US Airways Will Not Take Delivery of CRJ-705 Aircraft; Mesa Airlines to Operate CRJ-700 as US Airway

[LavMan]

Just like ALPA screw its members and feed Orenstiens pockets.

And our 5% is paying for them!

PHOENIX, July 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Mesa Air Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: MESA - News) announced today that it has signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) with US Airways for a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 55 CRJ-700 70 seat regional jets. Under the LOI, the aircraft would be provided by US Airways from its previously announced order from Bombardier. All aircraft are expected to be put in service no later then Dec. 31, 2004.

 

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways Will Not Take Delivery of CRJ-705 Aircraft; Mesa Airlines to Operate CRJ-700 as US Airways Express

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030709/dcw057_1.html

Best regards,

Chip

 

[USA320Pilot]

Lav,

The CRJ-700s will not be financed or paid for by US Airways. The delivery positions are being tranferred to Mesa, therefore, I do not understand your comment about our 5%, where ALPA provided the largest amount of wage deferral.

In regard to the business plan, this decision will reduce US Airways' long-term debt and debt service, but the profits will be split with Mesa.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[nyboilermaker]

Nice job ALPA. This is what put us in this mess ten years ago.

No more RJs for the WOs.

Enjoy working for M*SA everyone...

 

[Furloughedagain]

Furloughed pilots getting shafted by ALPA. Shocking.

This is absolutely nothing new. The association has a long track-record of stalling in order to delay and, ultimately eliminate, negotations that it feels are "undesirable".

In 1999 and 2000 Pittsburgh Captain Rep John Davis used his so-called "global list" of demands from management to stall regional jet negotiations.

When LOA79, "interim small jet agreement" was overwhelmingly ratified by the pilot group (by over 80%) there were provisions requiring the association to immediately enter into negotiations for a large RJ agreement to include a bi-directional flowthrough.

Davis and his band of malcontents decided that they would terminate those negotiations regardless of what the line-pilot voted to do. His reason? Because the company would not agree to pay negotiating expenses.

At the cost of a few hours of flight-pay loss and hotel rooms the association terminated negotiations which would have provided career protections for the most junior pilots!!!

The flowthrough agreement would have allowed the company to grow its RJ fleet prior to 09/11 and, due to the proposed flowthrough, would have provided employment to the furloughed pilots far quicker than Dave's "soft landing" has been able to.

(i/e it will be many years before pilots furloughed in 2001 will be offered "jets4jobs" employment. Continental, in contrast, re-employed its furloughees at CoEx almost immediately)

It was so immediately obvious that US Airways ALPA leadership had no interest in protecting the careers of the junior-most pilots that several of them even grouped together and started a website to apply political pressure to the MEC in 2000.

Is it any surprise to anyone that ALPA would have yet-again delayed negotiations and further damaged the careers of the furloughed pilots?

It doesn't surprise me at all. It's par for the course.

You've heard ALPA's new motto haven't you?

"I've got mine. Screw You."

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I, personally, am glad that ALPA stood their ground with these clowns. It''s about time someone did. I do not think U can compete with the LCCs as a commuter operation. On a CASM basis, small jets tend to be way more expensive to operate than 737s, 717s, or airbusses.

 

[N628AU]

Oldie,

While technically correct, you miss the big picture with the CASM argument. Look at it this way:

Lets say it costs $0.10 per seat mile to operate an A319 and $0.14 to operate a CRJ.

120 seats times 500 mile stage length times $0.10 CASM means the mainline flight costs $6000 in this example.

50 seats times 500 mile stage length time $0.14 CASM means the Express flight costs $3500 to operate.

So the Express flight costs roughly 58.3% of the mainline flight. This is a real world reality, although I do not exact CASM numbers, I think those are probably pretty accurate. The fact the overall flight costs less means a lower break even load in terms of passengers actually flying. This allows more frequent flights between cities that would normally not demand such service, allowing more options for the all important business traveller.

I am not happy about this service moving out of US Airways as a group entity, but ALPA decided to play hardball, and it will cost pilot''s at the wholly owned carriers and those furloughed pilot''s more with the work going to Mesa. The question is, does ALPA''s hardline stance on this issue fairly represent the bottom line interests of the membership as whole?

 

[ClueByFour]

What a shock. ALPA eats their young. Again. The fact that U decided to move these things to Mesa is like icing on the cake.

My personal perception is that flying a transport category aircraft is heavy in tactical thinking and rather slim on long-term and strategic thinking.

Or I hope so, since the guys on every mainline MEC in ALPA continue to demonstrate a lack of strategic vision. Or care for anyone on the bottom half of the seniority list.

 

[cubfan02us]

All of the major airlines have pretty much had their
way since Sep 11.The days of riding roughshod over labor
and contracts I believe are coming to an end.

Management does not care much for this resurgence of labor.
It will take some time for them to adjust to the new
reality...

 

[N628AU]

----------------
On 7/9/2003 3:25:52 PM cubfan02us wrote:

All of the major airlines have pretty much had their
way since Sep 11.The days of riding roughshod over labor
and contracts I believe are coming to an end.

Management does not care much for this resurgence of labor.
It will take some time for them to adjust to the new
reality...

----------------
​

Please elaborate how this is a new reality of a "labor resurgence"? If labor prevented these aircraft from being flown at all, that would be one thing. In this case, the aircraft are still coming, just a bit different type, and to be outsourced to an independent operated instead of one of the wholly owneds. I see the winners being Mesa Airlines, US Airways (for not having to shell out the procurment costs as they are apparently being tranferred to Mesa). I see the losers being labor at the Wholly-Owneds (ALPA, AFA, IAM membership), and the customers as they will miss the oppurtunity to have a nicer product to choose from than a Comair -700. That will probably hurt US Airways somewhat in that the amount of traffic that may be poached (especially high yield business traffic), which will burt the profitability of US Airways, and thus the employees in any future profit sharing in exchange for the givebacks. Maybe I am reading too much into this. If I am, can someone enlighten me how labor should be cheering this?

 

[ISP]

From my understanding, the issue was that the planes (705''s) had 76 seats. If Mesa is only getting the 70 seaters, why couldn''t US just change the 76 seaters to the 70 seaters and give it to a WO?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
On 7/9/2003 4:41:48 PM ISP wrote:

From my understanding, the issue was that the planes (705''s) had 76 seats. If Mesa is only getting the 70 seaters, why couldn''t US just change the 76 seaters to the 70 seaters and give it to a WO?

----------------​

It''s obviously only because management wants to punish U''s employees for taking a stand against them. That''s the only reason I can think of that the 70 seaters didn''t stay at MDA. If management is going to be **icks, then I hope ALPA shuts them down. I totally agree with the "NO CONFIDENCE" vote that ALPA took several weeks ago. These guys are thieves, not airline managers.
And to 628AU, I thoroughly understand the economics of the proposed transition to RJs, and IT WON''T WORK. Business people, or anyone else for that matter, WILL NOT FLY ON RJs IF MAINLINE JETS ARE AVAILABLE (i.e. SWA, JBLU, Song, etc.) All you do is limit the potential revenue further, since even in good times there will be fewer seats to sell. U has probably already ensured it''s fate as a dead airline through past downsizing. I hope I''m wrong, but we''ll see soon enough. Why do you think that NO OTHER AIRLINE shrank as drastically as U did, even in bankruptcy? They understand that an airline is only as strong as it''s route system, and U''s is pretty weak. Flooding the east coast, an area already fairly saturated, with RJs will only cause more delays, more p.o.ed passengers and, ultimately, fewer passengers. U NEEDS FORWARD THINKING MANAGEMENT WITH A REAL PLAN, NOT SOME CONCOCTION FROM DAVE''S PAST THAT IS''NT EVEN WORKING FOR CONTINENTAL!

 

[LavMan]

Chip not in either US Airways or Mesa's press release does it say Mesa will be buying the aircraft, it clearly states aircraft to be provided by US Airways.

PHOENIX, July 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Mesa Air Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: MESA - News) announced today that it has signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) with US Airways for a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 55 CRJ-700 70 seat regional jets. Under the LOI, the aircraft would be provided by US Airways from its previously announced order from Bombardier. All aircraft are expected to be put in service no later then Dec. 31, 2004.

There is no reduction in the number of aircraft to be delivered and the number of firm orders, and the value of the contract, $2.2 billion, remains the same," said John Paul Macdonald, spokesman for Bombardier, the world's third-biggest maker of civilian aircraft.

From US Airways itself:


Castelveter said the airline will be renegotiating the terms of the Bombardier deal to take the 70-seat planes rather than the bigger 705s.

So Chip is US Airways spokesman lying or are you wrong once again?

 

[Hope777]

Maybe it is time for the ALPA represented pilots at the WO to file a lawsuit against the union similar to the one Comair pilots filed and won.

 

[Bluestreak]

Someone please explain to me how ALPA was able to prevent the CRJ-705s from being placed at the wholly owneds but cannot block them from being placed at Mesa.

Also, why does J4J demand all seventy seat aircraft placed at the wholly owneds be staffed 100% by furloughed mainline pilots and only 50% when they are placed at Mesa? Why is ALPA treating Mesa pilots better that the wholly owned pilots?

There is a rumor going around PSA that Ornstien and Siegel were roommates in college. Maybe Duane Worth lived across the hall.