PSA and 900s
- Thread starter chichi
- Start date
Not sure about the pay issue, but any additional aircraft brought onto PSA property must follow the J4J protocol. 50% of those new seats must be made available to pilots on the APL list. The flow-thru issue is being discussed in another thread on this forum...
Bluestreak
Advanced
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 0
Opinion at PSA is split. After spending several hours in the PSA CLT crew room today it seems as if over half the pilots will vote no, but it's too close to tell. There is no pay raise involved, and the pilots have no trust in management promises. We want to see things in writing before we go forward.
On a side note... The J4J protocol only addresses 50 and 70 seat aircraft. There is no mention of 90 seat aircraft in the J4J deal. The 90 seat scope relief was given by AAA MEC and didn't involve the J4J program. Some at PSA are looking at this as a loophole to keep slotted J4J bidding off the 900s. Don't flame me for saying this, just something I heard from several PSA union folks.
On a side note... The J4J protocol only addresses 50 and 70 seat aircraft. There is no mention of 90 seat aircraft in the J4J deal. The 90 seat scope relief was given by AAA MEC and didn't involve the J4J program. Some at PSA are looking at this as a loophole to keep slotted J4J bidding off the 900s. Don't flame me for saying this, just something I heard from several PSA union folks.
You may have a point here. I think the original J4J was LOA 83. I'm not sure of the wording there as to wether it addressed # of seats. Additional relief was granted I believe in the restructuring agreement and probably doesn't address J4J as that was defined in another LOA. I'm not real certain about this. Looks like I'm gonna do a little reading before the celebration starts this evening!
MyJ4JjobSucks
Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 32
I beleive 70 seats and more was supposed to be 100% staffed by J4J. They gave that up a PSA in order to get slotting rights and not be stappled to the bottom. Mesa, however, has dumped its J4J program and is flying 900's for USAirways with no J4J pilots involved.
That's true, they did this via the West. America west allowed the 900's to be flown by mesa, so when we merged, we assumed that liability.
There is a grievance pending over that issue
Not to be confrontational....but if you are gonna fly a bigger jet for no more money, how do you think that will sit with other pilot/carriers that hold out for the money we all deserve? I dont think PSA wants to be known as the new mesa.Hopefully, as you stated, the majority will stand up to US and refuse to be pimped out. Character ,or lack there of, will be known by all, on, or before Aug 1.
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 254
So me a carrier that will step forward, In fact, give me every contractor out there to step forward and say they will not undercut or bid under the cost of PSA doing this flying at increased rates. And you will see a resounding NO. The problem with this, Is they aren't being offered on YOUR property so YOUR not posed with the decision, and as tuff as other carriers want to talk on the net. The majority of them would step over backwards to get more flying. You show me ALPA put together the Fee for Departure task force to stand against this whipsaw. And I'll show you a group that will stand for the industry. But alas, 6 years and none of this done.
As to your question regarding J4J and it not applying, and there being a loophole. Let me show you the loop hole. You see, AAA relaxed scope for flying of 90 seaters at affliates. And the wording of such scope relief is as follows.
** Amend LOA *91 to allow for the flying of EMB-190 aircraft under the same provisions as EMB-170/175 aircraft (other than the following: (1)rate of pay; (2) subject to a maximum of sixty emb190 orders and in the event 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 CRJ900 aircraft under the same provisions as, and IN LIEU OF, CRJ700/701 aircraft (other than the following) (1) rate of pay; and (2) CRJ0900 aircraft may be placed at a Participating Affiliate Carrier not subject to the December 31, 2006 placement deadline. blah blah blah blah. Max 'Seats 90.
So from my understanding they can ONLY go to a PARTICIPATING Carrier. No J4J .....no jets delivered, and they are allowed under the same terms as the CRJ700. Which I think was 100% J4J, Except PSA allowed slotting of bidding to fly the 700.
So uhmm...where's the loophole?
As to your question regarding J4J and it not applying, and there being a loophole. Let me show you the loop hole. You see, AAA relaxed scope for flying of 90 seaters at affliates. And the wording of such scope relief is as follows.
** Amend LOA *91 to allow for the flying of EMB-190 aircraft under the same provisions as EMB-170/175 aircraft (other than the following: (1)rate of pay; (2) subject to a maximum of sixty emb190 orders and in the event 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 CRJ900 aircraft under the same provisions as, and IN LIEU OF, CRJ700/701 aircraft (other than the following) (1) rate of pay; and (2) CRJ0900 aircraft may be placed at a Participating Affiliate Carrier not subject to the December 31, 2006 placement deadline. blah blah blah blah. Max 'Seats 90.
So from my understanding they can ONLY go to a PARTICIPATING Carrier. No J4J .....no jets delivered, and they are allowed under the same terms as the CRJ700. Which I think was 100% J4J, Except PSA allowed slotting of bidding to fly the 700.
So uhmm...where's the loophole?
ItsJustAJob
Advanced
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 2
If you consider pay rates, someone could make an argument that PSA is the new Mesa. However, when you consider reliability, professionalism, appearance, and loyalty to the US brand name, along with all of the other things that the customer deems important, PSA will always be miles above Mesa.
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 254
I think Chi Chi is a Air Whisky pilot. the problem with you talking of the highroad, is well, your company bought your jobs. Not sure if that's better than mesa doing it by undercutting everyone.
Again, I'll say it. When ALPA national gets off it's collective butt, and does something more than make a task force of fee for departure carriers. You'll always have the whipsaw available. Good for you, you stood your ground. Your also twice the size of PSA, got kicked out of UAL, and found flying by purchasing said slots. Your company got a bunch of stock, and that's keeping your higher ups happy as LCC is going through the roof, as well as being paid whatever % of profit for your flying. Don't be a fool to think that your immune to the cost cutting that has gone on around here, as I'm sure you'll time will come. UNLESS every MEC stands and refuses to be used as a whipsaw. Untill then, Keep your nose out of our bussiness.
I'm sorry you didn't get 900's.
Again, I'll say it. When ALPA national gets off it's collective butt, and does something more than make a task force of fee for departure carriers. You'll always have the whipsaw available. Good for you, you stood your ground. Your also twice the size of PSA, got kicked out of UAL, and found flying by purchasing said slots. Your company got a bunch of stock, and that's keeping your higher ups happy as LCC is going through the roof, as well as being paid whatever % of profit for your flying. Don't be a fool to think that your immune to the cost cutting that has gone on around here, as I'm sure you'll time will come. UNLESS every MEC stands and refuses to be used as a whipsaw. Untill then, Keep your nose out of our bussiness.
I'm sorry you didn't get 900's.
I dont fly for Air Whiskey....but that was a nice rant! As I said on the other thread, I must admit, I'd rather see the 900s go to PSA than to ANY contract carrier.
US upper management and Glass will allow PSA the right to fly the CRJ900 because they were and are the weakest group of pilots they were willing to sell out in the pass and management knows that PSA/ALPA will do what it takes to fly the shine new jests
nostradamus
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with crzipilot. So many pilots want other pilots to fall on their swords, with no intention of backing them up in any way. The only pilots with regionals that stood up to management are flying dash 8's with no growth potential. These dash 8 pilots showed some guts and then were attacked by management. Did ALPA or any other pilots try to help, No.
Its every man for themselves and there is nothing we can do about it untill we stop throwing the stones and stand together. Only competent leadership will solve this.
Its every man for themselves and there is nothing we can do about it untill we stop throwing the stones and stand together. Only competent leadership will solve this.
Hate to break it to you, but this paragraph has nothing to do with PSA. PSA is not a Participating Affiliate Carrier, it is a Participating Wholly Owned Carrier instead, and as such is under a different provision. But I will try to help you understand this quote anyways.
It is an easier paragraph to read if you move the items apart a little...
Amend LOA *91 to allow for the flying of:---> EMB-190 aircraft under the same provisions as EMB-170/175 aircraft
Other than the following:
(1)rate of pay;
(2) subject to a maximum of sixty emb190 orders
>>>and in the event 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 CRJ900 aircraft under the same provisions as, and IN LIEU OF, CRJ700/701 aircraft
Other than the following:
(1) rate of pay; and
(2) CRJ0900 aircraft may be placed at a Participating Affiliate Carrier not subject to the December 31, 2006 placement deadline.
What you are missing, is that these aircraft can ONLY be added under the SAME provisions for the smaller aircraft, which includes Jets for Jobs. "Participating Affiliate Carrier" is another key term, which means you have to participate in the Jets for Jobs program if you want to add CRJ-900 or additional CRJ700/701 airframes to your fleet.
BTW, there is no way around having to be a participating carrier (wholly owned or affiliate), if you wish to participate in getting any new CRJ-700/701/900 aircraft.
No "loophole" around JFJ under the US Airways contract currently exists. In fact, under the AAA contract, PSA and PDT are not allowed to even operate the CRJ-900.
The only way that this comes about is that the AWA contract allowed CRJ-900 flying. And obviously they did not have a JFJ program at America West.
So the question is if the company can utilize the allowances of the transition process to enable them to place CRJ-900's at PSA or PDT..,. NOT if the paragraph above allows it to happen, because it does not.
It is an easier paragraph to read if you move the items apart a little...
Amend LOA *91 to allow for the flying of:
Other than the following:
(1)rate of pay;
(2) subject to a maximum of sixty emb190 orders
>>>and in the event 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 CRJ900 aircraft under the same provisions as, and IN LIEU OF, CRJ700/701 aircraft
Other than the following:
(1) rate of pay; and
(2) CRJ0900 aircraft may be placed at a Participating Affiliate Carrier not subject to the December 31, 2006 placement deadline.
What you are missing, is that these aircraft can ONLY be added under the SAME provisions for the smaller aircraft, which includes Jets for Jobs. "Participating Affiliate Carrier" is another key term, which means you have to participate in the Jets for Jobs program if you want to add CRJ-900 or additional CRJ700/701 airframes to your fleet.
BTW, there is no way around having to be a participating carrier (wholly owned or affiliate), if you wish to participate in getting any new CRJ-700/701/900 aircraft.
No "loophole" around JFJ under the US Airways contract currently exists. In fact, under the AAA contract, PSA and PDT are not allowed to even operate the CRJ-900.
The only way that this comes about is that the AWA contract allowed CRJ-900 flying. And obviously they did not have a JFJ program at America West.
So the question is if the company can utilize the allowances of the transition process to enable them to place CRJ-900's at PSA or PDT..,. NOT if the paragraph above allows it to happen, because it does not.
