More On Mda & Republic

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
Let’s look at some facts:

-- US Airways and Republic have a signed contract for the Arlington-based airline to sell MDA, which has received bankruptcy court approval.

-- ALPA has filed a grievance against US Airways because the company is not honoring the union’s view of LOA 91 and fragmentation/change of control provisions for MDA.

-- The US Airways & America West ALPA MEC TCC is continues to meet this week. Last Friday America West ALPA MEC chairman J.R. Baker said on the code-a-phone, "This week both MEC’s have been meeting with the company at our ALPA offices to continue working on securing a Transition Agreement. Items we are discussing include many of the areas that the company and ALPA need to understand as we work to merge the contracts and seniority lists. Of particular concern is protection of flying for both sides and securing and bringing in-house the E-190 flying. There also may be an opportunity to capture the E-170 flying."

-- US Airways has not placed an order for EMB-190s, therefore, from this observer’s perch, the LOA 93 language would not permit the EMB-190 to be flown at Republic. LOA 93 states, “In the event the Company orders EMB-190 aircraft and can not fulfill the order, up to twenty-five (25) of the EMB-190 orders or aircraft delivered may be sold or otherwise transferred to a Participating Affiliate Carrier to be flown as US Airways Express), and CRJ-900 aircraft under the same provisions as, and in lieu of, CRJ-700/701 aircraft."

-- The America West ALPA contract does not permit the EMB-190 to be flown by a code share partner.

Conclusions:

-- Without ALPA approval, which I doubt would occur without meaningful returns, Republic or any other Participating Affiliate Carrier, will not fly the EMB-190.

-- Republic is trying to close the MDA deal, but the LOA 91 grievance hearing that begins next week and the Transition Agreement discussions could prevent the sale.

Here’s the pilot rub. The Chautauqua pilots and their union, represented by the Teamsters (IBT), have said from day one they do not care about LOA 91, the MDA pilots, and they will only agree to staple the MDA pilots to the bottom of their seniority list. In my opinion, that is pure B.S.!

Unfortunately labor loses most grievance arbitration hearings, but the IAM-M won a victory during the A320 overhaul proceeding. ALPA has a strong argument and a very good chance of winning the LOA 91 grievance, which would kill the MDA sale to Republic and the Chautauqua pilots from flying the aircraft.

Thus, if the Chautauqua pilots want this deal to proceed, they need to agree to the provisions of LOA 91 and agree to a meaningful seniority integration or ALPA will fight to kill the deal.

Finally, it is my desire to have the MDA deal die, the EMB-190 flying kept in-house, or if the MDA deal does close, a reasonable agreement is reached between the new US Airways, the joint ALPA MEC, Republic, and the IBT that all of the parties can live with.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 

robbedagain

Veteran
Oct 13, 2003
11,127
2,689
Visit site
what are the chances of you pilots winning this agreement now that this merger is almost complete? and what are the chances of MDA pilots staying with their planes and the emb190s coming? by the when does or will the first EMB190 enter service?
 

Hope777

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
2,053
490
www.usaviation.com
Well, if you look at the advanced November Schedule, several cities show flights operated by the E7R. U's code for the EMB170 is E70 so one would conclude that the E7R is the EMB170-Republic.
 

ClueByFour

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,566
37
www.usaviation.com
ALPA better win the arbitration and hope that's enough to deter Wexford. This from freshly filed docket 2898:

In light of the foregoing, in late June 2005, the Debtors notified the
Investor that they did not intend to exercise the Equity Investment Option, but, nonetheless, had elected to proceed with the sale/leaseback and assignment transactions relative to certain aircraft, the sale/license-back of certain slots, and the purchase and sale of certain aircraft-related equipment, all as provided for in the Investment Agreement and the Related Term Sheets. Specifically, these transactions include the following:

(i) US Airways will sell to Republic the Slots, consisting of 113 unrestricted commuter slots located at Ronald Reagan International Airport, and 24
unrestricted commuter slots located at New York-LaGuardia Airport (subject to the Debtors’ right to repurchase the Slots anytime after the second anniversary of the closing the sale of the Slots to Republic), and simultaneously license-back all of such 7 Slots;

(ii) US Airways shall (a) sell to, and immediately leaseback from, Republic thirteen (13) Embraer regional jets currently owned by, or committed to, the Debtors and (B) assume and assign to Republic the leases relative to an additional fifteen (15) Embraer regional jets, with all such aircraft to be operated by Republic under the name “US Airways Expressâ€￾ pursuant to a new jet services agreement to be entered into by the parties, and

(iii) Republic will purchase from US Airways certain Embraer 170- related assets, including a flight simulator, spare parts and certain facilities to support the aircraft operations. The parties are currently in the process of finalizing the Transaction Documents relative to the aforementioned transactions.

12. As noted above, the Investment Agreement and the transactions
contemplated therein and in the Related Term Sheets, including, inter alia, the Debtors’ assumption of the Amended and Restated JSA, were approved by the Court pursuant to the Wexford Order, which was entered on March 31, 2005.

As I have maintained in the past, it looks like CCY has ensured that the only way that MDA does not go to RJET is in the event that ALPA prevails on the 29th, and Wexford decided not to deal with the headaches of taking the entire MDA pilot group. Further, beyond the 10 or so aircraft (-145s) specifically provided for, US is burdened with the Republic JSA until 2013 (IIRC).
 

ClueByFour

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,566
37
www.usaviation.com
USA320Pilot said:
-- Without ALPA approval, which I doubt would occur without meaningful returns, Republic or any other Participating Affiliate Carrier, will not fly the EMB-190.
[post="291698"][/post]​

Ahh, meaningful returns.

As history as a guide, this means that "if the top %50 of the seniority list get another $5/hr on their rates, they'll gleefully toss the young under the bus." History has shown that getting the existing AAA ALPA group to do this is not very hard, nor are the returns "meaningful." Witness the glee over the "commuter clause."

Assuming that the combined group keeps these aircraft on the property, it immediately poses another problem for the -170 drivers (if those stay)--it's a foregone conclusion that Jerry Glass will target the B6 payrate for the -190 as his bogey.
 
ClueByFour said:
Further, beyond the 10 or so aircraft (-145s) specifically provided for, US is burdened with the Republic JSA until 2013 (IIRC).
[post="291948"][/post]​

I really don't think that US getting stuck with the Chautauqua JSA is as big of a deal as everyone's making it out to be. There are a whopping 29 CHQ ERJ-145s. And 10 of them can probably be canned. BFD. If getting stuck with a few more 50-seat RJs is the cost of keeping the 170s in-house, I don't see how that's even a little problem.
 

TBONEJ4J

Senior
Aug 21, 2002
270
43
HighFlyerMiami said:
All this talk about the deal not happening and yet there is an August 23 bankruptcy court document slightly amending the terms, but showing clear intent to push forward.

http://www.donlinrecano.com/dr201/mwc/04-1...002898-0000.pdf

Or better yet this one, http://www.donlinrecano.com/dr201/mwc/04-1...002898-0001.pdf

The relief sought is necessary for the deal.
[post="291996"][/post]​


It appears that the crux of the Filing is to extend the breadth of 'Republic' in the original deal to mean any subsidiary of RAH, not solely Republic Airways.

Perhaps Wexford, sorry, Republic Air Holdings Inc., will acquire the US Airways 170s to be operated at Shuttle America as United Express. Then either transfer them to Republic Airways, or divert orders of new E170s for Shuttle America to Republic Airways.

Hmmm. Seems like a sneaky way of getting around the provisions of LOA 91, and bringing the 170s to Republic by the back door. :ph34r:

The lengths these people will go to screw a group of workers. If these useless examples of humanity directed their efforts to something constructive, imagine the good they could do. :down:

God Bless Bryan. Looks likes all your prayers may have given you a way out. I'll see you in hell. :up:
 

St. Leibowitz

Member
Aug 19, 2002
60
0
USA320Pilot said:
Here’s the pilot rub. The Chautauqua pilots and their union, represented by the Teamsters (IBT), have said from day one they do not care about LOA 91, the MDA pilots, and they will only agree to staple the MDA pilots to the bottom of their seniority list. In my opinion, that is pure B.S.!

A bit subjective and inflammatory on your part, but regardless: What did the MDA group propose?


USA320Pilot said:
Thus, if the Chautauqua pilots want this deal to proceed, they need to agree to the provisions of LOA 91 and agree to a meaningful seniority integration or ALPA will fight to kill the deal.


Define "meaningful." And please not in terms of what "meaningful" is not, but in terms of what would be satisfactory to the MDA pilots.
 
OP
U

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
In regard to the sale of MDA, US Airways has a signed agreement to proceed with the deal and has a choice: complete the deal, find a way to kill it, or seek relief through bankruptcy court.

However, if ALPA wins the expedited grievance then the company will not proceed with the transfer, per comments made to ALPA by Jerry Glass. The expedited grievance hearing is scheduled to start next week and a decision will be made before the first aircraft is scheduled to transfer to Republic.

The EMB-190s cannot be flown at any Participating Affiliate Carrier because it violates the America West ALPA contract…thus this is a dead issue unless the joint MEC approves a Transition Agreement that permits this flying. The Chautauqua/Republic & IBT agreement to fly the EMB-190 is meaningless unless the joint US Airways/ALPA MEC permits this flying to be done at an affiliate carrier.

In regard to the Chautauqua/Republic pilots and the IBT here are the facts: The IBT has not agreed to honor ALPA’s contract and specifically LOA 91. In addition, the MDA pilots have contractual rights to MDA EMB-170 aircraft flying and these pilots will eventually be recalled to the new US Airways, leaving the aircraft at Republic. The Chautauqua pilots have indicated they will only accept the MDA pilots stapled to their list and a J4J provision, which violates LOA 91.

Personally, I would like to see the MDA-Republic deal die, no EMB-190 flying go to the affiliates, US Airways reject all Chautauqua 50-seat RJ flying and find a suitable alternative to Chautauqua/Republic. Why? Republic/Chautauqua pilot greed – plain and simple.

This is not inflammatory – just the facts.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
OP
U

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
I want to clarify one point. US Airways has a signed contract to sell MDA and it may not be able to get out of the deal, unless it asks the court to reject the agreement, but that could have other ramifications with current energy prices.

Nonetheless, ALPA has two ways to stop Republic EMB flying: the upcomng LOA 91 grievance hearing and the transition agreement/joint contract talks. Dependent upon those talks it might be in US Airways' best interests to stop the Republic deal.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,488
NC
USA320Pilot said:
However, if ALPA wins the expedited grievance then the company will not proceed with the transfer, per comments made to ALPA by Jerry Glass.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
[post="292118"][/post]​
If you believe him you are foolish, just like he and others said they had no intention of farming out the airbus, I would not trust him as far as you can throw him.
 

elixir

Senior
Jun 2, 2005
385
0
It seems in this case that the company bargained this flying away without fully considering HP's scope ramifications...big mistake. It seems that regardless of prior agreements...if the combined union representation doesn't approve..it's dead...maybe I'm wrong.