Chip another question for ya.

BoredToDeath

Advanced
Oct 19, 2002
119
0
Chip,

After reading your post''s on this subject, I did a little more research. And I''ve got to tell ya that I''ll be very surprised if UALPA is able to keep the 700''s, I mean 705''s from going to where ever it is that Mgt plans on putting them.

The following is a description of the CRJ700 Series from the Bombardier website:

Aircraft Description
The Bombardier CRJ700 Series is powered by two General Electric CF34-8C engines. While the advanced CF34-8C powerplants are more powerful, they are also more fuel-efficient than the engines on the Bombardier CRJ200.

The Bombardier CRJ700 Series comes in two sizes. The Bombardier CRJ700 Series 701 seats 64 to 70 passengers. The Bombardier CRJ700 Series 705 seats 75 passengers in a spacious two-class cabin.

When you consider the high cruise speed of Mach 0.825 and range of up to 2,000 nm, it becomes apparent why the Bombardier CRJ700 Series, with its room for 20-25 additional passengers, offers operators such a significant reduction in seat-mile operating costs.

Airlines also appreciate the high degree of commonality with the existing Bombardier CRJ aircraft, which allows for the operation of a mixed fleet of aircraft. In addition to sharing a common pool of pilots, airlines benefit from additional savings through common maintenance, ground support equipment, spare parts and customer support.

If you notice above that Bombardier states there are TWO types of 700''s. The 701 and the 705. Which are both CRJ700''s. There is no regular CRJ700. And according to your agreement the CRJ 700 is allowed to be flown at the WO''s and/or Affiliate Carriers. Now considering the wording of the aggreement and that the CRJ700-705 also meets the weight restrictions I just don''t see how UALPA will be able to get these planes to the Mainline. Do you?
 
Well if Mainline wants to fly them here is what Davey will do. Mainline MEC will complain about these jets going to a WO carrier. These should be flown by Mainline pilots. Okay, Dave will say hmmmm okay well in that case lets park 25 B-737''s from our fleet, and add these 25 CRJ''s.
 
Bored:

At the end of last week there was a new company proposal, which I am not free to publicly discuss, to try and bridge the gap on this dispute. The company recognizes that problems exist, not to mention the rank-and-file sentiment shift.

However, one thing I will commit to is it has recently become crystal clear that the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent.

Expect to hear more about this issue in the future.

Chip
 
Chip are you ever going to stop calling it the CRJ-705 instead of its proper name the CRJ-700 Series 705? Likewise with the 70 seater...which is the CRJ-700 Series 701. Therefore the CRJ-700 doesn''t really exist if we use your naming method...or if we use Bombardier''s...the CRJ-700 includes both the -701 and -705.
 
----------------
On 5/31/2003 7:56:06 PM Chip Munn wrote:

Expect to hear more about this issue in the future.

----------------​


For some reason, reading that one sentence took me back to the days when I was just a wee one and I''d placed my future in the mystical predictions of The Magic 8 Ball!
 
----------------
On 5/31/2003 7:56:06 PM Chip Munn wrote:

Bored:

At the end of last week there was a new company proposal, which I am not free to publicly discuss, to try and bridge the gap on this dispute. The company recognizes that problems exist, not to mention the rank-and-file sentiment shift.

However, one thing I will commit to is it has recently become crystal clear that the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent.

Expect to hear more about this issue in the future.

Chip

----------------​
Chip,

UALPA has already given consent to fly the CRJ700, its just that they never specified which SERIES. Remember, as I proved earlier, that the CRJ 700 has two Series, the 701 and the 705. They are both the CRJ700. You can not get around that simple fact no matter how hard you try.

Follows is the proof of consent.

ACCELERATED SMALL JETS LETTER #83

LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Between
US AIRWAYS, INC.
and
THE AIRLINE PILOTS
in the service of
US AIRWAYS, INC.
as represented by
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL

ACCELERATED SMALL JETS


THIS LETTER OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with Title II of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by and between US Airways, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Companyâ€) and the Airline Pilots in the service of US Airways, Inc. as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Associationâ€).

WHEREAS the Company has identified opportunities to introduce Small Jets into the US Airways system that would generate accelerated revenue for the Company and accelerated Jets for Jobs for the US Airways pilots, and

WHEREAS these accelerated Small Jets would be financed and operated by Participating Affiliate Carriers, and

WHEREAS the operation of such Small Jets in the US Airways Express system would require certain modifications to the scope provisions of the Restructuring Agreement dated July 1, 2002,

NOW THEREFORE the parties mutually agree as follows:

1. Other than as specifically modified in this Letter of Agreement, all terms and conditions of the ALPA-US Airways Restructuring Agreement effective July 1, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Restructuring Agreementâ€) as modified by the Supplementary Cost Reductions Letter of Agreement (L.O.A. 84), shall remain in full force and effect.

2.The terms and conditions for placement of the Small Jet code share aircraft that are authorized to be placed at other carriers and flown under the US Airways code by the provisions of Attachments B, B-1, and B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement shall be modified under the terms and conditions stated below:

A.Up to 20 “Medium SJs†and up to 30 “Large SJs†(CRJ-700 aircraft only) may be operated by Mesa Airlines or by any wholly owned subsidiary of Mesa Air Group or Mesa Airlines under terms agreed to between Mesa Air Group and the Association. Such aircraft shall be subject to the Jets for Jobs Protocol and must be placed into revenue operation no later than December 31, 2004.

B.Up to 25 “Large SJs†(CRJ-700 aircraft only), in addition to the 30 “Large SJs†authorized in Paragraph 2.A. above, may be placed into revenue operation by Participating Affiliate Carriers, provided that they are placed into revenue service no later than December 31, 2004, and provided further that they are subject to the Jets for Jobs Protocol (Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement). The foregoing does not preclude the placement of Large SJs in MDA in accordance with Attachment B of the Restructuring Agreement as amended by LOA 84.

C.Up to 25 “Large SJsâ€, specificially limited to the CRJ-700, may be placed into revenue operation at a Participating Wholly-Owned Carrier, other than MDA. All Large SJ positions created by operation of this paragraph shall be filled by US Airways pilots in accordance with the Jets for Jobs Protocol, Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement. In addition, as an exception to the Jets for Jobs Protocol, 100% of the first 25 Medium or Small Jet positions at the Wholly Owned Carrier where the above Large Small Jets are placed shall be filled by pilots of that Wholly Owned Carrier. Upon completion of the staffing of these aircraft, the 50/50 balance of hiring pursuant to the Jets for Jobs Protocol will be followed.

D.The number of “Medium SJs†and “Large SJs†in paragraphs A, B and C above are incremental to one another but are not incremental to the total number of “Medium SJs†and “Large SJs†authorized by Attachment B of the Restructuring Agreement.

E.Up to 12 “Medium SJs†currently being operated by Chautauqua Airlines under another carrier’s code may be placed into revenue service by Chautauqua Airlines under the US Airways code, without immediately complying with the Filling of Vacancies provision of Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement, provided that such “Medium SJs†are placed into revenue operation under the US Airways code by February 29, 2004. For each of the “Medium SJs†specified in the foregoing sentence that is placed into revenue operation by Chautauqua Airlines under the US Airways code no later than such date in 2004, Chautauqua Airlines or Republic Airlines must also place into revenue service at least the same number of additional “Medium SJsâ€, no later than February 28, 2005 and each such additional “Medium SJ†must be staffed entirely with pilots from the APL, provided however, that no aircraft will be placed into revenue service for Republic Airlines under the US Airways code except with the approval of the Association. If the Filling of Vacancies 50% requirement (by the balance between the Medium SJs specified in the first sentence and the Medium SJs specified in the second sentence of this paragraph E.) is not achieved by February 28, 2005, the Company must either discontinue use of the number of code share aircraft or terminate the contract with Republic or Chautauqua Airlines as required to maintain the Filling of Vacancies 50% requirement.

F.Up to 5 “Medium SJs†may be placed into revenue service by Midway Airlines under the US Airways code, without immediately complying with the Filling of Vacancies provision of Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement, provided they are placed into revenue operation under the US Airways code by December 31, 2003. For each of the “Medium SJs†specified in the foregoing sentence that is placed into revenue operation under the US Airways code no later than such date in 2003, Midway Airlines must also place into revenue service at least the same number of additional “Medium SJsâ€, no later than December 31, 2004, and each such additional “Medium SJ†must be staffed entirely with pilots from the APL. If the Filling of Vacancies 50% requirement is not achieved by December 31, 2004, the Company must either discontinue use of the number of code share aircraft that would bring the ratio into compliance with the 50% requirement or terminate the contract with Midway Airlines.

3.MDA shall begin revenue flights on or before December 31, 2004 with no less than two Small Jets (which shall be either “Medium SJs†or “Large SJsâ€, or both) placed into revenue service.

4.All aircraft authorized by this Letter of Agreement shall be subject to the reporting requirements stated in Attachment B-3 of the Restructuring Agreement.

5.The Company shall seek the agreement of each participating affiliate that it will not discriminate in hiring against any current or former US Airways pilot if a reason for such discrimination is his membership in, or his activities in or on behalf of, the Association. The Company shall require that affiliate airlines recognize the rights of a pilot in respect to this clause. However, the Company shall not assume liability for the violation of the non-discrimination clause by a Participating Affiliate.

6.If it becomes evident to the Company that it or a Participating Carrier may not be able to comply with any of the above dates, the parties agree to meet and discuss alternatives acceptable to the parties.

7.This Letter of Agreement shall become effective on the date of signing and shall remain in effect concurrent with the Restructuring Agreement.
 
----------------
On 5/31/2003 9:54:48 PM dfw79 wrote:


Chip are you ever going to stop calling it the CRJ-705 instead of its proper name the CRJ-700 Series 705? Likewise with the 70 seater...which is the CRJ-700 Series 701. Therefore the CRJ-700 doesn't really exist if we use your naming method...or if we use Bombardier's...the CRJ-700 includes both the -701 and -705.

----------------​
According to contract law, you have to go by what existed at the time the agreement was signed. At that time, there was only one CRJ-700. That is what the agreement covers. Any changes in meaning would void the contract, making it subject to renegotiation. That's the way it works, so stop "Chip bashing"
 
How does the ALPA agreement distinguish between 737-300 and 737-400? Are they one in the same, as far as the contract goes, or are there different work rules, stipulations, etc.

Why wouldn''t a CRJ-700/701 and a CRJ-700/705 be handled any differently?
 
Bored:

Bored said: "UALPA has already given consent to fly the CRJ700, its just that they never specified which SERIES. Remember, as I proved earlier, that the CRJ 700 has two Series, the 701 and the 705. They are both the CRJ700. You can not get around that simple fact no matter how hard you try."

Chip responds: Bored, Olde's comments are correct. Moreover, the company has agreed to ALPA's interpretation of the contract and as I said before, the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent. I'm not going to go into the details or ALPA's response, but I can say this model will not fly in US Airways' colors unless the pilot group authorizes its deployment.

Chip
 
----------------
On 6/1/2003 9:33:17 AM PHL wrote:

How does the ALPA agreement distinguish between 737-300 and 737-400? Are they one in the same, as far as the contract goes, or are there different work rules, stipulations, etc.

Why wouldn't a CRJ-700/701 and a CRJ-700/705 be handled any differently?

----------------​
ALPA's contract DOES, indeed, separate between the two, and they even used to have different pay rates. In a concession made a contract or two ago, ALPA agreed to "group" the aircraft by pay categories, and this eliminated the different rates of pay. Up until a year ago all different versions of the airbus had different pay rates as well.
 
Phllax:

Phllax asked: "Will furloughed mainline pilots who work J4J or at MDA still be considered on furlough?"

Chip answers: Yes because they would not be considered mainline employees.

Best regards,

Chip
 
Chip Commented: Olde''s comments are correct. Moreover, the company has agreed to ALPA''s interpretation of the contract and as I said before, the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent. I''m not going to go into the details or ALPA''s response, but I can say this model will not fly in US Airways'' colors unless the pilot group authorizes its deployment.

DCAflyer responds: Chip, I hope to hell that ALPA does not agree to the 705s being placed in any WO or express operation. The capacity of these aircraft clearly falls within the purview of what should be flown in mainline. Additionally, ALPA should not agree to add these to the mainline fleet if it would cause a reduction in the current makeup of the 279 fleet... in other words, 705s should not be the replacement of 737s or A320 family aircraft. If the company wants to bring 705s online, add them to what we already have in mainline unless, for instance, they want to replace one 737 or A320-family aircraft with two 705s. The contractual definition of small jet should not be based on who manufactures the aircraft.
 
----------------
On 6/1/2003 1:32:05 PM DCAflyer wrote:

Chip Commented: Olde''s comments are correct. Moreover, the company has agreed to ALPA''s interpretation of the contract and as I said before, the CRJ-705 will not be deployed without ALPA consent. I''m not going to go into the details or ALPA''s response, but I can say this model will not fly in US Airways'' colors unless the pilot group authorizes its deployment.

DCAflyer responds: Chip, I hope to hell that ALPA does not agree to the 705s being placed in any WO or express operation. The capacity of these aircraft clearly falls within the purview of what should be flown in mainline. Additionally, ALPA should not agree to add these to the mainline fleet if it would cause a reduction in the current makeup of the 279 fleet... in other words, 705s should not be the replacement of 737s or A320 family aircraft. If the company wants to bring 705s online, add them to what we already have in mainline unless, for instance, they want to replace one 737 or A320-family aircraft with two 705s. The contractual definition of small jet should not be based on who manufactures the aircraft.

----------------​
You''re making the assumption that the 705 will be produced to a capacity of 90.
 
----------------
On 6/1/2003 9:05:06 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:

----------------
On 5/31/2003 9:54:48 PM dfw79 wrote:


Chip are you ever going to stop calling it the CRJ-705 instead of its proper name the CRJ-700 Series 705? Likewise with the 70 seater...which is the CRJ-700 Series 701. Therefore the CRJ-700 doesn''t really exist if we use your naming method...or if we use Bombardier''s...the CRJ-700 includes both the -701 and -705.

----------------​
According to contract law, you have to go by what existed at the time the agreement was signed. At that time, there was only one CRJ-700. That is what the agreement covers. Any changes in meaning would void the contract, making it subject to renegotiation. That''s the way it works, so stop "Chip bashing"

----------------​
Oldie,

This is from a press release Dated May 28, 1999 off the Bombardier web site. Proof that it was known that two versions of the 700 were to be made. This is quite a few years before LOA 83, huh?


"The new CRJ700 Series airliner will also be certified in two weight-range versions to permit airline operators to match the aircraft precisely to their operations."
 

Latest posts