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

[michael707767]

----------------
On 7/9/2003 10:28:55 PM PineyBob wrote:


That management made a sound business decision? ALPA "stood tall" didn''t they? You start spouting that 70 versus 76 scope crap with me and you lose me. I can''t and won''t support such utter nonsense. 
 
And as someone noted the press release was a bit snide. They have you by the short curlies because you continue in such a predictable manner. You refuse to think outside the box so they help you build an even smaller box. Yet you don''t see it. You use the tactics of the 30''s and it''s the high tech new milenium. No surprise that they beat you at every turn. You are insulated, you don''t hear what I hear. People feel like you guys "Are finally deserved for years, i''ve no sympathy". I give up trying to defend positions that are logically indefensible.

----------------​

Piney, at what point do you think ALPA should defend it''s contract? If you agreed to let the regionals have a 70 seater, and they buy a 76 seater instead, is that not a violation? Or is it that you think 6 seats is not worth worrying about? If not 6, then what, 8? 12? 20? At what point do you make a stand? Also, given that we are only talking about 6 seats, why would U management do this? What motivation could they have had?

Clearly, the contract stated that U could deploy CRJ-700s at the wholly owneds. Clearly buying a -705 was a joint effort on the part of U management and Bombardier to circumvent this scope. A -705 is nothing less than a -900 with some seats removed. I have no doubt that the plan on the part of management was to slip the "705" past ALPA, then down the road make the argument that there is no difference between a 705 and a 900, so why not let them fly the -900. I applaud ALPA. A contract is not worth having if you don''t defent it.

 

[usfliboi]

I disagree BOB The union is down and not out. Alpas stance made very lodgical sense. Alpas last update made it clear there were no formal talks at all. Dave and company have no idea the price they will ultimately pay for there miscalulations. What is clear to u and seems clear may not be in reality.

 

[DCAflyer]

Bob, I agree in large part with most of your posts. I tend to be more middle-of-the-road and realize that blame for the current problems with U must be placed on the shoulders of past management AND the unions (not necessarilly the employees themselves) and I know that the unions protect the unions first and the employees second. I have watched union dues being misappropriated into funding attempts to unionize non-union carriers.

However, on this one, you've lost me. The RJ scope language is only months old... not years. It is not archaic because it hasn't even been implemented yet. The company should have known what it wanted to implement in terms of number of aircraft, seating configurations and placement of the aircraft when all of this was ironed out. To go back on that even before the ink is dry is unforgivable. This is not a matter of technological advances making work rules archaic. It is a matter of the company violating both the spirit and the letter of the contract it signed.

If the company was really labor friendly, it would have placed each and every new jet into a U-owned entity and allowed mainline employees to operate those flights as long as there is even ONE furloughed mainline employee.

I was one of Dave's biggest advocates when he came on board and he has sadly lost my support. I realize that the company would not be around but for him, but he has gone way too far, has gone back on his word way too many times, and has smiled in the faces of employees while stabbing them in their backs far too often.

This is not about six seats. It is about U once again crossing a line and the pilots have to protect their rights even with ONE seat. If not, a court could say down the road, "Well, Mr. Pilot, you failed to protect your interests when U added six seats beyond their allowance, so you have now, by your failure to protect your contract, ratified U adding 18 seats beyond the agreement." If you don't protect your rights, you loose them.

But even beyond that, this company has taken and taken and taken from its employees and when we thought they were done, they came and took some more. It is not dealing in good faith with the very people who can shut it down. Through it all, U front-line employees have remained upbeat while facing the brink of personal bankruptcy.

The company is doing this because it sees an opportunity it might not get again... the events of 9/11 (Even Gangwal admitted to using those events to put the company in a position, with respect to labor, that it would nto have otherwise been able to do.) And then using bankruptcy and the threat of liquidation.

Enought is enough!

 

[flyin2low]

Another case of giving away the farm. 25 aircraft sent out of the group. Your worst nightmare comes true, MESA flight attendants in a dual class aircraft. There's probably a few student pilots in MESA's academy who would be greatful to fly them for pennies on the dollar too. This just makes too much sense. They won't be happy until we work for free.

 

[N628AU]

----------------
On 7/10/2003 10:53:38 AM LavMan wrote:


Chip can you not believe what Bombardier has said or Dave Casvestler?

The jets are being financed and paid with money from US Airways general treasury same place where our 5% is being stashed.

----------------
​

Lav,

I may have missed it, but I fail to see in your postings or any of the press releases from the company, Mesa, or Bombardier with any financing specifics. All I read is that they are negotiating terms. This seems to be a black hole.

Remember a similar thing happened at Delta with the 777. Delta and Alpa could not agree to terms, so the aircraft got parked and future deliveries postponed or canceled. I think Delta wound up with like 12 777 aircraft.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

It may be YOUR worse nightmare, but I can think of a lot worse. Like the company TOTALLY disregarding out SCOPE language and replacing ALL the 737s with MDA RJs at first year rates for all. The days of the wholly owneds are numbered. Dave COULD have put these 25 (RJ 700s) at a WO, but chose not to. I wonder why?

 

[LavMan]

Chip can you not believe what Bombardier has said or Dave Casvestler?

The jets are being financed and paid with money from US Airways general treasury same place where our 5% is being stashed.

 

[LavMan]

628 go to yahoo''s aviation news all the information I posted came from US, Mesa and Bombardier. And DL never parked the 777, they are still flying and have a settlement with ALPA on the wage rates.

They have eight active, five on order, 20 on options and 13 on rolling options.

 

[N628AU]

Lav,

I know DL has the 777 flying now, but parking them temporarily forced ALPA to come to the table.

I have been all over Yahoo! news, and everywhere else, and like I said I have only seen mention of "ongoing negotiations", no firm financial data. Could you post the link that says these are being paid for by U, or that simply your interpretation of what has been written?

 

[N628AU]

Lav,

Castelever said they are renegotiating the terms. Could this not mean also that the source of funds for the jets is changing? Is it not possible that US is simply transferring delivery slots to Mesa who already has orders/options for the CRJ700 from Bombardier? I still have yet to see definitively in print that money for these jets is coming directly from US Airways. You may indeed be correct, I just have not seen definitive proof yet.

 

[firstamendment]

----------------
On 7/9/2003 3:03:44 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

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.

----------------​

You are right on the money. This management team hasn''t let any of the ink dry on the contracts THEY signed before they start breaking them. ALPA was 100% correct. How would any of you feel if YOUR contract was broken? What is it now, over 230 grievences filed by ALPA alone with these goons? Plus they bladently lied to the press (SURPRISE) in an attempt to sway the public. NOWHERE did Sleezgle mention that they just violated the same contract they fought to sign.

Some of you need to wake up to the fact that this management group does NOT have your best interest at heart. I feel their goal is to eventually do to US Airways the same fate as Midway...bring us down to an rj operation...and all done so by making impossible expectations thru threats and then following thru with those threats by breaking contracts.

Maybe its just me, but it appears the handwriting is on the wall for US Airways. Take a look for a moment. Sleezgle has us in Star. Goodbye international. Sleezgle has this alliance with United that now on map (see Jul Attache) has as many flights as U. Sleezgle has threatened to pull 15 more planes down, again breaking contract, if we dont give him what he wants. Sleezgle puts all emphasis on rjs and NOTHING on truely increasing revenue...nothing innovative or new..just threats, threats. threats.


I have never seen morale so low at this company. Yes, we all try to talk up our fading carrier to those few customers who speak of how upbeat we all are. Let me tell you, I don''t speak upbeat for this company, mustless Sleezgle. I SO hope he or his looser team are reading this. I do it because I love MYSELF and still have some pride in doing a great job. To be honest, I could give a rats ass if this company survives or not. I do believe in a power greater than me and I know with the closing of this creeky worn out two bit door, a brand new shiny window will open. There is life beyond this company and I will be damned if I am going to give one more dollar to Sleezgle and that slimball pompous ass Bonner down in Hooterville.

I will promise you that the next step is to eliminate all flying west of the Mississippi, leaving it to United. Don''t any of you find it interesting that United is not pulling down the huge amt of planes that we pulled? You see, get rid of the western cities and the old senior PSA crews are history. Shrink us so far down and squeeze the the senior employess out ( along with reducing FL flying where so many senior f/as commute from) and you can run to United after they emerge from bankruptcy and say it would be in the best interest to merge...you see, we only have 3000 f/as to your 20,000 or so and the average senority is now 10 years instead of 17, so we will blend in with little notice. Something that became a major sticking point the last round. Of course half those 3000 f/as will be in PHL and the bulk of the rest in CLT, leaving nothing left of U except rjs and carribbean flying...the one link missing for Star AND United. Maybe I sound crazy, but of what I have seen, the tide seems to be flowing in that direction.

Regardless, we will continue to be in the dark. I mean...you know, competitive edge so we must not tell anyone. This group claims their silence because they don''t HAVE a substantial plan. Just one of threatening and shrinking and breaking all the contract. I have been hearing this line for 17 years and we are still getting our ass kicked by everyone. I mean really, it is a sad day when a company with 2 planes can come along in 3 years and become such a threat that we yank all competing flight out of sister airports like LGA and run like like fearful children.

Some of you will go on and on disbuting everything I say and telling me i either have a bad attitude or should get a new job. Thank you for your concern, but I am a very happy individual who has learned to seperate my job performance from my emotions for this company. But don''t expect me to drink the company kool aid when its spiked with poison. My love for life are my friends, family, a peace of mind, and my cat. I owe nothing to the company except a good job, which I do for ME. Some of those koolaid drinking, girl and boy scouts over at Jetblue and Southwest who want to look down upon and offer their "concern" for poor little US by saying "well, were hiring" need to wake up to the fact that the best of the best have come and gone and that it is a company and NOT your family. You may be flying high today, but take a look at all the "truely" great airlines that have come and gone....Pan Am, TWA, Eastern, Braniff, Piedmont, Western, National, just to name a few. All of them had much more superior reputations in their hayday than Jetblue and Southwest and they are GONE. Americans are fickle. You are todays flavor, so enjoy it.....but I''ll be damned if I am going to start over at 40 years old making $20,000 a year, thank you very much. I would rather wait table and be home at night.

So Sleezgle, many of us no longer care for your threats. They have fallen on death ears. So if you truely want to shrink us to a rj operation, be man enough to inform us so we can make plans accordingly. Most importantly, be a man...I am WAY over your sorry ass.

 

[LavMan]

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.

[url="http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030709/airlines_usair_jets_3.html"]http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030709/airlines_usair_jets_3.html[/URL]

[url="http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030709/airlines_usair_bombardier_1.html"]http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030709/airlines_us...mbardier_1.html[/URL]

[url="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030709/law065_1.html"]http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030709/law065_1.html[/URL]

 

[CAREFUL]

from the kansas city star....


Macdonald said the net effect is that US Airways remains a Bombardier customer, but instead of purchasing the 75-seat regional jet, it would purchase 70-seat aircraft and sublease them to Mesa.

 

[Stick-n-Rudder]

ASSOCIATION HESITANT TO CONTINUE 70-SEAT TALKS

(Jul. 3) The Association on Wednesday replied to a request from the Company to resume negotiations on 70-seat jet issues. A letter from the Chairman of the Master Executive Council (MEC) said:

FR: Steven Toothe
TO: Tim Keuscher
SUBJECT: Negotiations
DATE: Wed, July 2 2003 08:30 EDT

Tim,

You have requested the negotiation committee and Kevin Fagan to meet with you and Claude Sullivan the week of July 21st. The last time we got together we gave to you four (4) questions based on CRJ 705. 1. How would you pay protect, 2. How would you domicile protect, 3. How would you protect seniority based issues, 4. which CRJ 200 does LOA 83 allow us to staff at 100%. To date we have not recieved a response from the Company. As always the negotiating committee and mec are willing to talk however at this time ALPA National has asked all MECs to take a look at and try to reduce their Flight Pay Loss expenditures. I find it difficult to request leave for negotiations in July with no firm response to our questions at this time. Please forward or indicate when we will recieve a response.

Thanks,
Steven Toothe
PSA MEC Chairman

 

[N628AU]

----------------
On 7/10/2003 1:36:39 PM CAREFUL wrote:

from the kansas city star....


Macdonald said the net effect is that US Airways remains a Bombardier customer, but instead of purchasing the 75-seat regional jet, it would purchase 70-seat aircraft and sublease them to Mesa.



----------------
​

This is what I was looking for. Thanks.