he ask that question in a demeaning way. I just do see it.

I have to say that if you don't think giving up scope has messed it for the regional pilots and everyone who wants to work in this field, I think that is very naive. you say that you messed it up for yourselves. were you ever going to fly those airplanes?

every airplane that is given up in scope means that it will take 10 people that much longer to get to a major. there are over 1000 jets flying at the regionals right now. how many were their 10, 15, 20 years ago? the pay at the regionals is rather pathetic. those that don't think it is, go and fly from the right seat for a sustained amount of time after you can upgrade. where is the leverage for them to raise those rates. if they do, the majors just give it away to someone else.

how many jobs have been lost at the majors because they continue to give up scope. it started out with props at the regionals, then the 50 seater, then 69, now 76 and some regionals are flying 90 seaters. when does it stop? he wants to know, and if the majors keep giving away airplanes when times get tough maybe he might stay at the regional because he might just be flying 737/320's someday their.

you guys might be around for 10-20 years but the regional and new pilots will be here for 30-40 years.

Eric,
I think my point to you and 1900 is that you are preaching to the choir.

If you think you can tell us about flying for the commuters and pathetic pay, you are preachng to the choir.

If you think you can tell us about the effect of giving up scope, you are preaching to the choir.

And, if you think you can inform us about how many RJ's are out there, you are preaching to the choir.

The point I made, that you seemed to miss, is that we know what's up.

Don't come yapping in our face about what happened in the past. Some, even most of us, are willing to do what it takes to get back what we lost.

But for you, or anyone else, to approach us with, "Hey, NWA guy's, why did you do that?" (like the little guy that was bugging Maverick in Top Gun because he wouldn't fire), is disrespectful.

For you to try to tell someone about the pathetic pay at the commuters when they were flying for the commuters when you were in grade school, is disrespectful.

In essence, I am saying that to point out the obvious to someone in a way that is not constructive, is disrespectful.

If you can't see that then, dude, you have no clothes.

pilotss
09-09-2007, 03:13 AM
With the upgrade times and the seniority lists at the commuters rolling upward so fast, many people are not having to wait to become captain very long. You can survive at most commuters as a captain. It's not the best but you can manage.

However, when the next downturn hits, and these new entries into the commuters, which is the largest commuter base in history start staying at F/O pay for 5-10 years, I think the reality of this industry will set in a little deeper.

Eric Stratton
09-09-2007, 10:14 AM
Eric,
I think my point to you and 1900 is that you are preaching to the choir.

If you think you can tell us about flying for the commuters and pathetic pay, you are preachng to the choir.

If you think you can tell us about the effect of giving up scope, you are preaching to the choir.

And, if you think you can inform us about how many RJ's are out there, you are preaching to the choir.

The point I made, that you seemed to miss, is that we know what's up.

Don't come yapping in our face about what happened in the past. Some, even most of us, are willing to do what it takes to get back what we lost.

But for you, or anyone else, to approach us with, "Hey, NWA guy's, why did you do that?" (like the little guy that was bugging Maverick in Top Gun because he wouldn't fire), is disrespectful.

For you to try to tell someone about the pathetic pay at the commuters when they were flying for the commuters when you were in grade school, is disrespectful.

In essence, I am saying that to point out the obvious to someone in a way that is not constructive, is disrespectful.

If you can't see that then, dude, you have no clothes.


If 1900 and I are preaching to the choir then way does it still happen. why do the majors continue to give up scope. they obviously haven't learned that lesson yet. even after 9-11 when guys were getting furloughed they gave up more airplanes. I'm not just talking about just NWA either.

You say that I am preaching to the choir but it doesn't seem like it. when you don't think that giving up scope affects regional pilots and future pilots it seems like i'm not preaching to the choir. whether that's the the case or not that's what it seems like.

in regards to the maveric comment he knew he didn't fire and screwed up but didn't want to here it, right. now think to the last dog fight in the movie when tim robbins is his RIO. maveric screws up again and this time Tim is yelling at him to get back in the fight or ice isn't going to survive. maveric and tim would have been fine if he left the fight but iceman and his RIO wouldn't be. sometimes you need someone yelling, questioning, or telling you that you screwed up so that it doesn't continue to happen over and over. right now it is happening over and over with larger airplanes. 1900 was just asking why. he doesn't work for NWA and just wanted to know why because he doesn't understand it either.

when you say that you are willing to fight to get it back does that mean getting those airplanes back because I just don't see it. I believe that the pay and work rules will go up again but I don't see any major EVER getting the planes back.

It is very frustrating to hear people know how bad it is at the regionals and yet they still give more and more airplanes to them. this is not directed at you but to every major and to alpa who is suppose to be looking out for all pilots. just curious how big were the regionals when you were their?

flyguy1
09-09-2007, 11:25 AM
American, United, USAirways, Delta, America West, and Alaska all "gave up" their 76 seat flying long before NWA pilots did. Do you really think it was going to stay on the NWA property? Remember, the original threat at NWA was all flying 100 seats and below was going to NEWCO. I don't want to get into wether that threat was real or perceived, but there were enough of pilots who believed it was real.This made holding on to the 100 seat flying a major focus of the negotiating commitee.
Right or wrong, this is an industry that plays follow the leader in many ways, and scope is one of them. I personally hate RJ's and would prefer to see 76 seaters on the NWA property. With the "shortage" of qualified pilots(300 hours and a multi-engine rating doesn't count), I would love to see NWA take some or all of the 76 seat flying and put it back on the property. It would be a great way to maybe attract some of the more qualified pilots, and not lose them to ASA, Comair, Express Jet etc. I'm not holding my breath on this one though.

Eric Stratton
09-09-2007, 11:57 AM
American, United, USAirways, Delta, America West, and Alaska all "gave up" their 76 seat flying long before NWA pilots did. Do you really think it was going to stay on the NWA property? Remember, the original threat at NWA was all flying 100 seats and below was going to NEWCO. I don't want to get into wether that threat was real or perceived, but there were enough of pilots who believed it was real.This made holding on to the 100 seat flying a major focus of the negotiating commitee.
Right or wrong, this is an industry that plays follow the leader in many ways, and scope is one of them. I personally hate RJ's and would prefer to see 76 seaters on the NWA property. With the "shortage" of qualified pilots(300 hours and a multi-engine rating doesn't count), I would love to see NWA take some or all of the 76 seat flying and put it back on the property. It would be a great way to maybe attract some of the more qualified pilots, and not lose them to ASA, Comair, Express Jet etc. I'm not holding my breath on this one though.

They could have and I still remember the day when mesaba avro pilots were getting an earfull asking for the jumpseat and even denied because they flew the avro.

I never thought that I would see the day that Continental pilots were the only pilots to hold their ground in not giving up the 70 seaters. remember the old saying that if your friends jump off a bridge doesn't mean you have to also.

airlines trying to get rid of or loosening scope is nothing new. think back to the lorenzo days. what is new is that the majors are actually doing it now. like a friend of mine says once the toothpaste is out of the tube there is no putting it back.

I would love to see the 70+ seaters back to the majors.

newKnow
09-09-2007, 08:30 PM
If 1900 and I are preaching to the choir then way does it still happen. why do the majors continue to give up scope. they obviously haven't learned that lesson yet. even after 9-11 when guys were getting furloughed they gave up more airplanes. I'm not just talking about just NWA either.

You say that I am preaching to the choir but it doesn't seem like it. when you don't think that giving up scope affects regional pilots and future pilots it seems like i'm not preaching to the choir. whether that's the the case or not that's what it seems like.

in regards to the maveric comment he knew he didn't fire and screwed up but didn't want to here it, right. now think to the last dog fight in the movie when tim robbins is his RIO. maveric screws up again and this time Tim is yelling at him to get back in the fight or ice isn't going to survive. maveric and tim would have been fine if he left the fight but iceman and his RIO wouldn't be. sometimes you need someone yelling, questioning, or telling you that you screwed up so that it doesn't continue to happen over and over. right now it is happening over and over with larger airplanes. 1900 was just asking why. he doesn't work for NWA and just wanted to know why because he doesn't understand it either.

when you say that you are willing to fight to get it back does that mean getting those airplanes back because I just don't see it. I believe that the pay and work rules will go up again but I don't see any major EVER getting the planes back.

It is very frustrating to hear people know how bad it is at the regionals and yet they still give more and more airplanes to them. this is not directed at you but to every major and to alpa who is suppose to be looking out for all pilots. just curious how big were the regionals when you were their?

Eric,

If you don't see EVER getting the airplanes back at the majors, then why even bring it up?

I mean what's the point of complaining if you can't conceive of any solutions? That's my point. You are just yapping.

The difference in our examples is key.

In Top Gun when the little guy was yapping at Maverick ("We could have had 'em man!") they were off the airplane oand on the ground. Maverick could not have done anything at that point.

Your Tim Robbins example is great, because he, on the other hand was yelling at him while they were in the air. Maverick was able to take his advice and do something with it.

If you can see my point, it is that you are not being constructive yapping at us while offering no suggestions. This is what I'm saying is disrespectful.

If you say that all you wanted to do is know what we gave up scope in our last K, I answered it in my first post. A bunch of senior guys convinced too many junior guys that it was the best K we could get. It actually saved their pensions and did little else for the rest of us.

Now those senior guys are retiring at a pretty good clip. This airline will be full of junior guys very soon because of it. We have huge numbers of retirements coming up and even if "Age 65" did pass, there would be less effect than there would be at other airlines because of the "saved" pensions I mentioned above. In fact, those pilots who were furloughed towards the tail end of the furloughs are a just few numbers from the left seat of the DC-9. Anyone who has been furloughed knows how to risk things and survive if things don't work out. So, when our K is up in 2011, our pilot group will be full of "junior" people. Scope, retirement, and pay will be at the top of our list.

Personally, I think ALL aircraft with a NWA logo on it should be under one K. If our number one -400 pilot wanted to bid to fly right seat of the SAAB-340, I think he should be able to do it. No whipsawing that way. I also, think there should be longevity pay that is not seat specific (like what UPS has). No whipsawing that way.

Who know's who will be in charge of our union at the time our new K comes up, but hopefully we have a chance to change things for the better. That will if we can remain focused and find people that don't complain just to hear their voices.

New K Now

Eric Stratton
09-10-2007, 08:37 AM
Eric,

If you don't see EVER getting the airplanes back at the majors, then why even bring it up?

I mean what's the point of complaining if you can't conceive of any solutions? That's my point. You are just yapping.

The difference in our examples is key.

In Top Gun when the little guy was yapping at Maverick ("We could have had 'em man!") they were off the airplane oand on the ground. Maverick could not have done anything at that point.

Your Tim Robbins example is great, because he, on the other hand was yelling at him while they were in the air. Maverick was able to take his advice and do something with it.

If you can see my point, it is that you are not being constructive yapping at us while offering no suggestions. This is what I'm saying is disrespectful.

If you say that all you wanted to do is know what we gave up scope in our last K, I answered it in my first post. A bunch of senior guys convinced too many junior guys that it was the best K we could get. It actually saved their pensions and did little else for the rest of us.

Now those senior guys are retiring at a pretty good clip. This airline will be full of junior guys very soon because of it. We have huge numbers of retirements coming up and even if "Age 65" did pass, there would be less effect than there would be at other airlines because of the "saved" pensions I mentioned above. In fact, those pilots who were furloughed towards the tail end of the furloughs are a just few numbers from the left seat of the DC-9. Anyone who has been furloughed knows how to risk things and survive if things don't work out. So, when our K is up in 2011, our pilot group will be full of "junior" people. Scope, retirement, and pay will be at the top of our list.

Personally, I think ALL aircraft with a NWA logo on it should be under one K. If our number one -400 pilot wanted to bid to fly right seat of the SAAB-340, I think he should be able to do it. No whipsawing that way. I also, think there should be longevity pay that is not seat specific (like what UPS has). No whipsawing that way.

Who know's who will be in charge of our union at the time our new K comes up, but hopefully we have a chance to change things for the better. That will if we can remain focused and find people that don't complain just to hear their voices.

New K Now

You are correct I don't think the majors will EVER get the airplanes given up back. It would be nice if it happened though. Why bring it up like 1900 did, because the majors continue to give up larger and more airplanes reducing future jobs at the majors.

The point of bringing it up, complaining or yapping as you call it is this. You claim to know all of the problems, regional pay/work rules, size, scope, whipsawing and that I am preaching to the choir. Then why in your first post you tell 1900 and I quote "But, don't act like we messed it up for you. We messed it up for ourselves, you are not even here (yet)." 1900 can't even get the the "yet" part because the majors continue giving away bigger and more airplanes. I would have thought the majors learned their lesson with the 50 seaters and yet they gave up 70 seaters. That's why I bring it up so that it doesn't become 100 seaters the next time around.

Now back to top gun analogies. You just explained why things keep getting worse and worse with scope. No ones talking about the ramifications of what's happened in the past. According to you there is no reason to talk about it because it is over. Why do we debrief after sim sessions, have crm classes or talk about accidents. We do that so we learn for our mistakes. We talk about them after the fact.

I'm right there with you about all the flying should be done for the parent airline.

My solution is this, we talk about it so that it doesn't happen again and again. Delta prior to 9-11 on their last contract gave up 70 seaters so that they could get the united contract. They threw the 70 seaters under the bus because they (the current pilots) wouldn't be flying them only the new ones. This is according to my delta buddies. I want to make sure this doesn't happen again for a quick pay day because we all know that delta has lost their pay as well as those 70 seaters.

XtremeF150
09-10-2007, 06:16 PM
The CR9's are going to fly old Avro routes to begin with. The CR9 is not replacing the 9. If anything will be used in it's place it will be the E170 Compass will be flying. Also, NWA will be the launch customer for the Bombardier C-series. That was the deal made three years ago as a possible replacement for MAINLINE flying of the DC9.

Yeah that's right.....wait they both have 76 seats? So tell me why you are not doing something CMP is? They are both filling the same market segment and both airlines have the same # of them. Now by all means, an explanation? :rolleyes:

newKnow
09-10-2007, 11:30 PM
You are correct I don't think the majors will EVER get the airplanes given up back. It would be nice if it happened though. Why bring it up like 1900 did, because the majors continue to give up larger and more airplanes reducing future jobs at the majors.

The point of bringing it up, complaining or yapping as you call it is this. You claim to know all of the problems, regional pay/work rules, size, scope, whipsawing and that I am preaching to the choir. Then why in your first post you tell 1900 and I quote "But, don't act like we messed it up for you. We messed it up for ourselves, you are not even here (yet)." 1900 can't even get the the "yet" part because the majors continue giving away bigger and more airplanes. I would have thought the majors learned their lesson with the 50 seaters and yet they gave up 70 seaters. That's why I bring it up so that it doesn't become 100 seaters the next time around.

Now back to top gun analogies. You just explained why things keep getting worse and worse with scope. No ones talking about the ramifications of what's happened in the past. According to you there is no reason to talk about it because it is over. Why do we debrief after sim sessions, have crm classes or talk about accidents. We do that so we learn for our mistakes. We talk about them after the fact.

I'm right there with you about all the flying should be done for the parent airline.

My solution is this, we talk about it so that it doesn't happen again and again. Delta prior to 9-11 on their last contract gave up 70 seaters so that they could get the united contract. They threw the 70 seaters under the bus because they (the current pilots) wouldn't be flying them only the new ones. This is according to my delta buddies. I want to make sure this doesn't happen again for a quick pay day because we all know that delta has lost their pay as well as those 70 seaters.


Eric,

I think we are running out of debatable issues. The point I was trying to make is that there is a certain way to do things and a certain way not to do things.

Complaining to a group of people that you one day might want to work for is not a good way to ever work there. I understand your point about not getting to the "majors" because scope is being given away, but unless you are bringing good ideals to fix the situation, I do consider it to be "yapping."

We do have de-brief sessions after sims, CRM, and things like that. But, they are not very productive if they are not conducted with respect.

Imagine after you finished a flight how you would feel if a passenger approached you, in an accusatory way, in front of everyone and asked you why you slammed on the breaks when you exited the runway. Something like, "Hey Captain, why'd you slam on the breaks?"

I'm sure you would feel like he should have found a different way to approach you. There is a way to do things and CRM teaches you to do them with respect. You get better results that way.

As far as my statement that we didn't mess things up for you, we messed it up for ourselves, I stand by it. I think though that you took it out of context. I was not saying that the scope we gave up didn't mess things up for the reigonal pilots. What I was saying is that we screwed ourselves first. We are the ones who got, furloughed and displaced.

My point to 1900, and I guess to you, was that it was rude to act like his boat was the only ship in the ocean. Other people were affected by this crappy contract, too. Most of them had concerns like how they were going to pay the bills after being furloughed or taking a 40% pay cut. Imagine how a furloughed pilot would feel after reading 1900's post when he just got back.

Im sure in his mind he/she would say I got furloughed for 5 years and had to go back to being a FO on the RJ for $15,000 a year and this kid is complaining that he has to wait a little longer to get to the majors. Please.

So anyway, it's September 11th and the last thing I want to do is debate another pilot about how crappy our industry has gotten.

Maybe we can pick up again on Wednesday. :rolleyes:

INAV8OR
09-11-2007, 01:51 AM
I was wondering when you two, New/Eric, were going to give it a rest and stop ****ing and moaning about what has happened. So, as an RJ guy myself (10 yrs of a life sentance, trying to get parolled or transfered), it is time to drive forward, look out the windshield and rip down the rear view mirror. Last I checked, my plane doesn't have a rear view...

Eric Stratton
09-11-2007, 05:14 AM
talk to you tomorrow newknow. take care.

INAV8OR, when the trend reverses.

XJPILOT1
09-11-2007, 05:16 AM
Yeah that's right.....wait they both have 76 seats? So tell me why you are not doing something CMP is? They are both filling the same market segment and both airlines have the same # of them. Now by all means, an explanation? :rolleyes:

Well since you're new to Compass, you may not know why Compass was formed. Compass was formed to go head to head with NWA mainline flying. MESABA was not.

Compass was used to make NWA pilot's bend and is part of the TA which they signed. MESABA was not.

After Compass was formed to provide a low cost replacement for DC-9 flying (which must be replaced because the 9 mods the FAA approved a few years ago are timing out) MESABA was purchased from the evil empire (MAIR).

If you read the TA and read NWA's fleet plan, then you'll see what's going on.

contrail67
09-11-2007, 05:19 AM
Scope was changed because this was all done in a bankruptcy state of negotiating....period. Its called being bent over a barrell.

XJPILOT1
09-11-2007, 05:32 AM
That's right contrail67, who's to blame? Everyone trys to protect what they have but the lawyers divide and conquer.

Eric Stratton
09-11-2007, 05:35 AM
it was still negociated by the pilots not a judge...pay you can get back but I've yet to see planes come back.

XtremeF150
09-11-2007, 09:03 AM
Well since you're new to Compass, you may not know why Compass was formed. Compass was formed to go head to head with NWA mainline flying. MESABA was not.

Compass was used to make NWA pilot's bend and is part of the TA which they signed. MESABA was not.

After Compass was formed to provide a low cost replacement for DC-9 flying (which must be replaced because the 9 mods the FAA approved a few years ago are timing out) MESABA was purchased from the evil empire (MAIR).

If you read the TA and read NWA's fleet plan, then you'll see what's going on.

So I guess your explanation is that CMP is stealing the -9's flying with the same size and # of a/c You fly, but that doesn't apply to your 900's flying....seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me....Then I guess NWA's situation after exiting bancruptcy didn't have anything to do with your a/c and thats why Your a/c are also included in the SAME scope language as CMP's....I guess I just didn't understand.;)

Invisible Man
09-11-2007, 09:10 AM
Eric,
How many times did the BK judge rule in favor of the pilots at NWA?
I could be wrong but I think it was none.
So the choice was find some type of agreement (as bad as is was).
Or the judge would make one.
IM

Eric Stratton
09-11-2007, 10:05 AM
Eric,
How many times did the BK judge rule in favor of the pilots at NWA?
I could be wrong but I think it was none.
So the choice was find some type of agreement (as bad as is was).
Or the judge would make one.
IM

I guess in my mind it is just as bad because I don't see those airplanes ever coming back. this isn't just an NWA problem this is an industry wide problem. scope has been loosened in bad times as well as good times. the next time an airline wants to loosen scope I think they should look at loosening it in the other direction. anything over 200 seats can be flown at a regional. that way everyone on the seniority list is affected and not just the most junior.

Invisible Man
09-11-2007, 10:13 AM
I agree. I think it is a big problem that is almost impossible to fix. But I also think the reigonals better get some type of scope clause of there own. They may need it for the 19 to 50 seat flying.

Tinpusher007
09-11-2007, 10:58 AM
I bet NWA mgmnt is reading this entire thread and laughing their asses off. This is exactly what they wanted...we're already divided. I would just like to say as far as XJ vs Compass...neither company has any real control over the planes they're flying, NWA does. The CR9 and E175 are essentially the same thing so there is no point in fighting about it. Am I hurting NWA mainline because XJ assigned me to the CR9 instead of the SF-340? Should I have chosen to delay my career until all the majors got scope figured out? And Eric, what exactly is the point in badgering newknow about what NWA pilots did in the past? Were you there when mangmnt and the BK judge gave them essentially an ultimatum? Have you walked even an inch in his shoes? Oh and for the record, the majors are hiring now...just about all of them, so what exactly is your beef about never getting to one? We all know the situation is ****ed up right now, but pointing fingers at each other helps no one.

XJPILOT1
09-11-2007, 12:09 PM
So I guess your explanation is that CMP is stealing the -9's flying with the same size and # of a/c You fly, but that doesn't apply to your 900's flying....seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me....Then I guess NWA's situation after exiting bancruptcy didn't have anything to do with your a/c and thats why Your a/c are also included in the SAME scope language as CMP's....I guess I just didn't understand.;)

First of all I'm not jumping on the "your stealing flying away from the mainline" bandwagon. What is and what will be mainline aircraft is not entirely up to us. I do know that years ago the top weasels at NWA invited both Embrear and Bombardier to show off their 76 seaters (I have pictures). At the time no one (but them) had a clue as to who would be flying them. Compass didn't exist. MESABA was owned by MAIR. We thought it was a "fly off" for the Avro replacement. We also thought "S-Jet" was a ploy to get the Mainline Guys to accept the TA.

It's real easy to look back and make up your own conclusion, but at the time MESABA and NWA were fighting for what ever they could get. Believe me it was an ugly fight.

atpcliff
09-11-2007, 08:32 PM
Hi!

So.....

What's the latest on the NWA hiring process???

And, I have 1 specific question: What is the pay during training?

Thanx a bunch!

cliff
YIP

newKnow
09-11-2007, 08:56 PM
Hi!

So.....

What's the latest on the NWA hiring process???

And, I have 1 specific question: What is the pay during training?

Thanx a bunch!

cliff
YIP


Cliff,

Check out the thread titled "NWA" interview. I think you can find good information there. I think.

Eric Stratton
09-12-2007, 11:09 AM
error made

Eric Stratton
09-12-2007, 11:10 AM
Eric,

I think we are running out of debatable issues. The point I was trying to make is that there is a certain way to do things and a certain way not to do things.

Complaining to a group of people that you one day might want to work for is not a good way to ever work there. I understand your point about not getting to the "majors" because scope is being given away, but unless you are bringing good ideals to fix the situation, I do consider it to be "yapping."

We do have de-brief sessions after sims, CRM, and things like that. But, they are not very productive if they are not conducted with respect.

Imagine after you finished a flight how you would feel if a passenger approached you, in an accusatory way, in front of everyone and asked you why you slammed on the breaks when you exited the runway. Something like, "Hey Captain, why'd you slam on the breaks?"

I'm sure you would feel like he should have found a different way to approach you. There is a way to do things and CRM teaches you to do them with respect. You get better results that way.

As far as my statement that we didn't mess things up for you, we messed it up for ourselves, I stand by it. I think though that you took it out of context. I was not saying that the scope we gave up didn't mess things up for the reigonal pilots. What I was saying is that we screwed ourselves first. We are the ones who got, furloughed and displaced.

My point to 1900, and I guess to you, was that it was rude to act like his boat was the only ship in the ocean. Other people were affected by this crappy contract, too. Most of them had concerns like how they were going to pay the bills after being furloughed or taking a 40% pay cut. Imagine how a furloughed pilot would feel after reading 1900's post when he just got back.

Im sure in his mind he/she would say I got furloughed for 5 years and had to go back to being a FO on the RJ for $15,000 a year and this kid is complaining that he has to wait a little longer to get to the majors. Please.

So anyway, it's September 11th and the last thing I want to do is debate another pilot about how crappy our industry has gotten.

Maybe we can pick up again on Wednesday. :rolleyes:

I guess when I read 1900's post I don't see it as being disrespectful at all. He said he wants to work at a major but the way everyone keeps loosening scope he might be better off staying if the trend continues. He just wants to know why. In all honesty I felt your reply was more disrespectful than his because you said it doesn't affect him at all.

The way to fix the loosening of scope is to stop it. It shouldn't even be an option at the negociating table. Be the opposite of Nike, Just Don't Do It! :)

If a customer asked why something happened I'd tell them.

I've had discussions with guys at other airlines about scope and I have told them that it should be shot down on the scope clause alone. It is something that I highly doubt they will ever be able to get back. This was while in the jump seat as well. Sometimes there needs to be tough discussions.

You ask how a person would feel about losing their job and hearing 1900 complain. I would think they would be on his side. Having been a person who lost a job after 9-11 it absolutely floored me when united and Usair gave away more flying while laying off pilots. My initial thought was that any new 50 seaters would start going to the major (even at the low pay) just so that guys don't get furloughed. Due to scope language. That didn't happen and they actually gave away bigger airplanes. If those airplane weren't given up I'm betting the furloughed pilots might have been recalled quicker. Loosening scope just adds to the number of $15,000 FO jobs out their.

So is their any truth to the rumor about parking all of the dc9-30's? How is the scope language worded? can they actually shrink mainline to lower the floor or something like that to make it easier to get more 76 seater's. Is the ratio based on growth or new airplanes?

EV120
09-12-2007, 11:24 AM
Does anyone have any information about interviews? I have not seen or heard anything except for pre 9/11 and instructors.

If anyone has actually interviewed, can you through the rest of us a bone?

Invisible Man
09-12-2007, 02:23 PM
I guess when I read 1900's post I don't see it as being disrespectful at all. He said he wants to work at a major but the way everyone keeps loosening scope he might be better off staying if the trend continues. He just wants to know why. In all honesty I felt your reply was more disrespectful than his because you said it doesn't affect him at all.

The way to fix the loosening of scope is to stop it. It shouldn't even be an option at the negociating table. Be the opposite of Nike, Just Don't Do It! :)

If a customer asked why something happened I'd tell them.

I've had discussions with guys at other airlines about scope and I have told them that it should be shot down on the scope clause alone. It is something that I highly doubt they will ever be able to get back. This was while in the jump seat as well. Sometimes there needs to be tough discussions.

You ask how a person would feel about losing their job and hearing 1900 complain. I would think they would be on his side. Having been a person who lost a job after 9-11 it absolutely floored me when united and Usair gave away more flying while laying off pilots. My initial thought was that any new 50 seaters would start going to the major (even at the low pay) just so that guys don't get furloughed. Due to scope language. That didn't happen and they actually gave away bigger airplanes. If those airplane weren't given up I'm betting the furloughed pilots might have been recalled quicker. Loosening scope just adds to the number of $15,000 FO jobs out their.

So is their any truth to the rumor about parking all of the dc9-30's? How is the scope language worded? can they actually shrink mainline to lower the floor or something like that to make it easier to get more 76 seater's. Is the ratio based on growth or new airplanes?
I thought 1900's post sounded a little disrespectful. You never hear them complain when they get there first airline job because someone gave up scope. Only when they realize they want to advance and that seat is no longer there.

As far as "just don't do it!". That sounds good but Scope is just one part of the contract. If pilots say they will not even open it (scope) then they will have to give somewhere else(pay,vacation,sick,work rules,etc.). Some pilots could not afford to give up anymore pay,vac.,sick,etc. and survive. So to save a higher paying job they caved on scope and other stuff. And before you say you will never get the planes back. It's not going to be easy to get anything back. When contracts open all you are going to here is "cost neutral"
This is also a two way street. Everyone say that majors sould not give up anymore scope. Well the reigonals should stop taking bigger and bigger planes. When the company says they want pay rates for 90,100,120 seat airplanes say NO! Tell them you do not want them.

Eric Stratton
09-12-2007, 02:52 PM
I thought 1900's post sounded a little disrespectful. You never hear them complain when they get there first airline job because someone gave up scope. Only when they realize they want to advance and that seat is no longer there.

As far as "just don't do it!". That sounds good but Scope is just one part of the contract. If pilots say they will not even open it (scope) then they will have to give somewhere else(pay,vacation,sick,work rules,etc.). Some pilots could not afford to give up anymore pay,vac.,sick,etc. and survive. So to save a higher paying job they caved on scope and other stuff. And before you say you will never get the planes back. It's not going to be easy to get anything back. When contracts open all you are going to here is "cost neutral"
This is also a two way street. Everyone say that majors sould not give up anymore scope. Well the reigonals should stop taking bigger and bigger planes. When the company says they want pay rates for 90,100,120 seat airplanes say NO! Tell them you do not want them.

wow, so in your give and take what did the airlines get in the last round of contracts. I'm sure it was give and take that time. name 1 thing that they got for loosening scope. was it lower pay, less sick time, lost work rules, lost vacation. wait I got it, it was they got to work more hours each month.

as for hearing new pilots complain that is just ridiculous. here's a thought if those airplanes had went to the major then more regional pilots would go their creating new jobs for future pilots at the regional. what do you want more major pilots or regional?

as for those last 2 sentences, please...

Invisible Man
09-12-2007, 04:47 PM
wow, so in your give and take what did the airlines get in the last round of contracts. I'm sure it was give and take that time. name 1 thing that they got for loosening scope. was it lower pay, less sick time, lost work rules, lost vacation. wait I got it, it was they got to work more hours each month.

as for hearing new pilots complain that is just ridiculous. here's a thought if those airplanes had went to the major then more regional pilots would go their creating new jobs for future pilots at the regional. what do you want more major pilots or regional?

as for those last 2 sentences, please...
The last round of contracts were all in BK or the threat of BK. Again the judge ruled in favor of the company 99% of the time.

One thing they got for loosening scope was they did not have to take a bigger pay cut then they did, or more work rule changes, or less sick time, etc.. If they did not bend on scope they would have had to give more somewhere else. None of the choices they had to choose from where good. It was not like they where happy about any of it. What do you think they should have given up? And remember if it was not Scope it has to come from somewhere else.

I want more major jobs. But they need to be good paying jobs or why bother.

"as for the last 2 sentences, please"

I could be wrong but didn't Mesa ask the pilots to fly 737's? And they said no.

Eric Stratton
09-12-2007, 06:38 PM
The last round of contracts were all in BK or the threat of BK. Again the judge ruled in favor of the company 99% of the time.

One thing they got for loosening scope was they did not have to take a bigger pay cut then they did, or more work rule changes, or less sick time, etc.. If they did not bend on scope they would have had to give more somewhere else. None of the choices they had to choose from where good. It was not like they where happy about any of it. What do you think they should have given up? And remember if it was not Scope it has to come from somewhere else.

I want more major jobs. But they need to be good paying jobs or why bother.

"as for the last 2 sentences, please"

I could be wrong but didn't Mesa ask the pilots to fly 737's? And they said no.

so where do you draw the line in the sand?

when do you hold management accountable for running an airline? it's never been a pilot contract's that have put an airline under, it's management.

how did southwest continue to turn a profit right after 9-11? remember everyone was paying about the same for fuel then.

why bother having more jobs at the major? 1. you are gaining seniority and don't have to take another paycut. 2. less ability to get whipsawed 3. most likely less time spent at the regional.

I don't think mesa was turning them down so that a parent could fly them. I think they turned them down because they wouldn't cave to JO's cheap wages. If they were high enough I think they would have taken them but they weren't even close. I could be wrong too...



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1