Nebucanezzar
Member
- Jul 25, 2006
- 73
- 1
RJ 900's for PSA-- REJECTED!
- Thread starter flycrazy77
- Start date
hammerhead
Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 64
- 0
you bellend. Mainline is the reason mesa is so "big" you dopies handed them RJ's from the begining with your scope. keep believing scoping the RJ's to cover your routes was the the right thing. fuqing nob.
hammerhead
Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 64
- 0
Is that all? You guys made off like bandits, considering 50% of every position on your property could have been a JFJ pilot.
So in my opinion, you have even less to cry and whine about.
Kids
bingo.
DELTA PILOT’S agreement
• Limited authority to operate 71-76 seat DCI jets, provided that no pilot on the
current seniority list is placed on furlough. This
The following is a summary of the T/A:
Scope
• 76-seaters will be allowed at DCI, with strict limitations on numbers, and with
incentives for mainline growth.
• If the Company furloughs a pilot on the current seniority list, DCI
cannot fly any of the 71-76 seat jets with more than 70 seats. In fact, they must then
physically remove the excess seats from ALL such aircraft for the balance of this
contract.
o Beginning January 1, 2007, DCI is allowed to operate fifteen jets
configured with 71-76 seats. They may operate these aircraft prior to this
date, but with a maximum of 70 seats.
o On January 1, 2008, DCI is allowed to operate an additional fifteen 71-76
seat jets.
o Additional 71-76 seaters can be added, but only on the basis of mainline
aircraft growth (three 71-76 seaters for one growth mainline aircraft).
• The 12 year captain rate for the EMB-190/CRJ-900 will be $95.70 on June 1,
2006 and subject to the above adjustments.
• The 12 year captain rate for the EMB-195 will be $112.50 on June 1, 2006 and subject to
the above adjustments.
Nebucanezzar
Member
- Jul 25, 2006
- 73
- 1
Mainline land grab...good...good..thats where that size of aircraft belong.
Now...can I have a job there please. :0)
Now...can I have a job there please. :0)
flyin4peanuts
Member
- Aug 7, 2006
- 21
- 0
Mainline is bringing the 900s to PSA so they can fill their fleet with really really really "shiny jets" such as the 737-900s! Leave the 90 seaters to us, where they belong
With an attitude like that, I hope you like to "Fly for Peanuts", because that's all you'll ever make at a regional. If there is no mainline growth, you will be there for the rest of your life making a wage that will qualify you for food stamps after you have a family. Boy, that's something to strive for!!
flyin4peanuts
Member
- Aug 7, 2006
- 21
- 0
Well I'm always striving for something better...When will our fearless MEC deliver another overawaited message? What's up with PSA's 900s?
Bluestreak
Advanced
- May 20, 2003
- 184
- 0
Here's the latest from PSA's MEC chairman. It appears as if the companies "take it or leave it offer" wasn't so "take it or leave it".
Folks,
Just a quick update to inform everyone that your Negotiating Committee and MEC have been working diligently but quietly over the past two weeks to maintain a dialogue with the Company on keeping the prospect alive of bringing CRJ900's to PSA.
We tendered a proposal to the Company early this morning that incorporates the strategic and tactical goals of this pilot group and ALPA in bringing these aircraft to our property.
The Negotiating Committee will be meeting with the Company early next week to discuss the proposal in more depth.
Although I cannot comment on the details of the proposal, I can say that it represents a fair and equitable arrangement that addresses the needs of this pilot group regarding this class of aircraft.
As additional information becomes available, I will certainly pass it on.
In the meantime, fly safe!
Mark Stanley
MEC Chairman
Folks,
Just a quick update to inform everyone that your Negotiating Committee and MEC have been working diligently but quietly over the past two weeks to maintain a dialogue with the Company on keeping the prospect alive of bringing CRJ900's to PSA.
We tendered a proposal to the Company early this morning that incorporates the strategic and tactical goals of this pilot group and ALPA in bringing these aircraft to our property.
The Negotiating Committee will be meeting with the Company early next week to discuss the proposal in more depth.
Although I cannot comment on the details of the proposal, I can say that it represents a fair and equitable arrangement that addresses the needs of this pilot group regarding this class of aircraft.
As additional information becomes available, I will certainly pass it on.
In the meantime, fly safe!
Mark Stanley
MEC Chairman
gabby
Senior
- Jul 24, 2006
- 306
- 48
Do you remember on "Rumor Has It"?
Someone asked what would happen if PSA Pilots vote No to the 900 agreement.
Company responded that the A/C would go somewhere else and that the 70 seaters would most likely go as well because at only 14 they are not economically sensable.
So the threat was that we would get a fleet reduction if we vote NO. And now the company wants to negotiate. When do they tell the truth? Ever?
Management didn't want to even put into writing that the 900's are growth only airplanes. Which makes me think that the 200's are going away.
If PSA is going to be an 700/900 airline then we should be getting paid a fair wage for the airplanes. So ALPA please take my dues and spend them wisely, no lunches, no beer, just a very very good negotiating lawyer.
And...
The SSO lady that does the hotels should be fired and replaced with a monkey. Want an easy way to destroy company moral? Make your crews live in an industrial park for the rest of their lives. Cut off from all civilization, no restaurants, no public transportation, 20 hrs in FAY, NC. I would love the SSO lady to spend 20hrs of her life there. Crap i would be happy if she just spent 1/2hr.
Rant over!
Someone asked what would happen if PSA Pilots vote No to the 900 agreement.
Company responded that the A/C would go somewhere else and that the 70 seaters would most likely go as well because at only 14 they are not economically sensable.
So the threat was that we would get a fleet reduction if we vote NO. And now the company wants to negotiate. When do they tell the truth? Ever?
Management didn't want to even put into writing that the 900's are growth only airplanes. Which makes me think that the 200's are going away.
If PSA is going to be an 700/900 airline then we should be getting paid a fair wage for the airplanes. So ALPA please take my dues and spend them wisely, no lunches, no beer, just a very very good negotiating lawyer.
And...
The SSO lady that does the hotels should be fired and replaced with a monkey. Want an easy way to destroy company moral? Make your crews live in an industrial park for the rest of their lives. Cut off from all civilization, no restaurants, no public transportation, 20 hrs in FAY, NC. I would love the SSO lady to spend 20hrs of her life there. Crap i would be happy if she just spent 1/2hr.
Rant over!
ItsJustAJob
Advanced
- Oct 31, 2003
- 117
- 2
Q. Since the pilots voted down the CRJ900 offer, is the company planning on
going back to the table with the pilots, concerning the potential 900 fleet?
A. The offer to place CRJ-900s at PSA was made by US Airways, Inc. and was contingent
on the PSA pilots accepting the terms presented to PSA's MEC by US Airways' EVP
Scott Kirby. The MEC has informed Mr. Kirby, through the Company, that the pilot
group would not accept those terms. US Airways has begun discussions with other
potential operators for these aircraft.
Q. Is it true that the Company is negotiating with the pilots over CRJ-900s?
A. The pilots recently rejected a proposal US Airways Group made to PSA that tied a
single 50-90 seat blended rate of pay to the acquisition of 20 CRJ-900 aircraft, to be
placed at PSA. After the pilots failed to ratify that agreement, the MEC approached
the Company with a proposal to establish rates of pay if the Company were to operate
aircraft in the 71-90 seat range. PSA management has agreed to negotiate with
ALPA to establish 71-90 seat rates, acceptable to both parties.
Notice the bold print....the union offered he proposal because the company asked for it. The MEC assumed that the deal was off because of the "no" vote.
going back to the table with the pilots, concerning the potential 900 fleet?
A. The offer to place CRJ-900s at PSA was made by US Airways, Inc. and was contingent
on the PSA pilots accepting the terms presented to PSA's MEC by US Airways' EVP
Scott Kirby. The MEC has informed Mr. Kirby, through the Company, that the pilot
group would not accept those terms. US Airways has begun discussions with other
potential operators for these aircraft.
Q. Is it true that the Company is negotiating with the pilots over CRJ-900s?
A. The pilots recently rejected a proposal US Airways Group made to PSA that tied a
single 50-90 seat blended rate of pay to the acquisition of 20 CRJ-900 aircraft, to be
placed at PSA. After the pilots failed to ratify that agreement, the MEC approached
the Company with a proposal to establish rates of pay if the Company were to operate
aircraft in the 71-90 seat range. PSA management has agreed to negotiate with
ALPA to establish 71-90 seat rates, acceptable to both parties.
Notice the bold print....the union offered he proposal because the company asked for it. The MEC assumed that the deal was off because of the "no" vote.
flyin4peanuts
Member
- Aug 7, 2006
- 21
- 0
So Bluestreak...what do you think is going to happen with PSA and the 900s? and when do you think a deal will be struck? because from the sound of it, it's going to get done one way or another...*hopefully*
gabby
Senior
- Jul 24, 2006
- 306
- 48
Management "The offer to place CRJ-900s at PSA was made by US Airways, Inc. and was contingent
on the PSA pilots accepting the terms presented to PSA's MEC by US Airways' EVP
Scott Kirby. The MEC has informed Mr. Kirby, through the Company, that the pilot
group would not accept those terms. US Airways has begun discussions with other
potential operators for these aircraft."
In short.......
Management: "We don't work for free! But we expect our pilots to!", "And if you don't, we will threaten you with the loss of your jobs!".
"We are also going to make your QOL horrible. Just for saying NO".
on the PSA pilots accepting the terms presented to PSA's MEC by US Airways' EVP
Scott Kirby. The MEC has informed Mr. Kirby, through the Company, that the pilot
group would not accept those terms. US Airways has begun discussions with other
potential operators for these aircraft."
In short.......
Management: "We don't work for free! But we expect our pilots to!", "And if you don't, we will threaten you with the loss of your jobs!".
"We are also going to make your QOL horrible. Just for saying NO".
Bluestreak
Advanced
- May 20, 2003
- 184
- 0
I don't know anymore than the next guy...however from what I hear from some friends on the MEC it's expected that the 900s are coming to PSA either way. The company threw the crappy July offer at this pilot group hoping we would be stupid enough to bite. According to our current contract management can put the 900s at PSA and we have to fly them at current pay rates. After the first 90 days the 900s would have to be parked until a new pay rate is agreed upon -- either between the two parties or by using binding arbitration.
It's my guess that the company is somewhat afraid of binding arbitration considering our current contract is concesionary, US Airways is now profitable, and there are plenty of 90 seat pay scales out there for an arbitrator to base his decision off of.
Our MEC is feeling very bold at this point. We have strong support from Duane Woeth (an oxymoron), and all the other US Express carriers seem to be standing strong. It's top secret what the MEC is proposing for pay rates, but I think it's something like Horizon Air's CRJ-700 rate plus 20-25%. That is a fair rate because the 900 has 20% more seats than the 700, and horizon is a wholly owned carrier for a profitable major airline.
Will PSA management accept this offer? I think the answer is "hell no". They would rather take their chances with an arbitrator. My prediction is; management and the union go back and forth until the 900s arrive in January, then we'll fly the 900s for 90 days, the company will park them, and then go to binding arbtration. Remember, we are only supposed to get one 900 per month so they would only have to park three planes. During this period expect to see a PSA staffing crisis like always happens when we get new aircraft. Also, expect to hear at least two or three rumors of PSA's iminate shutdownn. Also, expect to hear nothing from Doug Parker or Jerry Glass. Management is set to have their first loss to labor since 9/11 and Doug is going to want to keep as far away from this as possible. How can Doug control AAA MEC is he can't handle the PSA MEC?
gabby
Senior
- Jul 24, 2006
- 306
- 48
Doug does have a responsibility to his shareholders but i also believe he has a responsibility to his employees.
He wouldn't be doing anyone a favor by shutting down PSA. On our website it tells us that we have been #1 for 7 out of 8 months for On Time Departures and Arrivals. How could DP shut down a company that is doing "its share"? Would that have the shareholders best intrest in mind? Or would it be out of spite? Either way the bottom line is that having the 900's at PSA is cheaper than mainline.
We have cheaper hotels.
No duty rigs. You do a high speed worth 2 hrs and that is all you get paid.
Plenty of 1 or 2 leg days.
Most lines have only 12 days off if you are lucky to get those.
We are running on a skeleton crew. When was the last time you got a call for Junior Man?....hmmm yesterday.
Holding a line is like being on reserve. It changes by the minute. There is no reason scheduling has to work the way it does. Management is trying to start a civil war!
They have done a great job of making sure Morale is at its all time low. If they think that the pilots can be pushed any further they are sadly mistaken. Enough is enough.
Horizon plus 20% is a great place to start and then go up from there!
He wouldn't be doing anyone a favor by shutting down PSA. On our website it tells us that we have been #1 for 7 out of 8 months for On Time Departures and Arrivals. How could DP shut down a company that is doing "its share"? Would that have the shareholders best intrest in mind? Or would it be out of spite? Either way the bottom line is that having the 900's at PSA is cheaper than mainline.
We have cheaper hotels.
No duty rigs. You do a high speed worth 2 hrs and that is all you get paid.
Plenty of 1 or 2 leg days.
Most lines have only 12 days off if you are lucky to get those.
We are running on a skeleton crew. When was the last time you got a call for Junior Man?....hmmm yesterday.
Holding a line is like being on reserve. It changes by the minute. There is no reason scheduling has to work the way it does. Management is trying to start a civil war!
They have done a great job of making sure Morale is at its all time low. If they think that the pilots can be pushed any further they are sadly mistaken. Enough is enough.
Horizon plus 20% is a great place to start and then go up from there!
