|
Republic 190 rumor
I've heard the Republic 190's have 100 seats, but the company is deeming 1 seat unusable to make it conform to the Republic pilot contract. Is this true or is this a rumor?
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 673352)
I've heard the Republic 190's have 100 seats, but the company is deeming 1 seat unusable to make it conform to the Republic pilot contract. Is this true or is this a rumor?
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. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 673352)
I've heard the Republic 190's have 100 seats, but the company is deeming 1 seat unusable to make it conform to the Republic pilot contract. Is this true or is this a rumor?
Confirmed in two places... A Midwest pilot saw the airplane and a APC posting. Quote: Originally Posted by Killer51883 http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...s/viewpost.gif You are right its not a code share. However that section is still being followed. No Midwest Pilot can fly on either the RW, CHQ, or S5 certificate untill there is a master seniority list. At the same time no current RAH pilot can fly on the Midwest certificate (not that there is expected to be any flying on that certificate). No one has stopped integration talks. Just because it hasnt happend overnight doest mean its not going on. And if you think that we are just going to ignore the fact that the 190's physically have 100 seats and let the company pay us the 77-99 seat pay rate then you have lost all common sense. The union is all ready talking to the company about this and there is a system set up for the airplane to be operated while the pay rate is negotiated with back pay for when the rate is setteled upon. On a side note; this company is very different from most airlines. They are very tight lipped on any information. They have the union sign confidentiality statements and that contributes to the utter vaccum of information that comes from the crystal palace up there in IND. |
Confirmed by a Republic pilot as well...me.
Company is trying it to avoid problems. Grievance has already been filed. Carry on. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 673352)
I've heard the Republic 190's have 100 seats, but the company is deeming 1 seat unusable to make it conform to the Republic pilot contract. Is this true or is this a rumor?
|
I put on my future-seeing hat and saw that the new negotiated pay rates will still be absolute **** for flying a 100 seat airplane.
|
Originally Posted by Clocks
(Post 673409)
I put on my future-seeing hat and saw that the new negotiated pay rates will still be absolute **** for flying a 100 seat airplane.
|
it starts the time that the company has to come up with agreed upon payrates. If they refuse to fly them, they are out of a job. They will be pay protected and retro paid once an agreed upon wage is determined. This is completely legal on both sides.
|
save typing...
You guys are lucky the Midwest pilots didn't use that same line for the Midwest E170 flying. But TPG/BB wouldn't agree to that because they wanted to use Republic pilots to undermine our contract. I mean... why would BB want to provide retirement funding, trip guarantees, and industry average pay rates. He has you guys. |
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'm sure the IBT will allow and negotiate industry leading wages. |
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by TillerEnvy
(Post 673510)
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.
|
Article 21 from the CHQ 2003 CBA; emphasis is quite obviously mine:
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by TillerEnvy
(Post 673510)
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.
|
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.
|
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. 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..... |
Originally Posted by H46Bubba
(Post 673572)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by H46Bubba
(Post 673572)
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.
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. |
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Mason32
(Post 673598)
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..... |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 673352)
I've heard the Republic 190's have 100 seats, but the company is deeming 1 seat unusable to make it conform to the Republic pilot contract. Is this true or is this a rumor?
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. |
Originally Posted by Oskeewowow
(Post 673648)
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.
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??? |
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 673714)
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?
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.
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 673714)
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??? |
Originally Posted by Mason32
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?
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. How long have you been in the industry? |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 673651)
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. |
Originally Posted by TillerEnvy
(Post 673810)
...especially with the addition of 4 new airlines to the mix.
|
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.
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. |
Understanding the state of the IBT managing the RAH contract may help a few of the RAH bashers.
1. It was sooooo bad that Mr. Hoffa himself had to step in and appoint new leadership. 2. The new leadership has been in place less than four months. 3. Probably 90% of the RAH pilots where thrilled to have the new leadership and fully support them. 4. The unions are working through the CBA, merging the seniority lists and establishing the new pay rates. 5. The IBT has not given direction to the RAH pilot to anything but show up for work. Doing anything but showing up for work and flying what they are told right now would be treason against the union and result in absolute termination by the company. When the union says not to fly, few if any RAH pilots will show up to work. Until then, all the RAH pilots are doing EXACTLY what all the flame bait, keyboard commando's would do -- except they are being incredibly professional about it. I have not seen or heard one RAH pilot bragging, supporting, or even discussing the 190's in anything but a negative light. 60% of them planned on a quick upgrade and to be gone in four or five years. Now many of them will be waiting on an upgrade for up to ten years. Do you think they are thrilled with that? Except for the Midwest Pilots (who are the pawns in all of this), the rest of you need to grow up, put your big boy pants on and recognize that very soon your management could put you in a very similar position. Skywest will likely be announcing some pretty dramatic changes to their organization and flying in the VERY near future. Will the they be the next target of the bottom feeders. Give this thing three months and much of this will be worked out -- good, bad or indifferent. Until the RAH pilots actually have a voice in the matter cut them some slack. |
Originally Posted by AirbornPegasus
(Post 673859)
Understanding the state of the IBT managing the RAH contract may help a few of the RAH bashers.
1. It was sooooo bad that Mr. Hoffa himself had to step in and appoint new leadership. 2. The new leadership has been in place less than four months. 3. Probably 90% of the RAH pilots where thrilled to have the new leadership and fully support them. 4. The unions are working through the CBA, merging the seniority lists and establishing the new pay rates. 5. The IBT has not given direction to the RAH pilot to anything but show up for work. Doing anything but showing up for work and flying what they are told right now would be treason against the union and result in absolute termination by the company. When the union says not to fly, few if any RAH pilots will show up to work. Until then, all the RAH pilots are doing EXACTLY what all the flame bait, keyboard commando's would do -- except they are being incredibly professional about it. I have not seen or heard one RAH pilot bragging, supporting, or even discussing the 190's in anything but a negative light. 60% of them planned on a quick upgrade and to be gone in four or five years. Now many of them will be waiting on an upgrade for up to ten years. Do you think they are thrilled with that? Except for the Midwest Pilots (who are the pawns in all of this), the rest of you need to grow up, put your big boy pants on and recognize that very soon your management could put you in a very similar position. Skywest will likely be announcing some pretty dramatic changes to their organization and flying in the VERY near future. Will the they be the next target of the bottom feeders. Give this thing three months and much of this will be worked out -- good, bad or indifferent. Until the RAH pilots actually have a voice in the matter cut them some slack. As far as SkyWest, what are you possibly talking about? Seems like you have some idea, or are you just trying to divert attention? |
Republic is a desease to this industry.....lets all enjoy the race to the bottom while they suck down our careers with them ..yay!...
But they are all excited..they might get to fly A320s soon....hahahahah...yeah at $65 CA and $35/hr fo ....thanks Republic. You have finally done it. You have lowered the bar sooooo far that I now understand that I will never make a livable, respectable wage as an airline pilot.. Enjoy |
Just wondering how many senior pilot bid the 190? Did it go junior or were you guys just greedy? If any senior pilots did bid it is a slap in the face of every Midwest pilot who's flying you are stealing!!!!!!
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 673452)
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.
|
Originally Posted by XSive
(Post 673866)
Republic is a desease to this industry.....lets all enjoy the race to the bottom while they suck down our careers with them ..yay!...
But they are all excited..they might get to fly A320s soon....hahahahah...yeah at $65 CA and $35/hr fo ....thanks Republic. You have finally done it. You have lowered the bar sooooo far that I now understand that I will never make a livable, respectable wage as an airline pilot.. Enjoy |
I've pretty consistently defended RAH against the mindless bashing. However, what's with IBT not talking to or holding meetings with YX ALPA? These guys are going to be unemployed in the immediate future, with jobs directly replaced by RAH 190 drivers? Why the crickets from IBT 747 and/or the pilot group?
|
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. |
Originally Posted by aewanabe
(Post 673935)
I've pretty consistently defended RAH against the mindless bashing. However, what's with IBT not talking to or holding meetings with YX ALPA? These guys are going to be unemployed in the immediate future, with jobs directly replaced by RAH 190 drivers? Why the crickets from IBT 747 and/or the pilot group?
|
...........
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands