Originally Posted by jayme (Post 977780)

So as part of a pilot group that just gave away more flying, do you, or do you not see the hipocrisy?

Originally Posted by jayme (Post 977780)

You give away the flying and then berate the pilots that take the work.

Originally Posted by jayme (Post 977780)

You are a fool with no understanding of human nature. I'll give you a short course: people do what's best for them, then their families, then their friends, then their tribe, then their country, then society as a whole.

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

Carl do you really think that coming onto messages boards and telling people to quit or not take regional jobs is really accomplishing anything?

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

As long as majors require turbine time and there are regionals offering jobs people are gonna be there to take them.

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

I agree that regional airlines are undermining our profession but this shift in the profession you are so fired up about needs to start at the top.

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

Every morning I wake up and drag my ass to the airport just so I can fly around a jet for less than a Chili's bartender makes just so I might have the opportunity to move on and get hired at a major someday.

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

I'd give my left nut to be able to fly a regional jet while on a mainline list and not have to worry about any of the regional BS that we deal with on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

But how are all of us supposed to get all of those thousands of hours of TPIC time needed to be worthy enough to get someone to call us back for an interview. Sure you can say go get a job flying corporate or some other form of turbine flying but the reality is those jobs are so scarce that it's next to impossible to find something without the same experience it takes to get on with a major to begin with...

Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 978030)

Why is this RAH stuff in the majors section? there is one airline (Frontier) that qualifies as a national, and then a bunch of seperate regionals all owned by a parent holding company.

If that's the guidelines, then they need to include the Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgans and Virgin America's of the world...

doesn't it belong in the regionals section....

just sayin.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 977556)

The Board finds a single transportation system only when there is substantial integration of operations, financial control, and labor and personnel functions. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 32 NMB 163 (2005); Huron and Eastern Ry. Co., Inc., 31 NMB 450 (2004); Portland & Western R. R., Inc., 31 NMB 71 (2003); American Airlines and Reno Air, 26 NMB 467 (1999). Further, the Board has noted that a substantial degree of overlapping ownership, senior management, and Boards of Directors is critical to finding a single transportation system. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Precision Airlines and Valley Flying Serv., Inc., d/b/a Northeast Express Reg’l Airlines, 20 NMB 619 (1993). The Board’s criteria for substantial integration of operations do not require total integration of operations. US Airways/America West Airlines, 33 NMB 49 (2006).

I don't know all this legal stuff. I think its just hard for the average line pilot to believe that Republic is not an air carrier. What the heck is Republic Air Holdings if its not a company providing air transportation? They are tricking the system through a legal subterfuge.
Right is right. Our contract prevents codesharing with a company that has Airbuses and E-190s. At least we thought it did.
At this point, ALPA may have to file this grievance just to maintain any sort of credibility with the membership. We've been giving away pieces of our scope clause for so long that its kinda like the sun rising in the morning. A little scope erosion pops up -- ALPA lets it slide or agrees to "settle". Drip, drip, drip.
I'm just tired of it.

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

So let me ask you this: If you are really serious about taking back the flying then how much of a pay cut would you be willing to take to bring it back?

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH (Post 977796)

Next time you look over and see all of us regional guys taxing around on your ramp remember that none of us would be here if the majors were hiring guys with 1500 hours of piston time...

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 978007)

This is a mainline problem and as such will require, 100%, a mainline solution.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 978007)

If ALPA is really the one who keeps pulling the football away from Charlie Mainline pilot then ALPA needs to be replaced, but before that is a viable option we have to self educate to the point where a significant majority of the membership is loud and clear about scope being the number one issue. We are not there yet, but it appears we are finally making progress.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 978008)

From your responses, it is apparent you aren't willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions with regards to the sale of scope...or offer realistic options for recapturing it going forward.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 978010)

Funny thing...ALPA doesn't ratify contracts that sell mainline scope, mailine pilots do.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 977477)

Incorrect. I understand fully why you and others would think its a clear violation of your scope language...I also happen to see the legal argument of why its actually not a violation.

Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.



Correct - the problem is that laypeople (you and me) can read something language on paper and think its black-and-white, while people to practicea living can see a multitude of holes, end-runs and workarounds....often on the meaning of a single word or phrase.

Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...



So are you ready to fire up that DFR lawsuit?



Intent is considered...but so is past practice. The fact that a grievance wasn't pursued prior to this STS ruling, when RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines was already operating aircraft larger than DAL scope allows, *will* be considered.

There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.



This, to me, is the crux of the issue...one that my wife and I butted heads on MANY times during my tenure as an ALPA committe volunteer.

Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.

What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.



But Delta doesn't have domestic codesharing with Frontier - that's the point.

Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.

But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 977368)

Serious question...how does a ruling of a Single Transportation System for Republic Airways Holdings change a thing with regards to Delta scope? After all, STS rulings are for union representation purposes, not operations.

Shuttle America and Chautauqua certificates are still flying DAL code, not Frontier and Republic certificates that operate the aircraft larger than DAL scope allows. This ruling will not change that.

I guess I fail to see the smoking gun here that would allow DALPA a successful grievance on Section 1 issues that they somehow didn't have before...am I missing something?

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 977433)

I'm still not getting what has changed today vs. Monday; why would this be any more of a "slam-dunk" grievance today than it was previously when Republic was operating 99-seat E190s? Are those not considered "large aircraft" under the Delta scope clause?

Why would a STS ruling, that only considers employee union representation, strengthen such a case?

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 977433)

If it was as slam-dunk a grievance as some here believe it to be, why wouldn't ALPA have pursued it by now? If they didn't pursue such a grievance due to politics (which Moak & needing "RJ pilot support" is moot in this case since RAH is represented by the IBT), then they'd be setting themselves up for a rather strong DFR case.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 977433)

If they didn't pursue such a grievance because lawyers who actually practice contract/labor law (unlike internet & crewroom lawyers all around the industry) are telling them the fight would be a loser, that's all together different.

Besides, a competent (and highly-paid) contract attorney would make the argument that Republic Airways Holdings is simply a holding company for a portfolio of airlines and does not itself undertake, either directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.

Best of luck if this goes forward, but in my opinion, if the VERY experienced and VERY highly paid ALPA lawyers in Herndon think this is a loser...it probably is.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

Always a good idea to know how to spell the word you are using to insult someone with son.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

Nobody's berating the pilots who take the work. Most of us are just trying to get you to see that it only makes sense for you to do so if the regionals are your final dream job. If your final dream job is a major, then you have to understand that you're working to undermine your own dream. It's not berating...it's just explaining reality.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

I only have this job because of all the great men that created ALPA in the 1930's and fought managements at great expense. These men were looking out for the pilots of the future at the expense of what might have been best for their own short term interests. They were not fools. They were heroes and people of great integrity. I owe them a ton.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978042)

Never said somebody should quit their regional job. Just trying to focus the attention on what your ultimate goal is, then focus on whether your current actions are helping or hurting your goal.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

It's always a choice. I'm sure there were a ton of pilots who wanted to fly an A320 for Spirit when their guys struck. That would have been great turbine time. Only 2 pilots actually did that. Why did so many other pilots not do it? Answer: They made a CHOICE not to.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978043)

Your work at the regionals for the pay you are willing to accept is lessening the chance that major opportunity will ever come your way. It's like buying lottery tickets in a contest that promises your odds will get worse with the more tickets you buy. Why would anyone buy lots of tickets if your odds get worse?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

I understand and appreciate how much you would like that opportunity. But your work lessens those opportunities. You are getting qualified to take a job that you may never get due to your work to get qualified.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

That is absolutely untrue. Many 91 and 135 corporate operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many non-sched freight operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many foreign airlines are looking and will even type rate you to come and fly a contract...and the pay is better than a regional.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978048)

Fortunately, most of us major pilots have stopped believing in this false choice that is often stated by management and ALPA. Most of us believe that we will no longer give up a single thing and make this profession even less worthy to aspire to.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

Next time you're taxiing around on "our" ramp and see "us", understand that your current occupation will very likely keep you right where you are for a career.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

The truth is, anyone with the smarts and drive to become a pilot can have a much brighter and financially rewarding future doing anything other than working for a regional airline.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978041)

Trust me when I tell you this...a 747 is just like any other airplane. Just a bit bigger. It's all about the financial rewards you can bring to your family. Everything else is BS.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 977825)

I read what you wrote... and all I will say is this: That is easy for you or me to say.... now. Just like guys talking about retiring early. Easy to blather on about until you are actually faced with the decision. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you did in fact turn down another job for that philosophical reason. good for you. I think times are much different now also.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 977825)

The much ballyhooed pilot shortage we have been hearing about for tha last 20 years STILL hasn't materialized, so there aren't any more jobs to be had.. and guess what.. SOMEBODY's gonna take those jobs. Kind of like GS with guys on furlough. I admire your philosophical stance as I said, but from a practical standpoint, you are whizzin in the wind. It is not an easy problem with a simple solution.

Originally Posted by TraneOfThought (Post 977882)

With all due respect there's more than enough blame to go around, at the end of the day folks are going to do what's best for them. Even if it means selling the junior guys down the river, taking a job which they know isn't the "ethical" think to do, so on and so on.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 978043)

I agree.



This is the part that is so puzzling. Your work at the regionals for the pay you are willing to accept is lessening the chance that major opportunity will ever come your way. It's like buying lottery tickets in a contest that promises your odds will get worse with the more tickets you buy. Why would anyone buy lots of tickets if your odds get worse?



I understand and appreciate how much you would like that opportunity. But your work lessens those opportunities. You are getting qualified to take a job that you may never get due to your work to get qualified.



That is absolutely untrue. Many 91 and 135 corporate operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many non-sched freight operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many foreign airlines are looking and will even type rate you to come and fly a contract...and the pay is better than a regional.

Carl