US Airways' motivation to grat the East piltos a pay raise?

[wings396]

Ah, what the heck the Pilot group has already let thet the Express operate RJ's that are the size of an F-100 or a
DC-9, so what are a few more 50+ seat Props going to hurt at this point? You guys kill me sometimes. The flood gates were opened long ago, and now you are taking a stand with Turboprops.. :blink: Does the term " Too little, too late" mean anything to you? Now that the combined Mainline fleet has been trimmed to nearly 100 A/C less than it was 18 years ago, you guys are actually going to play lets' make a turboprop deal with the company. Maybe the tough guys at ALPA should have done this BEFORE we lost countless Mainline markets and stations to Express operators. IF the ALPA leadership had ANY gonads, they would have put the brakes on this Express crap long ago. The scope of an express operated A/C should have never been permitted to exceed anthing larger than a DH-8 to begin with. Maybe you guys will wake up when they figure out a way to have Express operate flights accross the pond!

 

[USA320Pilot]

Barberpole,

I agree the payrates are terrible, but you can thank what US Airways pilots call the RC4 and bankruptcy for causing that problem.

During Bankruptcy II US Airways offered the Negotiating Committee the AWA rates and the RC4 said "no". Now today the US Airways pilots pay rate is less than the AWA pilots.

In regard to a 55 retirment age even with that I would have a ways to go to forced retirement.

Nonetheless, US Airways has approached ALPA about flying the Q-400, this would require ALPA East scope relief, it is not covered by the Transition Agreement, and the Company and ALPA are in negotiations regarding East pay raises outside of JNC talks.

The Company has something the East Union wants and the East Union has something the Company wants. And as Jack Stepahn said, "how management, the AWA pilot leadership or any other party can single out our pilot group and endorse this injustice (separate pay scales between East and West pilots) is inconceivable."

What is interesting is it appears the West pilots will be stuck with C-2004 pay and stagnation unless something is done to reach an agreement regarding the Nicolau Award.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

P.S. Another free 700UW day!

 

[A320 Driver]

Ah, what the heck the Pilot group has already let thet the Express operate RJ's that are the size of an F-100 or a
DC-9, so what are a few more 50+ seat Props going to hurt at this point? You guys kill me sometimes. The flood gates were opened long ago, and now you are taking a stand with Turboprops.. :blink: Does the term " Too little, too late" mean anything to you? Now that the combined Mainline fleet has been trimmed to nearly 100 A/C less than it was 18 years ago, you guys are actually going to play lets' make a turboprop deal with the company. Maybe the tough guys at ALPA should have done this BEFORE we lost countless Mainline markets and stations to Express operators. IF the ALPA leadership had ANY gonads, they would have put the brakes on this Express crap long ago. The scope of an express operated A/C should have never been permitted to exceed anthing larger than a DH-8 to begin with. Maybe you guys will wake up when they figure out a way to have Express operate flights accross the pond!

The only thing wrong with your comments are they are about a decade too late. We need to reel in this RJ/SJ flying to a point inside our W/O borders. All things considered and taking a good look at where we are, I think we need to update Piedmont's fleet to include the new turboprops IF the company plays ball with us on the pay parity issue. IMO, Piedmont should have had a share of the RJ/SJ flying, but it just didn't happen.

All indicators are we are stuck with this contract for a long time, but we are not necessarily stuck with the pay rates and vacation. Company wants Q400s for Piedmont, fine, but we can't just give the scope away. They need to give something for it. This is all within the realm of possibility. Of all the wholly owns, Piedmont has taken it in the shorts pretty bad. Those are good guys over there and we need to support them as best we can within the confines of our working agreement.

Just my opinion...

A320 Driver B)

 

[nycbusdriver]

As far as labor peace, there seems to be an interesting sentiment change if you look closely at recent code-a-phone W.A.R. reports.

For example, on June 21 the code-a-phone told pilots “Carrying excess fuel means carrying extra weight. The flight plan header shows the cost of carrying additional fuel (weight). More importantly, this extra fuel may reduce allowable payload, which imposes additional loss of revenue. This cost multiplied by thousands of flights per year adds up quickly. It costs fuel to carry fuel.â€￾

Also noteworthy, on July 7 the code-a-phone told pilots “US Airways’ Operational Priorities were: Safety, Passenger Comfort, Schedule, and Efficiency.â€￾

It appears that ALPA has changed its posture from one of a more hostile sentiment to one of working closer with the Company’

The necessary legality through the use of subtlety is just completely lost on you, isn't it?

 

[A320 Driver]

The necessary legality through the use of subtlety is just completely lost on you, isn't it?

Got your point, but completely missed his.


A320 Driver B)

 

[LGA / 037]

They can order it and just not use all the seats.

Per Bob Martens, that is not an option. They would go with the ATR72 configured for 64 customers.

 

[Swaayze]

Great. More scope relief. I'm sure that'll help mainline's prospects long term.

 

[cageyjames]

You pilots kill me. Why you continue to let RJs on the property is beyond me. Parker must be laughing his ass off at you guys, but I guess Lakefield told him how big of pushovers you are.

You are getting played by management and in the end they'll hold all the cards. Start replacing A320/B737s with Q400s and E190s. In the end the average salary will decrease and employee costs will go down.

As time goes on I'm becoming more impressed with Tempe (though I won't fly their crappy airlline). This is a textbook example as how to reduce pilot costs.

 

[hp_fa]

I agree the payrates are terrible, but you can thank what US Airways pilots call the RC4 and bankruptcy for causing that problem.

During Bankruptcy II US Airways offered the Negotiating Committee the AWA rates and the RC4 said "no". Now today the US Airways pilots pay rate is less than the AWA pilots.

Here we go again...

 

[wings396]

The only thing wrong with your comments are they are about a decade too late. We need to reel in this RJ/SJ flying to a point inside our W/O borders. All things considered and taking a good look at where we are, I think we need to update Piedmont's fleet to include the new turboprops IF the company plays ball with us on the pay parity issue. IMO, Piedmont should have had a share of the RJ/SJ flying, but it just didn't happen.

All indicators are we are stuck with this contract for a long time, but we are not necessarily stuck with the pay rates and vacation. Company wants Q400s for Piedmont, fine, but we can't just give the scope away. They need to give something for it. This is all within the realm of possibility. Of all the wholly owns, Piedmont has taken it in the shorts pretty bad. Those are good guys over there and we need to support them as best we can within the confines of our working agreement.

Just my opinion...

A320 Driver B)

I fully agree that my comments are a bit late, and that is exactly my point here. Given everthing that has taken place in the last decade, making an issue about Piedmont operating Q-400's today is just as outdated and pointless. With all of the "Damage" that has been done already, what harm can permitting some Q-400's do? I find it laughable that ALPA kept some scope language in your contracts pertaining to props, while the RJ's were showing up on the property at an alarming rate. It is kind of like telling a bank robber that you can take all of the cash, but please don't steal any pens on your way out the door. It just burns me up that ALPA is now looking to make a deal about scope language to get what is left of their membership a raise, while thousands of Mainline jobs have already been lost due to the RJ's being operated by contract carriers. I can say that the elimination of dozens of Mainline stations would not have been feasible had it not been for the lovely toy jets that started popping up like weeds. I would never have been concerned about having 737 and A-320 routes being replaced by a prop. :down:

 

[Freighterguynow]

.. you would happily agree to fly 'for years' under our sub-standard payrates just to keep the Nicalou award from being implemented.

The 'reward' is so bad we're better off under LOA 93.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I can say that the elimination of dozens of Mainline stations would not have been feasible had it not been for the lovely toy jets that started popping up like weeds.

What's really diabolical is that the replacement jets never made money either. Maybe there are individual markets where the RJ was profitable and a mainline jet wasn't, but I'll wager that you could count those instances with one hand. Why on Earth has ALPA allowed this to generate to such a pitiful situation? It's not like the RJ pilots are benefitting, and we know what the situation has done to mainline jobs. And we also know that management knows the RJs are too expensive, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to get the 90 seat CRJs and EMBs. I say let Parker and the other managers choke on their 50 seaters. Let them explain the brilliance of the RJ model to shareholders when Airtran, jetBlue and SWA are flying high without replacement jets.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

In regard to a 55 retirment[sic] age even with that I would have a ways to go to forced retirement.

Must be a new, creative method of calculating. :wacko: must have forgotten that age was mentioned in newspaper when quoted. Wonder if that selective forgetfulness could be age related?

 

[wings396]

What's really diabolical is that the replacement jets never made money either. Maybe there are individual markets where the RJ was profitable and a mainline jet wasn't, but I'll wager that you could count those instances with one hand. Why on Earth has ALPA allowed this to generate to such a pitiful situation? It's not like the RJ pilots are benefitting, and we know what the situation has done to mainline jobs. And we also know that management knows the RJs are too expensive, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to get the 90 seat CRJs and EMBs. I say let Parker and the other managers choke on their 50 seaters. Let them explain the brilliance of the RJ model to shareholders when Airtran, jetBlue and SWA are flying high without replacement jets.

I agree that not all of the Mainline jets were profitable, but many were. The big motivation to replace mainline jets with RJ's, were the wages that Mainline station people earned compared to Express agents. Get rid of the Mainline flights, and the station personel are gone as well. Then we can let the Express carrier hire their own people for poverty level wages. The entire RJ industry craze, was nothing more than a tool for the airlines to use against their employees. Sad to say, but the Pilot group never really cared about the station jobs that were being lost due to their "scope relief". They continued to fly around the system, while the people who handled their A/C were losing jobs by the thousands.

 

[DCaf]

As far as labor peace, there seems to be an interesting sentiment change if you look closely at recent code-a-phone W.A.R. reports.

For example, on June 21 the code-a-phone told pilots “Carrying excess fuel means carrying extra weight. The flight plan header shows the cost of carrying additional fuel (weight). More importantly, this extra fuel may reduce allowable payload, which imposes additional loss of revenue. This cost multiplied by thousands of flights per year adds up quickly. It costs fuel to carry fuel.â€￾

Also noteworthy, on July 7 the code-a-phone told pilots “US Airways’ Operational Priorities were: Safety, Passenger Comfort, Schedule, and Efficiency.â€￾

Code-a-phone from June 21 is just a not-so-veiled primer on how to waste fuel.
Code-a-phone from July 7 just says be as inefficient as possible.
I don't see any change in sentiment.