Both. You could be reassigned, but you have to be back in base within 2 hours of your original end time.

 

Both. I'd have to look it up, but I believe we can't be extended more than 2 or 4 hours on the last day of a trip.

*EDIT* looks like G Dog beat me to it

 

The best CA I ever flew with is an F/O at CHQ on the 170, we called him Flava Flav........... Gotta love the Italian guy, flying with him made Colgan tolerable.

 

Well, if you get called on your day off and are stupid enough to answer the phone thats your own damn fault. I don't care what company you're at. Let 'em leave a message. If you don't like what they have to say, don't call em back.

 

Dodging a junior manning assignment on your day off is pretty easy as long as you don't answer the phone. However, like was stated above...they cannot schedule you more than 2 hours after pairing termination. Should the company get a hold of you on your day off or ask you to fly beyond that 2 hours...you can basically laugh at them and hang up if you so desired. It basically means crew sked can't hunt you down at the end of a pairing. Once you're off...you're off.

 

Freezingflyboy, Johnso, et al -

Believe me when I say that we share your frustration in the 70 seat rates. But like I said before, they had to take the lesser of two evils (I say "they" because I wasn't a part of the group when this was all negotiated). Personally, without our scope clause we'd have higher pay but a lot of our pilots would have been on the street had the company been able to set up Republic as an alter-ego as opposed to the one list, one contract we have now. So, instead of fighting for pay and losing guys, they lived to fight another day...which is now. This is the first negotiation since those rates were set up and I trust that our guys in the negotiating room will do what is right. I also trust that our pilot group will not lower the bar but raise it.

While it's not much of an excuse, there wasn't a single 170 on the horizon when that contract was negotiated and I believe many people thought it was a pipe dream that it would even come here (at least that's what I'm told). Low and behold, once the ink was dry here they came. While I'm remiss to call it a mistake on our part, it certainly didn't help matters. Keep in mind most of you at AWAC, XJT, etc. have been slowly bettering your contract over 30+ years. We've had one in place for a third of that time and I think ours is pretty damn competitive in a lot of areas with the rest of the industry. While it may not be the best in ALL areas, I do believe it is the best in some. Problem is, it's also the worst in some as far as clarity and wording are concerned. Like I said before though, I'm pretty hopeful that it won't go anywhere but up from here...especially with a company as profitable as ours.

What burns me is being called a bottom-feeder when my work rules and my W2 are comparable to most of my friends in the industry. Of course, I'm just a 50 seat guy so I can't speak for the widebody fliers. We all have different problems at every carrier, but some how ours are "worse" than everyone elses. It also bothers me because I came to CHQ specifically because they WEREN'T bottom-feeders. I tried to find a regional that included a reasonably quick upgrade, good pay, attractive bases, and decent work rules. I came up with CHQ...then they closed MCO. But, 3 outta 4 ain't bad.

Sharky

 

You know our contract was post 9/11 when it was definitly hitting the fan in the industry right? The 170's weren't part of it as I understand. I think they did an excellent job considering what was going on in the industry. I asked about XJT's prior to 9/11 and was told this.
Those are some crazy figures. My point is that your new contract was negotiated based on where the other companies were standing. Your extra couple bucks an hour didn't show up till recent. With RAH making great money I think we'll all be very happy with our new contract and should be something we're all proud of yet again raising the industry standards.

 

if i was at chq i would not be too excited or rubbing my pants over flying 70 seaters for CO. not only is there scope, starting a base in newark , but you also STILL have to win the bid for the flying. Your airline has already proved by its rocky start up that CO doesnt care about level of service. They want the bottom line for meat in the seat. They want to pit regionals against each other for flying. When you pit CHQ with a "new" contract (where they dont get paid 50 seat wages to fly 70) against a mesa or other REALLY low end undercutter you are going to lose. There will be a lot of competition for that flying... i am at xjt and i know we wont get the 70 seat flying even if we started that airframe and bid low because CO doesnt want one or two main groups. They want many divided, ****ed off groups, working for peanuts, that are too worried about their job to see the big picture. We fly the airplanes but as a whole we are pawns of upper management.

toilet your views on "well i will get mine attitude" is kind of disgusting. Its like running head first into a tree that you cant see... keep dreaming about a nice contract, CO giving up scope (tell me again how you dont want it! it makes me laugh), more 70 seaters.... and then when you do go to CO you might be furloughed because of some lowball bidder like MESA and their "lawyers" dangle just the right amount of propoganda to ease scope.

Bottomline: CHQ, XJT, or any company with a halfway decent contract will not win a bid for new flying with CO. It is going to be another carrier with lower overhead and bad work rules.... Colgan could be it, could be Mesa. sounds like your mythical stock boy might have to sell those airplanes to chinese schookids who don't know any better

 

keep in mind that CHQ was not the lowest bidder on this last RFP. So its not just about the cheapest "meat in the seat". Yes we did have a very rocky start up with continental but I think our performance has shown to improve to a much higher level. I am agreement with everyone here that CAL mainline giving up scope would be a horrible thing. I heard the rumors of 170s for CAL in the crew room the other day and I said "if CAL pilots give up scope I am leaving the industry"

If it were up to me, mainline would get over their "little pilot syndrome" and take back over any aircraft with turbojets on it period. regardless of how many seats you have in the back. Look at foreign carriers, it seems to work for them.

Face it we do so much b****** back and forth at one another about regional x vs regional y and scope this and scope that, your a scab, gojet sucks. Look at whos fault it is, its the mainline dinosaurs back in the 80s that couldnt get over their own little man syndrome and keep all aircraft on property with one list.

 

What surprises me is how much of that rocky startup is attributed to CHQ. I flew that codeshare the first couple of months of it's inception and the support from ground crews at almost every station was non-exsistent at best, borderline hostile at worst. It has since improved, but their willingness to work with the crews is absolutely horrible.

Case in point: The weight restriction. CAL will just start rebooking people without even talking to the crew to see what we can actually carry based on what gets loaded in the back. They reassigned 10 people when we could have taken a full boat without ever talking to us. The only reason I found out is cuz I called Ops asking where the other 10 people were since we were told to expect a full flight. But of course, those reassignments just get coded as CHQ being weight restricted.

I could careless what they say about me in the break room behind my back. For right now, I have to work with them and they have to work with me. The only way that's gonna work is if we're both trying to get a good product out. Funny how CHQ's "rocky start" at CAL is nowhere near reflected in their operations for AA, DAL, US, UAL, or F9. I'm not saying we're perfect...but neither is the CAL side and they're doing a lot more to f*ck us then help us.