Loa 91 - Make Or Break It?

[PITbull]

PITbull, heres a question for ya. Does F/A scope have to go with the pilots? Say they give away the 70+ seat flying, but the F/As demand that everything above 50 seats is flown by the USA seniority list F/As. What happens then? Could the company do that? Like have a flight operated by XYZ Airlines with XYZ pilots but staffed by US F/As just as on the larger planes?

The f/as are not "me too" to pilots scope. However, if the pilots move on something and give relief to xy and z, then management will come after the f/as and threaten what they always threaten.

F/as need to start to get much much more envolved in what's going on and get informed and stay informed.

They also need to VOTE. The winter concessionary agreement failed in PIT but passed in all other bases with 3,800 out of 7,000 not voting.

When it comes to union voting and the Tentative agreements, the f/as better step up to the plate and vote. Otherwise, NO COMPLAINTS when "fall out" occurs. Example: Time/Balance Reserve System and Sick policy and MidAtlantic/American EAgle contract. 3,800 f/as didn't vote and when they complain, they all said they voted NO. Yea, right.

 

[Light Years]

F/as need to start to get much much more envolved in what's going on and get informed and stay informed.

They also need to VOTE. The winter concessionary agreement failed in PIT but passed in all other bases with 3,800 out of 7,000 not voting.

When it comes to union voting and the Tentative agreements, the f/as better step up to the plate and vote. Otherwise, NO COMPLAINTS when "fall out" occurs. Example: Time/Balance Reserve System and Sick policy and MidAtlantic/American EAgle contract. 3,800 f/as didn't vote and when they complain, they all said they voted NO. Yea, right.

That makes my blood boil. Are these people too dumb or too scared to vote for thier own future (and yours and mine!) :down:

I'd sure as hell have voted... AND kept my eyes open to what I was voting for. :angry:

 

[BoeingBoy]

Clue,

At the risk of being dismissed also, you are basically correct in your analysis of the "fee for departure" contracts. To my feeble mind, the short answer is that there is no way for anyone outside CCY to know if the affiliate arrangement is profitable or not - too much of the detailed financial data is not available publicly.

One example is fuel - Mesa's annual report says fuel is billed to US. Just where does that show up in our financial data?

Another is gate leases - again, where is that cost accounted for by US.

Insurance - reimbursed by US, where does it show up?

There are other items like this where the accounting can't be determined. The basic fee is only part of the picture.

Jim

 

[700UW]

From my understanding, the affiliate carrier contract calls for the regional airline to operate the service for cost + a small fee. Thus, US Airways keeps all of the revenue and does not have any aircraft acquisition or operational costs.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

Wrong!

US pays the cost of leasing, fuel, insurance, ground handling, landing fees and still pays them a fee on top of those items.

It is a revenue guaranteed contract, Mesa gets all their costs reimbursed plus a profit!

 

[700UW]

Clue:

You did not answer my question. In case you missed it I'll ask it again. What's your background and professional position to make this statement?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

What is yours?

You are a pilot, not a wall street guru, banker or airline analyst!

YOU ARE JUST A PILOT who is a scared man who likes to post wrong information and blantant falsehoods.

By the way we are still waiting for the explanation of the IAM "painful" clause, going on several months now.

 

[Winglet]

A320 pilot - Come down to LCC wages??? What?

U's non-labor costs are way above the LCCs. In order to obtain an overall LCC cost structure, U employes are going to have to work for a lot less than the LCC employees.

No to mention the bloated corporate staff and coming executive bonuses.

 

[BoeingBoy]

700UW,

Correct. Plus I keep hearing anecdotal evidence of another "hidden" cost of the RJ's - inability to carry a full passenger load and the baggage. The agent in SAV today told us that the Emb-145 can only carry 23 bags with a full load of 50 passengers. Every passenger whose bags don't arrive with them gets $80 for incidentals plus their bag delivered to them at who knows what cost.

We even have supplemental flight numbers now for cargo trucks - I guess that's so the passengers can be told that their bags will arrive on flight xxxx instead of telling them that their bags are being trucked in.

But hey, we need the "revenue" that those RJ's provide. Cost is no object...

Jim

 

[ClueByFour]

Correct. Plus I keep hearing anecdotal evidence of another "hidden" cost of the RJ's - inability to carry a full passenger load and the baggage. The agent in SAV today told us that the Emb-145 can only carry 23 bags with a full load of 50 passengers. Every passenger whose bags don't arrive with them gets $80 for incidentals plus their bag delivered to them at who knows what cost.

This cost is not exactly anecdotal.

On three flights on ERJs from PIT-ATL (or vice versa) in the last 6 months, I know this has happened. On one of these flights, _my_ checked luggage did not arrive (thus proving that the yellow priority and US1 tags don't count for much in operational conditions). On two other occasions, I was not permitted to board an earlier flight despite open seats--since they would have had to remove bags to accomodate the weight of my backside.

This was in the fall/winter, and I've been told (but not confirmed) that the new FAA regs regarding pax and bag weight play a part. I'd hate to see the numbers on an RJ taking off from a short runway in high density altitude conditions, much less ATL on a 55 degree evening.

 

[reznc]

Clue you are absolutely correct about weight and balance on the planes, resulting in baggage v backsides.

As a lowly res agent on the grand totem pole of U, and as Seagull fondly referred to us as "Operators" (implying no brains) I read the posts but rarely post myself. However, I am moved to respond to USA320 Pilot and ask "Who appointed you to be God?" I thought the whole purpose of nom de plume was to allow the postee anonymity if they so chose. You repeatedly avoid answering the same questions you ask other people. Playing "Devil's Advocate" is admirable if you can substantiate it, please do so.

Bronner and Lakefield do not expect ALPA to cave by mere threat of rhetoric, they are too astute and respect the intelligence of their employees too much to even entertain that notion, as shown by their eagerness to meet with them.

So I wonder what is the purpose of your scaremongering? It appears to be disputed and revoked not only by your fellow pilots but by outside sources as well.

I, for one fully support the actions of ALPA, as it defintiely has a trickledown impact on my position in the company, and thank them for all the engery they put into keeping the management on their toes.

 

[Phoenix]

Clue:

You did not answer my question. In case you missed it I'll ask it again. What's your background and professional position to make this statement?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

Why do you want to know his professional position and background?

DELETED BY MODERATOR

 

[ktflyhome]

That makes my blood boil. Are these people too dumb or too scared to vote for thier own future (and yours and mine!) :down:

I'd sure as hell have voted... AND kept my eyes open to what I was voting for. :angry:

LT: I don't think they are too dumb or scared to vote. I think they have become apathetic and tired. Most are listless to the same ole, same ole, that has been going on for years, without seeing anything progressing in a positive way. All incentive has been sucked out and disguarded. I see alot just biding their time at U, waiting for it to belly up. Can't remember the last time I heard anyone say anything positive about this company and the direction it was heading.