ALPA code-a-phone, RJ, & J4J Update

[chipmunn]

MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - November 6, 2002
This is Roy Freundlich with a US Airways MEC update for Wednesday, November 6:
The MEC convened its special meeting today in Pittsburgh and received reports from the Negotiating Committee, the ALPA MidAtlantic Negotiating Committee and ALPA’s Financial and Economic Department. These reports were presented in both open and closed sessions and addressed the status of MDA negotiations, the Company’s request to operate 70-seat small jets under US Airways code at affiliate (non-wholly owned) carriers, and the current industry and Company issues concerning revenue performance and projections.
The MEC voted today to accept a management request to meet with the MEC in closed session. US Airways Senior VP, Employee Relations, Jerry Glass; Senior VP, Corporate Development, Bruce Ashby; and Director of Labor Relations—Flight, Tony Bralich addressed the MEC today in closed session. Management’s presentation focused on issues concerning the Company’s financial performance, projections and expected modifications to its business plan. In open session management answered questions about its request to operate 70-seat small jets at affiliate carriers, which included the following responses:
• The filling of Jets for Jobs vacancies is projected to begin in the first quarter of next year with US Airways affiliate Express carriers. Twenty aircraft are scheduled to be introduced at affiliate carriers throughout December, January, February and March.
• Midway Airlines should begin operating in the first quarter 2003. Midway is currently the only affiliate carrier that has agreed to participate in Jets for Jobs. Discussions with Chautauqua and Mesa are continuing.
• If additional 70-seat small jets are placed at Mesa Group, they would likely remain at Mesa for 10 years due to commercial agreement provisions, which means that they could not be moved to MDA after MDA’s operational startup. It is likely that additional 70-seat small jets would be placed at Freedom Air [whose establishment as an alter ego airline at Mesa Group is being challenged by ALPA International].
• Management restated its commitment to starting operations at MidAtlantic Airways as soon as possible.
Your MEC representatives expressed to management their condemnation of alter ego airlines in general and Freedom Air in particular. Management said this issue was being addressed with Mesa management.

 

[dashtrainer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 1222 AM chipmunn wrote:

MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - November 6, 2002

This is Roy Freundlich with a US Airways MEC update for Wednesday, November 6:

The MEC convened its special meeting today in Pittsburgh and received reports from the Negotiating Committee, the ALPA MidAtlantic Negotiating Committee and ALPA’s Financial and Economic Department. These reports were presented in both open and closed sessions and addressed the status of MDA negotiations, the Company’s request to operate 70-seat small jets under US Airways code at affiliate (non-wholly owned) carriers, and the current industry and Company issues concerning revenue performance and projections.

The MEC voted today to accept a management request to meet with the MEC in closed session. US Airways Senior VP, Employee Relations, Jerry Glass; Senior VP, Corporate Development, Bruce Ashby; and Director of Labor Relations—Flight, Tony Bralich addressed the MEC today in closed session. Management’s presentation focused on issues concerning the Company’s financial performance, projections and expected modifications to its business plan. In open session management answered questions about its request to operate 70-seat small jets at affiliate carriers, which included the following responses:

• The filling of Jets for Jobs vacancies is projected to begin in the first quarter of next year with US Airways affiliate Express carriers. Twenty aircraft are scheduled to be introduced at affiliate carriers throughout December, January, February and March.

• Midway Airlines should begin operating in the first quarter 2003. Midway is currently the only affiliate carrier that has agreed to participate in Jets for Jobs. Discussions with Chautauqua and Mesa are continuing.

• If additional 70-seat small jets are placed at Mesa Group, they would likely remain at Mesa for 10 years due to commercial agreement provisions, which means that they could not be moved to MDA after MDA’s operational startup. It is likely that additional 70-seat small jets would be placed at Freedom Air [whose establishment as an alter ego airline at Mesa Group is being challenged by ALPA International].

• Management restated its commitment to starting operations at MidAtlantic Airways as soon as possible.

Your MEC representatives expressed to management their condemnation of alter ego airlines in general and Freedom Air in particular. Management said this issue was being addressed with Mesa management.


----------------
[/blockquote]

I really don't think that J4J is going to exist at affiliate carriers. None of them have signed onto it. The Mesa pilot group definitely won't sign on, unless Ornstein agrees to have ALPA at Freedom Air and bring back the CCAir pilots. Chautauqua and Trans States have plenty of business flying RJs for other carriers, so their pilot groups have said no way to J4J. The only carriers that have signed on to J4J are the wholly-owned subs, but no RJs (or SJs, whatever you want to call them) here until U emerges from BK.

But what do I know. I'm just a dumb commuter pilot, right?

 

[cubfan02us]

The current discussions btwn alpa and the company are
very important not only for the pilots,but for every
employee at U.The company can bring considerable pressure
to bear,and you can see their tactics are a combination
of carrot and stick , bait and switch ,and good
cop/bad cop .If the additional 70 seat rj's are allowed
to go to Mesa whats to prevent flying to be shifted to
Freedom Air?

They probably showed that due to demand and pricing they
have to increase rev by increased commuter flying.The msg
is give us this and we won't furlough any more pilots,or
don't and we won't have any choice but to cut more of
your group.The 70 seaters are going to be used to fly
mainline routes,a nice replacement for the F-100's.

These are probably fee-for-departure arrangements where
U receives a rev pop for each flight.Continued outsourcing,no different than sending the jobs to Mexico.
In our case you can't send planes to Mexico.

I hope Alpa can reach a compromise and either stop or
slow down the continuing downsizing of our airline.

 

[Eris]

It is also useful to note that in Chips original copy and paste of the MEC update, the underlined text and bold text were normal text in the original, and are apparently modified by Chip for emphasis.

 

[Eris]

Chip does an outstanding job of reporting facts from various sources, and we are all thankful. Occasionally he truncates the messages by accident and appreciates his fellow message board participants for adding any parts that are missing.

The following sentence was accidentally dropped from the MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE for November 5, 2002. It is particularly germane during this period of time where US Airways express carriers are expanding their operations.

Please remember we have 1,356 pilots on furlough, with 326 pilot furloughs scheduled for January 7, and 145 additional pilot furloughs anticipated through April 2003.

(bold text used to distinguish from post, Original was normal text)

 

[AOG-N-IT]

N628AU, Excellent observations all around Amigo!!

I'm not going to chime in on Whooping Chip...I'm tired!! ..but all the other issues you made reference too..are dead accurate.

The Employee's are not only taking all the blame...taking all the concessions...we are now the ones being shown the door too!

The examples of not taking drastic action..and thinking Outside the Box are classic...and nothing but a continuation of former leaderships way of thinking..Now due to 9-11-01 and all the issues that followed..Carte Blanche has been bestowed upon our leadership to do...exactly what Wolf could only dream about doing before.

Until I see some tangible evidence of Creative Problem Solving...and a true change in our Business Model ala N628AU's example of HP-esque manuevers...I can't help but assume that failure or posturing for a sell-out wasn't in the cards all along..Yet Again.

I only hope to hell I'm proven wrong...and until then?...I will approach everything with more than an ioda of doubt...Chip's Reasons to Believe Not withstanding!!![img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

 

[N628AU]

The problem with Chip's postings is that his facts are too often confused with the rumor and innuendo he mixes in, along with his own commentary. Also, he has missed so many dates on things happening from his inside sources speaking on the condition of anonyminity, you have to begin to wonder if his sources are intentionally misleading him to watch everyone here chase their own tail, or if the sources even exist at all. Then when it does not occur, it is always the fault of this employee group (note the unique corporate transaction and the fact he always mentions the IAM/CWA before the aircraft lessors being at fault). Where was this blame when the company wanted code-share authority with AA and UA to Japan until we could get our own service up and running (I believe our start date was to be something like Jan 2000, but I could be mistaken)?

I have no doubt he has had his cockpit confidentials with Dave and the like, but think about how much they are actually going to tell a line employee. SEC regulations would prevent them from sharing certain closed door information. I am greatly disappointed by the company's action to further pursue cost cuts and furloughs instead of trying to increase revenues. What has been done to bring customers in? Have we addressed the badly broken revenue model? If we are in such dire straits, why are we not ww not taking drastic action in this front? America West recently overhauled their pricing structure, and it seems to show sings of working. Granted this is a huge undertaking, but we need to be thinking outside the box. What more proof does the company need that drastic times call for drastic measures? I would like to see the pricing model they believe works. I find myself in the unfortunate situation of paraphrasing the Clinton era, It's the revenue stupid!