Wholly Owneds to get Jets!!

ONTHESTREET

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
198
0
Just finished reading the Bankrupsy filing/Pension termination notice sent from the company.
It appears that the W/O''s will indeed get RJs. They will be paid for from the PILOT PENSION!
Exhibit B, Page 6 and 7, Paragraph 11. And I quote Debtor will grow its Regional fleet from 70 units to 300 or more units............To achieve this, the debtors will need to finance approximately $3 to $4 billion or more of regional jet purchases. This financing would not be available to the debtors if the current (Pilot) pension contributions were to remain in place.
As I read this it appears, and I stress appears, to me that U does indeed have the ability to continue funding the pilots pension, and that they are choosing to cancel it and use the money to buy 300 rj''s. To be deployed to the W/o''s and affiliates. Which would not be flown by the pilots who are buying them.
Guess I should have stayed at the Wholly owned, I would be getting a shiny new jet out of the deal instead of paying for one!!!!!!
Signed,
Disgusted
 
Soryy misspoke, The filing came from the Bankrupsy court, Eastern District of Va.

Case # 02-83984-ssm
 
Hmmm, The wholly owns getting jets? They might let us get new stuff. Wow, I don't think I can fly a pure jet! (only the mainline boys know how). I love flying my 15 year old props that the pax hate.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 11:12:36 PM ONTHESTREET wrote:

It appears that the W/O's will indeed get RJs. They will be paid for from the PILOT PENSION!
----------------
[/blockquote]

I thought the pilot pension was funding the other union pensions?
 
From the outside, it seems like some of the other groups might have been funding the pilots wages/pensions for a few years.
 
I prefer to think that any supposed new regional jets placed here at the wholly owneds will have been paid for with the decades of safe + profitable operations we have provided, and will provide...

But I know that doesnt matter in an AirwaysPilotCentric Universe. I expected backlash from a few Airways pilots on here with a overactive sense of entitlement. But why so little outcry has emerged when the company instead pays to hire outside companies to fly hundreds of RJ's is puzzeling. But it probably has to do with the misguided notion that if Mesa buys + flies an RJ, that it somehow doesnt cost US Airways just as much (please).

Chances are that the majority of said aircraft in this motion are meant to be flown at MidAtlantic/Mainline Express. Thus they WILL be your planes, and WILL be flown by by your pilots, duh...

Just because your union negotiated a B-scale trying to save the pension, there is no reason to blame the wholly owneds. trust me, we have no control over anything going on here
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 10:26:30 AM DakotaHC8 wrote:

I prefer to think that any supposed new regional jets placed here at the wholly owneds will have been paid for with the decades of safe + profitable operations we have provided, and will provide...

But I know that doesnt matter in an AirwaysPilotCentric Universe. I expected backlash from a few Airways pilots on here with a overactive sense of entitlement. But why so little outcry has emerged when the company instead pays to hire outside companies to fly hundreds of RJ's is puzzeling. But it probably has to do with the misguided notion that if Mesa buys + flies an RJ, that it somehow doesnt cost US Airways just as much (please).

Chances are that the majority of said aircraft in this motion are meant to be flown at MidAtlantic/Mainline Express. Thus they WILL be your planes, and WILL be flown by by your pilots, duh...

Just because your union negotiated a B-scale trying to save the pension, there is no reason to blame the wholly owneds. trust me, we have no control over anything going on here
----------------
[/blockquote]

Alright crowd, I was not bashing anyone, especially the W/O's (Used to be one) Just pointing out that the company is not being truthful with ANY group.

You are probably right, All the BK statement says is that the jets will be going to USAir regional affiliates. So using the companies track record, that probably means Freedom and Republic.

As to entitlement. Give me a break, When I hired on with the W/O I never expected to fly a jet. If we got them fine but it was not part of the deal! When I hired on with ML, I also never expected to be forced to give up my job so the W/O's could fly jets.

But just to get this straight, What you are saying is that it is alright for the company to screw the guys that have been here for 30+ years so you can trade in your Dash 8 for a jet?

Most of us were playing in the sandbox (or not even born yet) when these guys took their first checkride with this company, and you actually have the gonads to think that they have a false sense of entitlement in this issue?

But dont worry, I'm sure Dave has a nice pink slip for you guys too after he puts enough of the jets at freedom and Republic.

have a nice day.
 
Where did it specifically say "Wholly-owned?" Could it not have said "Mid Atlantic?"

Speculation has gotten old now. Until I can smell it, eat it, or breath it, it's still a pipe dream!
 
>>>But just to get this straight, What you are saying is that it is alright for the company to screw the guys that have been here for 30+ years so you can trade in your Dash 8 for a jet?[[<

Which company? As the term "company" seems to be selectivly used depending upon the moment. One moment the wholly owneds are separate from US Airways and deserve no different treatment than any other express carrier, while the next moment we are all one big family and as such we should sacrifice our own needs to make life better for our "big brothers".

If we are really separate, what happens on our property should not be any of your concern. We should have every right to fly whatever OUR management places in front of us ----] with no interference or malice from "outside" pilot groups. You do not fret over what Continental Express or Comair flies do you? Why should the wholly owneds be viewed differently?

Ahhhhhh, but we are not really separate afterall... You only consider us so when it benifits you to do so, right? When the time comes to "cut the capital pie", Airways pilots cringe at the thought of a single dollar heading our direction no matter the logic or need. When we ask for a fair and workable flow thru to be included in past negotiations... Your leadship instead trades scope relief (to outsiders) for contractual improvements at Airways instead.


Are YOU saying that:

1. Our 30 year veterans should also get screwed right out of work as they phase out the uncompetitive equipment we now fly?

2. We are supposed to be the ONLY airlines still flying turboprops when ALL of our competition has moved into the "jet age", just to somehow preserve jobs/pension/ego at Airways?

3. You would preferr further flying and profits OUTSOURCED to outside companies instead?

Im real glad that you were one of the apprx 2-3% or recent hires at mainline that came from one of the three wholly owneds. You should feel unique, but you should not feel entitled to anything. With an established flow thru in place that would have tied our pilot groups together (and prevented much of the acrimony that now exists), BOTH of us would have been fully ENTITLED to return to our previous positions at the wholly owneds in an orderly and fair manner.

What I am trying to get across is that the long history of self interest and greed has paved the road to the relations your pilot group now has with the various other employee groups. I would have thought that recent lessons would have shown the advantages to working together. But instead I am disheartened when a single ray of hope in our own gloomy wholly owned existence brings forth nothing but jealosy and bitterness.

Have your forgotten the agreement we now have in place? Half of any jet jobs created on our property will belong to your pilots, even though it might put our own pilots on the street. Forcing us to agree to such a thing, and then further complaining about the injustice of it all just makes you look really selfish.

Put it this way, compare our messed up situation with what the Continental and Continental Express pilots have. No mainline CAL pilot is without a flying position at either CAL or COEX by choice, and the future growth of COEX will recall the remaining furloughed COEX pilots. Of course most of the CAL pilots flying at COEX came from COEX, and just returned to their previous jobs ----] just the way a flow thru is supposed to work. The difference is that there is a real working relationship between those two pilot groups while we still have the jealosy and bitterness I spoke of earlier.

Hope this makes our point of view a little more clear, we are not the enemy, but we wish to feed our families and remain employed just like yourself. If you want to keep us at arms length most of the time, do not be surprised when we do our own thing.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 12:59:51 PM DakotaHC8 wrote:

Are YOU saying that:

1. Our 30 year veterans should also get screwed right out of work as they phase out the uncompetitive equipment we now fly?

Answer: No, and no one has a problem with you flying jets. The problem comes from you flying our routes with jets that were paid for from already EARNED pilot pension money. Routes passed to you would be no problem either if it were not for the fact that 1800 ML pilots were sacrificed so you could have the routes. It is no different than what Freedom is doing to you guys.

2. We are supposed to be the ONLY airlines still flying turboprops when ALL of our competition has moved into the "jet age", just to somehow preserve jobs/pension/ego at Airways?

Answer: No, You should have been jet long ago. (Sorry I did not get to vote on that one) Jets are not the issue, JOBS are the issue. No matter how you retionalize it these 300 RJ's ARE U ML pilot jobs permanently gone. Not a single ML pilot would have a problem with a 1 for 1 replacement of your Dash-8's. even without J4J. Wolf first told ALPA that if we did not give him 300 RJ's for the commuters that he would buy them anyhow and replace all props, and then the rest would go on ML. We said heck yes, fine with us. We would fly RJ's with no problem, our only stipulation was that the Wholly Owneds got the jets and not contract carriers.......Wolf recended that "offer" very quick. Turns out he was just trying to threaten us with it. He did not think we would go for it and I think it surprised him.

3. You would preferr further flying and profits OUTSOURCED to outside companies instead?

Answer: No, see above. I am not an ALPA rep but according to what ALPA sent they tried to send all the origional 70 jets to the W/O's and Wolf absoulutley would not go for it. By this time all ML knew we needed the jets so they settled on the premise that the next 140 would be W/O


Im real glad that you were one of the apprx 2-3% or recent hires at mainline that came from one of the three wholly owneds. You should feel unique, but you should not feel entitled to anything. With an established flow thru in place that would have tied our pilot groups together (and prevented much of the acrimony that now exists), BOTH of us would have been fully ENTITLED to return to our previous positions at the wholly owneds in an orderly and fair manner.


Most of us at BWI crew base signed a petition to get a flow thru for the W/O's. (even had a web site for it) We were unsuccessful in a full flow thru but did get an agreement providing preferential hiring for the W/O's. I do not remember the exact ratio but it was substantial. Two weeks later the UA-U merger was announced and all our hiring ceased. To my knowledge this agreement is still in effect on your behalf, should we ever hire again. (I will try to find the letter ALPA sent me and post the ratio for you. It was part of the origional 70 jet agreement I beleive.)



Have your forgotten the agreement we now have in place? Half of any jet jobs created on our property will belong to your pilots, even though it might put our own pilots on the street. Forcing us to agree to such a thing, and then further complaining about the injustice of it all just makes you look really selfish.

Answer:
Again alot of us did a lot to try and help the W/O's, Your above statement can be directed at your group as well.




The pension is seen as Already earned money (Which it is) and I am seeing terms such as "Theives" being used on the pilot boards to describe mgmt. I think you might want to rethink your opinion of obtaining RJ's through the use of a bunch of 58 year olds retirement money. This is getting very ugly. Most I have talked to say park-em. I hope something gets worked out so that we all are not out of work.

For what its worth I will still support the W/O's when or if I ever get recalled. There are a few W/O pilots I have met in the past year or so that I will NOT support though.
 
" The pension is seen as Already earned money (Which it is) and I am seeing terms such as "Theives" being used on the pilot boards to describe mgmt. I think you might want to rethink your opinion of obtaining RJ's through the use of a bunch of 58 year olds retirement money. This is getting very ugly. Most I have talked to say park-em. I hope something gets worked out so that we all are not out of work. "
Great post !!! No pension = NO FLY !!!
 
Also LOA 79 calls for negotiations on a flow thru agreement for the W/O's to be agreeded upon by your MEC's.

Shortly after this LOA was when things started going down the toilet so I do not know if those negotiations ever took place.
 
Dakota,

I found the info in our contract.

LOA #79 Interim small jet agreement, Paragraph 4

It states that one out of every six pilots hired MUST come from one of our wholly owned carriers.

Not a huge number but much better than zero requirement. We were looking for a higher ratio but didnt get it. It was to be included in future agreements.

Remember we gave up contractual items during LOA 79 and we thought you were important enough to include in it!!!

You should do a little research before you bash the mainline guys too much.

And yes this agreement is still in effect for you if we ever turn this pig around. maybe next time we can get 50% or even a full flow thru.
 
Give me a break!! The RJs are a much needed infusion to Airways group! They are not just making a whimsical choice here.ONTHESTREET is exactly where we will be if the RJs are not in the picture. No matter how much we debate this it is am inevitable requirement in today's aviation industry!! I for one think DS is doing a great job of salvaging what was going the way of the Titanic.

JmE