More On Mda & Republic

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways may have no choice but to proceed with the sale of MDA because it has a signed contract that is approved by the bankruptcy court and the airline may need the additional funds due to soaring fuel prices. The sale would pay down ATSB backed debt and boost liquidity, which the ATSB and new equity investors may desire.

However, that does not mean the sale will proceed.

The LOA 91 grievance hearing, the MDA pilot’s lawsuit that could seek "injunctive relief", and the joint US Airways - America West transition agreement discussions all could have implications on the sale.

Moreover, the Chautauqua/Republic pilots desire to not honor another pilots contract regarding fragmentation (regarding LOA 91) and they desire to staple the MDA pilots to the bottom of the Republic seniority list, which is clearly unethical and speaks loudly about the Republic pilots and their union (IBT). This says a lot about these aviators...no I mean these people who have poisoned the relationship between ALPA and the IBT.

Moreover, the IBT moves have strengthened ALPA's resolve the not permit Republic to fly the EMB-190 for US Airways Express and to force Republic to honor LOA 91 or the MDA deal could fail.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[elixir]

Elixir:



In regard to MDA, US Airways has a signed agreement to sell MDA and unless Republic backs out of the deal, US Airways may have no option but to sell MDA.



Regards,

USA320Pilot

Knowing what I know about this, and having worked at Mainline and MetroJet...somebody tell me how you "sell" MDA. It's a bunch of airplanes with mainline furloughee's and some street-hires...maybe an engine and sim...I have not been adequately shown how it's an "entity" to be sold. It's a pile of "stuff" "assets" if you will, operating as a "division" of mainline, with mainline people, and some newbie's.
Call it an asset sale, call it a "name"sale(MAA), but without a separate operation from mainline, I dont get it. I realize this is an exercise in semantics, but I truly don't get it.
If it is indeed an "entity" then the fragmentation clause applies, no?

So confused...like when Clinton "redefined" the word "is"

 

[mlt]

What happened between last night and this afternoon?

Next US Airways negotiated the Republic equity agreement and MDA sale, but then things changed again. US Airways obtained additional equity investors, thus it did not need Wexford Capital's/Republic's investment and with new ATSB terms, may not need to sell MDA.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="292194"][/post]​

USA320Pilot Posted Today, 01:44 PM
US Airways may have no choice but to proceed with the sale of MDA because it has a signed contract that is approved by the bankruptcy court and the airline may need the additional funds due to soaring fuel prices. The sale would pay down ATSB backed debt and boost liquidity, which the ATSB and new equity investors may desire.

 

[CHQDRVR]

Moreover, the Chautauqua/Republic pilots desire to not honor another pilots contract regarding fragmentation (regarding LOA 91) and they desire to staple the MDA pilots to the bottom of the Republic seniority list, which is clearly unethical and speaks loudly about the Republic pilots and their union (IBT). This says a lot about these aviators...no I mean these people who have poisoned the relationship between ALPA and the IBT.

Moreover, the IBT moves have strengthened ALPA's resolve the not permit Republic to fly the EMB-190 for US Airways Express and to force Republic to honor LOA 91 or the MDA deal could fail.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="292420"][/post]​

I wrote a fairly lengthy reply to your assertions about the IBT and the CHQ pilot group last night. You've yet to respond to a single one of these points. Maybe because they don't support your rhetoric?

As for the 190s, we've known from the beginning that neither US nor HP's CBAs allow for 190-size aircraft at the regionals (notwithstanding y'alls clause about failed delivery attempts). The amendment to our CBA to allow more J4J aircraft here wasn't because my pilot group wants 190s, it's because my management does. In the meantime I get some side letters to improve my QOL here. I can't type any slower: I DON'T WANT LARGER AIRPLANES HERE! Neither does the majority of my pilot group. I want to make Chautauqua/Republic a better place to be while I'm here, but I want to be able to leave someday, too. I've said that over and over. Maybe your screen needs to be brighter or something....

 

[elixir]

I wrote a fairly lengthy reply to your assertions about the IBT and the CHQ pilot group last night. You've yet to respond to a single one of these points. Maybe because they don't support your rhetoric?

As for the 190s, we've known from the beginning that neither US nor HP's CBAs allow for 190-size aircraft at the regionals (notwithstanding y'alls clause about failed delivery attempts). The amendment to our CBA to allow more J4J aircraft here wasn't because my pilot group wants 190s, it's because my management does. In the meantime I get some side letters to improve my QOL here. I can't type any slower: I DON'T WANT LARGER AIRPLANES HERE! Neither does the majority of my pilot group. I want to make Chautauqua/Republic a better place to be while I'm here, but I want to be able to leave someday, too. I've said that over and over. Maybe your screen needs to be brighter or something....

[post="292451"][/post]​

What does the J4J language say? 190"s? If so, did you guys refuse to sign unless they pulled the 190 language? I think not, based on a previous post. While I understand your predicament, I also know that language can be modified. What were your options? or is all the company's fault? Thats not what was implied here earlier.

 

[CHQDRVR]

What does the J4J language say? 190"s? If so, did you guys refuse to sign unless they pulled the 190 language? I think not, based on a previous post. While I understand your predicament, I also know that language can be modified. What were your options? or is all the company's fault? Thats not what was implied here earlier.

[post="292691"][/post]​

Of course it's all the company's fault, duh.... j/k.

Previous J4J language in our CBA only allowed for "Large Small Jets" of 170 size and smaller. Theoretically that meant that if RAH wanted to acquire E190s they could not be used in a J4J program.

Our primary incentive to sign the amendment to our J4J LOA was NOT the potential acquisition of 190s. Our management has the idea that since we've agreed to potentially include 190s in a J4J program that makes RAH more competitive in HP's RFP to fly them. Again, our management (and HP's too, perhaps?) seems to completely disregard the fact that neither US nor HPs scope clauses allow 190s to be outsourced. However, to "sweeten" the deal for us, they included four side letters that will help to significantly increase our QOL here. Those side letters are our real incentive for ratification. I should note that this amendment has NOT been signed yet, as the pilot group's voting deadline is August 30.