Airline Pilot Central Forums - Republic 190 rumor

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - Republic 190 rumor (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/43615-republic-190-rumor.html)

As a Midwest Pilot, the sight of Republic turns my guts. Now their pilots are starting to do the same thing. Why don't you guys grow some Kahunas and get off your asses and do something about this. No wonder the industry thinks you are scumb. And while you are at it, how about following your own contract and respecting ours that is still in play. I know it is a long shot but I hope our Grievence throws your butts out of our seats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 673452)

I agree with this statement. The reason why this worries me is because a judge almost always sides with the company no matter how black and white the grievance. When Bedford tries to put the Frontier pilots on the Republic list, he is going to try and change your 77-99 seat classification into a 77+ seat classification and bring Airbus pay to Republic levels. I am glad the union is grieving this, but why don't the pilots just not fly the 190? After all, you have no contract to fly an aircraft with that many seats.

I know we have a ton of Internet wonders on here who don't work for RAH, but the facts (I know, odd, huh) is that there is 1 plane right now that is coming online with 100 seats and BB has basically MEL'd one seat so it's "legal" for us to fly. What nobody can guarantee to us is if it's a breach of our contract, thence why the grievance was filed. It's clear to me that BB is trying to get around the issue, but I don't see how an arbitrator could look the other way on this issue. 77+ seat classification? Now that's cute. Give it a rest..he can try anything he wants, but remember we have to vote on a new contract and when that goes to arbitration, no judge in their right mind would consider that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TillerEnvy (Post 673510)

Yeah, kinda like no judge in his right mind would consider the rape of the Midwest contract and their being replaced by low wage pilots. Keep dreaming.

Article 21 from the CHQ 2003 CBA; emphasis is quite obviously mine:

Quote:

ARTICLE 21
NEW AIRCRAFT
Should the Company announce its intent to place into revenue service aircraft
other than aircraft for which rates are specified in this Agreement, the rates for that aircraft will be determined as follows:

1. The Company will give the Union notice of its intent to introduce the new
equipment at least six (6) months prior to the estimated scheduled
revenue service date, or within thirty (30) days after entering into the
contract for procurement or lease of the new aircraft type, whichever is
later in time.

2. The parties will meet within (15) days following written request by either
party to negotiate rates of pay for such aircraft type. Should negotiations
result in an agreement, the new aircraft type will be flown in accordance
with the terms of the agreement. If negotiations do not result in an
agreement within one hundred (100) days from the date of
commencement of negotiations, either party may submit the dispute to
final and binding interest arbitration.

3. The dispute shall be heard before an arbitrator selected in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Article 18 (Resolution of Disputes).

4. The Hearing will be conducted as soon as possible but in no event more
than three (3) months after arbitrator selection, unless mutually agreed
otherwise. Briefing by the parties, if any, will be completed within thirty
(30) days after the hearing date. The arbitrator shall issue a decision no
later than sixty (60) days after the close of the hearing or of receipt of the
parties brief, whichever is later.

5. Upon final agreement, or issuance of the arbitrators decision, as the case
may be, retroactive compensation, if applicable, will be paid to all pilots
who operate a disputed aircraft type placed in revenue service before the
parties’ agreement became effective or the award issued.

6. Nothing set forth in this Article shall prevent the Company from introducing a new aircraft type into revenue service before agreement is reached over the rates applicable to that aircraft, as long as the pay rates assigned to such aircraft type are not less than the rates provided by this Article or the principal Agreement for aircraft with similar power plant (turboprop or jet) and seat range that either includes the number of seats in the new aircraft type or has a seat range not greater than the number seats in the disputed aircraft. If the aircraft is smaller (less seats) than any other aircraft for which pay scales have been established by this Agreement then, subject
to the provisions of this article, the Company will establish a rate for the new aircraft until a negotiated rate has been agreed to by the parties. The negotiated rate will be retroactive to the implementation of the new aircraft type.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 673452)

Because they're scared that they will get fired. Too bad they don't have the kahonas to use the airplanes against BB. It's really simple, pilots use their airplanes to talk. It's been proven many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TillerEnvy (Post 673510)

If the aircraft is certificated at 100 seats, it legally has 100 seats. BB would have to go to the FAA and Embraer in order to operate the aircraft in a 99 seat config which means removing the 100th seat. He can MEL a seat only for so long, but it still has 100 seats.

I'm not asking pilots as individuals to not fly it. I'm asking the union to step up and tell the company pilots will not fly this aircraft until a Letter of Agreement is signed with pay rates for it. The union should keep the pilots from being assigned illegal flying. This is where ALPA is better than Teamsters. I hate ALPA, but I think they would handle this situation a little better than the Republic pilots' union is handling it. The actions of the Republic pilots speak louder than words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StallFail (Post 673360)

Why does this matter to anyone, ever?

Either way, they are flying airplanes that belong to a mainline carrier. I'm not saying that the repulic pilots are bad, its just their bosses. That airplane is simply to big to fly for those wages.

agreed.

Why does anybody take a job there? I saw their TOP F/O paystep is about equal to most other National/Regional jet operators 2nd or 3rd year pay... I know that many will say a job, any job, is better than unemployment... but at those wages, with their work rules, the hamburger flipper at McDonalds makes more money, is home with his/her family every night, and is not exposed to the liability of being an airline pilot.

No wonder Beford can afford to buy Frontier, Midwest, and loan USAir money.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by H46Bubba (Post 673572)

So true and usually the MEL for a PAX seat is good for ten days and could be exdented for lack of parts but you have to show that all options are exhausted before the FAA will let you extend a MEL, so in theory they will all be grounded. So as stated RAH is flying 100 seat A/C and need to use this againsts the company and fight for better pay for bigger a/c.

Quote:

Originally Posted by H46Bubba (Post 673572)

The Million Dollar Question is: Does the RAH contract refer simply to the number of seats in the aircraft? This is a typical amateur mistake...if so, the good reverend will simply get an STC to fly the plane with 99 seats. The courts will have no sympathy, in contract law the precise wording (not the intent) is usually what counts.

On the other hand if the contract language refers to original CERTIFICATED seat capacity, the RAH pilots should prevail since the airplane was originally a 100 seat airplane.

Payscale language should always be based on specific certified seating AND max gross weight. Even better, it should specifically identify exact aircraft make, model, and subtype with NO allowance for substitutions.