Mid-atlantic Call Sign

[PuraVida]

We landed in ATL last week behind this shiney new EMB-170 in US Airways Express colors. The N number ended in "MA" so I surmised that it must be Mid-Atlantic. It even had the words, "US Airways Express" written across the side.

But here's the part that made me stop and say WTF? When they contacted Ground Control, they used the "US Air" call sign. Huh? Then they did it again with Ramp Control.

Anybody know why they are not using the call sign, "Mid Atlantic"? They are an Express carrier so therefore should not be using the mainline call sign.

After further reflection, we concluded that MA is probably staffed by furloughed mainline pilots who have too much of a hard-on to refer to themselves using some kind of an Express wholly-owned callsign. Hmmm...let's see...Piedmont, Allegheny, and PSA are wholly-owned and treated as the bastard stepchildren of mainline by the mainline pilots but they aren't allowed to use the "US Air" callsign for their flights. So why should Mid-Atlantic?

As a fitting ending to this story, when it was our turn to contact Ground Control, I keyed the mike, stated our call sign, and gave our position as, "On Lima for Ramp #3 behind the US Airways Express SJ".

 

[BoeingBoy]

PuraVida,

My guess is that it's because the 170's are operating on the mainline certificate, unlike the W/O'ed.

Jim

 

[USFlyer]

I believe in the eyes of the FAA/DOT Mid Atlantic is essentially US Airways. I believe next to the door it even says "Mid Atlantic Airways Operated By US Airways". It's a division of mainline, not a separate company.

 

[JS]

I'm glad the thread starter isn't an air traffic controller. Being correct as well as specific is very important when it comes to communications.

I hope you don't apply your know-it-all skills when TCAS gives you an instruction. :down:

 

[mweiss]

Well said, JS. You don't mess around with people's lives just to make a point.

 

[Light Years]

Because MidAtlantic is a DIVISION OF US AIRWAYS , the actual airline, that operates under the Express brand, not an owned subsidiary like Al, PI, and PS nor an affiliate. Its like a Metrojet or a Shuttle, regardless of the paint scheme or contracts, its on the US Airways certificate. And yes, it is staffed by actual US Airways employees.

You sound envious or bitter about something, theres alot of insecurity in your post. The need to attack someone you dont know in an unfortunate situation that has been offered a new opportunity is troubling.

No one cares enough to change a callsign for the sake of thier ego... and how could you? That would be extremely unsafe to say you are someone your not, dont you think? And furhermore, it is an SJ, some of the pilots even call it an RJ. If they felt bad flying a smaller jet they wouldnt have accepted the MAA recall. I seriously doubt the pilots even listened to your dorky remark and certainly were not offended. I've not known experienced pilots to bring thier penis envy onto the airwaves... only cheesy pilots do this or worry about it.

 

[the turtle]

lol. light years, you crack me up.

 

[N607P]

US Airways Express operated by MidAtlantic Airways operated by US Airways...only with this company.

::shakes head::

 

[mweiss]

I've not known experienced pilots to bring thier penis envy onto the airwaves...

Hmmm...is it the length or diameter of the fuselage that matters more?

 

[Light Years]

US Airways Express operated by MidAtlantic Airways operated by US Airways...only with this company.

::shakes head::

I know, right? Makes you wonder why the plane doesnt just say US Airways... like the public needs to know about our inner stuggles and silly divisions!

 

[flyin2low]

Anybody know why they are not using the call sign, "Mid Atlantic"? They are an Express carrier so therefore should not be using the mainline call sign.

MDA is going to be the mainline, soon. So what's the difference?

 

[ktflyhome]

I know in my home town, Mid-Atlantic is operated by Mesa. Beechcraft 1900's. Mesa.....Mid-Atlantic. :blink:

 

[Phoenix]

http://www.alpa.org/aaa/DesktopModules/Cod...?DocumentID=124 See Item 2 at the bottom of the hperlinked page

Ironicly you will see that the MEC is welcoming the MDA pilots as Active US Airways Pilots. The planes are indeed on the US Airways certificate.

No doubt the SJ RJ MLRJ scum jets, rat jets, Mainline Replacement Jets will be considered part of the 279 if LOA 91 passes.

You are upset about being called Express and getting paid like Express WITH longevity pay. The guys you are dogging are US Airways Mainline Pilots with 15 years of seniority at MAINLINE getting paid Express pay at NEWHIRE, FIRST YEAR EXPRESS pay rates. (but at least they are longer and wider.)

 

[700UW]

Both IAM (mechanic and related and fleet service) contracts, AFA, CWA and TWU contain the following langauge:

The Company agrees to maintain a minimum fleet size of 279 aircraft (inclusive of maintenance spares), excluding Mid Atlantic regional jet (RJ) aircraft.

 

[Light Years]

What if they did put the Embraer family at mainline... 70-100 seats. It would eliminate scope issues and put a better suited aircraft on many routes.

I may be blasted for this, but I'm just thinking aloud. I always think of that quote that floats around here that US Airways would be the most profitable airline in the U.S. if it had:

30 Widebodies
100 Narrowbodies
400 RJs

Lets assume that since they are figuring the lower labor costs of RJs, that they are referring to up to 100 seats. Lets say the pilots agree to a new, lower payscale for the EMB170/175/190/195 (not quite MAA but competitive for 70-100 seats with commuters and LCCs) as an eventual replacement over the next few years for the 737 fleet, until they are down to the Airbuses (assuming the 757/767 replaced with A320 and A330 family), about 150 or so of them. Airbuses at present or similar scales. All are under a single contract, with some differences per aircraft. Scope would not allow any other carrier to fly anything over 50 seats (although there could arguably be a competitive 50 seat rate to have those on a single list too).

The current route structure, along with everything else, may not have a place for 279 of what we are currently calling mainline aircraft, but offers alot of room for growth with the smaller aircraft. This growth is not at US Airways at the moment, and management would like to contract it out even more. But if it were brought in house at a lower cost, wouldnt that raise the credit rating, helping secure deliveries of the aircraft?

Furloughees would return to work. Control of the operation would be retuned to a single, more flexible entity. There would only be three (or four) types that each cover wide ranges of flying. The EJets only require two F/As, which reduces cost compared to the 737, but the growth potential would mean adding jobs rather than slashing them. The Airbus narrowbody fllet would be used more effectively, to increase stage length and expand the network. A single group of employees would handle international, domestic, and essentially regional flying, which offers more operational flexibility and higher productivity. The company would be growing and hiring, enjoying the low costs through growth and junior employees that the LCCs do.

In return for some of the neccessary sacrifices to do this the company could offer good incentive/profit sharing programs.

Again, I'm just sort of thinking out loud... Theres a new leader, but it doesnt change the fact that there needs to be change from the company, and its people. I just think in negotiating this time, it should be taken into account whats good for ALL employees and the company, and not just a few senior people hoping to go out on top. Why not be the first carrier to actually embrace the RJs/SJs, and demand a unified, efficient, and growing team rather than divide and conquer? Why not think outside the box and present a plan that benefits the company and the people, instead of just waiting for more divisive and generally dumb ideas to fend off?