Did Pinnacle bet the farm on out of "seniorit
04-06-2012 | 06:28 PM
#21
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
04-06-2012 | 07:17 PM
#23
ULTP-Ultra Low Tier Pilot
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
I think a liveable FO wages would help quell the internal struggle for upgrades. Just sayin'...
This is why pilots got to Great Lakes, who pay Captains as much as FOs at other airlines.
04-07-2012 | 08:24 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Couch-Horizontal
Kind of like guys that went to colgan before 2010.
04-07-2012 | 08:43 AM
#26
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 907
Likes: 26
Facts to back up that claim?
I don't know any airline that flew a 34-seat turboprop and had FO's making $47/hr.
I don't know any airline that flew a 74-seat turboprop and had FO's making $58/hr.
I'm not disagreeing with you that Colgan was a bottom feeder, but these little jabs at pre-merger Colgan pilots that make you feel better inside are quite childish.
I don't know any airline that flew a 34-seat turboprop and had FO's making $47/hr.
I don't know any airline that flew a 74-seat turboprop and had FO's making $58/hr.
I'm not disagreeing with you that Colgan was a bottom feeder, but these little jabs at pre-merger Colgan pilots that make you feel better inside are quite childish.
04-07-2012 | 09:00 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
I've never liked that term, Bottom Feeder, when talking about a regional airline.
I'm just curious as to how one differentiates regional airlines as bottom feeders when compared to other regional airlines?
If all regional airlines run feed into hub airports, aren't all regional airlines bottom feeders to some extent?
Nevertheless, I don't like the term, and I find using it disrespectful towards other pilots.
04-07-2012 | 09:41 AM
#28
Day puke
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
I've never liked that term, Bottom Feeder, when talking about a regional airline.
I'm just curious as to how one differentiates regional airlines as bottom feeders when compared to other regional airlines?
If all regional airlines run feed into hub airports, aren't all regional airlines bottom feeders to some extent?
Nevertheless, I don't like the term, and I find using it disrespectful towards other pilots.
I'm just curious as to how one differentiates regional airlines as bottom feeders when compared to other regional airlines?
If all regional airlines run feed into hub airports, aren't all regional airlines bottom feeders to some extent?
Nevertheless, I don't like the term, and I find using it disrespectful towards other pilots.
Actually, there is a difference between the "Connection" type regionals and the "Express" regionals. Connections, formerly called trunk carriers feed into the mainline, while Expresses displace mainline aircraft.
Personally, I don't have an issue with Connectors. United, for example, already has six types of aircraft with a total of 14 versions. Is it really cost effective for them to add a couple more types (typically turbo props) when those aircraft augment, rather than replace, mainline aircraft?
04-07-2012 | 10:06 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Ok, lets look at a positive. Maybe when this is all done the pilots left can all come together as one group and stop all this bickering. No more Colgan/Mesaba/Pinnacle. I am getting sick of all the bs that comes us vs them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
