'scope' Plan Worries Pilots
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
You know 320 you really remind me of "Dave" You cannot possibly be related can you?
A year or so ago a good friend of mine and very,very dedicated employee of U was furloughed in a bad sort of way. Seems there was a group who were displaced from their city, they transferred to another city, the majority of them moving. The day they showed up for the first day of work at the new station they were handed their furlough notice.
The person sent an email to "Labor Friendly Dave" and being the nice guy he is he replied....."look at it as a sinking ship and I will throw anybody off to save it".
A year or so ago a good friend of mine and very,very dedicated employee of U was furloughed in a bad sort of way. Seems there was a group who were displaced from their city, they transferred to another city, the majority of them moving. The day they showed up for the first day of work at the new station they were handed their furlough notice.
The person sent an email to "Labor Friendly Dave" and being the nice guy he is he replied....."look at it as a sinking ship and I will throw anybody off to save it".
TheLarkAscending
Veteran
Will he, really? Then why is he still at the helm?AP Tech said:
And on a related matter, when would
now be a good time for Dave to leave? 
What is burning the airline to the ground is a management that hasn't figured out who or what US Airways was, is or should be. It has been going on for years. Siegel is the latest in a long line of incompetence. He still hasn't got it figured out.USA320Pilot said:
A number of frightened, gutless and selfish pilots are willing accomplices to the process. When honorable pilots step in to stop the nonsense and attempt to force the management to actually run the company the most vocal of the fearmongers arrive on scene to proclaim liquidation or some such catastrophe to rally his fellow cowards to continue to enable the incompetence of Siegel and his cronies.
After years of incompetent mismanagement having to listen to a union member tell others his union is "burning the airline to the ground" is truly pathetic. Blaming men who have given more than any other group in attempt to save the company he states we are responsible for "burning the airline to the ground."
Courage and conviction are sorely lacking in this pilot group. Allowing Siegel to continue his folly unchecked and held without responsibility is shameful. History is repeating itself before our very eyes and certain pilots are blind to it. Amazing.
But rest assured that those honorable men will continue to fight the incompetence. The recall of the NC will happen. A new one will be installed and they will DEMAND that we see a viable plan prior to any more givebacks. And they will DEMAND results. Not promises or projections. Results. From management. We do our jobs it is time they do theirs.
mr
ClueByFour
Veteran
I stand corrected.USA320Pilot said:
My point remains the same: Woerth does not have the best interests of the U pilot group in mind when he just happened to "drop in" on the MEC meeting. His only interest is the continued financial health of ALPA international.
I refer you to the former CC Air pilot group if you need any further ancillary evidence of this. Or the ALG/PDT pilots, who were recently strongarmed by Duane-O.
Sounds to me like they are realizing the house has been on fire for some time and is almost completely charred, and no more amount of water in the form of more concessions will save it. Maybe they are thinking they might as well let it burn down and go out instead of spreading to any more of the nighborhood.USA320Pilot said:
And maybe... just maybe... they are reflecting the will of the members? Could it possibly be they have more of a pulse on the feelings of the pilots than the almighty USAir320pilot? Or wouldn't that matter to you.
Bear96:
Last night the MEC voted to send out LOA 91, RJ Scope Relief, to the membership for ratification.
Also noteworthy, on March 10 ALPA Philadelphia Council 41 rejected a resolution by about a 3:1 margin brought by the Council Reps to recall the current Negotiating Committee. The Council membership did not want the resolution brought forward to the MEC. Then after the resolution was defeated John Crocker and Dan Von Bargen, along with the three other RC5 members, went against Council sentiment when they proffered a resolution yesterday to recall of the Negotiating Committee.
However, there is a resolution on the table now currently being debated and its appears the RC5 to keep the current NC intact and add three members.
Your analysis of the sentiment is incorrect.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Last night the MEC voted to send out LOA 91, RJ Scope Relief, to the membership for ratification.
Also noteworthy, on March 10 ALPA Philadelphia Council 41 rejected a resolution by about a 3:1 margin brought by the Council Reps to recall the current Negotiating Committee. The Council membership did not want the resolution brought forward to the MEC. Then after the resolution was defeated John Crocker and Dan Von Bargen, along with the three other RC5 members, went against Council sentiment when they proffered a resolution yesterday to recall of the Negotiating Committee.
However, there is a resolution on the table now currently being debated and its appears the RC5 to keep the current NC intact and add three members.
Your analysis of the sentiment is incorrect.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Question on a time frame. We were directed this week to get RJ training done asap since CRJ701s are supposed to be coming starting in a week or two. Is this a reasonable time frame to expect the PSA planes to start flying? Are the pilots (whoever they end up being) trained on the type so a reasonable startup of revenue flights could begin within 2 weeks or are we looking at a longer time frame if the agreement is reached by (when is the LOA 91 vote done?). I'm not really up on the LOAs for RJ relief and was curious if this plan is plausible.USA320Pilot said:
Thanks for the info.
Speaking of LOA91 and LOA83, that I have seen posted several time, by you know who, What the hell do they mean???? :huh:
Here is a what LOA 91, "Consolidated Small Jet Agreement," is all about. This LOA allows RJ scope relief to the company in the following areas:
1. If the CRJ 701's positions now going to PSA are pulled by GECAS, or if PSA airplanes or sold, they can be bought by our Affiliate carriers (Mesa), thus staying in U colors, and requiring the acquiring Affiliate carrier to provide J4J's for U pilots (this applies to any wholly-owned, Piedmont and Allegheny, as well, but they are not scheduled to receive SJ's)
2. If the EMB 170's positions now going to MDA are pulled by GECAS, or if MDA aircraft are sold, they can be bought by our Affiliate carriers, thus staying in U colors, and requiring the acquiring Affiliate carrier to provide J4J's for U pilots.
3. If a wholly-owned is sold (PSA, for example), 100% of its pilots (and their contract) will go with the sale to the new acquiring carrier/owner. If the acquiring carrier is an Affiliate, J4J's will apply for all future vacancies.
4. If MDA is sold, 100% of its pilots (and their contract) will go with the sale to the new acquiring carrier/owner. If the acquiring carrier is an Affiliate, J4J's will apply for all future vacancies.
5. What MDA loses is fragmentation rights associated with a sale of some of its airplanes, with those fragmentation rights being replaced by the J4J's program. There is no change in the Mainline fragmentation protections, and any sale of MDA assets will be used as credit towards the 15% trigger that would apply to mainline assets if they too would be sold.
Additionally, PSA is allowed to increase its Large SJ fleet from 25 to 60 (for a total of 85 SJ's at PSA), increasing the total authorized Large SJ's fleet from 165 to 200, but with no increase in the already allowed limit of 315 Medium/Large SJ's that the company can fly in our colors.
And that's about it. Scope protections can't prevent GECAS from pulling delivery positions of these CRJ's or EMB's, nor can it guarantee that these planes, once pulled, will go to our Affiliate carriers. Furthermore, all the Scope in the world can't prevent the company from selling PSA or MDA if they so desire. All Scope can do is allow our Affiliates to use these planes under our colors, allowing us a revenue steam from these SJ's and a J4J's program.
Why did we have to trade MDA fragmentation protection for a J4J's program? Because GECAS is the secured creditor of these new EMB 170's, and they wanted the ability for U to sell these airplanes with no strings attached (except J4J's), thus readily finding a buyer for these EMB's if the need should arise (like prior to going into bankruptcy) in order to protect GECAS's investment.
Finally, if GECAS pulls deliveries and sells them to another carrier who is not one of our Affiliates, like Republic (United Express), then, of course, no J4J's program would apply as this is only an arrangement that we have with our Affiliate carriers. And this is exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening by providing GECAS the ability to sell these pulled aircraft to an Affiliate and thus still fly, with this LOA 91 Scope relief, under our colors.
And that takes care of that 38 page LOA 91 document.
Now, for Attachment A. The company agrees to the following:
-------------------------
ATTACHMENT A
Company Small Jet Proposal
1. Tag Along: The Company will schedule and coordinate a three-way meeting between the Company, RSA, and ALPA. The meeting will be held Friday, March 5 in New York City with RSA attorneys, Company Representatives (John Luth and Liz Lanier), and representatives of ALPA. The parties will endeavor to expeditiously resolve all outstanding Tag Along issues. If necessary, follow up meetings will be held.
2. Jump Seat: The Company will participate in the industry off line jump seat plan: ATA Cockpit Security System (CASS). Once this process is approved, the Company shall apply to TSA to participate after it determines the cost of participation in the program. (See attached E-mail entitled "CASS System".)
3. Alternative Access: The Company agrees to implement a procedure arranging for alternative access to secure areas at pilot domicile airports. (See attached letter)
4. Commuter Policy: The parties will negotiate and implement a Commuter Policy by no later than July 1, 2004.
5. Trip Construction: The Company and Association will establish a working group to review pairing construction parameters with the objective of seeking mutually beneficial improvements to the quality and efficiency of pairings.
Alternative Access Letter
This letter confirms the Company's commitment to work directly with ALPA to obtain alternative access to secure areas at all pilot domicile airports. Each Chief Pilot will meet with a designated ALPA representative within two weeks of the effective date of this letter. The Chief Pilot and the ALPA designated representative shall determine how to best achieve pilot access to secure areas of the airport. Meetings with the TSA, airport authority or other necessary parties shall be expeditiously arranged. The goal shall be to have an acceptable mode of alternative access in place at all domiciles within 60 days of the initial meeting. If this is not achievable, the Chief Pilot and the ALPA designated representative will submit a complete report to the MEC fully explaining the delay and stating how access will be obtained.
Further, the Company commits to participate in the funding of the cost (up to $70 per pilot) of ID Cards, Badges, or other designation necessary to effectuate this policy.
Resepctfully,
USA320Pilot
1. If the CRJ 701's positions now going to PSA are pulled by GECAS, or if PSA airplanes or sold, they can be bought by our Affiliate carriers (Mesa), thus staying in U colors, and requiring the acquiring Affiliate carrier to provide J4J's for U pilots (this applies to any wholly-owned, Piedmont and Allegheny, as well, but they are not scheduled to receive SJ's)
2. If the EMB 170's positions now going to MDA are pulled by GECAS, or if MDA aircraft are sold, they can be bought by our Affiliate carriers, thus staying in U colors, and requiring the acquiring Affiliate carrier to provide J4J's for U pilots.
3. If a wholly-owned is sold (PSA, for example), 100% of its pilots (and their contract) will go with the sale to the new acquiring carrier/owner. If the acquiring carrier is an Affiliate, J4J's will apply for all future vacancies.
4. If MDA is sold, 100% of its pilots (and their contract) will go with the sale to the new acquiring carrier/owner. If the acquiring carrier is an Affiliate, J4J's will apply for all future vacancies.
5. What MDA loses is fragmentation rights associated with a sale of some of its airplanes, with those fragmentation rights being replaced by the J4J's program. There is no change in the Mainline fragmentation protections, and any sale of MDA assets will be used as credit towards the 15% trigger that would apply to mainline assets if they too would be sold.
Additionally, PSA is allowed to increase its Large SJ fleet from 25 to 60 (for a total of 85 SJ's at PSA), increasing the total authorized Large SJ's fleet from 165 to 200, but with no increase in the already allowed limit of 315 Medium/Large SJ's that the company can fly in our colors.
And that's about it. Scope protections can't prevent GECAS from pulling delivery positions of these CRJ's or EMB's, nor can it guarantee that these planes, once pulled, will go to our Affiliate carriers. Furthermore, all the Scope in the world can't prevent the company from selling PSA or MDA if they so desire. All Scope can do is allow our Affiliates to use these planes under our colors, allowing us a revenue steam from these SJ's and a J4J's program.
Why did we have to trade MDA fragmentation protection for a J4J's program? Because GECAS is the secured creditor of these new EMB 170's, and they wanted the ability for U to sell these airplanes with no strings attached (except J4J's), thus readily finding a buyer for these EMB's if the need should arise (like prior to going into bankruptcy) in order to protect GECAS's investment.
Finally, if GECAS pulls deliveries and sells them to another carrier who is not one of our Affiliates, like Republic (United Express), then, of course, no J4J's program would apply as this is only an arrangement that we have with our Affiliate carriers. And this is exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening by providing GECAS the ability to sell these pulled aircraft to an Affiliate and thus still fly, with this LOA 91 Scope relief, under our colors.
And that takes care of that 38 page LOA 91 document.
Now, for Attachment A. The company agrees to the following:
-------------------------
ATTACHMENT A
Company Small Jet Proposal
1. Tag Along: The Company will schedule and coordinate a three-way meeting between the Company, RSA, and ALPA. The meeting will be held Friday, March 5 in New York City with RSA attorneys, Company Representatives (John Luth and Liz Lanier), and representatives of ALPA. The parties will endeavor to expeditiously resolve all outstanding Tag Along issues. If necessary, follow up meetings will be held.
2. Jump Seat: The Company will participate in the industry off line jump seat plan: ATA Cockpit Security System (CASS). Once this process is approved, the Company shall apply to TSA to participate after it determines the cost of participation in the program. (See attached E-mail entitled "CASS System".)
3. Alternative Access: The Company agrees to implement a procedure arranging for alternative access to secure areas at pilot domicile airports. (See attached letter)
4. Commuter Policy: The parties will negotiate and implement a Commuter Policy by no later than July 1, 2004.
5. Trip Construction: The Company and Association will establish a working group to review pairing construction parameters with the objective of seeking mutually beneficial improvements to the quality and efficiency of pairings.
Alternative Access Letter
This letter confirms the Company's commitment to work directly with ALPA to obtain alternative access to secure areas at all pilot domicile airports. Each Chief Pilot will meet with a designated ALPA representative within two weeks of the effective date of this letter. The Chief Pilot and the ALPA designated representative shall determine how to best achieve pilot access to secure areas of the airport. Meetings with the TSA, airport authority or other necessary parties shall be expeditiously arranged. The goal shall be to have an acceptable mode of alternative access in place at all domiciles within 60 days of the initial meeting. If this is not achievable, the Chief Pilot and the ALPA designated representative will submit a complete report to the MEC fully explaining the delay and stating how access will be obtained.
Further, the Company commits to participate in the funding of the cost (up to $70 per pilot) of ID Cards, Badges, or other designation necessary to effectuate this policy.
Resepctfully,
USA320Pilot
That all sounds like just a bunch of comlicated BS. Keep it Simple. Sounds like everything is intended to keep everyone confused.
By the way, Captain, if Pilots get this access through TSA, do F/A's follow along with the so called "ME TOO" clause?
Also, I don't understand this, Pilots all ready fly jumpseat and get First Class seats if available. What is no new about this???? :huh:
By the way, Captain, if Pilots get this access through TSA, do F/A's follow along with the so called "ME TOO" clause?
Also, I don't understand this, Pilots all ready fly jumpseat and get First Class seats if available. What is no new about this???? :huh:
Similar threads
