Alpa Orders Nc To Obtain New Agreement

[mwereplanes]

Count the number of "coulds" in this post. Also take note of where he places blame. As if the 1852 pilots represented by the 4 brave and principled men were responsible for what the company is going for. He is pathetic. But we all know that.

Confused? Hardly. If you, or anyone, think any TA is going to a pilot vote with out of seniority furloughs or a decimated DC plan think again. You are seriously underestimating what is going on here. They did NOT vote to send out a TA. They voted to send the NC in unfettered to prove a point. We, the majority of pilots here, are still in control of this union. Try not to forget that. You will be reminded of it shortly.

You have quite a surprise coming F/O 320. Unless, of course, the company has a better understanding of negotiation posturing than you.

Got to run. I have a business to look after. Some weekend clients coming in today. By the way, I'll take the bet. Your seat vs. mine.

mr

 

[vc10]

But earlier this year Continental warned that it may have to ask for wage concessions. Continental has a route structure that is far superior to that of US Airways---think about the value of the Newark hub alone. And its important to note that Continental's labor costs have been lower than all the other legacy major airlines throughout the 1990s extending all the way until American and United took their wage concessions last year.

Since 9/11, Continental has furloughed no flight attendants involuntarily, nor have they asked for a dime in concessions (not sure about the pilots).

[post="183459"][/post]​

 

[700UW]

A CO F/A international top out makes $52 an hour, one of the highest in the industry.

 

[jimntx]

But earlier this year Continental warned that it may have to ask for wage concessions.

[post="183895"][/post]​

Please note verb tense..."Continental warned that it may have to ask for wage concessions." Hasn't happened yet.

"We may be able to bring stability to Iraq without further troop additions."
"Hurricane season may not affect Florida at all."
"Democrats may not shoot themselves in the foot this election season." (As a yellow dog Democrat, this is my personal tragedy. )

 

[WorldTraveler]

There is little premium revenue left out there now, we must adapt and make money in this revenue enviroment.

[post="183855"][/post]​

BINGO BINGO

I see no sign of that (growth) in the "plan" put forth here.

BINGO BINGO

 

[Finish or Ignore]

Do I like what is happening at US Airways? No, of course not.

I am simply the messenger and it’s the creditors and the ATSB that are demanding the changes.


Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="183510"][/post]​

More that simply a messenger.

ha·rangue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rng)
n.
A long pompous speech, especially one delivered before a gathering.
A speech or piece of writing characterized by strong feeling or expression; a tirade

speculator

n 1: someone who makes conjectures without knowing the facts

dogmatist

n : a stubborn person of arbitrary or arrogant opinions [syn: doctrinaire]

 

[FM2436]

Second thing I wondered, if Airways were transitioned to a point to point model, there would be far less (to almost no) need for the services of both the Contract and Affiliate Express carriers... How would that play into the equation...? Many LGA and DCA slots are "commuter" aircraft specific, are they not?

I'll tend to disagree. I read somewhere were only 5% of the nearly 60,000 US domestic market pairs have more than 100 O&D passengers per day. With a plan that will turn CLT, PHL, LGA, BOS, DCA, PIT into focus cities, there are certainly smaller markets into those focus cities that will generate as few as 75-90 point-to-point enplanements per day. With 2 or 3 50-seat RJs/Dash-8-300 flights per day and a 80% (point-to-point) load factor only requires 40 passengers per flight. A 37-seat Dash-8-200 at a 80% load factor only requires 29 passengers per flight. Remaining seat could be filled with limited connecting passengers.

 

[funguy2]

RE: CAL Shrinkage. It appears to me that between 1994 and 1995, when the DEN hub was closed, the jet fleet shrunk by 6%. Very slight, and of course by 1997 there was growth of 1994.

I assume the 316 aircraft of 1993 is part of some shrinkage that was part of BK.

In any event, its true, CAL's shrinkage in 1995 due to the Go Forward Plan was minimal.

 

[funguy2]

In any event, the US Airways website reveals the following:

Total Jet Aircraft: 282

767-200ER: 10
757-200: 31
737-400: 45
737-300: 69
(Boeing Total: 155)

A330: 9
A321: 28
A320: 24
A319: 66
(Airbus Total: 127)

Thus, if the plan is to go to "150 Aircraft", it would appear impossible by remaining all Airbus. And let's not get into the notion that more Airbuses can be obtained, since aircraft financing for the company has dried up like a mirage in the Sahara.

What USA320Pilot's intentions are for telling us the company is going to 150 Airbus aircraft, only he knows. Maybe he is trying to convince someone that the company should go Airbus so he can keep his job... It would appear if the plan is to go to 150 Aircraft, that Boeing is the way to go, given that US Airways has about 150 of them, and they probably cost less to lease. (After all, jetBlue, and to a lesser extent Frontier and America West have kept the USA demand for Airbus products high, while 737-300/400s are no longer in production, and most Boeing customers are upgrading to NGs.... Thus the value of the 737-300/400 fleet has declined, and should be available to lease for less than the Airbus products... of course, they do have increased maintenance exposure...)

Of course, the problem with this from USA320Pilot's point of view, is probably 1) he loses his job with out of seniority furlough, 2) it does not support his contention of busting the IAM via the Airbus arbitration (it becomes a moot point if there are no Airbuses on the property).

For all I know, USA320Pilot "overheard" a plan to go to 150 Aircraft and assumed it would be the Airbuses that go.

 

[funguy2]

Second thing I wondered, if Airways were transitioned to a point to point model, there would be far less (to almost no) need for the services of both the Contract and Affiliate Express carriers... How would that play into the equation...? Many LGA and DCA slots are "commuter" aircraft specific, are they not?

I believe you are correct that some slots at LGA/DCA are commuter specific. However, I think there will still be a role for contract carriers at US Airways, specifically at LGA and DCA. US Airways won't be flying LGA-BTV on A319's... But there will certainly be a reduced role for the contract carriers, and I would expect to see some of the contract carrier contracts changed or ended in the BK process, similar to what UAL did. I believe some contract carriers will remain.

 

[N628AU]

A CO F/A international top out makes $52 an hour, one of the highest in the industry.

[post="183900"][/post]​

Labor costs are much more involved than simply an hourly pay scale. Work rules and productivity have a lot to do with it. Something many on this board tend to forget, they just want to look at W-2 hourly rates and scream someone at another carrier is making more then them.

 

[whlinder]

I'll tend to disagree. I read somewhere were only 5% of the nearly 60,000 US domestic market pairs have more than 100 O&D passengers per day. With a plan that will turn CLT, PHL, LGA, BOS, DCA, PIT into focus cities, there are certainly smaller markets into those focus cities that will generate as few as 75-90 point-to-point enplanements per day. With 2 or 3 50-seat RJs/Dash-8-300 flights per day and a 80% (point-to-point) load factor only requires 40 passengers per flight. A 37-seat Dash-8-200 at a 80% load factor only requires 29 passengers per flight. Remaining seat could be filled with limited connecting passengers.

[post="183934"][/post]​

That sounds about right; I'm looking at the 4th quarter 2003 DOT top 1000 city pairs (by passengers) and the 1000th ranked market (PHL-SNA) has 184 passengers each way per day, on average. 5% of 60000 is 3000, so that figure makes sense.

I'd say get some Dash 8 Q400s and fly them to cities within an hour of LGA/PHL/DCA/BOS but new aircraft aren't going to be given to this airline.

 

[CLT-Douglas]

In any event, the US Airways website reveals the following:

Total Jet Aircraft: 282

767-200ER: 10
757-200: 31
737-400: 45
737-300: 69
(Boeing Total: 155)

A330: 9
A321: 28
A320: 24
A319: 66
(Airbus Total: 127)

Thus, if the plan is to go to "150 Aircraft", it would appear impossible by remaining all Airbus. And let's not get into the notion that more Airbuses can be obtained, since aircraft financing for the company has dried up like a mirage in the Sahara.

What USA320Pilot's intentions are for telling us the company is going to 150 Airbus aircraft, only he knows. Maybe he is trying to convince someone that the company should go Airbus so he can keep his job... It would appear if the plan is to go to 150 Aircraft, that Boeing is the way to go, given that US Airways has about 150 of them, and they probably cost less to lease. (After all, jetBlue, and to a lesser extent Frontier and America West have kept the USA demand for Airbus products high, while 737-300/400s are no longer in production, and most Boeing customers are upgrading to NGs.... Thus the value of the 737-300/400 fleet has declined, and should be available to lease for less than the Airbus products... of course, they do have increased maintenance exposure...)

Of course, the problem with this from USA320Pilot's point of view, is probably 1) he loses his job with out of seniority furlough, 2) it does not support his contention of busting the IAM via the Airbus arbitration (it becomes a moot point if there are no Airbuses on the property).

For all I know, USA320Pilot "overheard" a plan to go to 150 Aircraft and assumed it would be the Airbuses that go.

[post="183987"][/post]​

I could be wrong, but doesn't the E-170 count as mainline? If so how many do they have? I think it's 22 or 23??? Add that to the total ammount of Airbus (127) and you get 149 or 150.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Rico:

Every union has been briefed on the 150 mainline aircraft plan, which is being pushed by some of the creditors. The only way to cost effectively make this work is for out of seniority furloughs, which would likely happen to A330, B767, and B757 pilots.

If any pilot wants to know more about this plan then I suggest you contact your Reps who have been briefed on the 150 aircraft point-to-point business model by the company. Furthermore, there is nobody more to blame for this scenario than the RC4 who ignored the advice of every ALPA advisor and every key ALPA official.

There maybe one last window of opportunity to prevent the 150 aircraft plan from being implemented and that is for the union's to obtain TA's this week, if it's not already to late.

If the company moves in this direction to convert to a point-to-point airline, where the creditors believe the company would have an 8 versus 4 percent profit margin, then we could see contracts imposed without union membershi ratification.

Separately, the company could furlough malcontents or people who abuse sick time too.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[funguy2]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the E-170 count as mainline? If so how many do they have? I think it's 22 or 23??? Add that to the total ammount of Airbus (127) and you get 149 or 150.

[post="184027"][/post]​

Hmm... Maybe, as they are on the mainline certificate... But in almost every other respect, these are considered separate from mainline (i.e. contracts, "Express" on the fuselage, on the website included in the Express fact sheet with the notation as being part of US Airways mainline)... So I don't know if the 150 includes or excludes MDA. Perhaps the company is being purposefully vague? Maybe somebody knows?