|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979809)
No something greater than the almighty buck; pilots dealing with pilot internally and not at the table with the company.
It is my belief that at some point RJET left to their own devices will try to challenge exclusivity rights of its mainline counterparts. They will try to fly whatever they can to a a alliance flight totally going around a mainline section one. It will be divisive and a last ditch effort to save themselves. If they are part of ALPA, it will not be tolerated. It is also the same reason what the DCI's that are within ALPA are not trying the same thing. Keeping all pilots under the same National banner allows us the ability to resist being our own worst enemy. You may not buy that, but being wrong would be very costly. Even the RJDC issue was an internal ALPA issue. I prefer that any day to dealing with the company on these matters. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 979804)
Somewhat true because I am a little stir crazy... but I don't see those contracts disappearing very quickly... I mean, I only have 15 years left...
Because of this we need a different strategy. On that is low to zero cost at the table. One that the senior pilots can see as not taking money from them. Sun-setting these agreements is the first step, and then continually lowering the cap of allowable jets is the other. It is a measured pull down. |
Originally Posted by Dash8widget
(Post 979811)
I think RJET bought Frontier in mid 2009, which would be after after the JPWA was voted on - correct?
And what exactly did the pilots vote on anyway? I think the intent of that section of the PWA is pretty clear. If you show our contract to a line pilot and then show them the NMB ruling, I think most would agree that they are in violation. We voted on one thing, and APLA is giving us something else. The NMB made it clear that RJET is considered one carrier, regardless of how many certificates they may own. One could argue is that we didn't know how they were going to set up the operation but one thing for sure is Republic bought their E190s from UsAir on 14OCT09: Republic Airways to Acquire 10 Embraer 190AR Aircraft from US Airways According to our contract: If a carrier that performs category A (which is CPA operations which is Republic) or category C operations (American Eagle in LAX) acquires an aircraft that would cause the Company to no longer be in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 D. 2. c., (E190s sat 99 seats, 97 was the max) the Company will terminate such operations on the date that is the later of the date such aircraft is placed in revenue service, or nine months from the date that the Company first became aware of the potential acquisition (July 2010). (like Icrew, trying to use every possible combination of dates as I can) |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979809)
No something greater than the almighty buck; pilots dealing with pilot internally and not at the table with the company.
It is my belief that at some point RJET left to their own devices will try to challenge exclusivity rights of its mainline counterparts. They will try to fly whatever they can to a a alliance flight totally going around a mainline section one. It will be divisive and a last ditch effort to save themselves. If they are part of ALPA, it will not be tolerated. It is also the same reason what the DCI's that are within ALPA are not trying the same thing. Keeping all pilots under the same National banner allows us the ability to resist being our own worst enemy. You may not buy that, but being wrong would be very costly. Even the RJDC issue was an internal ALPA issue. I prefer that any day to dealing with the company on these matters. Then tell me why in the world the pilots at RJET would ever vote in ALPA as their union knowing that they would not allow their goals. |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 979822)
If they were ALPA, what exactly would/could ALPA do to stop it?
Then tell me why in the world the pilots at RJET would ever vote in ALPA as their union knowing that they would not allow their goals. That is an excellent point. There are lots of guys out there that are fine and dandy happy to fly a baby airbus.. So why would THESE guys upset the apple cart by voting in an entity that would surely try to limit their upward mobility within that company? Altruism? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979813)
Very true, and I would love to see them gone tomorrow. For many reasons that is not realistic. The top reason is that there are income guarantees in many of them, and if DAL is still on the hook, the bargaining credit to buy them off would be so steep that most of our group would balk.
Because of this we need a different strategy. On that is low to zero cost at the table. One that the senior pilots can see as not taking money from them. Sun-setting these agreements is the first step, and then continually lowering the cap of allowable jets is the other. It is a measured pull down. When is THAT part going to start? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979813)
Very true, and I would love to see them gone tomorrow. For many reasons that is not realistic. The top reason is that there are income guarantees in many of them, and if DAL is still on the hook, the bargaining credit to buy them off would be so steep that most of our group would balk.
Because of this we need a different strategy. On that is low to zero cost at the table. One that the senior pilots can see as not taking money from them. Sun-setting these agreements is the first step, and then continually lowering the cap of allowable jets is the other. It is a measured pull down. We may terminate without cause the Chautauqua agreement at any time and the Shuttle America agreement at any time after January 2016 by providing certain advance notice. If we terminate either the Chautauqua or Shuttle America agreements without cause, Chautauqua or Shuttle America, respectively, has the right to (1) assign to us leased aircraft that the airline operates for us, provided we are able to continue the leases on the same terms the airline had prior to the assignment and (2) require us to purchase or lease any aircraft the airline owns and operates for us at the time of the termination. If we are required to purchase aircraft owned by Chautauqua or Shuttle America, the purchase price would be equal to the amount necessary to (1) reimburse Chautauqua or Shuttle America for the equity it provided to purchase the aircraft and (2) repay in full any debt outstanding at such time that is not being assumed in connection with such purchase. If we are required to lease aircraft owned by Chautauqua or Shuttle America, the lease would have (1) a rate equal to the debt payments of Chautauqua or Shuttle America for the debt financing of the aircraft calculated as if 90% of the aircraft was debt financed by Chautauqua or Shuttle America and (2) other specified terms and conditions. Wouldn't that be doing Delta Air Lines management a huge favor getting rid of a future competitor that's using our money to fund their new operation and acquisitions? Not to mention, they want out of the RJ business, right?We estimate that the total fair values, determined as of December 31, 2010, of the aircraft Chautauqua or Shuttle America could assign to us or require that we purchase if we terminate without cause our Contract Carrier agreements with those airlines (the “Put Right”) are approximately $160 million and $370 million, respectively. The actual amount we may be required to pay in these circumstances may be materially different from these estimates. If the Put Right is exercised, we must also pay the exercising carrier 10% interest (compounded monthly) on the equity the carrier provided when it purchased the put aircraft. These equity amounts for Chautauqua and Shuttle America total $25 million and $52 million, respectively. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979777)
Look at the going rate for a BBJ Captain and FO, then compare to ours.
Look at a SWA FO rate and then those rates. Then look at productivity and provide an hourly rate for those BBJ guys and compare it to your rate. That will give you a good indication of what market forces pay compared to us. It has been a few years since I have done this, but I can tell you that our hourly rate is a lot lower than the BBJ's/Global Express pilots are. If you are really board, look at what Coke pays their pilots. They are one of the few companies that has high utilization of their pilots. Is this about what you find, ACL? |
I usually try to agree with ACL, but in this case I can't. We (DALPA) aren't even trying to fight the RAH issue. It might upset the apple cart and imperil the cushy (read lucrative) relationship our DALPA leaders enjoy with Management.
Ultimately I think all unions are doomed because they have lost sight of what they are supposed to represent and instead begin to enjoy the benefits/power of their position. They lose sight of what the line pilots want because they no longer are line pilots themselves. If we don't ask (read challenge) the company about section 1, we won't get. We'll do exactly what FTB proposes in his stop light post, we'll end up once again at the receiving end of a bully's put down. Like a elementary school fight, the bully won't stop until you stand up to him. For God's sake DALPA/ALPA grow a set and stand up for what has been negotiated. It's one thing to fight and fail, it's another to fail to fight - that's COWARDICE! |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 979640)
And no B scale.
Carl - Today's winner of the Le Douche Le Bag award. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands