More CRJ 900's....

[ONT_CP]

From a customer perspective, I hate seeing more CRJ-900s coming on board.. of course if it is a transfer from Mesa to PSA... then I am all for it.. I despise Mesa and their unprofessional crews and lack of customer service. But, if US was smart, they would stop the CRJ 900 and move to the EMB 190s!!!

Here is what happens when I see a CRJ 900 on a route, I look at the time.. if it is a quick flight to Phoenix (around 1 hour) I take it (if I am not pressed for time.. as in, I can afford a slight delay). If it is over 1 hour (like PHX-ICT), then I fly UA or (even WN if needed). I really will go elsewhere (usually to UA) when the CRJs are involved, I despise the aircraft... CRAMPED and uncomfortable.

So, for US management, this FF will fly TED and connections rather than those cramped aircraft... they are just that awful.

 

[U 737 PILOT]

I go out of my way to avoid flying on that POS. Gee, lets see how many people we can cram into a small tube. :down:

 

[chichi]

From the Bits I've gathered. They aren't backing off the 190's. The 190's will be up in PHL and concentrate on longer stage lengths. The 900's in CLT where the stage length could be a little shorter. (though they are going to be the LR version of the 900, which Bombardier announced a few months ago, Higher Weights and a bit more power on the engine, or maybe more fuel, dunno) Also there was a mention somewhere, that possibly if they place 900's other than mesa, they can get rid of 10 Mesa 900's. (which would be a blessing considering mesa's performance, Just last night, last flight out of CLT we had 12 misconnects due to Mesa 900's running way late.)

As to the pay, no it's not a pay increase. They want the pay frozen at current ratioed levels. (There is a pay scale for 50 and 70 seaters, which the actual pay is a ratio between the number of 50 and 70 seaters on property, if 900's were to show up, it would mean a slight increase in pay overall. Maybe 2.50/hr for a 7th year capt.) Though the contract and longevity steps would remain in force.

As to the J4J comment, I really doubt you'll see toooo many jump to come over here anymore. I believe some capt. classes at Republic went unfilled, and that was at a point they were all looking at being furloughed. Some may trickle over, but I doubt many.

As to movement, well the f/o's have been screaming about the lack of upgrades. The initial 18 airframes in 12 months, with a target of adding 100 crews for the 20 order. Worst case would be 50 PSA f/o upgrades, within '07. I believe that would take care of about all the native PSA f/o's....and if they excercised the option for the other 20, That would take upgrades down to a 2/05 DOH. In addition if you look back, barring BK, the aircraft deliveries actually got moved up, and were brought on property faster then originally planned (though due to Pilot Contract problems, 700's were delayed) I think the biggest restriction at this point would be training department and crews. Management said 5 months ramp up time to handle deliveries. (get checkairman back into training dept, and hire enough crews to be able to get f/o's into upgrade) Hence the Aug 1st deadline to ALPA.

Bottom line is, Management has indicated they are going to get these a/c. (I assume, is the fact they will complete the existing order) The question is, where do you want to see them goto?

If PSA rejects them, who is next on the list...PDT perhaps?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Since when did this EVER become about what makes sense? It's about more for less. More bucks for the big boy's pockets.

I don't disagree with that one little bit, as it appears the offer of CRJ-900's is another "Who'll fly them cheapest" bargaining tactic.

I should have been clearer. IF we end up getting more CRJ's from Bombardier, it makes economic sense that they're 900's instead of more 200/700's (which is what we still have orders for). Slightly higher segment costs in exchange for better unit costs. Plus whichever model we might get could be used to whipsaw various pilot groups.

From a customer standpoint as well as eliminating the possibility of dangling aircraft as a carrot, and probably from an economic standpoint, the Emb-190's would definitely be better. As you said, though - the fact that the company is still trying to work something out with Bombardier definitly says "Since when did this ever become about what makes sense?"

Jim

 

[SegmentKing]

AWAC or Mesa. AWAC is salivating to get back into the bigger jets since they parked the 146s.... which was a dumb ass move by US mgt for not finding a way to get these birds back on the US side... the 146 can truck'em in and out better than any CRJ around, and can fly legs like CLT/EYW with all pax and bags on board, BOTH ways. Hell, we could have even used them for ASE-PHX...

the birds could even operate in and out of HHH without any issues as well...

can you imagine the yields US could have received had we allowed AWAC to operate the 146s DCA-HHH yet?

and for the Zw guys here who accuse me of hating them, I don't hate AWAC... just hate what they've become

 

[A320 Driver]

I don't disagree with that one little bit, as it appears the offer of CRJ-900's is another "Who'll fly them cheapest" bargaining tactic.

I should have been clearer. IF we end up getting more CRJ's from Bombardier, it makes economic sense that they're 900's instead of more 200/700's (which is what we still have orders for). Slightly higher segment costs in exchange for better unit costs. Plus whichever model we might get could be used to whipsaw various pilot groups.

From a customer standpoint as well as eliminating the possibility of dangling aircraft as a carrot, and probably from an economic standpoint, the Emb-190's would definitely be better. As you said, though - the fact that the company is still trying to work something out with Bombardier definitly says "Since when did this ever become about what makes sense?"

Jim

Spot on.

I wasn't picking your post apart Jim, it's just that I hate seeing all this flying passing by while we have so many pilots on the street. And from everything I've been told those 190s are a lot better airplane than the 900s...especially since they got most of the bugs worked out of the avionics. Gonna be popular with the troops too! Lots of folks applying for instructor positions already.

A320 Driver B)

 

[BoeingBoy]

I wasn't picking your post apart Jim

Certainly no offense taken. I was just afraid that my lack of clairity had been misunderstood as a preference for the CRJ-900's.

Jim

 

[Flying Titan]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think I read recently (after the apparent death of the proposed C-series) where Bombardier was considering an even longer stretch of the CRJ! I question whether this is even possible...but, if it is, perhaps US is angling to get a sweetheart deal to become the launch customer for that exciting new aircraft. Yikes!!!

 

[700UW]

If PSA rejects them, who is next on the list...PDT perhaps?

Johnny O and Mesa.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The ALPA Transition Agreement Section VIII states:

A.1. EMB-190 aircraft will be operated only by US Airways, America West, or obth carriers.

B. Section 1.D.2 of the America West collective bargaining agreement will be modified to increase the maximum seating capacity of the het aircraft flown by Express carriers to a maximum seating capacity of 88 seats (or up to 90 seats if there are no first class seats) and/or certificated maximum take off weight of up to 90,000 pounds.

C. The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements will be modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B abobe, to be operated in revenue service at any given time at Express Carriers except that for every two (2) aircraft in excess of the combined 360 aircraft (excluding EMB-190 aircraft) operated at both US Airways and America West, that are added to revenue service in the mainline fleet, the Company may allow three (3) additional CRJ-900, or the aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at Express carriers.

USA320Pilot comments: Management has the right to add CRJ-900 aircraft and if an order is placed the only question seems to be who will operate them...PSA or another carrier (most likely an affiliate carrier and not Piedmont).

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[A320 Driver]

We are our own worst enemies.


A320 Driver

 

[700UW]

Yes you are, your MEC aka GAG has never met a concession they did not like.

 

[chichi]

Yes you are, your MEC aka GAG has never met a concession they did not like.

What about the rumor that flow through is dead for PSA and PDT.

 

[Crzipilot]

Rumor would assume. AS tempe took awhile to acknowledge that PDT/PSA were even wholly owned. took awhile for it to sink in that with the purchase of US, they also got PSA/PDT in the package.
But since that was in the FAQ's of the About US, why not send a question to them concerning that, and see what they say....

USA320, Uhmm...there wasn't a question as to whether management can add these airframes. We already know your group has given away hundreds of jobs.....Just a matter of where they go.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The ALPA Transition Agreement was signed by both the US Airways and America West MEC's, not just one.

What's interesting is that the Transition Agreement authorizing 93 CRJ-900s was signed by a MEC who is controlled via the "roll call" vote by the PIT/PHL Reps. or the RC4. It's funny that some prolific posters conveniently seem to forget that...then again...

Meanwhile, when the new Pilot Permanent Bid is released for the fall season it will likely pull down seasonal transatlantic flying from PHL. The current "roll call" majority (which is now 17 votes) then could change the US Airways ALPA MEC "roll call" majority.

However, the EMB-190s, which will be initially based in PHL, could change the equation again.

Regards,

USA320Pilot