Psa Crj 700

[Light Years]

So if in fact

*LOA91 passes (hopefully not)

and

*PSA is sold to Mesa (hopefully not)

... what happens to the J4J guys? Do they go to MAA instead or are they scewed into working for Mesa?

Also, if LOA passes, how many planes will the MAA division get? Seems like alot of drama (a couple years worth) to get it started and get the planes in the air to only get a few planes and then outsource the flying of that aircraft type.

 

[boeingdriver213]

Selling PSA to Mesa might be OK to you mainline guys, but the J4J guys here at PSA want nothing to do with Mesa. We all passed on Mesa when it was offered to us, for obvious reasons. I would demand to be placed at MAA immediately if that were to happen. Besides, PSA is one of the few bright spots for U, why get rid of it if it can make you money keeping it? Also, concerning the CRJ700s, instructors are flying them, training each other and getting the time they are required to have before the PSA pilots (J4J and original PSA) can do their IOEs.

 

[USA320Pilot]

I believe LOA 91 will pass by a 2 to 1 or maybe even a 3 to 1 margin -- that’s the sentiment on the line.

If PSA is sold, which has been told to me by senior management is likely to occur, LOA 91 will permit J4J pilots to be transferred to the acquiring carrier versus the pilots being furloughed again.

US Airways will then take 75% of the proceeds to pay down the loan guarantee and 25% for general corporate purposes. The transaction will lower US Airways’ debt, reduce aircraft capital expenditures, and boost its ability to raise its credit rating. Furthermore, once the balance sheet improves with the sale of other assets (Allegheny/Piedmont and some other non-core assets like a B737 and A320 simulator) and new labor accords are reached, the new business plan calls for new aircraft to be added to the mainline fleet. These moves will also improve the balance sheet and reduce debt.

In regard to MAA, US Airways wants all 85 positions delivered to the mainline with 39 on the property by the end of the year.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[PoorPropDriver]

Your information that only J4J pilots are currently flying the 701's is incorrect. All are instructors but none are from J4J.

 

[700UW]

Hope you are hungry, please tell me how the crow tastes!


USA320Pilot Posted on: Apr 3 2004, 08:30 AM While discussing this important point US Airways' PSA division has taken delivery of its first CRJ700, which the company now has a lease expense, but the aircraft cannot be flown and obtain revenue, until the scope issues are resolved. Once we get past the RJ Scope agreement, the next step will be for the company and its unions to negotiate new labor accords, which Dave Siegel said would begin in April.
Replies: 119
Views: 5,837 Ccyjoe:
Ccyjoe said: "The news is that several "large SJs" will be leaving the property by Monday."

USA320Pilot comments: This rumor is untrue, but its getting close to happening.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #128089

Posted on: Mar 30 2004, 10:54 PM

Replies: 17
Views: 1,232 Hope777:

Hope777 asked: "Hey USA320Pilot, I need a Question Answered. Why is it that a Wholly Owned has taken delivery of a CRJ701 and they can not fly it. ARE WE ALL IN IT FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMPANY or NOT?"

USA320Pilot answers: Because the PSA ALPA MEC wants 50-50 J4J and four members of the US Airways ALPA MEC, the Pittsburgh & Philadelphia Reps, who hold the roll call majority, will not grant scope relief. The current mainline ALPA contract requires the first 25 CRJ-700s be flown by US Airways furloughees.

Until either the US Airways or PSA MEC's change their position, none of the new CRJ-700s will be flown and the jets will only sit on the DAY ramp collecting dust.
Regards,
USA320Pilot

USA320Pilot Posted on: Mar 30 2004, 01:49 PM

Replies: 119
Views: 5,837 Since last Thursday ALPA members have been embroiled in debate on whether or not it was appropriate for the RC4 to reject the RJ Scope Relief TA and then direct the Negotiating Committee to re-engage management seeking 13 additional returns.

While discussing this important point US Airways' PSA division has taken delivery of its first CRJ700, which the company now has a lease expense, but the aircraft cannot be flown and obtain revenue, until the scope issues are resolved. Once we get past the RJ Scope agreement, the next step will be for the company and its unions to negotiate new labor accords, which Dave Siegel said would begin in April.

USA320Pilot Posted on: Mar 29 2004, 07:12 PM
Replies: 33
Views: 2,404 The CRJ-700s will not be flown until US Airways and Mainline ALPA agree on RJ Scope Relief and US Airways, the US Airways pilots, and the PSA pilots agree on J4J.

Once the issue is resolved I expect to see PSA sold, probably to Mesa.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #126473

 

[A320 Driver]

700:

You missed your calling. Remind me not to cross sabers with you again.


A320 Driver 😛

 

[skyguy25]

WAY TO GO 700UW! YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!

 

[TBONEJ4J]

The CRJs are being flown at PSA by Management Pilots, not line pilots.

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW;

I appreciate you spending the time doing research Deleted into my posts regarding LOA 84. My point is that the aircraft cannot be flown by line pilots, but the language does not include Check Airman. This will all be cleared up when LOA 91 is likely ratified on May 10.

Regardless, thanks for compliments, but it's still clear you do not understand ALPA's contract.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

My point is that the aircraft cannot be flown by line pilots, but the language does not include Check Airman. This will all be cleared up when LOA 91 is likely ratified on May 10.

Regardless, thanks for compliments, but it's still clear you do not understand ALPA's contract.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

First of all you made those statements about the CRJ-700s flying, once again you choose to ignore your posts about the planes not flying.

There is no mention in any of your posts about the planes being flown by line pilots, you clearly stated the planes will be sitting on the DAY ramp collecting dust.

Once again you have been proven wrong as usual!

Second, I don't care to understand your contract, see I don't put my nose in other union's contracts unlike yourself.

And once again you are not man enough to admit when you are wrong, and don't let your delusions of granduer fill your head, there in not one atom of a compliment in my previous post. The post is to show the board your true colors of being wrong, posting false information and basically lying to try and scare and intimdate people.

So how come the CRJ-700s are not parked in DAY ramp collecting dust like you said?

And there is no reference to LOA 84, it is 91.

And I am still waiting for an explanation of the IAM "Painful" clause!

Everyone on this board sees you for what you really are and that is nothing.

And sorry bub I don't drive a lav truck, see keep trying to figure out who I am!

 

[delldude]

think you need this:
Crow Pie

1 crow
stuffing of your choice
salt and pepper
shortening
flour
2 Pie crust mixes
2-3 hard-boiled eggs

Stuff the crow. Loosen joints with a knife but do not cut through.
Simmer the crow in a stew-pan, with enough water to cover, until
nearly tender, then season with salt and pepper. Remove meat from
bones and set aside.

Prepare pie crusts as directed. (Do not bake)

Make a medium thick gravy with flour, shortening, and juices in
which the crow has cooked and let cool.

Line a pie plate with pie crust and line with slices of hard-boiled
egg. Place crow meat on top. Layer gravy over the crow. Place
second pie dough crust over top.

Bake at 450 degrees for 1/2 hour.

 

[700UW]

Delldude,

LMFARO

 

[700UW]

Still waiting

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW:

The ALPA contract states the first 25 CRJ-700s must be flown by 100% APL pilots. It is my understanding Mike D Angelo is researching this issue with Steve Toth.

LOA 91 addresses this issue and changes the requirement to 60 CRJ-700s and changes the APL staffing to 50-50.

Is management trying to get around the issue because the RC stonewalled on LOA 91? Absolutely. Is what is happening invalid? That's unclear, but Mike will get to the bottom of this.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW:

700UW said: "And there is no reference to LOA 84, it is 91."

USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, its clear you do not understand the RJ issue -- at all.

Regards,

USA320Pilot