Possible Option for Financing Piedmont Q400s

[Dont call me Shirley]

So let me get this straight, the pilot group allows Republic and Mesa to fly E170-175's and CRJ-900's with seats over 69 but don't allow Piedmont a USairways owned carrier to fly them? It's scope language like that that makes others just shake their heads. WOW! ! ! :blink:

Really makes ya wonder, doesn't it? And very little chance indeed of it changing. Until the East/West pilot split is solved not much chance of any contract changes.

 

[Schultz]

Really makes ya wonder, doesn't it? And very little chance indeed of it changing. Until the East/West pilot split is solved not much chance of any contract changes.

Management controls this, not the USAirways pilots. The USAirways pilots gave management the scope relief. Management decided where to place the RJ's not the USAirways pilots. Don't blame this on the USAirways pilots. Place the blame right where it deserves to be placed, right at managements feet. If they wanted PDT to have updated aircraft, they could have, under the existing contract, within the scope limits.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Management controls this, not the USAirways pilots. The USAirways pilots gave management the scope relief. Management decided where to place the RJ's not the USAirways pilots. Don't blame this on the USAirways pilots. Place the blame right where it deserves to be placed, right at managements feet. If they wanted PDT to have updated aircraft, they could have, under the existing contract, within the scope limits.

I hope you are right!

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't know the intricacies of how and why but not allowing Q400's to Piedmont seems insane at best.

The short version is that previous US management weren't interested in turboprop scope changes - it was RJ's they wanted to increase the number and size of and that's what they got. The current turboprop scope language probably goes back over 2 decades. Not many unions would respond to a request for a change in one section of the contract by also offering changes in another as a "bonus".

Jim

 

[cynic]

The company certainly can have that "quid," but "pro quo?"

Demanding reinstatement of the pensions in exchange for scope relief was a little extreme.

 

[john john]

The way I see it, US can reduce flying only at the wholly owned carriers, since the contract carriers are under strict contracts, correct? I wouldn't be surprised if Piedmont is significantly downsized, since the Dash 8's don't sound like they have a huge future in the new , larger DCA operation.

Piedmont will exits and grow and move forward as a ground service provider. Cutting mainline employment. PDT exits to whipsaw unions

 

[john john]

Management controls this, not the USAirways pilots. The USAirways pilots gave management the scope relief. Management decided where to place the RJ's not the USAirways pilots. Don't blame this on the USAirways pilots. Place the blame right where it deserves to be placed, right at managements feet. If they wanted PDT to have updated aircraft, they could have, under the existing contract, within the scope limits.

PSA ALPA whipsaw PDT ALPA into flying the RJ that is why PDT has no RJ

 

[700UW]

I guess you dont realize they have and are taking delivery of five A330-200s and 21 A321s this year.

 

[700UW]

No one really knows for sure, they said if worse came to worse Airbus would finance them, but not sure who did, the first one was delayed, not the second one.