we can not refuse to fly the 100 seat aircraft. our contract allows the company to add a new aircraft type but sets for a specific time frame where we have to agree on a pay scale, below is the contract language:

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.

Top FO pay at Eagle is only $4/hr more than at RAH. 50 seat captain pay is almost identical. Our 70+ seat captain pay scale tops out higher than yours. Our work rules aren't the greatest, but they're not the worst. We don't sit "airport reserve" and we don't have junior manning like you guys do. I don't know where you get off saying RAH is a terrible regional. Maybe you're just flamebaiting, but thanks for diverting attention from the original subject.

Does the contract say 100 seats or 100 passenger seats?

The 190 has 105 seats if you count crew. So make him MEL 6 passenger seats for you to fly it.

Stop using the contract as an excuse to take flying from MidWest, and start using it as an excuse to get a contract.

It was a comparison... and you are assuming it's mine; try again.

Now, add this to the mix. The AMR/Eagle contract is 13 years old and pay is NOT one of the things that was discussable during amendment rounds...
so, it is about time you caught up.... it only took you what 13 years?

The E190 is flown by mainline at USAir, and at a National Carrier, Jet Blue.
Adding it to the "Regional" fleet is a concession, a step backwards, and basically a slap at anybody who has every wanted to keep growth at mainline carriers... RAH has succeeded at making a Regional a career stop intead of a stepping stone.

What kind of union do you people have that you are willing to let him get away with a "permanent MEL?" No wonder you keep getting larger planes instead of stepping up to a mainline job.

But what about that whole "80 for 80" push? Or the fact that the EGL has had contractual increases in their payrates over those 13 years?

Up until Easter 2006 a regional airline (Air Wisconsin) was already flying 100 seat aircraft (BAe 146-300). The ARW 2003 concessionary contract, which went into effect the same time as the CHQ 2003 contract, had B146 CA rates a couple percent BELOW the RAH 77-99 seat CA rate after the 3rd year of longevity (yes, the FO pay at ARW was substantially better).

Where was all the righteous indignation then???

The 80 for 80 was not an official union undertaking, it was an offshoot bunch of miscontents causing trouble... and the fact that it is still brought up to this day proves how effective even a few idiots can be.

Pay Raises? You are not trying to compare a full section six contract negotiation including payscales, with a 13 year old clause that required an anual 1.5% pay increase as a form of COLA are you? There was no negotiation of pay for them for the last 13 years. They got a fixed percentage, and it may not be 1.5% - I'm not sure what they got - it may also have been an increase based on industry average... but that is NOT pay negotiation in the sense we were discussing the RAH contract.

Nice try.

Yep, had I known about it then, I'd be giving them crap too... actually, I think I do a fairly good job of giving most of the regional industry crap.

What about the 2004 mid-term contract "negotiation" that gave everybody on property a 4% increase and first year pilots a 9% bump, with an industry average +1% increase 2006-2008?

It wasn't exactly a secret - the B146 was flown by ARW for 20 or so years, out of fairly busy places like DEN and ORD.

How long have you been in the industry?

Nice try Internet Warrior. We're not using excuses for anything there chief. We're in section 6 negotiations that definitely need to be slowed down right now, especially with the addition of 3 new airlines to the mix. Worry about your own regional that you most likely hate working at and we'll take care of our own.

I fixed it for you. Mokulele.

The contract specifically states 78-99 seats. It is not 78 +. Neither the company nor the union can change the text that is printed in the contract. There is NO payscale in our current contract that could possibly cover a 100 seat aircraft. Therefore, a section was written that lays out the process for establishing a new payscale. This process does not require a payscale to be established BEFORE the new aircraft is flown. It DOES set a time limit on how long it can take until a new pay scale is in place.

Bedford is not who decides to put the Frontier pilots on the RAH seniority list. That is a union matter. Look how much influence Doug Parker has had on the integration of US Airways and America West pilots if you think CEO's control the integration process.

The company has taken the stance that one seat can be deactivated, and that the newest 190 will be a 99 seater. This is simply a delay tactic. Negotiations cannot begin until the company acknowledges that these 190's have 100 seats. it will be a while until the court forces the company to acknowledge that these planes have 100 seats. In the end, the company will have to give in. They have set a precedent by paying our 135/140/145 captains the 50 seat captain pay rate even if one of the 50 seats of a 145 is deferred. We do have a lower pay scale for less than 50 seats, yet the company has chosen to recognize that pay is based on seats installed, not seats that may be occupied. Also, the 100th seat is physically installed. Photographs and weight and balance records are indisputable. That plane is a 100 seater.

Anyhow, I think the game plan in HQ is to delay the negotiation of a 100 seat payscale long enough to have a new CBA come out in the meantime. A few concessions to the pilot group could potentially (in the company's eyes) alleviate the need to back-pay for pilots flying the 100 seaters from today until the new CBA signing. In short, they want to get about 1.5 years of 100 seat pay for for free.

Like everything in the real world, everyone is going to have to wait a while. You can bash us for a month, but we can't make the courts work faster.