Mda Delay
- Thread starter jack mama
- Start date
If you are referring to PSA, it's because PSA is worth something and UAIR needs cash.
Who are you to say that ALG and PDT aren't in UAIR's best interest?
PSA is only worth something because manage decided to give them jets first. I believe ALG or PDT was actually first to give concessions to get the jets. ALG or PDT could easily be in PSA's position right now.
-fatburger-
Who are you to say that ALG and PDT aren't in UAIR's best interest?
PSA is only worth something because manage decided to give them jets first. I believe ALG or PDT was actually first to give concessions to get the jets. ALG or PDT could easily be in PSA's position right now.
-fatburger-
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
one algheny pilot told me recently, it went like this:
Piedmont was the first to give in so that they would be the first to receive the RJ
Then PSA went next and Allgeheny fought until they lost. this is how the alg pilot put it to me.
Piedmont was the first to give in so that they would be the first to receive the RJ
Then PSA went next and Allgeheny fought until they lost. this is how the alg pilot put it to me.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #50
Being no financial genius (I subscribe to the buy high/sell low theory) it may be that an IPO would take longer than a sale to finalize.
I have heard that the 4th quarter report won't come out till about the time of the BOD meeting (anyone have any better info?), later than normal. Could it be that it will show that we have violated the ATSB "cash" requirement and they want to announce a sale that will bring us back into compliance at the same time?
Just my idle thoughts....
Jim
I have heard that the 4th quarter report won't come out till about the time of the BOD meeting (anyone have any better info?), later than normal. Could it be that it will show that we have violated the ATSB "cash" requirement and they want to announce a sale that will bring us back into compliance at the same time?
Just my idle thoughts....
Jim
DorkDriver
Advanced
- Aug 28, 2002
- 128
- 0
Well buddy, they just told the whole world how much PSA made in 2003. Happy reading.airbiiguy said:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf88/262782_web.pdf
AtlanticBeach
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 341
- 2
Moving expenses and income from parent to subsidiary or back is a very old accounting trick. Before the tax law changes in the early 1980's you could have related organizations on different fiscal years. Boy, was that fun!
Don't believe the P & L statements of any of the pieces. There's no arms-length transactions to prevent shenanigans.
Don't believe the P & L statements of any of the pieces. There's no arms-length transactions to prevent shenanigans.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
BoredToDeath:
BoredToDeath said: Please allow me to correct you on a few items. You said, "Mainline ALPA CBA requires the aircraft be flown by a participating wholly owned carrier" BTD says, "You could not be further from the truth. YOUR CBA(to be specific, the Jets for Jobs protocal) says that the CRJ700 may be flown by a WO and/or affilliate(contract carrier) airlines. The major difference is that J4J is willing to let the contract carriers fly this aircraft with the 50/50 staffing ratio under J4J, but if the plane(CRJ700) is used at the WO's you guys wanted 100% of the seats.
US Airways ALPA contract states: BoredToDeath, I disagree. The ALPA contract states, “Up to 25 ‘Large’, specifically limited to the CRJ-700, may be placed into revenue operation at a Participating Wholly-Owned Carrier, other than MDA. All large SJ positions created by the operation of this paragraph shall be filled by US Airways pilots in accordance with the Jets For Jobs Protocol, Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement. In addition, as an exception to the Jets For Jobs Protocol, 100% of the first 25 Medium or Small Jet positions at the Wholly-Owned Carrier where the above Large Small Jets are placed shall be filled by pilots of that Wholly-Owned Carrier. Upon completion of staffing of these aircraft, the 50/50 balance of hiring pursuant to the Jets For Jobs Protocol will be followed.
USA320Pilot comments: Bored, you are partially correct. There is a separate provision for affiliate carriers that is not a Jets For Jobs exception that has normal staffing. However, the paragraph I was referring to is listed above. The problem is that when PSA is sold, the company would become an affiliate carrier and the provision above would not be valid. Management wants US Airways ALPA to waive this provision to permit 25 CRJ-700 delivery positions to be transferred to the acquiring carrier, who takes control of PSA.
BoredToDeath said: I think you should get it through your head that the contracting out of Group flying is not saving Airways anything. Its costing the Group. Any five year old could see that.
USA320Pilot comments: PSA will be sold. It’s not whether or not I want it, it’s what the corporation is going to do. The PSA sale would bring in liquidity, reduce the company’s future debt load, and permit the company to create another affiliate RJ agreement to maintain feed. Moreover, it removes part of the United AFA scope problem in anticipation of the upcoming merger.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
BoredToDeath said: Please allow me to correct you on a few items. You said, "Mainline ALPA CBA requires the aircraft be flown by a participating wholly owned carrier" BTD says, "You could not be further from the truth. YOUR CBA(to be specific, the Jets for Jobs protocal) says that the CRJ700 may be flown by a WO and/or affilliate(contract carrier) airlines. The major difference is that J4J is willing to let the contract carriers fly this aircraft with the 50/50 staffing ratio under J4J, but if the plane(CRJ700) is used at the WO's you guys wanted 100% of the seats.
US Airways ALPA contract states: BoredToDeath, I disagree. The ALPA contract states, “Up to 25 ‘Large’, specifically limited to the CRJ-700, may be placed into revenue operation at a Participating Wholly-Owned Carrier, other than MDA. All large SJ positions created by the operation of this paragraph shall be filled by US Airways pilots in accordance with the Jets For Jobs Protocol, Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement. In addition, as an exception to the Jets For Jobs Protocol, 100% of the first 25 Medium or Small Jet positions at the Wholly-Owned Carrier where the above Large Small Jets are placed shall be filled by pilots of that Wholly-Owned Carrier. Upon completion of staffing of these aircraft, the 50/50 balance of hiring pursuant to the Jets For Jobs Protocol will be followed.
USA320Pilot comments: Bored, you are partially correct. There is a separate provision for affiliate carriers that is not a Jets For Jobs exception that has normal staffing. However, the paragraph I was referring to is listed above. The problem is that when PSA is sold, the company would become an affiliate carrier and the provision above would not be valid. Management wants US Airways ALPA to waive this provision to permit 25 CRJ-700 delivery positions to be transferred to the acquiring carrier, who takes control of PSA.
BoredToDeath said: I think you should get it through your head that the contracting out of Group flying is not saving Airways anything. Its costing the Group. Any five year old could see that.
USA320Pilot comments: PSA will be sold. It’s not whether or not I want it, it’s what the corporation is going to do. The PSA sale would bring in liquidity, reduce the company’s future debt load, and permit the company to create another affiliate RJ agreement to maintain feed. Moreover, it removes part of the United AFA scope problem in anticipation of the upcoming merger.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
I find A320's posts interesting, albeit uncoroborated. Take a chill pill all and cherry pick what you want to believe. It is all speculation at this point. It is possible he is correct. It may be possible that it is taking some time for the UCT or whatever, to materialize. The industry changes daily as does the world. It is not the 1980's anymore and corporate deals are not as easily consumated. It may be my natural tendancy to be an contrarian and all of this piling on the anti-A320 bandwagon is simply sending up a "red" flag to me.
OP
jack mama
Senior
- Nov 18, 2003
- 392
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #56
Does MESA's CRJ 700 order raise any eyebrows? Mesa is already getting our -705 CRJs and does PSA have the other order for CRJ 200's - i think.
I definately see MESA in play here. A320's UCT/ICT is coming...MESA buys US Airways for $7.34/sh to give Bronner his $$ back....
I definately see MESA in play here. A320's UCT/ICT is coming...MESA buys US Airways for $7.34/sh to give Bronner his $$ back....
CaptianBoomer
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2004
- 160
- 0
I personally see U selling PSA to Mesa. That does two things. It clears the balance sheet of the debt required to buy/lease/own the new CRJ200's. It also would keep cash outlay for purchases like spares and other items to a minumum. It would be a huge coup for U because right now, U is on the hook for everything at PSA. In other words, PSA operates and U pays the bills. U keeps the profit of what is left. Further, it would allow a cash infusion to U that might help keep it from default.
If Mesa get ahold of PSA, you can wipe out the duplication of jobs at both carriers and run it like the U/Mesa fee for service contract. U pays Mesa, Mesa flies the buys, maintains, trains and does the rest. U keeps the gravy without any "at risk" capital.
JO over at Mesa would get the RJ orders, probably convert some of them to CRJ700's which would again be a big plus for U because the -700 is a much more versatile aircraft than the -200, and he is already setup for this. He will probably be able to give U a hell of a deal for operating the jets because he will continue to gain economies of scale as Mesa's fleet gets larger. Hopefully we will see U use the EMB-145 for the short hauls where it is better suited. It was, don't know if it still is, being used on routes that it just isn't suited to.
What happens to PDT/ALG is anyone's guess right now. I don't see anyone getting hot under the collar for some DHC-8's, however, Mesa does fly them also and maybe being part of a larger deal with the above would make sense. There will ALWAYS be routes that a jet cannot support. And truth be told, U's route structure is still full of these short hauls.
Selling the shuttle would be foolish. If it is losing $$$, put MDA on it and see what happens.
Frats,
Boomer B)
If Mesa get ahold of PSA, you can wipe out the duplication of jobs at both carriers and run it like the U/Mesa fee for service contract. U pays Mesa, Mesa flies the buys, maintains, trains and does the rest. U keeps the gravy without any "at risk" capital.
JO over at Mesa would get the RJ orders, probably convert some of them to CRJ700's which would again be a big plus for U because the -700 is a much more versatile aircraft than the -200, and he is already setup for this. He will probably be able to give U a hell of a deal for operating the jets because he will continue to gain economies of scale as Mesa's fleet gets larger. Hopefully we will see U use the EMB-145 for the short hauls where it is better suited. It was, don't know if it still is, being used on routes that it just isn't suited to.
What happens to PDT/ALG is anyone's guess right now. I don't see anyone getting hot under the collar for some DHC-8's, however, Mesa does fly them also and maybe being part of a larger deal with the above would make sense. There will ALWAYS be routes that a jet cannot support. And truth be told, U's route structure is still full of these short hauls.
Selling the shuttle would be foolish. If it is losing $$$, put MDA on it and see what happens.
Frats,
Boomer B)
BoredToDeath
Advanced
- Oct 19, 2002
- 119
- 0
You are incorrect USA320PILOT. The provision for affiliate carriers DOES have to follow Jets For Jobs staffing of 50/50. Except where it talks about the WO's. This is out of LOA 83.
2. The terms and conditions for placement of the Small Jet code share aircraft that are authorized to be placed at other carriers and flown under the US Airways code by the provisions of Attachments B, B-1, and B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement shall be modified under the terms and conditions stated below:
A. Up to 20 “Medium SJs†and up to 30 “Large SJs†(CRJ-700 aircraft only) may be operated by Mesa Airlines or by any wholly owned subsidiary of Mesa Air Group or Mesa Airlines under terms agreed to between Mesa Air Group and the Association. Such aircraft shall be subject to the Jets for Jobs Protocol and must be placed into revenue operation no later than December 31, 2004.
B. Up to 25 “Large SJs†(CRJ-700 aircraft only), in addition to the 30 “Large SJs†authorized in Paragraph 2.A. above, may be placed into revenue operation by Participating Affiliate Carriers, provided that they are placed into revenue service no later than December 31, 2004, and provided further that they are subject to the Jets for Jobs Protocol (Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement). The foregoing does not preclude the placement of Large SJs in MDA in accordance with Attachment B of the Restructuring Agreement as amended by LOA 84.
This next paragraph shows how your MEC tried to put the screws to the WO's. Notice above that everything so far is at a 50/50 level. And see below how it turns into 100% for the same plane.
C. Up to 25 “Large SJsâ€, specificially limited to the CRJ-700, may be placed into revenue operation at a Participating Wholly-Owned Carrier, other than MDA. All Large SJ positions created by operation of this paragraph shall be filled by US Airways pilots in accordance with the Jets for Jobs Protocol, Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement. In addition, as an exception to the Jets for Jobs Protocol, 100% of the first 25 Medium or Small Jet positions at the Wholly Owned Carrier where the above Large Small Jets are placed shall be filled by pilots of that Wholly Owned Carrier. Upon completion of the staffing of these aircraft, the 50/50 balance of hiring pursuant to the Jets for Jobs Protocol will be followed.
If PSA agrees to the above paragraph, which we have'nt, then the company could fill PSA with all 70 seaters and furlough every PSA pilot. That is why we did not agree to LOA 83, ONLY LOA 81.
D. The number of “Medium SJs†and “Large SJs†in paragraphs A, B and C above are incremental to one another but are not incremental to the total number of “Medium SJs†and “Large SJs†authorized by Attachment B of the Restructuring Agreement.
The problem is that IF PSA is sold and the 700 is placed there, the mainline pilots would not get 100% of the seats since,as shown above, the provisions are already in place for 50/50 staffing on the CRJ700. But that is not the issue being discussed.
Whats being discussed is that Mgt. wants to put the 700's at PSA but since your MEC drafted LOA83 after PSA signed LOA81 we don't recongnize LOA83. Furthermore, we are willing to accept LOA 83 so long as the language is changed to allow 50/50 staffing ratios on all aircraft types operated at PSA.
That my friend is the only thing holding up the delivery of the CRJ700 to PSA.
That is all speculation. Like I said earlier, I don't belive this would be a smart move on the companys part.
It would bring liquidity but would not reduce the future debt load. If you look at the 8k statement you'll see what it cost the company now to contract out Express flying. By adding PSA as an affiliate would only increase that number. Right now Group pays for the operating of PSA and gets that money back in profits. If it were my business I know which I'd rather have.
It won't remove the whole problem because you would still have PDT and ALG. I won't however try to take your dreams from you. I for one would rather a better Mgt team to pull the WO's and Mainline together and be a stand alone Airways. Enough with this merger garbage, I'd rather stomp on United and the rest.
BoredToDeath
Advanced
- Oct 19, 2002
- 119
- 0
To the "naysayers" of PSA profits, please check the link provided by DorkDriver a few posts back. It provides a fairly detailed description of cost, albiet simple.
Now I know, I know, some will say, "well they probably just lied", and your right they may have well done just that. But can you think of a good reason to lie on a statement such as this one to the DOT? I can't.
Now I know, I know, some will say, "well they probably just lied", and your right they may have well done just that. But can you think of a good reason to lie on a statement such as this one to the DOT? I can't.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
BoredToDeath:
I have been told that PSA will be sold. In addition, US Airways senior management has approached ALPA about the CRJ-700 problem I addressed.
Moreover, in my opinion, when the mainline merger proceeds and the Pittsburgh hub is closed, part of PSA could feed United at Dulles with Mesa operating the aircraft.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
I have been told that PSA will be sold. In addition, US Airways senior management has approached ALPA about the CRJ-700 problem I addressed.
Moreover, in my opinion, when the mainline merger proceeds and the Pittsburgh hub is closed, part of PSA could feed United at Dulles with Mesa operating the aircraft.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
