Special Report: Two major ALPA contract violations
- Thread starter ITRADE
- Start date
genejockey
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2002
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Chip,
I''m glad to see you posting again on this board. No other poster can put together the depth of information that you do....statistics, financials, contracts etc.
Happy posting!
I''m glad to see you posting again on this board. No other poster can put together the depth of information that you do....statistics, financials, contracts etc.
Happy posting!
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
Chip, why did you re-register on this board?
Folks, does anyone know if this is the real Chip Munn or just an imposter? Serious question.
Folks, does anyone know if this is the real Chip Munn or just an imposter? Serious question.
Now it is a CRJ-705?
The sequels to the most successful regional airliner ever. The 64- to 70- passenger Bombardier CRJ700 Series 701 and 75-seat Bombardier CRJ700 Series 705 are members of the highly successful Bombardier CRJ family of regional jets.
I suppose the CRJ-100, -200, -400/440 (whatever it is), etc are all listed seperately in the contract too? How are the 737s listed? Are the -300s and -400s each seperate as some are trying to make the CRJ700 -701 and -705. You know...it is a 701...and that isn''t in the contract either, I guess there won''t be any CR7s flying for US.
The sequels to the most successful regional airliner ever. The 64- to 70- passenger Bombardier CRJ700 Series 701 and 75-seat Bombardier CRJ700 Series 705 are members of the highly successful Bombardier CRJ family of regional jets.
I suppose the CRJ-100, -200, -400/440 (whatever it is), etc are all listed seperately in the contract too? How are the 737s listed? Are the -300s and -400s each seperate as some are trying to make the CRJ700 -701 and -705. You know...it is a 701...and that isn''t in the contract either, I guess there won''t be any CR7s flying for US.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Whatkindoffreshhell:
When I elected to not post on this board I received informational emails from USAviation. When I contacted the principal''s to have these emails stopped my original registration was terminated, to eliminate the email messages.
Last night when I re-registered, the website would not recognize my email address, thus I elected to re-register so you I could start this thread.
Regardless, it''s really me and not an imposter.
Best regards,
Chip
When I elected to not post on this board I received informational emails from USAviation. When I contacted the principal''s to have these emails stopped my original registration was terminated, to eliminate the email messages.
Last night when I re-registered, the website would not recognize my email address, thus I elected to re-register so you I could start this thread.
Regardless, it''s really me and not an imposter.
Best regards,
Chip
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,430
- Reaction score
- 1,143
Welcome back Chip, and nice post. VERY well thought out. Mark King.
WOpropTrash said:
Some say the stubborn, unyielding position of U ALPA in the past, towards RJ's, is one of the main reasons the company is in the position it is today. Had ALG, PDT, and PSA been allowed to have RJ's long ago, we would have remained competetive in our markets. Perhaps we could have supplied enough feed to fill a few more seats on the mainline jets. Now, after the severe shrunking of mainline, it appears that PSA may be the lone WO survivor, which may be too little, too late.
DCAflyer replies:
Hogwash! Responsibility for the position U was/is in rests squarely on the shoulders of past management, who made decisions based solely on their personal financial gain. They made millions upon millions of dollars while the company slipped deeper into the red-ink abyss. How can you blame any labor group for using whatever leverage they had? For what it's worth, my understanding of the RJ issue is that the company offered the scope language to the pilots in exchange for some other considerations... it is not something the pilots went after. The truth of the matter is WolfGang failed to see the RJ explosion, or simply didn't care because their attentions were turned to the ill-conceived U/UAL merger. In fact, they didn't even bring it up until shortly after the merger attempts officially went south. WolfGang never had any intention of remaining competitive. I could go on and on about all the things they could have done and should have done to help us remain competitive. But you can't blame the pilots for the pickle we are in. You can blame management for giving them RJ language and giving them parity plus one. But you also have to blame management for the lopsided hub-and-spoke configuration, running from LCC competition, MetroJet, failing to hedge fuel costs, agreeing to the PIT cost structure, not entering global alliances, not addressing alarmingly-high CASM issues... etc... etc.
Some say the stubborn, unyielding position of U ALPA in the past, towards RJ's, is one of the main reasons the company is in the position it is today. Had ALG, PDT, and PSA been allowed to have RJ's long ago, we would have remained competetive in our markets. Perhaps we could have supplied enough feed to fill a few more seats on the mainline jets. Now, after the severe shrunking of mainline, it appears that PSA may be the lone WO survivor, which may be too little, too late.
DCAflyer replies:
Hogwash! Responsibility for the position U was/is in rests squarely on the shoulders of past management, who made decisions based solely on their personal financial gain. They made millions upon millions of dollars while the company slipped deeper into the red-ink abyss. How can you blame any labor group for using whatever leverage they had? For what it's worth, my understanding of the RJ issue is that the company offered the scope language to the pilots in exchange for some other considerations... it is not something the pilots went after. The truth of the matter is WolfGang failed to see the RJ explosion, or simply didn't care because their attentions were turned to the ill-conceived U/UAL merger. In fact, they didn't even bring it up until shortly after the merger attempts officially went south. WolfGang never had any intention of remaining competitive. I could go on and on about all the things they could have done and should have done to help us remain competitive. But you can't blame the pilots for the pickle we are in. You can blame management for giving them RJ language and giving them parity plus one. But you also have to blame management for the lopsided hub-and-spoke configuration, running from LCC competition, MetroJet, failing to hedge fuel costs, agreeing to the PIT cost structure, not entering global alliances, not addressing alarmingly-high CASM issues... etc... etc.
WOpropTrash
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
Some say the stubborn, unyielding position of U ALPA in the past, towards RJ''s, is one of the main reasons the company is in the position it is today. Had ALG, PDT, and PSA been allowed to have RJ''s long ago, we would have remained competetive in our markets. Perhaps we could have supplied enough feed to fill a few more seats on the mainline jets. Now, after the severe shrunking of mainline, it appears that PSA may be the lone WO survivor, which may be too little, too late.
It''s ironic that now after having been raped, of even their retirement, some attempt to back their bloodied behines up to management and make apparent threats about violations to the CBA concerning the "Large Small Jets." (What a play on words for those who don''t want to admit they are flying RJ''s!) It appears that these aircraft will be flown by mainline pilots, or at the worst 50% mainline, and would get more guys back to work.
The "force majuere" claim seems to be a matter of opinion and could be argued either way.
I just don''t think ALPA strikes fear in Dave''s heart anymore!
It''s ironic that now after having been raped, of even their retirement, some attempt to back their bloodied behines up to management and make apparent threats about violations to the CBA concerning the "Large Small Jets." (What a play on words for those who don''t want to admit they are flying RJ''s!) It appears that these aircraft will be flown by mainline pilots, or at the worst 50% mainline, and would get more guys back to work.
The "force majuere" claim seems to be a matter of opinion and could be argued either way.
I just don''t think ALPA strikes fear in Dave''s heart anymore!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
----------------
On 5/20/2003 8:54:00 AM DCAflyer wrote:
WOpropTrash said:
Some say the stubborn, unyielding position of U ALPA in the past, towards RJ's, is one of the main reasons the company is in the position it is today. Had ALG, PDT, and PSA been allowed to have RJ's long ago, we would have remained competetive in our markets. Perhaps we could have supplied enough feed to fill a few more seats on the mainline jets. Now, after the severe shrunking of mainline, it appears that PSA may be the lone WO survivor, which may be too little, too late.
DCAflyer replies:
Hogwash! Responsibility for the position U was/is in rests squarely on the shoulders of past management, who made decisions based solely on their personal financial gain. They made millions upon millions of dollars while the company slipped deeper into the red-ink abyss. How can you blame any labor group for using whatever leverage they had? For what it's worth, my understanding of the RJ issue is that the company offered the scope language to the pilots in exchange for some other considerations... it is not something the pilots went after. The truth of the matter is WolfGang failed to see the RJ explosion, or simply didn't care because their attentions were turned to the ill-conceived U/UAL merger. In fact, they didn't even bring it up until shortly after the merger attempts officially went south. WolfGang never had any intention of remaining competitive. I could go on and on about all the things they could have done and should have done to help us remain competitive. But you can't blame the pilots for the pickle we are in. You can blame management for giving them RJ language and giving them parity plus one. But you also have to blame management for the lopsided hub-and-spoke configuration, running from LCC competition, MetroJet, failing to hedge fuel costs, agreeing to the PIT cost structure, not entering global alliances, not addressing alarmingly-high CASM issues... etc... etc.
----------------
DCAflyer,On 5/20/2003 8:54:00 AM DCAflyer wrote:
WOpropTrash said:
Some say the stubborn, unyielding position of U ALPA in the past, towards RJ's, is one of the main reasons the company is in the position it is today. Had ALG, PDT, and PSA been allowed to have RJ's long ago, we would have remained competetive in our markets. Perhaps we could have supplied enough feed to fill a few more seats on the mainline jets. Now, after the severe shrunking of mainline, it appears that PSA may be the lone WO survivor, which may be too little, too late.
DCAflyer replies:
Hogwash! Responsibility for the position U was/is in rests squarely on the shoulders of past management, who made decisions based solely on their personal financial gain. They made millions upon millions of dollars while the company slipped deeper into the red-ink abyss. How can you blame any labor group for using whatever leverage they had? For what it's worth, my understanding of the RJ issue is that the company offered the scope language to the pilots in exchange for some other considerations... it is not something the pilots went after. The truth of the matter is WolfGang failed to see the RJ explosion, or simply didn't care because their attentions were turned to the ill-conceived U/UAL merger. In fact, they didn't even bring it up until shortly after the merger attempts officially went south. WolfGang never had any intention of remaining competitive. I could go on and on about all the things they could have done and should have done to help us remain competitive. But you can't blame the pilots for the pickle we are in. You can blame management for giving them RJ language and giving them parity plus one. But you also have to blame management for the lopsided hub-and-spoke configuration, running from LCC competition, MetroJet, failing to hedge fuel costs, agreeing to the PIT cost structure, not entering global alliances, not addressing alarmingly-high CASM issues... etc... etc.
----------------
Past Management's fault? Past Management decisions for personal gain?
I guess you are trying to imply that this NEW management doesn't have a thread of "personal gain" in-it-for-me" attitude. Of course not. They are just in it to see if they can save a company, right? Yea, I get it. They are in it to throw out 19,000 jobs and save the little staff we have left to barely operate a business, AND KEEP ALL OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND THEN SOME! Yea. I see the picture you are conveying. Ultruistic management who just want to SAVE A COMPANY.
Here's an epiphany....all of management's tongues are hanging out just waiting to suck any profits this company makes. Senior Officers get 7.8% stake; NOT counting bonus money for job performance. Not company performance; but their own job performance. They will make that profit if they have to force more jobs out, have 1 person perform three jobs on the lower end of the totem, and they will just sit back in their chairs and watch us work hours and hours more with less desposable income until we have no family left, financial ruin, sick with major hospital bills due to poor coverages, wait until you scream "uncle" and then have you replaced with the next "fresh face" that doesn't have a clue to what's in store, waiting to get ruined as well.
And then, this management will get very wealthy on our backs. Then, my friend, what will you say? Or do you think this is not a probability with this wonderful "labor friendly", exquisite, bring- home- to-dinner-to-meet-the-family, blame past management and all of labor for where we are today, kind of management?
PS. And Chip, did I say welcome back. I guess you were more loved than you realized, huh?
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Large RJs Attract US Airways As Narrowbodies Age
ARLINGTON (Aviation Daily) - Embraer’s 190-195 looks attractive for US Airways’ mainline operations as some of the airline’s older narrowbodies exit the fleet during the next five to 10 years, said CEO David Siegel.
Speaking at the Regional Airline Association (RAA) conference yesterday in Phoenix, Ariz., Siegel noted more than 100 US Airways Boeing 737-300/400 aircraft would be nearing the end of their useful life. One big advantage of adding the larger Embraer RJs to the mainline fleet would be moving MidAtlantic Airways’ mainline pilots up without a heavy training burden.
Moreover, though the wing and engine differ between the 170 and 190 models, Siegel explained there is still some commonality in aircraft parts and support.
"It’s premature to say we’re going to pursue that aircraft," Siegel said, "but it was absolutely something we viewed as attractive and something that went into our calculus" as the carrier evaluated its long-awaited RJ order for 170 aircraft split between Bombardier and Embraer.
Meanwhile, Siegel said, MidAtlantic has been operating with skeletal infrastructure in Pittsburgh, while US Airways mulled its jet buy. Now MidAtlantic can speed up development during the next few months to accept the first Embraer 170 delivery in November, with scheduled service starting in January.
US Airways is still in talks with city, regional and state officials on Pittsburgh’s status as a hub, but Siegel said the airport is MidAtlantic’s temporary headquarters.
Siegel predicted the 75-seat Bombardier CRJ705 would eat into the 50-seat deployment base "a little bit," adding that compared with 37- to 50-seaters, 50-
and 70-plus seaters are becoming more economical. "We see the 705 as more of a substitute of better unit costs on the 50-seater," he said.
US Airways plans six to nine first-class seats in the Embraer 170, and nine in the 175. Siegel said the dual class configuration in short-haul flying is key to attracting business passengers connecting on transcontinental or transatlantic flights. "We expect the dual-class product at worst case will be economically neutral, and our analysis suggest, P&L (profit and loss) positive," Siegel explained. "Otherwise we wouldn’t do it."
US Airways sees potential for the 175 on some lower time-demand channels on its Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., shuttle flights, Siegel noted.
Embraer 170 photo gallery
SAN PALO (Embraer.com) - The Embraer 170/175/190/195 are members of a new jet family that brings the outstanding heritage of Embraer´s products to the 70-110 seat class of aircraft. Designed to provide the best balance between passenger comfort and aircraft performance, the aircraft family will deliver operational flexibility at the lowest operational cost to provide the best value to the airlines and their passengers. Commonality between the four aircraft is high: 89% between the Embraer 170/175 and the Embraer 190/195 and 95% between the Embraer 170 and the Embraer 175 as well as between the Embraer 190 and the Embraer 195.
Complete Story: [url="http://mediamanager.embraer.com.br/english/content/imagens/resultado_busca_publico.asp?tipo=0"]http://mediamanager.embraer.com.br/english...lico.asp?tipo=0[/URL]
Complete Story: [url="http://www.embraer.com"]http://www.embraer.com[/URL]
Embraer 170 to be "backbone" of US Airways express fleet
Airline evaluates EMB-190/195 in its long-range plans
PHOENIX (Embraer.com) - US Airways President and CEO David Siegel said the Embraer 170, which the airline ordered last week, will be a foundation of growth for the company in the future, during a press conference held today on the eve of the Regional Airline Association (RAA) annual convention, scheduled to take place in Phoenix, AZ, from May 19 to May 21.
Complete Story: [url="http://www.embraer.com/"]http://www.embraer.com/[/URL]
Best regards,
Chip
