Crude Oil And Its Effect On Us Airways
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #107
vUSA320Pilot said:
A little touchy there, aren't we sport. You weren't even mentioned. I know you think the world is supposed to revolve around you, but it's just a very old joke. But then again, maybe it hit a little too close to home for comfort.....
Respectfully
Jim
jimntx
Veteran
SpinDoc said:
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
jimntx said:
You post was right on and accurate.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #110
Article includes a rundown of airlines fuel hedge positions for this year.
US Airlines Face Billions In Extra Fuel Costs
Jim
US Airlines Face Billions In Extra Fuel Costs
Jim
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #111
BoeingBoy:
BoeingBoy saidL "A little touchy there, aren't we sport. You weren't even mentioned. I know you think the world is supposed to revolve around you, but it's just a very old joke. But then again, maybe it hit a little too close to home for comfort....."
USA320Pilot comments: No, not at all. Since I have been debating the point the comment was likely directed at me. However, does it make you feel good to make "smart aleck" comments at 58 years old? My parents taught me to always have respect and decorum. How about yours -- is something missing there?
I believe everybody who reads this board knows that when I make a post a string of comments follow disputing my point always come from 700UW, Clue, UVN, and you. If I say it's black you and the other "negative posters" say it's white. I've come to realize it's the nature of the beast for those who are angry and bitter, which is even more evident in your case from your postings on the ALPA Message Board. It's too bad the public cannot see your ALPA posts, which is behind a firewall, where the public can see your true sentiment and personality.
BoeingBoy, keep up the insults and smart aleck comments, it only helps to identify your true personality and sentiment for all to see.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. If the price of Crude Oil Futures only goes up, how do the long speculators profit? If the majority of "Bulls" never sell, when do they take their paper profits? Please explain this to me, BoeingBoy.
BoeingBoy saidL "A little touchy there, aren't we sport. You weren't even mentioned. I know you think the world is supposed to revolve around you, but it's just a very old joke. But then again, maybe it hit a little too close to home for comfort....."
USA320Pilot comments: No, not at all. Since I have been debating the point the comment was likely directed at me. However, does it make you feel good to make "smart aleck" comments at 58 years old? My parents taught me to always have respect and decorum. How about yours -- is something missing there?
I believe everybody who reads this board knows that when I make a post a string of comments follow disputing my point always come from 700UW, Clue, UVN, and you. If I say it's black you and the other "negative posters" say it's white. I've come to realize it's the nature of the beast for those who are angry and bitter, which is even more evident in your case from your postings on the ALPA Message Board. It's too bad the public cannot see your ALPA posts, which is behind a firewall, where the public can see your true sentiment and personality.
BoeingBoy, keep up the insults and smart aleck comments, it only helps to identify your true personality and sentiment for all to see.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. If the price of Crude Oil Futures only goes up, how do the long speculators profit? If the majority of "Bulls" never sell, when do they take their paper profits? Please explain this to me, BoeingBoy.
LGA Fleet Service
Veteran
Have a glass of prune juice and get over yourself already.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #114
Perhaps this is one?
[name],
I can shed some light on the first part of your post - where check airmen fly when they fly the line.
By way of illustration, let's say I'm a 737 check airman and it's time to let the powers that be know where I'm going to fly in April.
If my seniority is such that I could hold a permanent bid on the 737 if I were a line pilot, I can choose to fly from any 737 base where I could hold a bid.
If my seniority is such that I couldn't hold a permanent bid anywhere in the system, I must fly from the junior 737 base in the system.
At least that's the way I read the language - we on the permanent bid committee don't get involved in scheduling check airmen's line flying.
You (generic, not you specifically) won't see it on the permanent bid rosters that are put out to the pilot group, but with the printouts we work with at the bid closings, a check airman returning to the line (leaving the training dept, not for their monthly flying allotment) is coded as "No previous position". That means they held no permanent bid award on the previous bid. The last permanent bid position they held was the one they held prior to entering the training dept.
Now, the second part - where check airmen exercise their rights as ALPA members - is something I can't help you with.
Jim
[name],
I can shed some light on the first part of your post - where check airmen fly when they fly the line.
By way of illustration, let's say I'm a 737 check airman and it's time to let the powers that be know where I'm going to fly in April.
If my seniority is such that I could hold a permanent bid on the 737 if I were a line pilot, I can choose to fly from any 737 base where I could hold a bid.
If my seniority is such that I couldn't hold a permanent bid anywhere in the system, I must fly from the junior 737 base in the system.
At least that's the way I read the language - we on the permanent bid committee don't get involved in scheduling check airmen's line flying.
You (generic, not you specifically) won't see it on the permanent bid rosters that are put out to the pilot group, but with the printouts we work with at the bid closings, a check airman returning to the line (leaving the training dept, not for their monthly flying allotment) is coded as "No previous position". That means they held no permanent bid award on the previous bid. The last permanent bid position they held was the one they held prior to entering the training dept.
Now, the second part - where check airmen exercise their rights as ALPA members - is something I can't help you with.
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #115
Or this?
[name],
"The new systems take four hours and can run on laptops instead of mainframes."
For what it's worth, the pairing construction process is actually run on a RISC computer, not "the" mainframe (not being a computer guru, I think of it as a "mini-mainframe"). The folks that do pairing construction and the folks that do permanent bids share it.
I don't know about the software for the trip construction but the permanent bid software is old - it's written in Fortran - and has been modified/patched so many times that it is no doubt a lot less efficient than necessary.
Jim
[name],
"The new systems take four hours and can run on laptops instead of mainframes."
For what it's worth, the pairing construction process is actually run on a RISC computer, not "the" mainframe (not being a computer guru, I think of it as a "mini-mainframe"). The folks that do pairing construction and the folks that do permanent bids share it.
I don't know about the software for the trip construction but the permanent bid software is old - it's written in Fortran - and has been modified/patched so many times that it is no doubt a lot less efficient than necessary.
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #116
Or this?
[name],
I don't know [name], but [name] is right though not necessarily for the reasons he thinks.
Crew utilization depends on aircraft utilization. With most of our aircraft flying 10 or less hours a day, [name] or anyone else can tinker with this or that, change software, or whatever and most pilots will never see trips averaging 6 hours a day.
If most of our aircraft were flown 11-12 hours a day, the job of improving trips would be easy - the current software could probably spit out 6 hour/day trips pretty consistently, though the "old clunker" would take longer to do it.
Until aircraft utilization goes up, the best most of our pilots will see is marginal improvement.
Jim
[name],
I don't know [name], but [name] is right though not necessarily for the reasons he thinks.
Crew utilization depends on aircraft utilization. With most of our aircraft flying 10 or less hours a day, [name] or anyone else can tinker with this or that, change software, or whatever and most pilots will never see trips averaging 6 hours a day.
If most of our aircraft were flown 11-12 hours a day, the job of improving trips would be easy - the current software could probably spit out 6 hour/day trips pretty consistently, though the "old clunker" would take longer to do it.
Until aircraft utilization goes up, the best most of our pilots will see is marginal improvement.
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #117
Those are just the first I found scrolling through the most recent threads. Unfortunately, the ALPA forum doesn't have a search feature (that I know of) plus a lack of storage space means posts over a couple of weeks old are dropped out.
I'll let the readers judge just how "angry and bitter" they are.
Likewise, I'll let the readers judge which of us is so insecure that they can't accept any view contrary to our own, therefore imagining that anyone who holds such contrary views must be "angry and bitter"......
Jim
I'll let the readers judge just how "angry and bitter" they are.
Likewise, I'll let the readers judge which of us is so insecure that they can't accept any view contrary to our own, therefore imagining that anyone who holds such contrary views must be "angry and bitter"......
Jim
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
Time for 320 to step up to plate paste his now.
Or are you even allowed to post to that site?
Or are you even allowed to post to that site?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #119
Lo and behold, there is a search - though for keyword only, thank God I sign most of my posts - so here's some more:
[name],
I'm certainly no expert on LOA 91, but to me it appears that the only way to guarantee more than 50% J4J's on the planes going to Republic is for the transaction to constitute a "change of control" of MDA. Without that, it depends on Republic's goodwill
Prior to last July or thereabouts, MDA was actually Services Company (d/b/a MidAtlantic Airways), a subsidiary of US Airways Group, Inc. That could have allowed this to be something other than an asset sale. But at that time, Services Company was merged into US Airways, Inc (mainline).
Jim
------------
[name],
I started to say that I have absolutely no idea what Republic/Chataugua pays, but that's not quite accurate. One of my nephews has been there flying right seat on the Emb-170 (as UAL express) for 6 months or so and makes around $27 per hour. But that is all I know.
As for everything else, I can only hope that it works out for the folks at MDA. I fear, though, that anything over 50% J4J's will depend on the good intentions of Republic.
Jim
-----------
[name],
I've had the same thought/worry/concern bouncing around in the back of my head.
Per both agreements (AWAC & Republic), the only way for someone to get more than 50% of the stock (and hence voting control) is to invest more than $200 million in equity. Less than that, AWAC/Republic get 50% of the stock.
There is one thing in both agreements that I haven't got a handle on and it isn't "defined" anywhere.
In the chart (in both agreements) that defines how much of the stock AWAC/Republic get, there's several columns.
1 - the investment under the agreement ($125Mil)
2 - total investment by others (varying amounts)
3 - more in a moment but it's a constant $250Mil
4 - total of the first 3 amounts
5 - % of stock that investor (either AWAC or Republic) gets (from max of 25% to min of 19.26%)
Now for column 3. It called "Pre-Cash Equity" and, as I said, is a constant $250Mil. What it represents, I don't know. But it is close to Bronner's original $240Mil investment. Just food for thought.....
Jim
----------
[name],
Here's what the actual Republic agreement says:
"Preferential Hiring.
Republic will comply with the terms of Letter of Agreement #91 to the US Airways - ALPA Collective Bargaining Agreement with respect to the flight crews currently employed by US Airways' EMB-170 Division ("Mid-Atlantic"), and will offer preferential hiring to any flight attendants and mechanics currently employed at Mid-Atlantic. Furthermore Republic will comply with such Letter of Agreement #91 associated with any additional aircraft."
According to LOA 91, sale of MDA assets triggers 50% J4J's on the aircraft at the acquiring carrier (one of the "non-concessions" according to Garland). Of course, Chataugua (Republic Air Holding's only operating division though I understand they're still trying to get Republic Airlines off the ground)abides with the J4J's program as far as their current flying for us.
Other tidbits of the agreement:
To get their hands on any money prior to exiting BK (when the $125 million becomes available) will require the asset sales, so they could come quickly after the judge approves the agreement (hearing scheduled 3/31). Not necessarily good for the MDA folks.
On the other hand, the transfer of planes will be at the rate of 3 per month. That means that all MDA flying won't disappear overnite (good for MDA folks if they all don't go with the airplanes) but gives Republic/Chataugua ample time to hire/train their own folks for 50% of the jobs (not necessarily good for MDA folks).
Jim
----------
[name],
While I certainly don't have a crystal ball, the AWAC agreement calls for only one class of "new" stock after exit from bankruptcy and all "new" stock will be "one share - one vote" (so nothing like Bronner's B shares that gave him a majority vote without the majority of shares). Pure speculation, but maybe they were concerned about putting money into this place and Bronner remaining firmly in control.
AWAC also gets 3 board seats (more under specific circumstances), from media reports it appears Republic gets the same (I haven't seen the actual agreement yet), the CEO is on the board (as is pretty normal) and the CEO gets to appoint at least one board member.
Assuming we get the $100 million in additional equity investment called for in the Republic deal, it is starting to appear like no one entity will have a controlling vote.
Jim
-----------
"And I wonder how much of a cut we made to Republic's money they get from us."
So far all that been made public is that their ERJ contract is cut to cost + 5%. That's for 35 airplanes, of which 15 can be removed by U or them. Oh, the ERJ's are operated by their Chataugua subdivision.
Republic had a conference call on the agreement today. As you would probably expect, they made the agreement sound as good for them as the company made it sound for U.
Jim
------------
[name],
Actually, that's what I was beginning to think. The motion to reject the leases on the 24 planes was filed back in mid-Nov, with the rejection date "to be determined". When the hearing kept being postponed, I figured filing the motion was a negotiating tactic.
With the announcement of the 11 737's leaving, I'm not so sure anymore (though without tail #'s there's no way to be sure that these 11 are part of the 24).
One thing for sure, time will tell.....
Jim
-----------
[name],
"You don't think there's a pilot staffing problem about to rear its ugly little head now do you?"
Interesting you should say that. I'd been wondering for a while how many pilots (not counting reserves who have no choice in their schedule) were flying the extra time each month.
Rode home today from CLT with someone you know that's in a position to have the info. He said "Not many."
I know that over the last couple of months I've only talked to a couple of pilots flying to the pay cap, but that's a small sample size.
In short, I don't think the pilot staffing problem is "about" to rear it's ugly little head - I think it already has....
Jim
------------
Is that enough or should I post more?
Jim
[name],
I'm certainly no expert on LOA 91, but to me it appears that the only way to guarantee more than 50% J4J's on the planes going to Republic is for the transaction to constitute a "change of control" of MDA. Without that, it depends on Republic's goodwill
Prior to last July or thereabouts, MDA was actually Services Company (d/b/a MidAtlantic Airways), a subsidiary of US Airways Group, Inc. That could have allowed this to be something other than an asset sale. But at that time, Services Company was merged into US Airways, Inc (mainline).
Jim
------------
[name],
I started to say that I have absolutely no idea what Republic/Chataugua pays, but that's not quite accurate. One of my nephews has been there flying right seat on the Emb-170 (as UAL express) for 6 months or so and makes around $27 per hour. But that is all I know.
As for everything else, I can only hope that it works out for the folks at MDA. I fear, though, that anything over 50% J4J's will depend on the good intentions of Republic.
Jim
-----------
[name],
I've had the same thought/worry/concern bouncing around in the back of my head.
Per both agreements (AWAC & Republic), the only way for someone to get more than 50% of the stock (and hence voting control) is to invest more than $200 million in equity. Less than that, AWAC/Republic get 50% of the stock.
There is one thing in both agreements that I haven't got a handle on and it isn't "defined" anywhere.
In the chart (in both agreements) that defines how much of the stock AWAC/Republic get, there's several columns.
1 - the investment under the agreement ($125Mil)
2 - total investment by others (varying amounts)
3 - more in a moment but it's a constant $250Mil
4 - total of the first 3 amounts
5 - % of stock that investor (either AWAC or Republic) gets (from max of 25% to min of 19.26%)
Now for column 3. It called "Pre-Cash Equity" and, as I said, is a constant $250Mil. What it represents, I don't know. But it is close to Bronner's original $240Mil investment. Just food for thought.....
Jim
----------
[name],
Here's what the actual Republic agreement says:
"Preferential Hiring.
Republic will comply with the terms of Letter of Agreement #91 to the US Airways - ALPA Collective Bargaining Agreement with respect to the flight crews currently employed by US Airways' EMB-170 Division ("Mid-Atlantic"), and will offer preferential hiring to any flight attendants and mechanics currently employed at Mid-Atlantic. Furthermore Republic will comply with such Letter of Agreement #91 associated with any additional aircraft."
According to LOA 91, sale of MDA assets triggers 50% J4J's on the aircraft at the acquiring carrier (one of the "non-concessions" according to Garland). Of course, Chataugua (Republic Air Holding's only operating division though I understand they're still trying to get Republic Airlines off the ground)abides with the J4J's program as far as their current flying for us.
Other tidbits of the agreement:
To get their hands on any money prior to exiting BK (when the $125 million becomes available) will require the asset sales, so they could come quickly after the judge approves the agreement (hearing scheduled 3/31). Not necessarily good for the MDA folks.
On the other hand, the transfer of planes will be at the rate of 3 per month. That means that all MDA flying won't disappear overnite (good for MDA folks if they all don't go with the airplanes) but gives Republic/Chataugua ample time to hire/train their own folks for 50% of the jobs (not necessarily good for MDA folks).
Jim
----------
[name],
While I certainly don't have a crystal ball, the AWAC agreement calls for only one class of "new" stock after exit from bankruptcy and all "new" stock will be "one share - one vote" (so nothing like Bronner's B shares that gave him a majority vote without the majority of shares). Pure speculation, but maybe they were concerned about putting money into this place and Bronner remaining firmly in control.
AWAC also gets 3 board seats (more under specific circumstances), from media reports it appears Republic gets the same (I haven't seen the actual agreement yet), the CEO is on the board (as is pretty normal) and the CEO gets to appoint at least one board member.
Assuming we get the $100 million in additional equity investment called for in the Republic deal, it is starting to appear like no one entity will have a controlling vote.
Jim
-----------
"And I wonder how much of a cut we made to Republic's money they get from us."
So far all that been made public is that their ERJ contract is cut to cost + 5%. That's for 35 airplanes, of which 15 can be removed by U or them. Oh, the ERJ's are operated by their Chataugua subdivision.
Republic had a conference call on the agreement today. As you would probably expect, they made the agreement sound as good for them as the company made it sound for U.
Jim
------------
[name],
Actually, that's what I was beginning to think. The motion to reject the leases on the 24 planes was filed back in mid-Nov, with the rejection date "to be determined". When the hearing kept being postponed, I figured filing the motion was a negotiating tactic.
With the announcement of the 11 737's leaving, I'm not so sure anymore (though without tail #'s there's no way to be sure that these 11 are part of the 24).
One thing for sure, time will tell.....
Jim
-----------
[name],
"You don't think there's a pilot staffing problem about to rear its ugly little head now do you?"
Interesting you should say that. I'd been wondering for a while how many pilots (not counting reserves who have no choice in their schedule) were flying the extra time each month.
Rode home today from CLT with someone you know that's in a position to have the info. He said "Not many."
I know that over the last couple of months I've only talked to a couple of pilots flying to the pay cap, but that's a small sample size.
In short, I don't think the pilot staffing problem is "about" to rear it's ugly little head - I think it already has....
Jim
------------
Is that enough or should I post more?
Jim
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
Is 320 allowed to post? What tone does he have on there I can't imagine it is any different then his holier then thou attitude he has on here.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sun Country Airlines after first NMB Mediated session- Latest: CorvetteMan