GREAT POST!Dea Certe said:
With the ALPA leading the way standing together is difficult at best, although I feel you are dead on accurate. What is needed is total and absolute solidarity, which is just not happening with ALPA in the mix.
Alpa Scope Relief
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
With the ALPA leading the way standing together is difficult at best, although I feel you are dead on accurate. What is needed is total and absolute solidarity, which is just not happening with ALPA in the mix.
ManDachine
Member
- Feb 4, 2004
- 96
- 30
Dea,
You are right everyone must vote. It is a priviledge and not to be taken for granted. If you doubt this ask any of the 1800+ pilots that have lost their ability to vote. When you cannot or (dont) let your voice be heard you are subject to the will of the few that do vote.
Again I am ashamed to be be part of ALPA where the few that still have the ability to voice their opinion chose to ignore or forsake the voices that have been silenced.
For those that would return or stay for $58,000 a year, if you got to do it god bless, but dont do it out of fear of not being able to do something else. If you have the ability and the brains to become an airline captain, you certainly have the ability to earn a better wage than 58K per year. Fear is motiviating people to do things they know they shouldnt .
You are right everyone must vote. It is a priviledge and not to be taken for granted. If you doubt this ask any of the 1800+ pilots that have lost their ability to vote. When you cannot or (dont) let your voice be heard you are subject to the will of the few that do vote.
Again I am ashamed to be be part of ALPA where the few that still have the ability to voice their opinion chose to ignore or forsake the voices that have been silenced.
For those that would return or stay for $58,000 a year, if you got to do it god bless, but dont do it out of fear of not being able to do something else. If you have the ability and the brains to become an airline captain, you certainly have the ability to earn a better wage than 58K per year. Fear is motiviating people to do things they know they shouldnt .
autofixer
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- #20
Bluestreak:
Bluestreak asked: "Why would management need relief on the 50/50 ratio for PSA's CRJ-700s? If we're going to be sold, then it is no longer an issue, ALPA has already agreed to a 50/50 ratio on the CRJ700 for the contract carriers."
USA320Pilot answers: The US ALPA Mainline contract requires those specific jets be flown by a participating (J4J) wholly owned carrier. The mainline contract limits the number of affiliate and wholly owned CRJ-700s with a specific contract carve out. If PSA is sold, the company will no longer be a wholly owned airline. Thus, US Airways CRJ-700 delivery positions could only then be flown at Allegheny/Piedmont, which at this point will not occur.
Furthermore, the PSA pilots have not agreed to the 100% APL staffing for the first 25 CRJ-700s, even though they could have had 100% of the first CRJ-200s pilot seats.
Interestingly, the refusal of the PSA pilots to agree to the APL pilots having 100% of the first 25 CRJ-700 positions, could contribute to PSA being "spun off". This is somewhat of a minor point, with the biggest need to sell PSA is to raise liquidity to pay down the loan guarantee.
I have been told by senior management that the company is in discussion with the ATSB to renegotiate the Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, Amortization and Rent (EBITDAR) covenants, which take effect June 30. US Airways will maintain the $1 billion minimum unrestricted cash requirement through the second quarter, but the biggest problem is the covenant that limits the ratio of debt-to- cash-flow. This restriction places a cap of 7.5 percent on the ratio of debt to EBITDAR, which US Airways board member Bruce Lakefield told ALPA "is one of the stumbling blocks." By selling non-core assets such as PSA and Allegheny/Piedmont, US Airways can pay down the loan guarantee, help GECAS diversify its US Airways risk, reduce US Airways debt going forward, and keep RJ revenue for the Arlington-based airline. Negotiations are now going on with the ATSB to accomplish this taks with the intent to gain time to fully implement the "Going Forward Plan."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Bluestreak asked: "Why would management need relief on the 50/50 ratio for PSA's CRJ-700s? If we're going to be sold, then it is no longer an issue, ALPA has already agreed to a 50/50 ratio on the CRJ700 for the contract carriers."
USA320Pilot answers: The US ALPA Mainline contract requires those specific jets be flown by a participating (J4J) wholly owned carrier. The mainline contract limits the number of affiliate and wholly owned CRJ-700s with a specific contract carve out. If PSA is sold, the company will no longer be a wholly owned airline. Thus, US Airways CRJ-700 delivery positions could only then be flown at Allegheny/Piedmont, which at this point will not occur.
Furthermore, the PSA pilots have not agreed to the 100% APL staffing for the first 25 CRJ-700s, even though they could have had 100% of the first CRJ-200s pilot seats.
Interestingly, the refusal of the PSA pilots to agree to the APL pilots having 100% of the first 25 CRJ-700 positions, could contribute to PSA being "spun off". This is somewhat of a minor point, with the biggest need to sell PSA is to raise liquidity to pay down the loan guarantee.
I have been told by senior management that the company is in discussion with the ATSB to renegotiate the Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, Amortization and Rent (EBITDAR) covenants, which take effect June 30. US Airways will maintain the $1 billion minimum unrestricted cash requirement through the second quarter, but the biggest problem is the covenant that limits the ratio of debt-to- cash-flow. This restriction places a cap of 7.5 percent on the ratio of debt to EBITDAR, which US Airways board member Bruce Lakefield told ALPA "is one of the stumbling blocks." By selling non-core assets such as PSA and Allegheny/Piedmont, US Airways can pay down the loan guarantee, help GECAS diversify its US Airways risk, reduce US Airways debt going forward, and keep RJ revenue for the Arlington-based airline. Negotiations are now going on with the ATSB to accomplish this taks with the intent to gain time to fully implement the "Going Forward Plan."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
A320Pilot-
Why in the world would CHQ get the EMB-170's?
I was at the meeting, and it would make no sense to let anyone fly these aircraft other than APL pilots. The company only asked for relief in the area of "if they pull the financing, the company wants another company to have the option of flying the -170. They just asked for relief to allow it "if" they have to.
I would think they would spin off PSA and allow the -170 to be flown at an affiliate carrier if and only if the financing disappears. Of course, a minimum MDA fleet would help speed this whole thing along.
Boomer
Why in the world would CHQ get the EMB-170's?
I was at the meeting, and it would make no sense to let anyone fly these aircraft other than APL pilots. The company only asked for relief in the area of "if they pull the financing, the company wants another company to have the option of flying the -170. They just asked for relief to allow it "if" they have to.
I would think they would spin off PSA and allow the -170 to be flown at an affiliate carrier if and only if the financing disappears. Of course, a minimum MDA fleet would help speed this whole thing along.
Boomer
ClueByFour
Veteran
Given "The Plan" and Seigel's upbringing, I find it somewhat funny to hear the "affiliate carriers" referred to as "non-core" assets. In case U ALPA has yet to figure this out, RJs are the core of the new US.
And, with U ALPA's help, they will be flown by the lowest bidder! It's amazing what some people will do to protect their own seat.
And, with U ALPA's help, they will be flown by the lowest bidder! It's amazing what some people will do to protect their own seat.
You know 320, I'm startin to get irritated with you. If your gonna keep posting contract stuff, then get it right. This will be the second time I've shown you what PSA has and has not signed. (LOA 81 SIGNED / LOA 83 NOT SIGNED).USA320Pilot said:
Please review these documents (that are attached) and take note that none of the paragraphs state this: USA320Pilot says,"The US ALPA Mainline contract requires those specific jets be flown by a participating (J4J) wholly owned carrier."
If we had agreed to give 100% of the 700's to the APL list there would have been no protection for the PSA pilots in the event that the 50 seat order was changed and only 70 seaters were delivered. Can you really blame us for not giving in to this. What gives you the right to my job? Your lucky you got half!
You know its people like you that help Mgt. whipsaw the WO and Mainline. You should be ashamed of yourself. There are so many good people throughout our Group who are trying to work together, and then theres you.
Oh well! You and Mgt. can do what you want with us, sell us, shrink us, or just keep bending us over. I really don't give a rats ass. Your still not gonna get 100% of crap at PSA. YOUR NOT ENTITLED TO IT.
So get over it and start working with us instead of against us. Ugh....who am I kidding? You people will just never learn.
