Jim, there is a certain number of EMB jets over 65 seats that are allowed to be flown by Republic (absorbed MidAtlantic) but not Piedmont. The company does want scope relief for the Q400 not only for added capacity reasons, but economical reasons as well. The current fleet of Q100's will completely cycle out at the end of 2011. As a pilot you know once you hit the NE coridor everyone is slowed down. The props economically perform better than any RJ or CRJ. Another twist is there is a tentative deadline on Oct 31 for LGA from the Port Authority which calls a certain percentage of flights which operate by a carrier to have a capacity of more than 50 seats. If not they will lose a certain percentage of slots. This deadline which already was extended from 1/31/07 may again be extended, but starting 11/5/07 Republic will start flying 8 slots with a combo of EMB170 and EMB175 aircraft which will be handled by Mainline above and below the wing. The Q400 is the preferred aircraft for Airways/Piedmont but they have been courted by ATR with the ATR72 which holds 64 seats as a plan B if no scope relief is provided.
Scope and Q400's
- Thread starter WSurf
- Start date
Jim, there is a certain number of EMB jets over 65 seats that are allowed to be flown by Republic (absorbed MidAtlantic) but not Piedmont. The company does want scope relief for the Q400 not only for added capacity reasons, but economical reasons as well. The current fleet of Q100's will completely cycle out at the end of 2011. As a pilot you know once you hit the NE coridor everyone is slowed down. The props economically perform better than any RJ or CRJ. Another twist is there is a tentative deadline on Oct 31 for LGA from the Port Authority which calls a certain percentage of flights which operate by a carrier to have a capacity of more than 50 seats. If not they will lose a certain percentage of slots. This deadline which already was extended from 1/31/07 may again be extended, but starting 11/5/07 Republic will start flying 8 slots with a combo of EMB170 and EMB175 aircraft which will be handled by Mainline above and below the wing. The Q400 is the preferred aircraft for Airways/Piedmont but they have been courted by ATR with the ATR72 which holds 64 seats as a plan B if no scope relief is provided.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Actually, the current scope language doesn't prevent PDT or PSA flying 170/175's or CRJ-900's. The scope language just says the company can operate those airplanes at Express - the company decides who operates them. Of course, as you remember, the 170's were allowed to go to an affiliate in scope relief back in 2004 (pre-BK2). Prior to that, they had to be flown by the MDA "division". That relief made the later deal with Republic possible.
The transition agreement (reached just before the POR was approved IIRC) increased the RJ size to 88 seats (90 if no F/C) and a weight restriction) that could be operated at Express, not just affiliates. HP's pilot CBA already provided for Mesa operating CRJ-900's (somewhere between 40 and 50 of them I think), but I no longer have that CBA so don't know if it was a seat limit or the CRJ-900 specifically. Anyway, this basically brought the East scope into line with the West scope, but also raised the number of these larger RJ's to 93 for the combined Express operation. I think the 170's at Republic plus the Mesa 900's would have exceeded the number in the HP CBA, hence necessitating the increased number. Of course, it also allows Republic to operate the E-175's in addition to the 170's (they meet the seat count and weight limits) but it was the company's choice to put them at Republic. The trans agreement just stipulates Express.
So, to sum that up......the 170's had to go to an affiliate, as requested by management, under the 2004 scope relief (LOA 91 maybe??). Then the Republic deal tied all the delivered, plus 3 built but undelivered 170's to them. But the trans agreement allowed additional 170's/CRJ-900's or the 175's to go to any Express carrier including PSA or PDT.
I was a little unclear before - previous management discussions of scope relief didn't include turboprop relief as far as I know. "Previous" meaning from Wolf thru Siegel and Lakefield including the transition agreement. I have no doubt that management currently would love to have turboprop scope relief.
Jim
Bob Martens said back in May during an Express Annual meeting is the plan for growth is "PSA will be in the form of jets and Piedmont in the form of turboprops". All the contract verbage I must admit is quite confusing at best especially with the two Chap 11's.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Missed your latest while I was typing.....
Unless they merge PSA and PDT, it does make sense to have one operate RJ's and the other operate turboprops (preferably the same brand they currently operate for commonality). Less training/maintenance/etc headaches that way. Personally, I'd love to see a true flow-through in place for both of them with the assumption that moving up to mainline would be better for their employees (although with the way things are going at mainline, that may be a bad assumption.....)
Jim
Unless they merge PSA and PDT, it does make sense to have one operate RJ's and the other operate turboprops (preferably the same brand they currently operate for commonality). Less training/maintenance/etc headaches that way. Personally, I'd love to see a true flow-through in place for both of them with the assumption that moving up to mainline would be better for their employees (although with the way things are going at mainline, that may be a bad assumption.....)
Jim
Keep in mind that as a condition of the failed 2000 UAUS merger, Allegheny, Piedmont and PSA were going to be sold to ACA (which later became Independence.) This was because United's flight attendant scope clause prohibited United from owning and operating aircraft not utilizing the United flight attendant seniority list. This was why United had to sell Air Wisconsin.
(Yes, you hear that, US Airways F/As? They have thier OWN scope clause! They don't hide behind gutless pilots! Do you even know what a scope clause is? Do you understand the impact the allowance of these jets has had on YOUR career, your bases, your blockholder/reserve status, your seniority, your furlough? Obviously not! Oh well. At least your FO prints a trip sheet for you, right? 🙄 )
They may want to keep thier options open in case they had to offload the two of them... hopefully not. It would be a shame to see our co-workers dumped off to Mesa or Colgan.
AA- owns Eagle, affilites out of STL only inherited from TWA
UA- owns none, all affiliates
DL- owns Comair, many affiliates
NW- spun off Pinnacle, just bought Mesaba?
CO- spun off ExpressJet, now has affiliates as well
Regional service is a much bigger part of the US network than any other, due to thier geography and weak hubs. Key markets are suited to small and medium size aircraft. That's why they of all the carriers should have thiers in-house instead of whoring out over half of thier network to crappy commuters. Embraers at mainline, Q series and CRJs at a single subsidiary... like Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz.
(Yes, you hear that, US Airways F/As? They have thier OWN scope clause! They don't hide behind gutless pilots! Do you even know what a scope clause is? Do you understand the impact the allowance of these jets has had on YOUR career, your bases, your blockholder/reserve status, your seniority, your furlough? Obviously not! Oh well. At least your FO prints a trip sheet for you, right? 🙄 )
They may want to keep thier options open in case they had to offload the two of them... hopefully not. It would be a shame to see our co-workers dumped off to Mesa or Colgan.
AA- owns Eagle, affilites out of STL only inherited from TWA
UA- owns none, all affiliates
DL- owns Comair, many affiliates
NW- spun off Pinnacle, just bought Mesaba?
CO- spun off ExpressJet, now has affiliates as well
Regional service is a much bigger part of the US network than any other, due to thier geography and weak hubs. Key markets are suited to small and medium size aircraft. That's why they of all the carriers should have thiers in-house instead of whoring out over half of thier network to crappy commuters. Embraers at mainline, Q series and CRJs at a single subsidiary... like Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz.
The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements with ALPA 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.
2clippedwings
Veteran
Slap and run!
Misinformed about which part of this statement?
The part about PSA being sold to ACA along with Piedmont/Allegheny. If the merger with United had gone through PSA was going to sold, transferred or whatever to Potomac airlines. Piedmont/Allegheny would have been sold to ACA.
Well, then provide the facts please. If I am mistaken or misinformed, it's not sadly. ?
Potomac already had its own certificate using former Allegheny Dash 8s until it would become DCAir. I don't remember PSA having any involvement with Potomac other than both being wholly owneds.
Are you saying United AFA did not/does not have such a scope clause, or that it doesn't have anything to do with Air Wisconsin?
Be a share bear with your happily informed info please. While we're waiting, here's some reading material.
United attendants vote to OK strikes
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 4, 2001 by FRANCINE KNOWLES
United Airlines' flight attendants have voted overwhelmingly to authorize targeted strikes if the world's largest airline proceeds with its planned merger with US Airways Group.
Those strikes could begin as early as mid-May, impacting travelers' Memorial Day plans, the Association of Flight Attendants warned Tuesday at a press conference at O'Hare Airport. Members sported T-shirts and pickets with the acronym CHAOS, which stands for Create Havoc Around Our System-the name for the union's campaign of targetd strikes.
The union, which is seeking a pay increase, says a merger would be an illegal change to its contract if it proceeds without a waiver and would free the union to strike immediately.
But United countered that to prevent flight disruptions it will take any legal and disciplinary actions necessary. Further, United said such strikes would be illegal and jeopardize flight attendants' careers.
The union, which represents 26,000 United Airlines flight attendants, said 97 percent of those casting ballots voted to authorize strikes. Seventy-two percent of eligible members cast ballots.
"The flight attendants have voted to uphold our contract and protect our careers," said AFA Master Executive Council President Linda Farrow. "If United illegally moves forward with its merger transaction, we will strike."
The union contract requires that any carrier that United owns and operates must be flown with flight attendants on the United flight attendant seniority list. Under the United flight attendant contract, that necessitates a contract amendment, the union contends.
But United argues the union is refusing to cooperate on the process and timing of integating seniority lists from United and US Airways as required under the contract. It contends the union is using the list issue to try to gain leverage in wage talks.
United sent letters to flight attendants last month, seeking to make its case and warn attendants against engaging in illegal job actions.
The flight attendants are in the fifth year of a 10-year contract with the airline. That contract allows negotiations on wages midway through its duration.
The union is seeking pay increases ranging from 13 percent to 30 percent for domestic flight attendants and between 7 percent and 34 percent for international.
But the company says United flight attendants already lead the industry in overall compensation. United also argues that because the flight attendants did not take rate cuts in exchange for participation in the company's employee stock ownership plan, pay restoration is not a consideration as it was in the case of United's pilots.
Last year, United's pilots approved a four-year contract that gave them raises of 21.5 percent to 28.5 percent, plus 4 percent annual increases.
"The AFA announcement today is an inappropriate attempt at a mid- contract pay raise by threatening actions that the AFA knows very well it is not entitled to initiate under the law," Bill Hobgood, a United senior vice president, said in a statement. "United is not going to be coerced in this way."
But the union contends it has an arbitration decision in its favor stemming from United's acquisition of Air Wisconsin. The union said the company's position in that situation was that it could buy and operate Air Wisconsin separately. The union disagreed.
United says the arbitration decision doesn't bolster the union's argument.
"The current situation is exactly the opposite of the Air Wisconsin contract arbitration case," the company said in a statement. "In the Air Wisconsin case, AFA successfully insisted that the United Airlines and Air Wisconsin flight attendant groups be merged under AFA merger policy. In the present case, AFA refuses to do precisely what it insisted should be done in the Air Wisconsin case."
LABOR PROVISION VIOLATION WILL COST UNITED $8.9 MILLION
By EDWARD WONG (NYT)
Published: May 7, 2002
An arbitrator has ruled that United Airlines, part of UAL, must pay flight attendants $8.9 million for violating the terms of a labor contract by employing attendants from Air Wisconsin after acquiring that airline, a union spokeswoman said yesterday. United bought Air Wisconsin in 1992 and operated it as a separate carrier, using Air Wisconsin's attendants rather than United's. The arbitrator ruled on April 27 that the move violated a labor agreement requiring United to use flight attendants from a seniority list. ''It really sends a message that the flight attendants stand behind their contract,'' said Dawn Deeks, a spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants. The $8.9 million will be split among attendants employed in 1992 and 1993, she said. A United spokesman said the airline had no comment. Air Wisconsin is now privately held, though it remains a feeder carrier for United. Edward Wong (NYT)
BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK
United Might Sell 3 Carriers As Part of US Airways Deal
By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
United Airlines is negotiating to sell three regional airlines now owned by US Airways to Atlantic Coast Airlines, one of United's largest commuter carriers, several people close to the talks said yesterday.
The discussions still could fail, one person said, but a second person said there might be an announcement as early as this week, though a price was still being negotiated. ''The feeling was that they were getting pretty close at the end of last week,'' this person said.
Potomac already had its own certificate using former Allegheny Dash 8s until it would become DCAir. I don't remember PSA having any involvement with Potomac other than both being wholly owneds.
Are you saying United AFA did not/does not have such a scope clause, or that it doesn't have anything to do with Air Wisconsin?
Be a share bear with your happily informed info please. While we're waiting, here's some reading material.
United attendants vote to OK strikes
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 4, 2001 by FRANCINE KNOWLES
United Airlines' flight attendants have voted overwhelmingly to authorize targeted strikes if the world's largest airline proceeds with its planned merger with US Airways Group.
Those strikes could begin as early as mid-May, impacting travelers' Memorial Day plans, the Association of Flight Attendants warned Tuesday at a press conference at O'Hare Airport. Members sported T-shirts and pickets with the acronym CHAOS, which stands for Create Havoc Around Our System-the name for the union's campaign of targetd strikes.
The union, which is seeking a pay increase, says a merger would be an illegal change to its contract if it proceeds without a waiver and would free the union to strike immediately.
But United countered that to prevent flight disruptions it will take any legal and disciplinary actions necessary. Further, United said such strikes would be illegal and jeopardize flight attendants' careers.
The union, which represents 26,000 United Airlines flight attendants, said 97 percent of those casting ballots voted to authorize strikes. Seventy-two percent of eligible members cast ballots.
"The flight attendants have voted to uphold our contract and protect our careers," said AFA Master Executive Council President Linda Farrow. "If United illegally moves forward with its merger transaction, we will strike."
The union contract requires that any carrier that United owns and operates must be flown with flight attendants on the United flight attendant seniority list. Under the United flight attendant contract, that necessitates a contract amendment, the union contends.
But United argues the union is refusing to cooperate on the process and timing of integating seniority lists from United and US Airways as required under the contract. It contends the union is using the list issue to try to gain leverage in wage talks.
United sent letters to flight attendants last month, seeking to make its case and warn attendants against engaging in illegal job actions.
The flight attendants are in the fifth year of a 10-year contract with the airline. That contract allows negotiations on wages midway through its duration.
The union is seeking pay increases ranging from 13 percent to 30 percent for domestic flight attendants and between 7 percent and 34 percent for international.
But the company says United flight attendants already lead the industry in overall compensation. United also argues that because the flight attendants did not take rate cuts in exchange for participation in the company's employee stock ownership plan, pay restoration is not a consideration as it was in the case of United's pilots.
Last year, United's pilots approved a four-year contract that gave them raises of 21.5 percent to 28.5 percent, plus 4 percent annual increases.
"The AFA announcement today is an inappropriate attempt at a mid- contract pay raise by threatening actions that the AFA knows very well it is not entitled to initiate under the law," Bill Hobgood, a United senior vice president, said in a statement. "United is not going to be coerced in this way."
But the union contends it has an arbitration decision in its favor stemming from United's acquisition of Air Wisconsin. The union said the company's position in that situation was that it could buy and operate Air Wisconsin separately. The union disagreed.
United says the arbitration decision doesn't bolster the union's argument.
"The current situation is exactly the opposite of the Air Wisconsin contract arbitration case," the company said in a statement. "In the Air Wisconsin case, AFA successfully insisted that the United Airlines and Air Wisconsin flight attendant groups be merged under AFA merger policy. In the present case, AFA refuses to do precisely what it insisted should be done in the Air Wisconsin case."
LABOR PROVISION VIOLATION WILL COST UNITED $8.9 MILLION
By EDWARD WONG (NYT)
Published: May 7, 2002
An arbitrator has ruled that United Airlines, part of UAL, must pay flight attendants $8.9 million for violating the terms of a labor contract by employing attendants from Air Wisconsin after acquiring that airline, a union spokeswoman said yesterday. United bought Air Wisconsin in 1992 and operated it as a separate carrier, using Air Wisconsin's attendants rather than United's. The arbitrator ruled on April 27 that the move violated a labor agreement requiring United to use flight attendants from a seniority list. ''It really sends a message that the flight attendants stand behind their contract,'' said Dawn Deeks, a spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants. The $8.9 million will be split among attendants employed in 1992 and 1993, she said. A United spokesman said the airline had no comment. Air Wisconsin is now privately held, though it remains a feeder carrier for United. Edward Wong (NYT)
BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK
United Might Sell 3 Carriers As Part of US Airways Deal
By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
United Airlines is negotiating to sell three regional airlines now owned by US Airways to Atlantic Coast Airlines, one of United's largest commuter carriers, several people close to the talks said yesterday.
The discussions still could fail, one person said, but a second person said there might be an announcement as early as this week, though a price was still being negotiated. ''The feeling was that they were getting pretty close at the end of last week,'' this person said.
