Psa Takes Delivery Of Crj70

[Furloughedagain]

PSA took delivery of the first 70 passenger CRJ yesterday. The aircraft is in Dayton.

So did the US Airways MEC and PSA MEC finally come to some decision as to the J4J formula at wholly-owned carriers?

This is silliness. Merge the groups. ALPA merger policy (no windfalls/ career expectations) will give the vast majority of PSA a staple with a few of the long-timers an integration (and seat protection since, if they were truly integrated, they would be furloughed).

One group. One list. and who gives a crap how many 70 seat pocket rockets they drive.

Just my opinion.

 

[flyin2low]

Merge the groups.

Since when is PSA merging with Mainline. The J4J have recall rights to Mainline, the PSA pilots have nothing. The J4J pilots are temp employees of PSA until they get called back to ML or MDA. They can just be happy that they are employeed in the airline industry at this point. Most other mainline fuloughees from American/TWA, United and Delta have no such soft landing and are either working for other commuters at entry level or at HomeDepot. As far as staffing the CRJ701, all other regionals are operating them with no ML pilots in the seat. If something larger comes down the pike, then the APL's have something to stand on.

 

[Swaayze]

As far as staffing the CRJ701, all other regionals are operating them with no ML pilots in the seat. If something larger comes down the pike, then the APL's have something to stand on.

Actually the program is already set up so that 100% of the 70 seat positions are to be for the APL pilots, so there is something to stand on now. That is the problem and why PSA is not yet able to operate these airplanes. That said, I fully expect that 50/50 will be agreed to in short order and the point will be moot.

 

[BoredToDeath]

Actually the program is already set up so that 100% of the 70 seat positions are to be for the APL pilots, so there is something to stand on now. That is the problem and why PSA is not yet able to operate these airplanes. That said, I fully expect that 50/50 will be agreed to in short order and the point will be moot.

Swaayze,

The PSA Pilots only signed LOA 81, which limits PSA to operating 50 seat aircraft only. LOA 83 was signed by the Mainline MEC only, not the PSA Pilots. Thats why negotiations are ongoing. LOA 83 lets affiliate carriers fly the 70 seaters at a 50/50 ratio, but limits the WO's to a 100% APL(Affected Pilot List) ratio, hence the reason PSA never signed LOA 83.

The Mainline Negotiating Committee has nothing to stand on. The PSA pilots will not accept anything less than 50/50 on any aircraft types on the PSA property. The only leverage anybody has over the PSA Pilots is the threat of sale of the company or liquidation, and for most at PSA its, "50/50 or turn the lights out".

Whats actually funny is that, aside from half a dozen or so of the J4J pilots that are on the PSA property, most J4J'ers are in total agreement that everything on the property should be 50/50.

Furloughedagain,

The delivery of these 70 seaters is just the begining. I would look for things to get extreamly ugly in the next few months if an agreement is not meet. At this point I "belive" the deliverys were forced. By who exactley, I don't know. I do know that the planes that were delivered have been sitting in Canada for a long time now.( more than four months, easily)

I agree with you 100% about one list, put us all together and dump the contractors, but who has the cojones to make it work? Certainly not anyone from ALPA that I've meet.

 

[nyboilermaker]

Why can't PSA operate these aircraft yet?

I thought ALG gave up the farm so that PSA could use ALG certificate and operate 70 seaters.

Thanks ALPA.

 

[BlackOps]

ALPA National assisted 3 ALG MEC members in using their roll call voting authority to give up the ALG Pilot's contract so that Airways could use the ALG certificate as it pleases. (The margin was only 20 votes.) The three MEC members in question used roll call to waive the MEC's right by resolution to have a 15 day review of the merger agreement, and standing resolution to bring all matters such as these to the pilots for ratification. ALPA National even provided a meeting room at its DC headquarters to hold the meeting that relinquished the ALG pilots rights to their own contract... all for the benefit of the US Airways pilots and their management. (Surely dues revenue had nothing to do with it.)

I think that there is a high probability that MidAtlantic will wind up on the ALG certificate. That is probably why they kept the same Vice President of Operations working at both airlines... for continuity. In addition, Allegheny's corporate headquarters will still remain open and continue to handle HR, Payroll, and Insurance servcies for the wholly-owneds (known as the Shared Services Organization or SSO). Unless they were up to something, then why would they keep the corporate headquarters open?

Allegheny's President and CEO Keith Houk has just been named President and CEO of Piedmont to replace the soon to retire John Leonard. Houk is also the Chairman of the PSA Board of Directors.

 

[Swaayze]

I keep hearing this and it's inaccurate:

LOA 83 lets affiliate carriers fly the 70 seaters at a 50/50 ratio, but limits the WO's to a 100% APL(Affected Pilot List) ratio, hence the reason PSA never signed LOA 83.

From LOA 83:

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.

So actually the overall ratio IS 50/50. The first 25 200s were allowed at 100% PSA (was this clause taken advantage of by the PSA pilots? You sure as heck should have), the first 25 700s were to be 100% J4J, and additional deliveries of either are at 50/50.

I'm just tired of people not living up to the agreements, starting with Dave and Co. If you don't want the 700s, don't agree to this clause. And, just so you don't think I'm a complete "typical mainline guy", this also applies to the bidding seniority issues which are evidently in contention at PSA. There should be no changing of the rules mid-game unless there's a complete revamping of the program and all participants willingly agree.

 

[BoredToDeath]

Swaaze,

I don't mean to sound like I'm talking down to you here, but I'm not sure your looking at the "big" picture.

What I said is far from "inaccurate", and if you were to post the entire LOA 83, you would see that. Don't bother, I'll do it for you.

ACCELERATED SMALL JETS LETTER #83



LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Between

US AIRWAYS, INC.

and

THE AIRLINE PILOTS

in the service of

US AIRWAYS, INC.

as represented by

THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL



ACCELERATED SMALL JETS





THIS LETTER OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with Title II of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by and between US Airways, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Companyâ€) and the Airline Pilots in the service of US Airways, Inc. as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Associationâ€).



WHEREAS the Company has identified opportunities to introduce Small Jets into the US Airways system that would generate accelerated revenue for the Company and accelerated Jets for Jobs for the US Airways pilots, and

WHEREAS these accelerated Small Jets would be financed and operated by Participating Affiliate Carriers, and

WHEREAS the operation of such Small Jets in the US Airways Express system would require certain modifications to the scope provisions of the Restructuring Agreement dated July 1, 2002,

NOW THEREFORE the parties mutually agree as follows:

1. Other than as specifically modified in this Letter of Agreement, all terms and conditions of the ALPA-US Airways Restructuring Agreement effective July 1, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Restructuring Agreementâ€) as modified by the Supplementary Cost Reductions Letter of Agreement (L.O.A. 84), shall remain in full force and effect.

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:Please note here, how can you change something (LOA 81) without including the parties that agreed to LOA 81(PSA) without negotiating with PSA.

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.Note; it says nothing about 100% of anything.

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.Once again nothing about 100%. So. So far the affiliates and Mesa can operate 50 and 70 seaters at a 50/50 ratio.

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.So what happens if the 50 seat orders are cancelled? 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.Thats fine so long as PSA doesn't turn into an all 700 fleet. If that happened every PSA pilot would be on the street.

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.

E. Up to 12 “Medium SJs†currently being operated by Chautauqua Airlines under another carrier’s code may be placed into revenue service by Chautauqua Airlines under the US Airways code, without immediately complying with the Filling of Vacancies provision of Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement, provided that such “Medium SJs†are placed into revenue operation under the US Airways code by February 29, 2004. For each of the “Medium SJs†specified in the foregoing sentence that is placed into revenue operation by Chautauqua Airlines under the US Airways code no later than such date in 2004, Chautauqua Airlines or Republic Airlines must also place into revenue service at least the same number of additional “Medium SJsâ€, no later than February 28, 2005 and each such additional “Medium SJ†must be staffed entirely with pilots from the APL, provided however, that no aircraft will be placed into revenue service for Republic Airlines under the US Airways code except with the approval of the Association. If the Filling of Vacancies 50% requirement (by the balance between the Medium SJs specified in the first sentence and the Medium SJs specified in the second sentence of this paragraph E.) is not achieved by February 28, 2005, the Company must either discontinue use of the number of code share aircraft or terminate the contract with Republic or Chautauqua Airlines as required to maintain the Filling of Vacancies 50% requirement.

F. Up to 5 “Medium SJs†may be placed into revenue service by Midway Airlines under the US Airways code, without immediately complying with the Filling of Vacancies provision of Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement, provided they are placed into revenue operation under the US Airways code by December 31, 2003. For each of the “Medium SJs†specified in the foregoing sentence that is placed into revenue operation under the US Airways code no later than such date in 2003, Midway Airlines must also place into revenue service at least the same number of additional “Medium SJsâ€, no later than December 31, 2004, and each such additional “Medium SJ†must be staffed entirely with pilots from the APL. If the Filling of Vacancies 50% requirement is not achieved by December 31, 2004, the Company must either discontinue use of the number of code share aircraft that would bring the ratio into compliance with the 50% requirement or terminate the contract with Midway Airlines.

3. MDA shall begin revenue flights on or before December 31, 2004 with no less than two Small Jets (which shall be either “Medium SJs†or “Large SJsâ€, or both) placed into revenue service.

4. All aircraft authorized by this Letter of Agreement shall be subject to the reporting requirements stated in Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement.

5. The Company shall seek the agreement of each participating affiliate that it will not discriminate in hiring against any current or former US Airways pilot if a reason for such discrimination is his membership in, or his activities in or on behalf of, the Association. The Company shall require that affiliate airlines recognize the rights of a pilot in respect to this clause. However, the Company shall not assume liability for the violation of the non-discrimination clause by a Participating Affiliate.

6. If it becomes evident to the Company that it or a Participating Carrier may not be able to comply with any of the above dates, the parties agree to meet and discuss alternatives acceptable to the parties.

7. This Letter of Agreement shall become effective on the date of signing and shall remain in effect concurrent with the Restructuring Agreement.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Letter of Agreement this ___ day of December, 2002.





FOR THE AIR LINE PILOTS FOR US AIRWAYS, INC.

ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL







Duane E. Woerth, President P. Douglas McKeen

Air Line Pilots Association, International Vice President, Labor Relations

US Airways, Inc.



WITNESS: WITNESS:





Chris Beebe Edward Bular

MEC Chairman Vice President, Flight Operations





B. Kelly Ison Anthony J. Bralich Jr.

Chairman, Negotiating Committee Director, Labor Relations – Flight





Donn Butkovic John H. McFall

Negotiating Committee Manager, Labor Relations - Flight





Phil Carey

Negotiating Committee





Gerry McGuckin

Negotiating Committee





Jeffrey L. Tokash

Negotiating Committee

Lets recap what we have soo far. The AAA MEC comes up with LOA 81. The PSA pilots agree, (well the PSA MEC agreed) to it.

The AAA MEC changes the terms of the agreement (LOA 81) and calls it LOA 83, but without including PSA in the negotiating process.

The AAA MEC mentions nothing about 100% of anything in paragraphs (a) or (B) when refering to Mesa and Affiliates, but in paragraph ©, is willing to try and take 100% of the 70 seaters at a WO.

So, am I still inaccurate?

You said,"

So actually the overall ratio IS 50/50.I think I've shown that this would all depend on how many of what types. The first 25 200s were allowed at 100% PSA (was this clause taken advantage of by the PSA pilots?Since PSA was not slated to recieve anything other than 50 seaters, there was no way to have "taken advantage" of this. Espeacially since PSA never signed onto this agreement. You sure as heck should have)No thanks, 50/50 on all types or nothing., the first 25 700s were to be 100% J4J, and additional deliveries of either are at 50/50.

I'm just tired of people not living up to the agreements, Read LOA 81, the PSA pilots have lived up to it. starting with Dave and Co. If you don't want the 700s, don't agree to this clause.If you would rather the 70 seaters go outside the Group where a 50/50 ratio is already in place, then be my guest. And, just so you don't think I'm a complete "typical mainline guy", this also applies to the bidding seniority issues which are evidently in contention at PSA. The PSA pilots have already given half of ALL positions to the APL list. If you think you deserve our seniority as well then you've got another thing coming. Not only did this bidding issue hurt the PSA pilots, but it hurt the APL Pilots that have already come to PSA. I highly doubt the issue will get farther than it has already. There should be no changing of the rules mid-game unless there's a complete revamping of the program and all participants willingly agree.

Agreed with one exception. There should be no changing of the rules, PERIOD.

 

[BoredToDeath]

Disregard, hit wrong option.

 

[BoredToDeath]

Ughhhh!!! Sorry for the posts here folks. I was trying to edit my reply to Swaayze, but it did'nt work.

There were a couple of mistakes in my above post and for some reason the "edit post" button was not available. So here are the mistakes I was trying to fix.

1. Most of my replys in the above post are in Bold and Italics within the quotes.

2. The following should have read like this, "The AAA MEC mentions nothing about 100% of anything in paragraphs "a" or "b" when refering to Mesa and Affiliates, but in paragraph "c", is willing to try and take 100% of the 70 seaters at a WO."

3. This statement, "The AAA MEC changes the terms of the agreement (LOA 81) and calls it LOA 83, but without including PSA in the negotiating process." [/B]should read, "After all involved parties agree to the terms of LOA 81 the AAA MEC comes up with LOA 83 without thinking of the ramifications of some of the terms that lay within it. Not to mention how it will affect other ALPA members."

Thanks and sorry for the length of everything above. Like I said, I tried to change it but was unable. Good Night.

 

[airbiiguy]

ok sum that up please, whos gonna fly the 70s?

 

[Hope777]

Looks like they will sit and UAir will lose more and more money while they are parked. What a Company......Glad to see Management had all the I's dotted and T's crossed. Just like everthing else, nothing gets done until it has too. Look at PHL-the SWA factor, Airbus Maintenance Farm Out, and now the CRJ 701's just sitting. Just all the more reasons the Employees have no faith in Management.

 

[Chuck]

Furloughedagain, do I hear you correctly that you want one list? Be careful what you ask for. One list would surely have to respect seniority and my assumption would be that most of the PSA people have a hire date significantly after '89 which would cause the immediate furlough of most PSA people. In my "not so humble opinion", it seems as if ALPA is trying to close the barn door after all of the horses have escaped. :huh:

 

[Swaayze]

Bored..

I don't think we really disagree.

PSA should have the choice to accept the terms of LOA 83 or not. It should not be forced on them. I agree that affiliates get 50/50; why? because that's what it boils down to for the WO as well under LOA 83 if accepted. Kinda a crappy way to do it IMO but lets not forget who we're dealing with here. The one point I think you're missing is that only the first 25 700s are required at 100% J4J then any additional at 50% (I hear there is a desire to convert many of the 200s to 700s, is that right?). And this only comes into play if LOA83 is effective, so the first 25 200s being filled by 100% PSA is relevant. So it's not really accurate to matter-of-factly say that the 700s have to be exclusively J4J at the WO.

Seniority issues should not be modified mid-game. It's not really fair to those who made their decisions based on the rules already in place. (Then again, fair is a pipe dream in this business lately).


Anyway, good luck to us all.

 

[Furloughedagain]

No, integration would NOT have to involve seniority integration.

ALPA merger policy is based on career expectations and no windfalls.

Anyone hired at PSA after 1998 would -- I think fairly obviously -- be stapled. Those hired prior to 1998 at PSA would be subject to some form of integration. 1 for 3... 1 for 4, who knows? Regardless they would also have to be given seat-protections so that they were NOT furloughed as a result of what you suggest.

Yes. It is closing the barn door after the horses have already escaped. No question there. "Brand Scope" involving all of the so-called regionals should have occured the minute the first regional jet rolled off of the assembly line -- but it didn't.

Now there is an opportunity to start the healing process and fix some of the inequalities created by J4J at the same time.

Somehow I doubt that EITHER pilot group has the wisdom to take that opportunity.