Your digust with "those damn kids" is blinding you to reality. Take some responsibility for your poor decisions and poor stewardship of the profession.

Seriously, jayme, you don't get it now, you didn't get it then and you probably never will.

Lets just say, for the sake of argument, Mainline pilots did give up scope many years ago. That was a bad mistake. My question is what have the regional pilots done to improve their sub-standard contract and pay? I still hear many regional pilots complaining about their pay and benefits lacking.

Now that you have a lot of our flying, shouldn't you at least make yourself a more secure nest and negotiate better pay and benefits (WHAT IS STOPPING YOU PILOTS??)? or do you still dream about becoming a Mainline pilot?

If we dont do something about it, the days of the Mainline Pilot will be history. Instant gratification and stepping on each others d!ks has naturally dissolved a lot of the lucrative jobs in aviation.

TEN

The pilots at Comair did stand up and demand better pay and work rules. You see where that ended up. The issue is that regional pilot groups are contracted. They don't own the flying. If they cost to much they get replaced. The flying needs to go back to where it is owned. No more contract labor.

Can anyone tell me when the Republic, Chq, and Shuttle FFD contracts expire with their respective Majors? I did a search and I can't find it.

I am rubber, you are glue...;)

Had your generation not sold (or given away, in your case) scope, we would not be having this conversation. Once you did, market forces and human nature took over and you have the mess we see now. Human nature is such that pilots will NEVER sacrafice their jobs so YOU can have more leverage, or so they might have a slightly better chance of moving to mainline. They would rather keep making a little money and gaining the hours they need to move on. That's what YOU don't get. Now tell me what I don't get.

With Delta:

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.

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.

To confirm my position, absolutely, yes, 100%. 97 seat E190s, not sure about, I think that'd been approved but it’s a moot point now with Midwest/Frontier operating Airbuses.

If you look, Delta has CPA’s with: ASA and Skywest which are both subsidiaries of Skywest. Chautauqua and Shuttle America which are both subsidiaries of RAH. Compass which is a subsidiary of TSA. And Pinnacle and Mesaba which are both subsidiaries of Pinnacle Airline Corp. Delta has a revenue proration agreement with some of Skywest’s flying and American Eagle for a few routes out of LAX. (To anyone else reading this who hates acronyms - a CPA is where Delta purchases all or a portion of a carriers capacity and is responsible for selling the seat inventory that they purchase. The RPA is where Delta earns a fixed dollar or percentage of revenues for tickets sold to passengers on connecting flight itineraries.)

Delta has a marketing alliance with Alaska and codesharing agreements with American Eagle and Hawaiian Airlines. All of these marketing relationships are in Delta’s words designed to permit the carriers to retain their separate identifies and route networks while increasing the number of domestic and international connecting passengers using the carriers’ route networks. Alaska and Hawaiian both operate aircraft that are outside of what is permitted per the contract, except that’s permitted per the contract specifically for them. Eagle is not mentioned in the PWA, however, they operate within the confines of the PWA.

But Eagle’s parent company is AMR right? Using the same litmus test to that arrangement as I do with the RAH one wouldn’t that mean Eagle is in violation? Sure. And note I'm all for removing any connection carrier from the system as well as any other permitted flying by other airlines.
To me when you read that definition and look at Brian Bedford’s Republic Airways Holding company, look at why it was started and how it operates as a company, they’re a STS and in violation of the scope clause and their flying for Delta should be terminated. Why?
Now the inevitable question is what are we willing to give up to get a scope clause that is like RAH's? Well, the pilots who signed off on C2000 lost I think 50% pay plus their pensions and scope in Chapter 11. We've pre-paid for take backs in pay, work rules and scope. All to the point that SWA's contracts that were far below ours are now equal with our 747 pay. I think I'd be okay with Delta getting to keep the 50 seat aircraft and below and you can send the 76 seaters packing if they are as truly unprofitable as Delta says they would be. We're okay here with a large fleet of 717s which are far cheaper to acquire and have lower CASMs. Although I'd love to fly E-Jets, those seem to be great all around airplanes. But would that make up for the potential fleet of 255 70-76 seaters of which 120 are 76 seaters? Maybe the 76 seaters could be replaced but not 255 70+ seaters.

The goal is 100% in house. Yes, I would fly a Dash 8... if it paid more than I get paid now. The key to remember here is that Delta wants to whipsaw not only connection carriers against each other but against mainline pilots as well. The last thing any modern BOD would allow a legacy carrier to do is bring it all in house. Seems to work for Southwest, AirTran and Jetblue though. If, however, they're limited to airplanes they don't want such as 50 seaters or if they can get 717s from SWA/AAI and don't need as many 76 seaters then we can make progress here and hire by the thousands in the years to come when you couple retirements.

What you don't get is if enough of you keep making a little money to bank hours, there won't be mainline jobs for you to go to. And you'll finish your career humping an Ejet on mainline routes for "little money."

The Alaska arrangement will most probably be addressed by the Delta Borg assimilating Alaska Airlines. Remember, its the same agreement you had with Northwest and look how that turned out.