US Pilot Labor Thread 9/7-14

[Elevation]

RJET is the only operator who has consistently been taking aircraft...ALL 175's...FACT.

If there is a scope overage....it's at Republic.

As of Aug 2008, Republic operates 38 E175's per there website.

 

[machtuck]

Which one of the feeders has delivered 14 LSJ's in the last few months? It has to be either Republic E175 (only shows 38 on website) or Chat E170, Mesa is not taking any new A/C. I don't think any have taken that many jets since June this may be a red herring.

It is also possible that the "planned reduction" at mainline is what breaks the bank...not present RJ numbers...

but..hey.."planned reduction" is "planned furloughs"...

we gotta stop it...even if scope is the answer.

 

[machtuck]

As of Aug 2008, Republic operates 38 E175's per there website.

I hear ya man...it's a website...(hmmm)

more importantly, the planned REDUCTIONS in the mainline fleet MAY be the driver here...

thats why I asked the original question, and why I thank you all for chiming in....

We don't know what the deal is.....and we NEED to know what it is....

( I should add that the reason it's hard to track RJET is for every 175 they delivered, a MDA 170 supposedly left...)

 

[fr8tmastr]

MESA 38 900's
PSA 14 700's
REP 20 170's
REP 38 175's

 

[BoeingBoy]

It is also possible that the "planned reduction" at mainline is what breaks the bank...not present RJ numbers...

In the investor update, the end of 2nd quarter numbers are actual - not forecast. 338 mainline vs 94 LSJ's...still over the limit.

Besides, with mainline already under the 360 number (for a year or better) any "planned reductions" don't affect the maximum LSJ count. Only the min fleet count is in play with "planned reductions" to mainline (although Parker or Kirby said there were ways around that).

Jim

 

[machtuck]

In the investor update, the end of 2nd quarter numbers are actual - not forecast. 338 mainline vs 94 LSJ's...still over the limit.

Jim

Thats why I knew you would know....

I'm on a smart hunch...you have the hard numbers....

thanks again, Jim.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No problem - just look for the "A" (actual) or "E" (estimated) in the heading of the columns on the fleet info in the investor update.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

So now you want my input...

Jim

The premise that things are about "personal wants" is precisely the cause of the many symptoms.

Enjoy life and cast your vote.. or spit it out already and declare the grapes to be sour.

 

[machtuck]

In the investor update, the end of 2nd quarter numbers are actual - not forecast. 338 mainline vs 94 LSJ's...still over the limit.

Besides, with mainline already under the 360 number (for a year or better) any "planned reductions" don't affect the maximum LSJ count. Only the min fleet count is in play with "planned reductions" to mainline (although Parker or Kirby said there were ways around that).

Jim

I'm sorry to pimp you all day pal, but are you able to elaborate on that comment? or a refernce to "ways around that..."

this may be the key...

I'm not a rocket-scientist, but 360 revenue is 360 revenue....not 40 in hangars....320 online...

 

[BoeingBoy]

Parker/Kirby didn't elaborate on what they meant by "ways around the min fleet count - it was part of the answer to analyst's question about reductions in capacity being limited by that mainline min fleet count. So I can't offer any more details either except to add that they also said that the E190's could be sold if necessary to raise cash.

As I understand the TA, as long as the mainline fleet is at/below 360 (excluding 190's) the maximum number of LSJ's operated ("in service") by Express is a fixed number - 93.

The mainline fleet (excluding E190's) has been below the 360 number since the end of the 2nd quarter 2006 according to old investor updates. Therefore any further "planned reductions" have no effect on the number of LSJ's that Express can operate. For an extreme example, if mainline got down to 100 aircraft the maximum number of LSJ's would still be 93 per the TA. Therefore any "planned reductions" at mainline can not cause the TA to be violated - only adding more than the allowed 93 LSJ's can cause a violation until mainline gets to 362 or more airplanes and additional LSJ's are allowed.

Jim

 

[machtuck]

Thanks, Jim...but that is what I would describe as a "circuitous argument"...in that, since they are already below MIN FLEET count, the SJ issue is moot. To that end, I would agree. I'd say that while the ALPA Merger debacle was underway..someone slept at the switch on this issue.

I think you mentioned this already...the argument won't be "too many LRJ's"....it is MIN FLEET.

Tomato, tomatoe....it is what it is....

thanks, buddy.

I hope a union person is lurking here...

I'd add that pursuant to comments by Parker, and a sad look at hard numbers. The 190 is like a "happy ending" for Parker....99 PAX moved, 2 FA's instead of 3, and FO at $50, CA at $90....it's cheaper to operate than farming out to Republic at Express rates...

I'll be shocked if he sells them....(plus, he'll need the union to sign off on it...)

( I expect a push to make them part of the fleet count...)

 

[electricjet98]

Just to keep ya'll informed as to what one of the local newspapers has on its blog.


US Airways faces class action lawsuit from America West pilots
Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:41:41 PM
By Sarah Fenske

Last week, I told you about the war between pilots at the old America West and the old US Airways. Even though the airlines merged three years ago, the two groups of pilots are still operating under different contracts -- and are facing off on the terms of a new one with definite rancor. As my story details, the East Coast-based US Airways pilots (or "East") have accused their Tempe-based counterparts ("West") of everything from hanging nooses in the cockpit to making thousands of prank calls to running a criminal conspiracy. (!)

When I wrote my story, the West pilots were on defense, fending off a RICO suit in federal court. (Though the judge tossed the suit against them, the East pilots were vowing to appeal.) But now they're on the attack. This week, the West pilots filed a class action lawsuit in district court -- charging not only that the East-dominated union has breached its duty of fair representation, but also that US Airways breached the pilots' collective bargaining agreement by failing to negotiate in good faith.


There's a lot of complicated legal arguments going on here, but the gist appears to be this: When America West and US Airways merged, the two groups of pilots and the newly formed company agreed to a transition process. That process eventually led the two pilot groups to binding arbitration to hash out issues of seniority -- but when the East pilots didn't like the arbitration results, they walked away and instead formed a new union.

That new union, the West pilots argue, has done little to represent its interests. And the company has made matters worse, the suit says, by letting the East pilots throw out the arbitration award that all three groups had agreed to.

As a result, the suit says, West pilots are unfairly losing their jobs. Already, the active roster of East pilots is growing; the West is not. And, the suit says, 57 West pilots will be furloughed, or laid off, on October 1. Another 54 pilots will follow in November.

The West pilots are seeking an injunction to stop the furloughs and force both the company and the union to accept the arbitrators' award.

I left a message for the lawyer on the case, Marty Harper of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, and I'll update this post when I hear back.

 

[EastUS]

Just to keep ya'll informed as to what one of the local newspapers has on its blog.


US Airways faces class action lawsuit from America West pilots

Whoopee...I take it this posting's due to the Yaaawn....Have fun/Rotsa' Ruck/we've bigger fish to fry/etc responses from the east?

Seriously though; No one wants to see any furloughs here, but your approach is pure, protracted BS, and won't amount to more than that. Consider actually doing something useful for a change....

 

[electricjet98]

Seriously though; No one wants to see any furloughs here, but your approach is pure, protracted BS, and won't amount to more than that. Consider actually doing something useful for a change....

Considering the complete lack of USAPA's leadership in seeking any meaningful communication, negotiation or compromise with those of us from the west, I believe I'll take out attorney's advice before yours.

 

[prechilill]

EastUS
Today, 05:22 AM
Post #313


Veteran


Group: Registered Member
Posts: 2,999
Joined: 8-May 07
Member No.: 11,319


ONE MORE POST!!!