So does my back! I hate working the pits in those planes.:mad:

I don't recall mentioning a payscale. It doesn't pertain to my point that Air Willie also flew 100+ seat aircraft. And stop talking about balls. It's weird.

1) "The "Connect" sticker is optional now, right?" -- BB

2) Ditto.

Great post

I agree, the airline world IS laughing at you.

This is what you guys have been reduced to, junior high school style jokes. Pathetic.

You are my hero. Nice one two punch right there.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...for those who like revisionist history and refuse an apples-to-apples comparison:

The E175/190 CA rates in the CHQ 2003 contract through its duration are 2-3% higher than the B146 CA payrates in the ARW 2003 contract through its duration (or at least 2008, because I don't have the 2009 adjusted scales) beyond year 3 of longevity. And yes, I'll acknowledge (again) that the CHQ 2003 payscale essentially created an FO B-scale where the ARW B146 FO rates were 60% of B146 CA rates.

YES, the ARW 2003 contract was concessionary, and YES ARW's concessionary work rules are better than RAH...but given that both CBAs were negotiated in the SAME ENVIRONMENT and went into effect on the SAME DATE as the CHQ agreement (and without ARW facing the threat of a non-union alter-ego airline being formed to take their flying), those rates aren't too bad.

Son, I was flying 121 when you were in junior high. Unless you work at a major, you're just as culpable in all of this. If you're flying a jet with a livery of a major on the tail, you're guilty too. Chances are an MD80, 737 or A320 once flew those same routes you now claim as yours.

I remember back in the day, majors got upset when regionals first flew pressurized cabins. Then it was turboprops that upset everybody. The advent of the CRJ outraged many. The 70 seat RJ did the same. The CRJ900 sparked some outrage over changes in scope limitations. Now the 100 seater EMB190 is causing a stir. To those who choose to throw stones towards RAH, take a look in the mirror. If you're flying anything that I mentioned above, you're also a part of the problem. Tough to admit, but you must.

His point failed to connect with me. It's clear that many who are ranting here have no real arguement. They just seem to be screaming mad at RAH in general. It reminds me of the recent Presidential election. Nobody really knew what the election was about. Other than Bush bad, change good. Much is true here. If you're mad at a particular issue, make your case clearly so that it can be debated. Saying that you want to throw rocks, boxing references, and barfing is hardly a resonable stance on the subject.

NICE!! Finally you can project your bankrupt morality on another pilot group. Just because GoJet isn't "in the news" right now doesn't mean you've all of the sudden been accepted. Our views of GJ pilots hasn't changed and there's no way we can take GJ pilot's opinion seriously on the subject of taking people's jobs.