|
Continental hints
I was riding on a jumpseat in a CRJ today reading the FO's paper when I saw this article. I'll bold the interesting part.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...y_N.htm?csp=34 Aviation officials, airlines blasted over delays Updated 18h 49m ago | Comments 8 | Recommend 3 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this By Alan Levin and Marilyn Adams, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Lawmakers heaped intense criticism on federal aviation regulators and airlines Wednesday for this year's surge in flight delays as momentum grew for government action to restrict flights into the nation's most congested airports. The contentious hearing before the House Aviation Subcommittee came a day before today's scheduled meeting between President Bush and his top transportation officials to discuss what has been the worst year ever for delays. Hoping to avert restrictions, Delta Airlines on Wednesday announced it was voluntarily reducing some flights at New York's John F. Kennedy airport. Several congressmen, including subcommittee Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., demanded that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pressure airlines to trim flights at the most overburdened airports. "Tell me why you just won't do it," demanded Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass. "You are embarrassing all of us here. Your agency's failure to act is embarrassing." FAA acting Administrator Bobby Sturgell would not say if he would force airlines to cut schedules, but the agency has already taken steps to pressure carriers. Last week, the FAA notified airlines it would work with them to review their operations at Kennedy and Newark (N.J.) Liberty International Airport. The airports are two of the three most delayed in the nation. FIND MORE STORIES IN: House | Federal Aviation Administration | Delta Airlines | Newark | Transportation | John F Kennedy airport | Delays | Administrator Bobby Sturgell Delays so far this year are the worst ever recorded, according to the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics. At Kennedy, Newark and New York's LaGuardia Airport, more than four out of every 10 arrivals have been at least 15 minutes late this year. Lengthy delays are also at record levels. Last summer, 6.4% of flights arrived at least an hour late. Sturgell and Department of Transportation General Counsel D.J. Gribbin said that they would prefer not to impose caps on flights because it's inefficient. The administration would rather charge airlines higher fees for using congested airports, but Congress has rejected that. "If you are not willing to take action, we'll have to step in and mandate it," Costello said. After the hearing, Costello and other powerful House lawmakers scheduled an announcement this morning on delays. Delta, the carrier with the most flights at JFK, said it would reduce the number of departures during peak afternoon and evening periods next summer even as it expands its international service. The flights will be more spread out during the day. "We're doing this responsibly," CEO Richard Anderson said. Last week, Continental Airlines, which dominates Newark, announced it will move small regional jets from Newark to Cleveland and replace them with larger regional jets and full-size jets. Using larger jets will allow it to carry more passengers without adding flights. This is where someone shouts "But that's IMPOSSIBLE because of their SCOPE!". I've only heard that hundred times over so someone keep drinking the punch and say it one more time.... I want to work there one day and don't want anything over 50 seats flying but regardless of how much some of us might wish doesn't mean it won't happen. Where there's a lawyer there's a way. |
Also a pilot was at the main HQ in IND and wanted to get a wooden 175 model to put on his desk at the house. They didn't have one in the display case so they said there are some boxes of them in the back. He went into the storage room and ripped a box open to pull out a 175 Republic model in Continental livery. The person that told him to go grab one realized the error and walked in and said "you were't supposed to see that".
|
To the best of my knowledge, which is a little skewed due to some post-surgery meds, CAL has a scope clause that prohibits anyone other than CAL flying anything larger than 50 seats. Now with that said, everyone knows that one or two sinful dangling carrots could change that. The article may also be inaccurate when is mentioned "larger regional jets." They may be talking about the Q400's.
|
Scope may be one of the only things Cal pilots agree on. Anything larger than fifty seats with jet engines is going to be flown by a Cal pilot.
|
Originally Posted by jdt30
(Post 238399)
Scope may be one of the only things Cal pilots agree on. Anything larger than fifty seats with jet engines is going to be flown by a Cal pilot.
|
I think there are enough former XJT guys at CAL that would rather see the place burn to the ground than see S!tty Kitty flying 170/175s with globes on the tail. Most of the ex-XJT guys over there are p!ssed off enough with CAL's contract (or non-contract as it were). There isn't really much else for CAL pilots to give up besides their scope.
And Toilet, I may not know much about how airline management works but I am fairly certain they don't entrust bombshells like that to the stock room clerk at the company store. IF said model DOES exist (and thats a BIG F*ing IF) its probably just some yutz over at CHQ HQ having a wet dream. |
Originally Posted by KiloAlpha
(Post 238406)
I'd be willing to bet money they cave on scope when faced with either a carrot or threat. Continental pilots don't really strike me as a "proud" group.. (note I said ME.. nonetheless, flame away)
"Proud" Cal 06 hire |
Originally Posted by Bloodhound
(Post 238383)
To the best of my knowledge, which is a little skewed due to some post-surgery meds, CAL has a scope clause that prohibits anyone other than CAL flying anything larger than 50 seats. Now with that said, everyone knows that one or two sinful dangling carrots could change that. The article may also be inaccurate when is mentioned "larger regional jets." They may be talking about the Q400's.
EDIT Also RAH just built a MX hanger there and accourding to a few base managers it will be our new base. We are moving all CAL flying there. I don't see anyone with Q400's in that neighborhood. If there is anything larger about to start flying it I think RAH is the most accurate guess. Somehow I could see them using the FAA or Pres. Bush pressure to their advantage. |
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
(Post 238411)
I think there are enough former XJT guys at CAL that would rather see the place burn to the ground than see S!tty Kitty flying 170/175s with globes on the tail. Most of the ex-XJT guys over there are p!ssed off enough with CAL's contract (or non-contract as it were). There isn't really much else for CAL pilots to give up besides their scope.
|
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 238439)
There might be a decent amount of XJT guys but that doesn't make them any different than anyone else there and doesn't make them the majority either. Regardless of what they/we want doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. We'll see how good the union really is. Remember CHQ once flew 170's in violation of scope clauses and paid a fine for it. Even with the fine they still made money hand over fist.
|
"Delta, the carrier with the most flights at JFK"
Since when? B6 still holds that title. "Last week, Continental Airlines, which dominates Newark, announced it will move small regional jets from Newark to Cleveland and replace them with larger regional jets and full-size jets. Using larger jets will allow it to carry more passengers without adding flights." Pretty sure they're talkin about the Colgan Q400's! |
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 238439)
There might be a decent amount of XJT guys but that doesn't make them any different than anyone else there and doesn't make them the majority either. Regardless of what they/we want doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. We'll see how good the union really is. Remember CHQ once flew 170's in violation of scope clauses and paid a fine for it. Even with the fine they still made money hand over fist.
|
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
(Post 238454)
And it sounds like you're pleased as punch to be part of something like that. Maybe you should quit the airlines and open up a hardware store:rolleyes:
I want to work there one day and don't want anything over 50 seats flying but regardless of how much some of us might wish doesn't mean it won't happen. Where there's a lawyer there's a way. Regardless of what they/we want doesn't mean it can't or won't happen |
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 238463)
Oh really did you bother to read anything I wrote? First post
Here's another You can also search any other posts of mine about regionals and their flying and I've always stuck to my guns. I don't think anything over 50 seats should be used for regional flying. How much simpler do I have to make it? What it sounds like is that you don't pay attention very well:rolleyes: Stating the facts is stating the facts. Doesn't mean I support what's going on. Saying my company is the top contender doesn't mean I'm patting them on the back for it. It means they are the top contender. You make it sound like XJT guys are the pilot group over there. Don't know if you heard the news but CAL sold XJT and their pilot group is as diverse as anyone elses. CAL management and RAH management want this. With enough lawyer power it's possible. Like I said THIS is when we'll see if the union is worth their salt or not. The CAL is making great profits and if the union can't make that work for them then all is lost. |
I'll eat crow the day we see a 170 in CO colors... :D
..... then I'll laugh my a$$ off since we'll have more planes available for Branded, Delta and Charter. |
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
(Post 238468)
So I trust when that E170 CA slot comes open in IAH or EWR, you won't be bidding for it?
|
I really think the hand writing is on the wall. It has been going on for nearly 20 years. Mainline carriers want the ultra long routes and high capacity routes. Shorter haul and less profitable routes even in the 70 to 80 seat range they have and will give up to the JET airlines like RAH and EXJet et cet. The public wants frequency all day long..and the only way the companies can provide that is filling in with flying in that range. The bar has been continuously raised for years what the smaller carriers can code share and fly and I think it will continue that way. the Legacys want MORE intl and long haul ....... it is what it is..... the business model is out there and its probably not changing anytime soon....
|
hmm a new cleveland base that sounds exciting!!!
|
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
(Post 238581)
I really think the hand writing is on the wall. It has been going on for nearly 20 years. Mainline carriers want the ultra long routes and high capacity routes. Shorter haul and less profitable routes even in the 70 to 80 seat range they have and will give up to the JET airlines like RAH and EXJet et cet. The public wants frequency all day long..and the only way the companies can provide that is filling in with flying in that range. The bar has been continuously raised for years what the smaller carriers can code share and fly and I think it will continue that way. the Legacys want MORE intl and long haul ....... it is what it is..... the business model is out there and its probably not changing anytime soon....
|
Originally Posted by Killer51883
(Post 238591)
hmm a new cleveland base that sounds exciting!!!
|
I think there are too many former regional pilots at CAL now for folks to expect that pilot group to just roll over to management's desires for outsourcing aircraft. Demographics there have shifted quite a bit since Contract 02...and people have seen the "damage" done to Delta and US Airways mainline pilot groups with "large small jets" being outsourced.
Jobs are more important than a few extra dollars an hour...and those small narrowbody jobs would be at risk with 70+ seats at Express. It'd take a pretty farkin' big carrot for those folks to give up turbojet scope to the size of 175s, IMO. |
But with a large number of retirements coming up and the carrot is retirement, what do you think those guys care about?
|
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 238573)
I'll bid for whatever offers me the highest QOL and pay. QOL before pay. I'll go CRJ if it gets me home. It's up to Continental pilots not to offer it. Once it's on the table it's on the table and it will stay there. I'm in no position to speak against my company for flying them. They flew Saabs and Metroliners back in the day. It wasn't until someone decided to outsource more that they jumped at the opportunity to expand. I can't blame a company for wanting to make more money just as I can't blame pilots for wanting to make more. So to answer your question if there's a 170CA slot in IAH and I can get it you bet your ass. It's not because of small pay increase or because it's a bigger plane. It's because of QOL. I could care less if I flew a 135 so long as I was paid well. It's up to the union not to let that slot in IAH show up. People simply aren't going to quit working in some sort of silent protest.
|
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
(Post 238705)
I think you've said all you need to right there. Maybe you should just stop paying your union dues right now. Its that attitude of "it's out of my hands, I do just do whats best for me and the rest of you be damned" that has gotten us where we are at today. I have heard that exact same argument come out of the mouths of SCABS at CAL. "I just did what I had to do for my career/my family/my ego/whatever and this opportunity was there so I took it. It's not my fault the old Continental pilots went on strike." You hear the same BS come pouring out of the mouths of the morons at GoJet. Don't know about y'all but it makes me a little sick.
If the union lets it happen then THEY let it happen. GoJets is a whole different story. Once the companies agree on it then that's it. There was no alter ego creation and people being scabs flocking to support it. The union and management will have agreed to make it happen. How are you stabbing someone in the back once they've agreed on it? Like I said. I hope the union doesn't let CAL get away with it. If XJT had 170's on property based in your home you're telling me you skip upgrade, sit there as an FO making half the pay, and double leg commute to work before taking the upgrade as some type of silent protest? If you don't like my response then tough. Honestly I'd rather fly a 145 as I actually enjoy FLYING and since we don't have ACARS the captains in them usually pull more. The situation you tried to deal me is a sandbag attempt to make me out to be something I'm not and that's a lowballer scab. Now you answer your exact questions honestly. I doubt ANYONE could do it any different. |
Originally Posted by SAABaroowski
(Post 238738)
I agree, Toilet is starting to get on my nerves.................
i think everyone is getting on my nerves......and I am getting on theirs!, lets take a couple posts of silence to just reflect! |
I heavily edited several posts is this thread. You guys need to lay off the personal attacks.
|
Originally Posted by whiskerbizkit
(Post 238701)
But with a large number of retirements coming up and the carrot is retirement, what do you think those guys care about?
There isn't a lot of leverage CAL has over the retirement fund, its all in the individual pilot's names, like a super 401k. They might give up scope for the end of PBS. I haven't heard anyone at CAL say anything good about it. But I doubt it. While CAL has been growing mainline everybody else has been growing their regional partners. If they give up scope, growth at CAL will screetch to a halt; they'll start parking the 737-300s and -500s, and Republic will pick up all that short haul single aisle flying, on their way to becoming the worlds largest airline. |
Some facts of life:
1. The CAL pilot group ain't letting go of it's scope clause. If they did, I would call them all stupid. Everyone else should too. The only way you should ever see a 170/175 with CAL colors on it is if two mainline pilots are sitting up front. 2. CHQ didn't TAKE your flying at XJT. CAL took it, then put it up for bid. We got it. If we didn't get it, someone else would. Would you rather have a company with no union work those flights? 3. CAL will take more XJT flying. And they will probably give it to someone other than CHQ. And then you guys can all blame them for stealing your jobs. I don't think CAL is really interested in having all of their regional flying hinge on one or even two companies. 4. XJT will begin flying for other mainline carriers. They already started for DAL. I would expect to see them as front-runners in any RFP's should they come out. Of course, that just makes them closer and closer to being exactly what CHQ is now. |
Originally Posted by de727ups
(Post 238770)
I heavily edited several posts is this thread. You guys need to lay off the personal attacks.
|
All I can say after wasting 5 minutes of my life reading this thread is shame on you if you believe that is ok for CAL to get rid of scope! Shame on you if you're ok with flying 70-90 seaters that belong to mainline! And shame on you if you think your actions only affect your career.
If you support getting rid of scope clause at CAL, well, you're no different than a gojets pilot. |
Its simple. RAH CANNOT fly the mighty 170 for CAL with scope in place....period. Since CAL pilots will not cave in on scope then RAH WILL NOT be able to fly the mighty 170 for CAL....period.
|
I dont think in any quantity at least you will see large numbers of 170/175's at any mainline. The costs to the mainline to crew those aircraft just havent seemed to be where they want to go. I remember years ago when AA wanted the F70's but the pilots wouldnt fly them for what AA wanted to pay and and neither budged...hell they eventually got rid of the F100 because of the same economics. Its that exact gap that has fueled the current situation that we have today with the size of the smaller company aircraft getting larger and larger over time.
Are the pay rates at the smaller companies inadequate for the 70-80 seat market absolutly.....but there is room for some movement there.....but I dont think you are gonna convince the mainliners to fly them for what management wants them to be flown at. now the 90 seaters.. to me thats where I think the line probably is... are at least in that zone.... So sanchez am I to presume that you think any guy who takes a job with a carrier on anything bigger than 50 seats is the equivalent of a go-jet pilot? |
Sanchez and freezingflyboy let me get this strait then. You're comparing Shuttle America, Republic, Skywest, Comair, Pinnacle, Mesaba, Colgan, Horizon, Compass, PSA, ASA, Mesa, American Eagle, and anyone else who has larger than 50 seat aircraft on property to GoJets and Freedom as being a scab? Are you actually wanting to call that many people out? We didn't invent the flying the mainlines gave it up. If you're going to talk down to someone flying larger than 50 seat aircraft then you're gong to talk down to A LOT of people. These people aren't scabs. I bet if XJT only flew 135s you guys would be saying anything over 37 seats is ruining it. Funny how it's always the "other" people. Like I said. It's up to the union and the most effective way to keep larger aircraft for flying is to support the CAL guys and anyone else in negotiations... Not flying the aircraft once it's already been negotiated, giving up QOL and pay, is just stupid. Once it's done it's done. Our company will shift it's resources as needed based on what contracts it negotiates. I didn't negotiate them the company(RAH) and THEIR pilots(CAL or whoever) did. Once there's a way for me to live in base with higher QOL I'm taking it and it won't be by stabbing anyone in the back to do it.
|
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
(Post 238934)
I dont think in any quantity at least you will see large numbers of 170/175's at any mainline. The costs to the mainline to crew those aircraft just havent seemed to be where they want to go. I remember years ago when AA wanted the F70's but the pilots wouldnt fly them for what AA wanted to pay and and neither budged...hell they eventually got rid of the F100 because of the same economics. Its that exact gap that has fueled the current situation that we have today with the size of the smaller company aircraft getting larger and larger over time.
Are the pay rates at the smaller companies inadequate for the 70-80 seat market absolutly.....but there is room for some movement there.....but I dont think you are gonna convince the mainliners to fly them for what management wants them to be flown at. now the 90 seaters.. to me thats where I think the line probably is... are at least in that zone.... So sanchez am I to presume that you think any guy who takes a job with a carrier on anything bigger than 50 seats is the equivalent of a go-jet pilot? |
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 238746)
So you think by saying "I don't like regionals flying larger than 50 seat aircraft for carriers" means I should do some sort of silent protest and not take the upgrade? As if management would actually even take notice. All I can do in my current situation is be supportive of the CAL group and hope their union takes care of this. This hypothetical situation of yours is not here yet so I'm not having to deal with it. I hope I never do. If the only way you could upgrade in your company was to go into the left seat of a 70 seater would you refuse and stay as an FO making crappy pay or would you take it? Give me an honest answer on that one.
If the union lets it happen then THEY let it happen. GoJets is a whole different story. Once the companies agree on it then that's it. There was no alter ego creation and people being scabs flocking to support it. The union and management will have agreed to make it happen. How are you stabbing someone in the back once they've agreed on it? Like I said. I hope the union doesn't let CAL get away with it. If XJT had 170's on property based in your home you're telling me you skip upgrade, sit there as an FO making half the pay, and double leg commute to work before taking the upgrade as some type of silent protest? If you don't like my response then tough. Honestly I'd rather fly a 145 as I actually enjoy FLYING and since we don't have ACARS the captains in them usually pull more. The situation you tried to deal me is a sandbag attempt to make me out to be something I'm not and that's a lowballer scab. Now you answer your exact questions honestly. I doubt ANYONE could do it any different. |
Just what benefits do you think are all that much better at mainlines other than the pay? In general their work rules are better but im not sure anything else is all that much "better".... or is it just that you think its a "stigma" to be considered a regional pilot?
|
And you didnt answer TD's question...... are you basically saying that any of us who fly or will fly 50+ seat aircraft are likened to scabs?
|
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 238937)
Sanchez and freezingflyboy let me get this strait then. You're comparing Shuttle America, Republic, Skywest, Comair, Pinnacle, Mesaba, Colgan, Horizon, Compass, PSA, ASA, Mesa, American Eagle, and anyone else who has larger than 50 seat aircraft on property to GoJets and being a scab? Are you actually wanting to call that many people out? We didn't invent the flying the mainlines gave it up. If you're going to talk down to someone flying larger than 50 seat aircraft then you're gong to talk down to A LOT of people. These people aren't scabs. I bet if XJT only flew 135s you guys would be saying anything over 37 seats is ruining it. Funny how it's always the "other" people.
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
Its that attitude of "it's out of my hands, I do just do whats best for me and the rest of you be damned" that has gotten us where we are at today. I have heard that exact same argument come out of the mouths of SCABS at CAL. "I just did what I had to do for my career/my family/my ego/whatever and this opportunity was there so I took it. It's not my fault the old Continental pilots went on strike." You hear the same BS come pouring out of the mouths of the morons at GoJet.
PS It's straight, not strait. A strait is a stretch of water bordered on two sides by land. |
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
(Post 238948)
HELL YEAH!!! I would definitely upgrade into a 170 here at XJT because we'd be flying them for OURSELVES and be getting paid what we deserve.:D
Mr. Toilet, let me be clear here seeing as somany need it spelled out. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CAL SHOULD GIVE UP SCOPE CLAUSE, THEN YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN A gojets PILOT. Now, if you fly a 70-90 seater, which rightfully has always been at mainline (up 'til the 90's), and you're ok with getting paid 50 seater rates for it, or you just simply don't see how it has diminished the flying at the legacies, then shame on you. And if you believe your actions do not impact everyone's career, then most definitely...shame on you. Can't get anymore clear than this! |
No still sounds like you're comparing anyone who flies the bigger birds to a scab or gojet. Of course I'm saying I'm in it for the money and QOL. I don't know anyone who isn't. From mesa guys to UPS we all plan on getting paid. Don't you? You want to liken me to someone who's a scab because if a 170 was in my home base I'd chose to fly it and take the nice pay raise?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:39 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands