The reason for this thread, that continental gave chq 90 days notice, is actually true. Not with the cancellation of routes or services but with financial penalties. Chq's only defense was their on-time performance which didnt really mean much anyway due to the fact of no acars and the possibility for bending times. Another thing that ****ed off cal was that cal went to chq and asked to have acars after emb crews were showing up to fly crj's or crews were just not showing up at all. chq replied that acars wasnt in the contract so no go, so cal had no way of keeping track of crews and crew legality issues. The horrendous performance (and yes it was that bad) has since gotten better.

The 90 day notice had benchmarks for financial penalties for cancellations, lack of crews, ... CHQ since this 90 days has gotten much better because they were forced too. cal has asked for 5 aircraft back from xjt in the meantime and we have been taking over some of the longer routes. the gate agents are not happy to work CHQ due to their early on performance and the irate passengers and delays.... not saying anyone else can do it better but with taking on this flying there were going to be headaches. you are getting better but you need to keep the gate agents happy for awhile before you earn their respect. Xjt pilots werent sinking your ship it was the ground crews, gate agents, and station managers that you ****ed off in the beginning. Cal might have let you work out your issues a lil slower but they got so many complaints that they had to respond.

95% of xjt pilots do feel bad for chq pilots. the crj was the absolutely wrong choice for the routes that they were given. I have no problem letting chq jumpseat on us and have had several so far. this whole xjt pilot vs chq is pretty lame if you ask me. I hope the best for my fellow pilots and hope that both pilot groups can continue to get better and better contracts and flying...

as for the w/b program i dont believe chq ever did a study on it. It costs in the couple of million dollars range and like some have said on here is a little bit of a gamble and takes a couple years.

I have also noticed their EMB's have Air stairs, thats got to bring the useful load down some correct?

Well boo fricken hoo:rolleyes: The reason the ramp and gate agents are not all warm and fuzzy to you guys (yet) is that you DO create some major headaches for them. Imagine having 10 angry pax show up at your counter who aren't going where they want (and paid to go) because the airplane simply isn't capable of carrying them (not the pilots' fault, this was a management decision made by CHQ and CAL). I bet that makes their day. Who cares how many pax are supposed to get on the plane? The agents are usually off by at least 4 or 5 anyway. I usually plan on 50 and work back from there. Want a semi-accurate bag count? Ask the ramper loading the bags or get good at looking at the bag cart and estimating. We regularly don't get the bag sheet until right before they close because of the gate checks and pax showing up at the last minute. Whats y'alls problem? On the rare occasions where we've had to bump someone it also takes 10 minutes or so because they have to offer compensation to volunteers. If that doesn't work they have a system for determining who gets pulled off. They don't just grab whoever is closest to the door. Oh, and ACARS doesn't spin the wheel. Its just a calculator for showing you what weights are in what zones. We're all wheel spinnin SOBs.

Well said, Newarkblows

I can't "beat" the facts? Is this a contest of some kind?

What facts? I am no expert on your airline, but according to other posters, your airline did a study and determined it would be better to just use the weights in the AC. I know of other airlines that did studies and would have been saddled with heavier weights had they went through with it. So, seems like your airline did their homework - I don't know what else the greedy management would have done differently in this case.

And honestly, I don't care that much. Done with topic.