Republic Questions
#1291
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,152
The short answer, no.
#1294
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: ERJ 170
Posts: 729
CAs earn based on number of seats
50 seat jet (145 and Q400), 78 seat jet (170/175), greater than 78 seat jet (190 and some US air 175)
Q400 pay is in arbitration as obviously it's not a jet and has more seats than 50
#1295
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 74
FOs make the same on every single airplane. 145, 170, 190, Q400
CAs earn based on number of seats
50 seat jet (145 and Q400), 78 seat jet (170/175), greater than 78 seat jet (190 and some US air 175)
Q400 pay is in arbitration as obviously it's not a jet and has more seats than 50
CAs earn based on number of seats
50 seat jet (145 and Q400), 78 seat jet (170/175), greater than 78 seat jet (190 and some US air 175)
Q400 pay is in arbitration as obviously it's not a jet and has more seats than 50
Arbitration? So it's part of the new TA? Sorry to seem ignorant. I'm not with Republic and would like to get some info on flying the Q.
#1296
The company doesn't want to apply the current payscale to a turboprop because they say our contract is only for jets.
Our contract specifies a timeframe for adding new payrates, but it is based on new seat-counts. Company says that part of the contract doesn't apply to props.
So we are currently waiting for a decision from an arbitrator. The case has already been heard.
Q400 CAs are being paid the 50-seat payrate provisionally, in the meantime. Company initially tried to argue the (even lower) 37-seat rate when we first added the type to our operation.
We previously lost a grievance about E190s with 100 seats (our current payrates only go to 99 seats) because the company successfully argued that the deactivated seat meant the plane only had 99 seats. Even though it was installed and present onboard the aircraft.
Editorial: I think it's obvious why people should be afraid of the gray language in our new TA. Not to mention it explicitly treats Q400 pilots as second class citizens. Vote no!
#1297
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 74
Our present contract only talks about jet rates. No mention of turboprops. The current contract's pay rate language only refers to seat count.
The company doesn't want to apply the current payscale to a turboprop because they say our contract is only for jets.
Our contract specifies a timeframe for adding new payrates, but it is based on new seat-counts. Company says that part of the contract doesn't apply to props.
So we are currently waiting for a decision from an arbitrator. The case has already been heard.
Q400 CAs are being paid the 50-seat payrate provisionally, in the meantime. Company initially tried to argue the (even lower) 37-seat rate when we first added the type to our operation.
We previously lost a grievance about E190s with 100 seats (our current payrates only go to 99 seats) because the company successfully argued that the deactivated seat meant the plane only had 99 seats. Even though it was installed and present onboard the aircraft.
Editorial: I think it's obvious why people should be afraid of the gray language in our new TA. Not to mention it explicitly treats Q400 pilots as second class citizens. Vote no!
The company doesn't want to apply the current payscale to a turboprop because they say our contract is only for jets.
Our contract specifies a timeframe for adding new payrates, but it is based on new seat-counts. Company says that part of the contract doesn't apply to props.
So we are currently waiting for a decision from an arbitrator. The case has already been heard.
Q400 CAs are being paid the 50-seat payrate provisionally, in the meantime. Company initially tried to argue the (even lower) 37-seat rate when we first added the type to our operation.
We previously lost a grievance about E190s with 100 seats (our current payrates only go to 99 seats) because the company successfully argued that the deactivated seat meant the plane only had 99 seats. Even though it was installed and present onboard the aircraft.
Editorial: I think it's obvious why people should be afraid of the gray language in our new TA. Not to mention it explicitly treats Q400 pilots as second class citizens. Vote no!
#1299
#1300
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 175
11 days off per CBA. You will NOT get more. The previous poster must have miscounted a 30 day bid month.
RSV times are fluid and base specific. I'd expect them to increase drastically with CHQ pilots moving over to RW. That said, I think S5 RSV could be stable, but with no movement off the certificate they could stagnate again.
So I'd plan on 6 months or more. RSV here sucks unimaginably, especially if you don't commute.
Rick Dubinsky just gave the company unlimited 16hr days for RSV pilots in the new TA. You better hope the 117 rules still count RAP as duty in the future...
RSV times are fluid and base specific. I'd expect them to increase drastically with CHQ pilots moving over to RW. That said, I think S5 RSV could be stable, but with no movement off the certificate they could stagnate again.
So I'd plan on 6 months or more. RSV here sucks unimaginably, especially if you don't commute.
Rick Dubinsky just gave the company unlimited 16hr days for RSV pilots in the new TA. You better hope the 117 rules still count RAP as duty in the future...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
0
06-23-2005 02:50 PM