PSA will never see those 900s. Parker isnt going to say, "take or leave it", and then cave in to a commuter group. Honestly man, do you think Parker is going to give in to you? Who are you? And why would he fold like a beach chair to you? Having the 900s at PSA is only a convienence to him. If you wont fly for peanuts.....you aint gettin 900s. I applaud your stand and I have more respect for PSA now than before........but dude......its over, give up the ghost.
PSA 900's Dead
- Thread starter gabby
- Start date
At the meeting in CLT when asked about PSA and the 900's, Doug replied "we tried to negotiate and you guys said no, so they are going to Mesa. It would send the wrong message to reopen negotiations".
FWIW.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #63
Ninth Supplemental Stipulation and Order Regarding Certain Agreements with Bombardier, Inc. and its Affliated Entities.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Reorganized Debtors and Bombardier, as follows:
1. The deadline for the Reorganized Debtors to assume or reject the Agreements is extended through and including November 6, 2006, and may be further extended by agreement of the parties.
2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear any matters or disputes arising from or relating to this Stipulation.
Jim
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Reorganized Debtors and Bombardier, as follows:
1. The deadline for the Reorganized Debtors to assume or reject the Agreements is extended through and including November 6, 2006, and may be further extended by agreement of the parties.
2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear any matters or disputes arising from or relating to this Stipulation.
Jim
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Mar 23, 2004
- 906
- 254
I just want to make something clear, with all this talk of "We tried to negotiate and you guys said no."
The crux of this was there was not a SINGLE minute of negotiations. Kirby walked in and summoned ALPA to CLT. They sat down and he put on the table a nice little Powerpoint presentation On it, he compared 18yr Capt PSA to 10 yr Capt. ML 190 rates. the 18 yr was 5.00 or so less. He explained how these airplanes would provide better QOL/upgrades/ and expansion for the pilot group. Since mgmt was willing to give that to PSA it was required that the contract be frozen. They did not sit down and ask, ok we want to put these airplanes here, what are you willing to do it for???? When asked if they were going to negotiate, basically it was told. No, here's the proposal, get back to us in 3 weeks with your answer. (you call that negotiating???)
When I mention the contract is frozen, here's some background.
When the 700's were negotiated, what the final product ended being is a blended payscale. We have a payscale for the 50 seaters and a payscale for the 70 seaters (this was before AAA MEC relaxed scope allowing 90 seaters outside)
Our payscale is figured by the RATIO of 70 seat birds to 50 seat birds. The run the current pay step of 70 seaters to 50 seaters and come up with a pay rate for the current qtr.
As 700's were being delivered we went into BK II. At which point 700 deliveries stopped (there were to be more) If the deliveries had continued or started again after BK, our payscales would have increased due to the changing ratio.
With LOA 93, AAA MEC allowed 90 seat airplanes to be flown at affliates under the same guidlines of 70 seat airplanes.
Along comes MGMT. and knowing of our signed agreed upon contract, that states with continued deliveries of a/c larger than 50 seats, our pay ratio would increase, the come in and say. No that section of your contract must be frozen. No more ratio'd pay. (As Mgmt had agreed upon.)
Initially, Mgmt prob. would have gotten their yes vote, if they simply asked for the 900 to be treated as a 700 for pay purposes and left everything else alone. But NO they wanted to change our contract, in a concessionary manner and freeze what they had already agreed to.
Now you MGMT water carriers on here. Explain to me in simple terms.
A contract is in place. They walk in, put 1 offer on the table. Say take it or leave it. And that offer includes amending our contract, in a downward sense. Cutting off any increases in pay. The increases in pay was minimal. With the delivery schedule proposed, it would have taken approximately 18 months for a capt to recieve about a 2.00 pay raise (or about 2000/yr) an F/O would have gottten maybe 1.30-1.50 raise in that same 18 months.
So YES it was a concession to change the contract. There was not a negotiation (Mgmt choice)
Parkers/Kirby true colors are revealed, I would think, when they say it wasn't a paycut. It was a concession, it was a negotiation we turned down. Hardly. Can't see how any change to a contract, already agreed upon, in managements favor is not a concession.....
For some other rough math, in 18 months time, total crew cost would increase 3.50/hr at best. Average monthly hours flown at PSA is around 12,500/month I believe. (possibly less forget the exact figure) So pilot cost would increase by about 525,000/yr. (if your keeping a score card, prob less than the management pay raises we've seen in the past year) And this would give US a aircraft flown in house (not paying guaranteed profit to someone) AND give them 40 aircraft with possible 30% more revenue feed then what's currently flying. 500k is a piss in a bucket compared to other costs, and management lost their option. AND alot more credibility over here.
PSA J4J Capt.
AAA furloughed.
flyingcat
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2005
- 658
- 0
Of course one has to wonder how low the regional operators will bid to get 900 work.
It could be much less than the 500K in increased pilot costs.
Even at a cost plus basis if they are bidding ultra low then PSA might have been at a disadvantage from the start.
It could be much less than the 500K in increased pilot costs.
Even at a cost plus basis if they are bidding ultra low then PSA might have been at a disadvantage from the start.
IMisstheAladdinTrays
Veteran
Doug did say that putting the 900's at PSA would cost a "little more" but that it would be in house.
This management team has proven themselves to be just like the rest...
Liars who can not be trusted.
Q12: Do you feel valued?
Why not?
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Mar 23, 2004
- 906
- 254
The two of you missed the point. I guess I rambled on a bit.....
The point though was the credibility of Mgmt here. They have stated one thing in the crew room sessions, etc.... "we tried to negotiate"
Whereas, when the doors were closed. They walked in. Put a proposal on the table. and said. "let us know" If you call that negotiations, your insane.
In addition, when it first came up, there was even put forth to mgmt, could we look at QOL improvements (little or no cost) since you want to bypass our SIGNED CONTRACT. The answer.....NO.
Mgmt theory, that QOL would be improved by advancement and such, is far fetched. Quality of life is not just a $ figure. The way they staff this place, you jump every time the phone rings, and you have to sneak off the jetways at each hub turn to avoid spending an extra 1 or 2 days on the road.
Whether PSA was at a cost disadvantage or not. This was not what has been proferred as the #1 reason for this. It was a sidebar explanation. Maybe,, just maybe if they would have sat down, and said. We have run the numbers....here they are. It will cost us X amount of dollars to place the jets inhouse and keep current contracts in place. It will cost of X amount of dollars (see here's mesa/republic/GoJets actual Bid) So here you have it, we need to keep pay rates as they are to be competitive. THEN MAYBE We wouldn't have this management problem. BUT they didn't.....
The issue is Mgmt. credibility. They are full of BS.[/b]
where are the mgmt water carrier responses????
The company whip sawed PDT/PSA with the crj200/700 and PSA won the planes because they were willing to take the lowest pay and work rules. Now the company it doing the same thing with PSA and MESA and who knows who else
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #71
I know it's an old thread, but I haven't updated the status of the Bombardier orders lately.....
The last extension of the deadline for affirming/rejecting the Bombardier orders (the 10th extension) is in effect till Dec 4. Seems like there might be a little movement based on a blurb in the linked article:
"Bombardier said that it agreed with US Airways Group Inc. (LCC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) this month to remove 29 of its CRJ700 jets and 1 CRJ200 jet from its order backlog."
Reuters
Jim
The last extension of the deadline for affirming/rejecting the Bombardier orders (the 10th extension) is in effect till Dec 4. Seems like there might be a little movement based on a blurb in the linked article:
"Bombardier said that it agreed with US Airways Group Inc. (LCC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) this month to remove 29 of its CRJ700 jets and 1 CRJ200 jet from its order backlog."
Reuters
Jim
Any idea what the total backlog order was before these aircraft were removed? Is this all of them or do they still have more orders pending?
SegmentKing
Veteran
well Mesa's been doing quite well with the CR9's out of CLT... posting ontime #s and completion #s that *no one* will believe... but they're doing a great job... even better #s than Republic, AWAC, and Chautauqua.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #74
I have no idea what Bombardier's total backlog is, but presuming that you mean undelivered orders to US the original deal was firm orders for 60 CRJ200's and 25 CRJ700.
Someone from PSA could possibly give more accurate info, but the last annual report listed PSA as having 49 CRJ's, leaving 36 of the original firm orders remaining. I'd have to dig back through the BK filings to see if there were any changes to the original orders, but if not these lastest changes would leave 6 firm orders in Bombardier's backlog.
Jim
ItsJustAJob
Advanced
- Oct 31, 2003
- 117
- 2
Yeah...it really chaps my ___ when I hear Mesa call for a push in CLT. The ramp controllers always ask the crew what their "out" time is. The reply is usually 5-8 minutes earlier than actual time.
For US Airways, this is a good thing. However for those of us that are competing against Mesa for regional flying, it's a no win situation. Those of us with ACARS are at a big disadvantage.
