Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   Arbitrator Rules for Midwest (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/35985-arbitrator-rules-midwest.html)

byebyeairlines 01-21-2009 08:11 PM


Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 542552)
Can I be the first of many to say it? Can I?

RAH SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p


...and to preempt the inevitable comeback from Bedford-lovers, yes I fully recognize that Compass sucks too. Pretty much anyone flying >70 seats for regional wages does.

I just wanted to add my airline. Comair sucks too! The pilots are great, but the company is s--t.

MWright 01-21-2009 08:13 PM


Originally Posted by Blkflyer (Post 542529)
No matter what you try to do Polish it up at Turd will Stink.. Most people are starting to get the impression that that RAH is Quickly becoming the New MESA....

A different type of Mesa, but yes, an airline with Mesa-esque effects on the rest of the industry.

duvie 01-21-2009 08:36 PM

I fail to see how this was a ruling "for" Midwest Pilots

madman moe 01-21-2009 09:28 PM

Boo freaking hoo. You guys are hilarious.

Koolaidman 01-21-2009 10:20 PM

Did Midwest have any scope language in their contract? If so, what is the limit?

Nevets 01-21-2009 10:20 PM


Originally Posted by Slaphappy (Post 542454)
Good thing they have alpa :rolleyes:

What would you suggest instead? How would at-will pilots have prevented this? This would not have even gotten to arbitration in the first place because if they were at-will employees, there would be no one to grieve anything to.


Originally Posted by Rotorhead (Post 542571)
Why does everything that stinks have ALPA in it? SWA and AMR don't seem to have nearly the scope issues that the other ALPA carriers have...:rolleyes:

APA has their scope issue with Eagle, APA is trying to scope in all jet flying. If you ask me, if any jet is flying at a regional, its a major scope issue. I hope the APA is successful in their negotiations. And ask your SWA buddy what the most contentious section of their contract negotiations are? Hint - they have to do with some airline in Canada and Mexico doing their flying in the future.

Purpleanga 01-21-2009 10:28 PM

Isn't this thing temporary? What's the big deal?

Beechlover 01-22-2009 04:40 AM

C'mon guys, it takes two to tango. Midwest management screwed their OWN people to save their respective rectums. That fact is by far a bigger slap than the airline brought in to do their flying. If it wasn't RAH, then it would be some other regional.., don't think I'm too far off on that one. It's all about the money PERIOD. Not defending or attacking, it just sucks that the so called "Culture" we build into our airlines identity doesn't really mean squat nor does the word commitment to our employees. In the end, it's ALL about the F'n dollar. In the end, it seems that it's everyman for himself.

There's got to be a better way for our profession.

buffalopilot 01-22-2009 05:35 AM

If there is no scope language in contract, that is the Midwest pilot groups fault for allowing it! All these companies are in competition. Cant blame RAH for getting business to survive. Each group needs to look out for themselves. Midwest. as far as I am concerned, in not a major airline anyway. That had a product that wasnt needed anymore.

ImEbee 01-22-2009 05:43 AM


Originally Posted by Nevets (Post 542622)
If you ask me, if any jet is flying at a regional, its a major scope issue.

I find it interesting when those that fly jets for a regional like to make statements that its bad for the industry. I guess its just not bad enough for you to take the job :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands