US Airways’ Jet Short and Long Term Fleet Plan?

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways’ Jet Short and Long Term Fleet Plan?


Current Mainline Fleet:

A330s – 9
B767s – 10
B757s – 31
A321s – 28
A320s – 23
A319s – 61
B737-400s - 47
B737-300s - 70
Total – 279 aircraft

Revisions to ALPA Restructuring Agreement, Attachment A, Minimum Aircraft:

As a condition of implementing and maintaining any of the Productivity Improvements, the Minimum Active Fleet specified in Attachment E of the Restructuring Agreement shall be increased to 279 aircraft (excluding SJs but including permanent bid plus 8% for active spares) with daily utilization rate measured monthly of no less than 10 hours, whether or not the Company is in Chapter 11. The Minimum Active Fleet number may be reduced only as made necessary by a new force majeure event, which includes acts of terrorism with a material adverse impact on commercial aviation.

US Airways – ALPA Restructuring Agreement, Small Jets, Attachment B:

Definitions of Small Jets – Large SJs are defined as jet aircraft having a certificated capacity of 51-70 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight not greater than 75,000 pounds. In addition Large SJs include (a) the EMB-170 aircraft with a maximum seating capacity of 78 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight of 82,100 pounds and (B) the EMB-175 aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight not greater than 86,000 pounds, provided, however, that every such EMB-170 and EMB-175 aircraft will only be configured for operations with a seating capacity of no more than 76 seats. Any jet aircraft configured for operation with more than 76 seats or with a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight greater than 86,000 pounds shall be operated by US Airways.

Chip’s OpEd comment:


The last sentence of the paragraph above permits US Airways to place any aircraft with a seating capacity of 76-seats or more and maximum gross takeoff weight greater than 86,000 pounds in mainline service; however, US Airways may claim that RJs that exceeds this limitation do not fall under the Large SJ Definitions of Small Jets -- thus some observers believe the airline may claim it can place RJs that exceed the Large SJ definition on the mainline. However, if US Airways attempts to replace mainline aircraft with RJs, it’s important to note that the ALPA Restructuring Agreement states the minimum fleet count will be 279 aircraft, excluding SJs.
In regard to ALPA’s dispute with US Airways over the announcement the company plans to take delivery of the CRJ-705, presumably to be delivered to a wholly owned subsidiary, the aircraft is expected to have 75-seats with 82,500-pound maximum takeoff weight. On the surface this aircraft would seem to comply with the pilot scope clause listed above, except the ALPA Supplemental Restructuring Agreement states up to 25 Large SJs, specifically limited to the CRJ-700, may be placed into revenue operation at a Participating Wholly-Owned Carrier, other than MDA. US Airways’ order for 25 CRJ-705 aircraft violates the ALPA contract and if the Arlington-based airline attempts to take delivery of these aircraft, this move could be a major violation of the CBA.

B737 Fleet Replacement:

During last week’s Regional Airline Association conference in Phoenix, US Airways chief executive officer Dave Siegel said more than 100 US Airways Boeing 737-300/400 aircraft would be nearing the end of their useful life. Siegel noted the EMB-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.


Siegel told conference attendees that the company looked at the EMB- 190/195 in its long-range plans and the airline is studying whether they can replace aging Boeing 737-300s and -400s on mainline routes.

The EMB-190LR has a maximum takeoff weight of 110,893 pounds, has a range of 2,300 nautical miles, and has a dual class configuration of 8 first and 86-coach class seats (96 total) or 98 seats in a single class configuration.

The EMB-195LR has a maximum takeoff weight of 111,973 pounds, has a range of 1,800 nautical miles, and has a dual class configuration of 8 first and 98-coach class seats (106 total) or 116 seats in a single class configuration.

In relation to previous US Airways mainline aircraft, the F100 was configured for 8 first and 91-coach class seats (99 total).

For more information on the Embraer aircraft family click onto www.embraer.com.

B767/B757 Fleet Replacement:

US Airways has reached agreement with Airbus Industries for the airline to receive 29 Airbus aircraft in 2007 through 2009. The firm orders are for 10 A330-200s, 13 A321s, and 6 A320s. US Airways could opt to take delivery of these 29 new Airbus aircraft, plus other unspecified aircraft, to replace the aging 41 B767s/B757s at the end of the decade, provided US Airways remains independent and in its current structure.


US Airways Express RJ limitations:


The ALPA Restructuring Agreement limits US Airways to operate a maximum of 465 RJs, which includes the EMB-170/175 or any other aircraft at MidAtlantic Airways.

The US Airways Express announced deployment of RJ’s includes:

70 RJs operated by Mesa, Trans States, and Chautauqua Airlines per LOA 79.

Mesa Airlines has authorization to add 20 50-seat RJs, plus a second approval for up to 20 50-seat RJs and up to 30 70-seat RJs (CRJ-700 aircraft only).

Midway Airlines has authorization to fly 18 50-seat RJs, with US Airways holding an option to increase the carrier’s fleet to 66 50-seat RJs.

Up to 12 additional 50-seat RJs can be placed at Chautauqua Airlines or its subsidiary Republic Airlines. Last week Chautauqua ordered 12 ERJ145LRs and the company said Republic Airlines would operate nine of the jets, with Chautauqua adding three to its fleet. It’s unclear at this point in what airline network the 3 additional RJs will operate.

The company’s recent 170 RJ order from Bombardier and Embraer, includes 85 EMB-170s for MidAtlatnic Airways, 60 CRJ 200s scheduled for delivery to wholly owned subsidiary, PSA Airlines and 25 CRJ 700s (disputed CRJ-705), which do not have a delivery location.


Chip’s OpEd Comment:


US Airways affiliate RJ delivery’s/firm orders and the 170 firm US Airways Bombardier and Embraer orders, do not violate the ALPA contract. In addition, the 100 Bombardier re-confirmed various RJs and 280 Bombardier and Embraer RJ options, will likely not exceed ALPA’s scope clause because some of these larger aircraft (EMB-190/195, which seat more than the F100) can be deployed on the mainline, at mainline pay and benefits that is yet to be negotiated. However, it’s significant to note the first EMB-190 is in its construction phase, the aircraft must go through an extensive certification process, and Siegel said the B737 replacement would occur in five to ten years.

 

[dfw79]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 12:18:36 AM Chip Munn wrote:



In regard to ALPA’s dispute with US Airways over the announcement the company plans to take delivery of the CRJ-705, presumably to be delivered to a wholly owned subsidiary, the aircraft is expected to have 75-seats with 82,500-pound maximum takeoff weight. On the surface this aircraft would seem to comply with the pilot scope clause listed above, except the ALPA Supplemental Restructuring Agreement states up to 25 "Large SJs", specifically limited to the CRJ-700, may be placed into revenue operation at a Participating Wholly-Owned Carrier, other than MDA. US Airways’ order for 25 CRJ-705 aircraft violates the ALPA contract and if the Arlington-based airline attempts to take delivery of these aircraft, this move could be a major violation of the CBA.
----------------

​

This so reminds me of freaking grade school nit picking. Well Chip...since you have so named it the CRJ-705 out of no where (unless that is just the ALPA talking through you)...I guess it would raise some questions. The CRJ-705 doesn't exist...anymore than the CRJ-700 does. You have two version of the CRJ-700...the Series 701 and the Series 705, 70 and 75 seats respectfully. So going by your and ALPA's double standards, if US Airways takes delivery of ANY CRJ-700 aircraft, they violate the CBA. Simply because, if you want to play name games, you have the CRJ-701 and CRJ-705...neither are listed in the CBA. So I would fully expect ALPA to file an objection of ANY CRJ-700 aircraft since they would end up taking delivery of, by your naming standards, the CRJ-701 and/or CRJ-705.

This reminds me of arguments where a person says "IF" instead of "WHEN" and some sleazy lawyer gets involved and starts turning words around. It is pointless BS like this why people have reservations with unions and their policies these days. They are more dues focuses instead of member focused. Get over the name games unless you are going to apply it across the board, you can't pick and choose in order to make it work for your agenda. We've seen this during the restructuring when ALPA was attacking the other unions...and then when they got it back in the face, they turned it all around. Now those times are past...but we are back with the same song and dance. Chest thumping union leadership propaganda that is doing nothing but to lead the agenda of a minority...and is intended to confuse others with childish name games.

You either apply your standards across the board or you realize you are just trying to make noise and let it go. Enough is enough. The posts are very informative...but this pointless propaganda attached almost makes me miss the nice quiet period we've enjoyed the last couple months.

 

[SETMAXTHRUST]

Although you have several valid but angry comments DFW79, please read Chip''s post and let your brain absorb what he is saying........our CEO is attempting to circumnavigate a enforceable contract by replacement of mainline aircraft with large 190/195 RJ''s which equate to more furloughs! There is nothing as you say "freaking grade school nit picking" about Chip''s research.

B-737-300 MATOGW = 135,000 lbs PAX = 126
B-737-400 MATOGW = 142,500 lbs PAX = 144

 

[ITRADE]

Will get into the issue of CRJ-700 v. -705 later, but it seems kinda silly to replace 737-300s and 737-400s with ERJ-190s. Why not maintain fleet and pilot commonality and simply replace them with the aircraft designated to replace them - A-319s and A-320s???

 

[tadjr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 6:06:02 AM SETMAXTHRUST wrote:

please read Chip''s post and let your brain absorb what he is saying........our CEO is attempting to circumnavigate a enforceable contract by replacement of mainline aircraft with large 190/195 RJ''s which equate to more furloughs! ----------------​

Actually this isnt what I got from Chip''s research. He states that US Airways affiliate RJ delivery’s/firm orders and the 170 firm US Airways Bombardier and Embraer orders, do not violate the ALPA contract. In addition, the 100 Bombardier re-confirmed various RJs and 280 Bombardier and Embraer RJ options, will likely not exceed ALPA’s scope clause because some of these larger aircraft (EMB-190/195, which seat more than the F100) can be deployed on the mainline, at mainline pay and benefits that is yet to be negotiated.
The problem is with the CRJ-7?? series and the interpretation of what a CRJ-7?? actually is.

 

[gilbertguy]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 8:02:38 AM ITRADE wrote:


Will get into the issue of CRJ-700 v. -705 later, but it seems kinda silly to replace 737-300s and 737-400s with ERJ-190s.  Why not maintain fleet and pilot commonality and simply replace them with the aircraft designated to replace them - A-319s and A-320s???

ITRADE....I don''t think it is US intention to remain a mainline carrier....we are destined to become the MESA of the East coast....worrying about what these new aircraft will be designated is not the issue....it won''t matter to the agents left to work them....they''ll be too busy trying to make ends meet....

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 10:44:23 AM gilbertguy wrote:

ITRADE....I don''t think it is US intention to remain a mainline carrier....we are destined to become the MESA of the East coast....worrying about what these new aircraft will be designated is not the issue....it won''t matter to the agents left to work them....they''ll be too busy trying to make ends meet....

----------------​

Well, I''ve never known Mesa to be flying around in A-330-300s or to have A-330-200s on order or to operate any aircraft over 200 seats.
​

 

[Tim Nelson]

my understanding is that the company wants to deplete the mainline jets down to 255 from 279.

Tim Nelson

 

[cltflyguy]

Well i think we all know that Dave isn''t employee/labor friendly.
If so then why not go ahead and give us a five year plan.....like
this is the direction we are going and where i plan for us to
be in five years. Even if it was a good or bad plan...atleast we''d
know more on what to expect verses hearing it through the grape vine
and then later finding out it was true after all. Yeah smaller aircrafts
will mean more layoffs. We were lucky in that we had 3 flight
attendants on the F-100. American flew theres with 2. So if they
go to the 98 seat a/c to take the place of the 300s then the company
will probably try and get by with 2 attendants. Why not...its legal. 1 attendant per 50 pax. Course how much would one really care..like
dave...if you were making around 50,000 a month.

Another furloughed employee

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 448 PM diogenes wrote:

Given U''s track record, I''d say one of the big attractions of the EMB 190, other than another hammer to lower labor costs, is it''s an even bigger POS than the F100''s. Trade is right; why not get Airbii''s 318, 319 and 320?

----------------​

Good point on the A-318. While heavier than the EMB-190, the Airbus will permit total aircraft commonality with its larger siblings. The Long Range version of the 318 would permit long, thin route work that is currently unavailable to many cities (i.e. CLT-SNA, PHL-SKB).

 

[diogenes]

Given U''s track record, I''d say one of the big attractions of the EMB 190, other than another hammer to lower labor costs, is it''s an even bigger POS than the F100''s. Trade is right; why not get Airbii''s 318, 319 and 320?

 

[algflyr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 223 AM dfw79 wrote:

Well Chip...since you have so named it the CRJ-705 out of no where (unless that is just the ALPA talking through you)...I guess it would raise some questions. The CRJ-705 doesn''t exist...anymore than the CRJ-700 does.

----------------​

What are you saying? The CRJ-700 DOES exist. It is currently flying at many carriers. ASA, Comair and Mesa all fly the -700. Mesa also flys the CRJ-900. That is what the 705 will be, a 900 reconfigured with fewer seats and a first class cabin. Chip is not making this up, and these aircraft DO exist.

 

[exagony]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 3:40:28 PM cltflyguy wrote:


So if they
go to the 98 seat a/c to take the place of the 300s then the company
will probably try and get by with 2 attendants. Why not...its legal. 1 attendant per 50 pax.
----------------​

Lets see, the express carriers flying the CRJ200 (50 pax) get by with only one FA so what''s the big deal. Are you afraid of -oh my gosh- having to work for the first time? 2 FA''s for a 98 pax airplane is more than enough.

 

[dfw79]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 5:54:22 PM algflyr wrote:

----------------
On 5/28/2003 223 AM dfw79 wrote:

Well Chip...since you have so named it the CRJ-705 out of no where (unless that is just the ALPA talking through you)...I guess it would raise some questions. The CRJ-705 doesn''t exist...anymore than the CRJ-700 does.

----------------​

What are you saying? The CRJ-700 DOES exist. It is currently flying at many carriers. ASA, Comair and Mesa all fly the -700. Mesa also flys the CRJ-900. That is what the 705 will be, a 900 reconfigured with fewer seats and a first class cabin. Chip is not making this up, and these aircraft DO exist.

----------------​

Algflyr...

I can see where the confusion is coming from, thanks to a select few. Let me try to rephrase as best I can what I was getting at.

The contract states the "CRJ-700" and they are saying that is the only aircraft that is allowed to fly under it. I''m well aware that many airlines fly the CR7 - I watch them come in and out of TOL every day. However, my point was the creation of the name "CRJ-705" by the ALPA and/or Chip. If you want to pull out the two different versions of the CRJ-700 you have...

- The CRJ-700 Series 701 - the 70 seater, which you see DL, Eagle, and Mesa fly.

- The CRJ-700 Series 705 - the 75 seater version with the CRJ-900 fuselage.

All of a sudden the Series 705 has been called the CRJ-705 by Chip and the ALPA, yet they still refer to the Series 701 as the CRJ-700...not the CRJ-701. Therefore they are causing a double standard in what they want to call a plane. You cannot sit there and call the Series 705 the CRJ-705 and then fight the order of it because the contract states "CRJ-700." If they want to apply the same principles they are to the Series 705 then by their standards they should call the Series 701 the CRJ-701, not the CRJ-700. Therefore, using their logic, there is no such thing as the "CRJ-700" until Bombardier calls something the CRJ-700 Series 700...the ALPA/Chip scheme of naming aircraft will never create a "true CRJ-700" according to their contract.

 

[LavMan]

Dave can try but all labor agreements say the following:

Scope and Job Security.
The Scope and Job Security provision in the 2002 Restructuring Agreement is eliminated and replaced as follows:

• The Company will maintain a minimum fleet size of 279 Total Mainline* Aircraft (inclusive of maintenance and spares), subject to a force majeure clause that includes acts of terrorism.

*Mainline excludes MDA RJ aircraft