PSA and 900s

[Crzipilot]

Not quite Rico. but close. Originally in LOA 91 I believe it states that non of the affliate provisions would prevent the company from placing such planes at a Wholly Owned which participates. In fact there were limits for WO and Affliate carriers, with a statement that the WO could operate all of it's RJ's along with the number of Affliate Carriers.. Not sure where you get there is no authority for PSA or PDT to operate them???

 

[700UW]

But what does LOA 93 and the transition agreement say? Since they gave the right to place 900s anywhere so they have to place the 190s on mainline.

 

[Rico]

Not quite Rico. but close. Originally in LOA 91 I believe it states that non of the affliate provisions would prevent the company from placing such planes at a Wholly Owned which participates. In fact there were limits for WO and Affliate carriers, with a statement that the WO could operate all of it's RJ's along with the number of Affliate Carriers.. Not sure where you get there is no authority for PSA or PDT to operate them???

because it only says Affiliate in that paragraph.

The provision you refer in LOA 91 for RJ's larger than 50 seats only allows up to 60 "large Small jets" (RJ's) of the CRJ700/701 type to be placed at participating Wholly Owneds.


The paragraph that was posted on here before was made to allow the company to acquire E-190's, they also allowed the company to place additional CRJ-900s at one or more of the affiliates. But the idea was to restrict the company to E-190's 90 seaters on our own property, and in that case to only be flown by either Mainline, or "MDA"

(the exception being IF the company made a E-190 order and could not complete it, then an Affiliate could operate up to 25 of the former U E-190's)

As such, there does not exist a provision in that quote from U contract that allows PSA or PDT to fly anything larger than the CRJ-700/701, as they are allowed to do so as Participating Wholly Owned Carriers under LOA 91.

If the transition agreement allows both Wholly owned and Affiliate carriers to operate the 93 CRJ-900's that are allowed, then that is what you have to look at, not the paragraph quotes in the earlier post. I took a quick look for it, but did not find it, and honestly do not care enough to look further. Someone else can post it if they know where the info is.

The Mesa CRJ-900's have been operated under HP colors, and not under JFJ, because they were brought here by America West, not because anything in the U Contract allowed them to fly em with JFJ beforehand.

So go look under the transition agreement for the 93 CRJ-900 limit, and make sure it does not specify "affiliate", because if that is the case, that allowance does not apply to you then.

Unless PSA is to be sold off to someone like Mesa. Then they become an affiliate carrier too.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The operative word in the transition agreement is "Express" carrier. "Affiliate" or "Wholly-owned" carrier is not specified.

Jim

 

[Rico]

The operative word in the transition agreement is "Express" carrier. "Affiliate" or "Wholly-owned" carrier is not specified.

Jim

And there you have it... Earlier versions of the scope relief made distinctions between the limitations on either W/O and Affiliates. LGuess the most recent version does not.

 

[A320 Driver]

YAAWWNNNNN


My prediction:

PSA will vote to fly them. The company will hand them over because they couldn't care less what any agreement says i.e. "wholly owned vs. "affiliat" anyway.

Mainline signed away it's future long ago. It's downhill from here.

A320 Driver B)

 

[RowUnderDCA]

er ok... I'm not riding to IAH, MSY or DFW on a crj.

 

[Crzipilot]

Rico,

I don't really want to go back and look either, but the key term here is 900's can be operated (I'll give you that it only says affliate) with the same terms and conditions as the 700. 700 and above is listed as Large RJ's. LOA 91 has it broken out how many Large RJ's can be flown at an affliate or WO. In the WO paragraph it states, that the WO can fly their slated number of Large SJ's as well as the Affliate number of Large SJ. Hence same terms and conditions, they simply state it that way, so as to not have to rewrite what was in LOA 91, and get scope relief in the same manner as they got for the 700's. Ok, so I found it real quick. total of 115 Large SJ's can be operated, BUT a max of 50 at an Affliate, WO of 60, for a total of 115 somewhere, Limited to 50 at an Affliate. At the time Large SJ was 70 or less. LOA 93, Simply gave the scope relief for the 190 and the 900, and the ability for US to sell off the 190 if needed to an affliate, but only 25 of them. It also allowed the 900's to goto WO or affliate. Key term, in the paragraph is same terms and conditions as the 700/701. It also removed the Dec31,2006 deadline for placement. So in Essence, a total of 115 Large SJ's could be operated outside of mainline, at an Affliate or WO. Including the 170/190. Then comes the transition agreement, which basically brought the 190 back in house. It also lowerd the number of 900's down to a total of 93, with the clause that for every 2 ML birds over 360 (excluding 190's) they can add 3 900's.


6. Up to 55 Large SJs (CRJ-700/701 aircraft only) may be placed
into revenue operation by Participating Affiliate Carriers, provided
that they are placed into revenue service no later than December 31,
2006, and provided further that they are subject to the Jets for Jobs
Protocol with a 50% Jets for Jobs Percentage. The foregoing does
not preclude the placement of Large SJs in MDA or Large SJs at a
Participating Wholly Owned Carrier pursuant to the following
bullet point (paragraph 7). If it becomes evident to the Company
that it or a Participating Affiliate Carrier may not be able to comply
with the above in-service dates for SJs, the parties agree to meet and
discuss alternatives acceptable to the parties.
• 7. Up to 60 Large SJs, specifically limited to the CRJ-700/701, may
be placed into revenue operations 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 at a 50% Jets for Jobs
Percentage and with staffing, pay and seniority for bidding
procedures agreed by the Association and the Company as specified
in Attachment C, contained herein

 

[Rico]

Rereading that paragraph, the mention of the Affiliate carriers is only for the purpose of extending the DEC 06 deadline for adding aircraft. Not restricting them to Affiliate carriers only. I stand corrected.

But, still do not see where anyone seems to think JFJ no longer applies. Everything in writing points right back to having to particpate in that program if you want to add aircraft.

Mesa's HPX CRJ-900's were brought to here already staffed, not the same situation.

Still think it is a horrible idea. They are really uncomfortable aircraft, with little usable performance, that make us look like a joke of an airline... "Everyone line up in the jetway to wait for your bag".

This is our chance to lead the legacy carriers in the 90 seat market, getting into the E-190... Rather than following past mistakes with a bad plane made bigger (CRJ-900).

 

[algflyr]

OK, the transition agreement is used to modify the scope language in both the AAA and AWA pilot contracts. I'm not familiar with the AWA cantract, but the transition agreement modifies it so the CRJ-900's are allowed with 88 seats or 90 if no first class. I don't know if there were limits as to the number of airframes allowed under the AWA contract but now the combined total allowed under both contracts is 93 Large SJ's. The total number of RJ's allowed under LOA 91 has not changed. But there can only be 93 CRJ-900, or similar, allowed. The transition agreement also does not mention staffing these aircraft, so LOA 91 is still in effect, ie, subject to J4J. And also the provision for selling AAA Owned 190's is also gone under the transition agreement, not even the 25 can be sold anymore. They must be operated by ML. I would agree that PSA can get these aircraft, however, they will be subject to J4J. I also would think that US Airways would rather buy the 190's if they had to pay for the aircraft. Buy the 190's and outsource the 900's since there is no cash outlay in the outsourcing as opposed to buying the 900's for PSA. Here is the part of the Transition agreement that applies to this situation:

B. Section 1.D.2 of the America West collective bargaining agreement will be modified to increase the maximum seating capacity of jet aircraft flown by Express carriers to a maximum seating capacity of 88 seats (or up to 90 seats if there are no first class seats) and/or certificated maximum take off weight of up to 90,000 pounds.

C. The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements will be modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at any given time at Express Carriers except that for every two (2) aircraft in excess of the combined 360 aircraft (excluding EMB 190 aircraft) operated at both US Airways and America West, that are added to revenue service in the mainline fleet, the Company may allow three (3) additional CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at Express Carriers.

 

[Crzipilot]

Rico,

Agreed, there's nothing that states that these can go outside of ML w/o J4J staffing, thought you were saying something different. There were rumors starting to float that the PSA MEC thought they had found a loophole, allowing such to not be staffed J4J, or for them to not be included in the slotted bidding ratio.....

And furthermore, If I was to read the whole thread then I'd know what the H*ll I was talking about, as it seems I've been doing a circle here....carry on .....sorry...

 

[EMBFA]

So we ordered 190s. 25 of them. Someone else can opereate 25 of them "if US Airways can't complete the order". So in other words they can just do what they did with the E170s because they decide they don't want to complete the order?

And where are all of these CRJ900s going? If it was a situation of "fly these planes at PSA and we'll replace all the affiliates" then great.... but otherwise... where are they going to fly 93 of those things? on our 737 or E190 routes is where!

They are going to go somewhere so PSA is where they should be. But it just makes you wonder what they are trying to pull. Actually it doesnt because you know what there trying to pull.

 

[john john]

So we ordered 190s. 25 of them. Someone else can opereate 25 of them "if US Airways can't complete the order

The transition agreement allows for 25 E190 to be operated by express?

 

[algflyr]

The transition agreement allows for 25 E190 to be operated by express?

No, the transition agreement states ALL 190's can ONLY be operated by Mainline.

 

[Crzipilot]

The transition agreement allows for 25 E190 to be operated by express?

LOA 93 allowed the 190 to go to an express carrier. Luckily that stipulation didn't last long and the transition agreement closed that loophole the company had.

EMBFA,

Your exactly right. What is mgmt wanting to do here. They've stated the past 8 months "no changes at the WO's till some time in the future" Then they turn around and put this take or leave it deal on the table.

Parker says he hates mesa....<who doesn't> but I think he's stuck with him, Or I would imagine they have some very low performance targets within their contract, that they have to keep. Anyways, this thing is supposedly going to be 90 seats. the 190 99 seats. Mgmt is saying the 20 a/c will replace the Mesa 900's in clt. but the those 900's I guess will go back to phx??? ORrrrrrrrr could any leases come to expire in 2007 (737's) with these 900's and 190's (900 delivered 3 every 2 months : 190's 1/month.) picking up the slack. 18 900's 12 190's 30 more Large sj's next year. In another thread a while back boeingboy posted some numbers. Not sure if they are still accurate but they are interesting.

In 2007, East has 22 leases expiring and 18 leasor call options while West has 17 leases expiring and 6 leasor call options.

In 2008, East has 42 leases expiring and 18 leasor call options while West has 19 leases expiring.

In 2009, the deferred Airbus deliveries start


so again, who knows...