I thought you were banned, how'd you sneek back in here

 

Maybe someone has already said this...but wouldn't there be a reason WN is moving into MKE? They had to know about these E-190s for Midwest. I've heard about RAH and WN talks in the past.

 

For what? Why does WN need a regional? Makes more sense for an airline like AAI and B6. AAI already experimented with Air Wisconsin and deemed 50 seaters uneconomical. I highly doubt their pilots would give up scope as witnessed by them voting down TA#2.

If anything WN will continue with it's code sharing arrangements with similarly set up airlines in other countries.

 

Yeah... I tried to inject some comedy but got banned for posting spam.

 

I think Southwest is betting on Midwest losing their remaining 9 717's back to Boeing/Mexicana

 

I have giving you a defense. Remember I said call in sick. All pilots unless they truly have no problem replacing other pilots cannot comply with the FAA approved I'M SAFE checklist. Many pilots at Midwest have been using this defense rightfully so for the past nine months. With the stress caused by this event, it cannot be argued that it isn't causing a distraction with your duties. The FAA dictates that any pilot removes themselves from duty when there are distractions that may cause a decrease in safety margin. A counselor would be hard pressed to say that a pilot being called a scab, being looked down upon by their peers for replacing other pilots, wouldn't have an increased stress level, therefore a diminished capacity to do their job safely. In reality right now RAH could be classified a hostile work environment. The best part is this happened while on the job and falls under workers comp coverage.

The question is do the RAH pilots have the gumption to do it? Even if your claim is initially denied which it will. They will pay you until you go to the "independent medical review." This is usually a doctor who has never actually treated a patient. They work expressly for the insurance companies. By that time, if a few hundred do this, the message will be clear. Best parts are you will be paid, your benefits will continue, seniority will continue to accrue, longevity will continue to accrue, usually any 401(k) matches continue and this is a double edged financial sword for the company.

 

Actually your wrong, ZW provided lift for only 2 years and we were offered more flying in the way of -700, we said no. Lets get the facts straight.

 

you+are = you're if you're going to say someone is wrong.

I said they deemed 50 seaters uneconomical, how was i wrong or did the -700 magically become a 70 seater? Reading comprehension not your strong point?

 

Do you understand that RAH is already IN contract negotiations??? EVERY SINGLE RAH PILOT that has responded on this and other threads about this topic has said that they are GOING to fight for a fair contract!!!! What you are doing is kind of like taking your car to a mechanic and telling him to fix something that is broken and then AS he is fixing it you are yelling at him and kicking him WHILE HE IS FIXING IT!!!!! Why don't you allow them to try and fix this before you bash them into the ground. And as it has been said before, it's not the pilots that did this, the management and the stockholders make the decisions, all the pilots can do is fight for the fair contract. And if I hear one more person say the pilots should just quit rather than fly the 190 I recommend you ask yourself one question first........would you put your family on the street just to make other pilots happy...think about it.

 

I certainly support RAH pilots in getting a contract that sets the bar higher.

Nobody would turn down the E190. Everybody's just jealous that their union sold them out and their co-workers voted for it.

The "yes" voters should throw their rocks straight up in the air and let them fall where they may.