Special Magenta Line - Colgan Crash
09-07-2009, 02:15 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: Furlough
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
Scope at CAL has not changed. The Q400 is allowed per scope, just like the ATR-72's I flew for Express back in the 90's. CAL has good scope compared to most, but I would have liked to see a number limit on planes. They got the seat limits pretty good. I guess back then no one expected the huge regional jet fleets of today.
Didn't the ATR's get parked when XJT was still COEX and just after the 9/11 flow backs happened?
09-07-2009, 05:51 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: New Hire
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
Scope at CAL has not changed. The Q400 is allowed per scope, just like the ATR-72's I flew for Express back in the 90's. CAL has good scope compared to most, but I would have liked to see a number limit on planes. They got the seat limits pretty good. I guess back then no one expected the huge regional jet fleets of today.
09-07-2009, 06:41 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by tr disagree
Didn't the ATR's get parked when XJT was still COEX and just after the 9/11 flow backs happened?
09-07-2009, 06:43 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by shadyops
CAL's scope is better than most, but not good enough. Evidence of that is the existence of this thread.
09-08-2009, 04:54 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Homebased
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by newarkblows
Continental hasnt cared about quality or anything close to quality in a long time. This isnt surprising in the least. They want cheap and that is what they are getting. Go back to 2000 when they sold the atr's because of an "all jet fleet" is what business travelers wanted. Now a more comfortable turbo-prop comes along and they go with the shadiest company they can find. I love how the q400's gear up landings, Buffalo crash, the wheel falling off on landing, the constant maintenance issues and cancellations, the fuel hedging loss,and the complete cluster from when chq started up in houston are all being ignored. There have been some monumental oversights by management.
This cheap cheap cheap mindset gets you nothing but headaches and ****ed off passengers.
I think there needs to be a come to jesus moment among US airlines where this outsourcing is banned or outlawed. If you want to use the name then 90% have to be flown, operated, handled, and represented by that name and company. Not like Midwest where it is the other way around.
This cheap cheap cheap mindset gets you nothing but headaches and ****ed off passengers.
I think there needs to be a come to jesus moment among US airlines where this outsourcing is banned or outlawed. If you want to use the name then 90% have to be flown, operated, handled, and represented by that name and company. Not like Midwest where it is the other way around.
09-08-2009, 04:27 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: New Hire
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
I'm not sure I understand this. This thread is about the mention of the Colgan crash and codeshare airlines from the Magenta Line. EVERY airline codeshares with a regional partner. Some more than others. Some with EMB-170/190's. CAL only allows 50 seat jets. I'd say that's good. The only better you could do is all CAL flying is done by CAL pilots. I'm all for that, but I don't expect that to happen.
A little thread drift never killed anyone. Sounds like you understand. I don't expect all CAL flying to be done by CAL pilots because CAL pilots as a majority don't think it's a priority.
09-09-2009, 07:03 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: Furlough
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by brewpilot
You sure do whine alot!! The funny thing is you probably have jumpseated on our third world Q's and we accepted you with no prob. There was several XJT guys supporting us in IAH with the ALPA drive and assisting with answering our questions, etc... I think you deep down inside wish you worked for us and cry yourself to sleep wishing you could fly the big shinny third world crappy Colgan Q. GROW UP!!!!!!!
XJT was supporting you becomming ALPA but as far as getting the Q which circumvents the the scope clause and took some of the XJT flying moved us over to the nightmare called terminal A we do not support.
09-09-2009, 08:05 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by tr disagree
XJT was supporting you becomming ALPA but as far as getting the Q which circumvents the the scope clause and took some of the XJT flying moved us over to the nightmare called terminal A we do not support.
Second- the CAL MEC doesn't take an issue with Colgan's Q400 flying because it feel into the realm of their scope. They knew what they were agreeing to when they signed Contract 2003 (?). I don't think that any regional should be operating an aircraft with more than 19 seats, but to label it as scope circumvention is not fair, because it wasn't.
I think that the XJT guys just go too used to being CALs only feed. And I will admit it's a great company with an excellent contract and a good product. But it doesn't change the fact that CAL came to XJT and offered them the Q400, however your management balked at the offer, feeling turboprops were below them.
And why do the XJT guys not take more of an offense to CommutAir? EWR-ACK, EWR-SYR...that was "your flying", too.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
