Vp Of Ops Comments On Loa 91

[USA320Pilot]

The following message was sent today via CBS to all pilots:

On April 8, 2004, the US Airways MEC of ALPA approved a resolution that will send Letter of Agreement # 91 (The Consolidated Small Jets Agreement) to the pilot membership for a ratification vote. If ratified, LOA # 91 will provide the Company with increased flexibility on the future allocation of Small Jets/Regional Jets in order to preserve future revenue and pilot jobs for our furloughed pilots. ALPA will be conducting road shows in the near future to fully explain the details of LOA # 91 to its members prior to the vote.

While the Company recognizes that ALPA is responsible for educating its members on the details of the proposed modifications and the ratification process, the Company has learned that clearly misleading reports are circulating that LOA #91 would (1) reduce or eliminate the current mainline (Minimum Aircraft) provision that provides for a minimum number of 279 aircraft in the mainline active fleet (excluding Small Jets); (2) increase the maximum number of 315 Medium/Large SJs that are permitted to be operated; and (3) permit the operation of SJs larger than the EMB-170/175 or the CRJ-700/701.

To clarify any misunderstanding regarding the above, there is no provision in the pending LOA # 91 that would alter in any way the Minimum Aircraft provision of 279 mainline aircraft. Further, there is no provision that would change the existing formula for increasing the maximum number of 315 Medium/Large SJs that may be operated. Finally, there is no provision that would expand or change the types of Large SJs that are currently permitted to be operated under the existing SJ cope language. Pilots who have questions regarding the specifics of LOA # 91 are encouraged to contact their local ALPA representatives and/or to attend the local road shows that will be scheduled in their domiciles in the near future.

Captain Ed Bular
VP of Flight Operations

 

[USA320Pilot]

There has been much misinformation distributed regarding LOA 91, Consolidated Small Jet Agreement, and I believe it is time to set the record straight on several of the issues and focus on what it does and does not do.

From a historical perspective, I have to say it is out of the ordinary and good to see a LOA that gives specific examples of how sections of the LOA would operate; for example: under the section titled "Authority in the Event of Sale or Lease of Participating Wholly Owned Carrier Aircraft or MDA Aircraft" there are six illustrative examples of types of transactions that this section would cover. These examples begin on page 8 of the document and make it very clear and easy to see how different transactions would work under this section of the LOA.

What does this LOA really do?

1. Consolidates the existing LOAs regarding small jets.

2. Establishes a process to resolve outstanding issues regarding Tag Along Rights.

3. Insures that US Airways will participate in the industry off line jumpseat plan.

4. Insures that US Airways will provide the pilots alternate access to secure areas at their domiciles.

5. Provides that management will negotiate and implement a commuter policy by July 1, 2004.

6. Establishes a working group to review pairing construction parameters seeking to improve both the quality and efficiency of the pairings.

7. Changes the fragmentation trigger at MDA from 50% to 37.5%.

8. Defines the APL pilots' rights in the event of a change of control at both MDA and at Participating Wholly Owned Carriers.

9. Allows management the flexibility to place more large SJs at carriers other than MDA and the Participating Wholly Owned Carriers.

What this LOA does not do?

1. It does not change the maximum 315 number of medium/large Small Jets.

2. It does not change the Affected Pilot list or the Jets for Jobs protocols.

3. It does not change the restrictions on usage of Small Jets. These are the limitations on flying between hubs, wingtip to wingtip flying, maximum stage length, and non-hub flying.

4. It does not change procedures for recall to US Airways or flow through provisions.

5. It does not change the 279 minimum fleet size.

6. It does not change the minimum block hours or the minimum daily utilization.

7. It does not change the maximum size or definition of an SJ.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[Walmartgreeter]

This is the same VP of Flight Ops that was supposed to make a ruling on the pilots retirement plan...but NEVER did, despite the fact he was a dues paying member of ALPA. Also...notice a VP of Flight OPs is telling his own pilots to contact ALPA, not the company, with any questions on the suppposed 279 aircraft minumum. Go figure. This is a joke. This message cannot be real.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

USA320Pilot...with all due respect...this insures nothing. U pilots have over 250 outstanding griveances against the company as we speak. U management is operating under the policy that if they do not like a provision in the contract, they simply violate it , and require the other party to take them to court. Imagine if a U pilot operated his aircraft with such regard to the rules of airmanship. Greeter.

 

[ClueByFour]

You know, I hear the guy running the line at the slaughterhouse tells all the cows "Sure, it's safe in there." He'd never have any incentive not to tell the truth, right?

🙄

I maintain that the 279 number is only as solid as ALPA's attorney's can take it in the (inevitable) arbitration of the matter. In this case, however, I'd urge anyone taking the company's chief pilot's word on an issue like this to get their head checked, preferably before the next Class 1 is due...

 

[PITbull]

I think all employees need to focus on the "what the LOA does".. numbers 7,8 and 9.

Potential "transaction flexibilities" in the future. 😛h34r:

 

[passed_over]

Once again it looks like the mainline pilots are selling the WO's out again. Thats okay it won't be long before they will all be working for MESA as mainline won't be around. 279 will just be a number in there dreams. So which WO is going to be sold first PSA or MDA. If the company was really smart they would move away from the 70 seat RJ's and start thinking about more fuel efficient and more comfortable 70 seat turbo-props the Q-400 would be a much more logical choice for helping get Airways back to profitability. Oops does the mean that the mainline pilot would require a p4j?

 

[ua767fo]

I maintain that the 279 number is only as solid as ALPA's attorney's can take it in the (inevitable) arbitration of the matter.

A minimum aircraft clause carries about the same weight as a no furlough clause......virtually none.

DENVER, CO

 

[USA320Pilot]

PITBull comments:

PITBull said: "I think all employees need to focus on the "what the LOA does".. numbers 7,8 and 9."

USA320Pilots: GECAS is driving the issue here and their president talked directly with ALPA last week. The financier wants to reduce their exposure and risk to US Airways and the key is to include sale/transfer of the CRJ-700s with PSA to another business enterprise, presumably Mesa Air Group.

The company will then obtain capital, pay down the loan guarantee, and reduce its short and long-term debt.

If the PSA pilots had agreed to the 100% APL clause for the first 25 CRJ-700s, this may not have been necessary, but they did not.

Regardless, PSA will almost certainly be sold after LOA 91 is ratified on May 10.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[TBONEJ4J]

LOA 91 is all about letting the company farm out EVERY new aircraft supposed to come on the property.

 

[delldude]

LOA 91 is all about letting the company farm out EVERY new aircraft supposed to come on the property.

usa320pilot predicted this will pass by a 2:1 margin?

 

[TBONEJ4J]

Turkeys voting to have Thanksgiving? or Christmas?

 

[ClueByFour]

If the PSA pilots had agreed to the 100% APL clause for the first 25 CRJ-700s, this may not have been necessary, but they did not.

How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[MrAeroMan]

Does the LOA 91 include an S1113 letter in case of a bankruptcy filing?