Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Allegheny Furloughs?
- Thread starter ALGFLYR
- Start date
- Watchers 10
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
KingAirKiddo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Posts
- 465
328dude
Still turning two
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,647
Ok, say you have 30 36-seater Dash 8's. That equals 1080 seats. Say in the same equation you have 4 crews per airplane, so 30x4 equals. 120 pilots. US Air wants to park say 20 RJ's at 50 seats on the property. 21 RJ's at 50 seats a pop is 1050. So the seats are made up and you have 9 airplanes that you can get rid of. So 9 Dash 8's at 4 crews per plane equals 36 pilots on the street. On top of that, half of the RJ's seats will be flown by US Airways mainline pilots. (per LOA 81). So another 10 airplanes at 4 crews an airplane equals another 40 pilots. Total 76 pilots on the street.
This is a ruff estimate and I'm not sure how many crews and planes ALG or PDT have but you can see how this is total horsedun for the WO'ed guys and gals.
Welcome to dad's world.
It's late and I'm not sure if the maths right, so check me. Also to add, the mainline guys that will fly the RJ's will get captain pay no matter what seat they are sitting in. So, more concessions are needed to make up for the increase in labor costs.
Am I making sense yet?
Good night
This is a ruff estimate and I'm not sure how many crews and planes ALG or PDT have but you can see how this is total horsedun for the WO'ed guys and gals.
Welcome to dad's world.
It's late and I'm not sure if the maths right, so check me. Also to add, the mainline guys that will fly the RJ's will get captain pay no matter what seat they are sitting in. So, more concessions are needed to make up for the increase in labor costs.
Am I making sense yet?
Good night
We can only hope that the terminations at ALLEGHENY are not being driven by the need to bring USAIR guys in and that they are just shrinking. If it is as you say that they are preparing to bring USAIR pilots onboard and they fired current employees to do so I am sure there has to be more than one labor lawyer that would be happy to make ALLEGHENY pay dearly for that mistake. What a nasty stinking mess and hopefully no alpa member would touch an RJ on the property until their Illegally fired ALPA brothers/sisiters are back on the pay roll. Anything else would be grounds for de-certifying the USAIR ALPA group.
#1 - I'm sorry to hear that even more pilots will be terminated or furloughed. You ALG guys have saved my commuting butt too many times and I wish I could do something to help.
#2 - I'm totally confused on this J4J agreement. I thought all the "Jets" were going to Potomac, TSA and Chataqua. Is ALG, PDT and PSA also getting "jets" and therefore furloughed mainline guys?
#3 - Finally (and maybe a little sarcastically), how are the flight crews going to work with a CA making $50-60/hr and an FO making $100-120/hr? Or are the mainline guys taking a pay cut down to RJ wages? Even if mainline guys do take the paycut, will the J4J carriers be able to make the math work - they have a flight crew that will cost 50% more than any other regional - the equivalent of having the entire fleet flown in a captain-on-captain crew?
And a PS. If Skywest matches the industry leading payrates, will they now have to pay FO's the same as Potomac pilots? If so, I need to dust my resume off. Right seat, no captain's liability, 50-60K/yr, that sounds real nice.
#2 - I'm totally confused on this J4J agreement. I thought all the "Jets" were going to Potomac, TSA and Chataqua. Is ALG, PDT and PSA also getting "jets" and therefore furloughed mainline guys?
#3 - Finally (and maybe a little sarcastically), how are the flight crews going to work with a CA making $50-60/hr and an FO making $100-120/hr? Or are the mainline guys taking a pay cut down to RJ wages? Even if mainline guys do take the paycut, will the J4J carriers be able to make the math work - they have a flight crew that will cost 50% more than any other regional - the equivalent of having the entire fleet flown in a captain-on-captain crew?
And a PS. If Skywest matches the industry leading payrates, will they now have to pay FO's the same as Potomac pilots? If so, I need to dust my resume off. Right seat, no captain's liability, 50-60K/yr, that sounds real nice.
Tarp,
To answer number 3, all furloughed US pilots will get $50 hr no matter what seat they sit in. This will still make the costs a bit higher ($100 crews instead of $70 crews). My guess (and it is only that) is that US will help cover the added expense at least at the contract carriers. -Bean
To answer number 3, all furloughed US pilots will get $50 hr no matter what seat they sit in. This will still make the costs a bit higher ($100 crews instead of $70 crews). My guess (and it is only that) is that US will help cover the added expense at least at the contract carriers. -Bean
dogg said:
Are you really serious or are you just being facetious?
The happenings at ALG and PDT are unquestionably triggered by LOA 81 that ALPA and USAirways just agreed to. Whether the new regional jets go to Potomac (all to be flown by USAir pilots), to the subcontractors (half to be flown by USAir pilots) or to the WO's (half to be flown by USAir pilots), the fact is the implementation of this LOA makes the current Allegheny and Piedmont and PSA pilots, redundant. That is exactly why their aircraft are being retired without replacement and their pilots let go.
These pilots jobs have been bargained away by the union they pay to represent their interest. That's it plain and simple. They DO need a good labor lawyer and they need him now.
Either you're pulling our chain or you just don't really understand what is happening. I'm not sure which.
This RJ situation at USAirways was created by the ALPA and the mainline pilots. It is not an accident of circumstance, it is the result of deliberate action.
The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying.
The J4J protocol would send any new regional jets to additional subcontractors or a new alter ego subsidiary.
The whole process is the brainchild of ALPA and the USAirways MEC. ALPA pilots are the one's that are doing this to other ALPA pilots. It is not an accident, it is intentional! Trying to sugar-coat it is simply denial of reality.
Whatever your opinions, we need to call a spade, a spade.
Deltoid
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 33
"The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying. "
Not true. Having come from Allegheny I can speak about this. There scope did not force Mainline to go to sub contractors. There was no language to that fact. Only a seat and aircraft limit. What happened is the door was left open for management to go anywhere for the cheapest bidder. That was very unfortunate for us. There was nothing stopping management from giving us the A/C. We even test flew different A/C but Mesa undercut us. It should have had language in it forcing the flying into the Wholly owneds but it did not. This was the fault of the US AIR MEC and to some degree our MEC for not insisting on protecting us from out sourcing, so they sat back and did nothing thinking we would be taken care of, NOT. Since we were leading in DHC-8 Pay rates and work rules compared to other regionals we simply were not competitive. It sucked but its the ugly truth. When I saw things would never change I moved on as fast as I could. I feel really bad about whats happening to those guys now, with the furlughs and all. ALG has so much potetntial but management fails everytime to see it. So in a nut shell there was nothing preventing jets from going to the Wholly owneds just the fact cheaper labor and no need to spend capatal since someone else will buy the A/C is what screwed us.
Joe D. (Former DHC-8 CPT ALG)
Not true. Having come from Allegheny I can speak about this. There scope did not force Mainline to go to sub contractors. There was no language to that fact. Only a seat and aircraft limit. What happened is the door was left open for management to go anywhere for the cheapest bidder. That was very unfortunate for us. There was nothing stopping management from giving us the A/C. We even test flew different A/C but Mesa undercut us. It should have had language in it forcing the flying into the Wholly owneds but it did not. This was the fault of the US AIR MEC and to some degree our MEC for not insisting on protecting us from out sourcing, so they sat back and did nothing thinking we would be taken care of, NOT. Since we were leading in DHC-8 Pay rates and work rules compared to other regionals we simply were not competitive. It sucked but its the ugly truth. When I saw things would never change I moved on as fast as I could. I feel really bad about whats happening to those guys now, with the furlughs and all. ALG has so much potetntial but management fails everytime to see it. So in a nut shell there was nothing preventing jets from going to the Wholly owneds just the fact cheaper labor and no need to spend capatal since someone else will buy the A/C is what screwed us.
Joe D. (Former DHC-8 CPT ALG)
good luck!
I think it is management problem at Allegheny or USAirways to hire 45 people from January and then furlough/terminate all of them.
It is interesting that even ALPA National didn't sign on the,J4Jbut the Management from WO's wants their own pilots to do first and then everybody will sign on it ?!!
I don't thinkALPA National will sign it, because if you furlough your own employee and then USAirways pilots come on the property, to me that is clearly scabing.
I think,important thing is who signs first. If WO's do first, then ALPA National has excuse if not, then it will be interesting.
Let me be clear LOA without signed document doesn't mean anything. It can be changed many times.
I feel sorry for my brother who got furloughed second time within 8 months, now from Allegheny.
Good luck to you Allegheny/PSA/Pedmont Pilots don't give up. Remember, let the Mainline pilots and ALPA National sign first and then decide for yourself. If you sign first, they can change
agreement many times.
I think it is management problem at Allegheny or USAirways to hire 45 people from January and then furlough/terminate all of them.
It is interesting that even ALPA National didn't sign on the,J4Jbut the Management from WO's wants their own pilots to do first and then everybody will sign on it ?!!
I don't thinkALPA National will sign it, because if you furlough your own employee and then USAirways pilots come on the property, to me that is clearly scabing.
I think,important thing is who signs first. If WO's do first, then ALPA National has excuse if not, then it will be interesting.
Let me be clear LOA without signed document doesn't mean anything. It can be changed many times.
I feel sorry for my brother who got furloughed second time within 8 months, now from Allegheny.
Good luck to you Allegheny/PSA/Pedmont Pilots don't give up. Remember, let the Mainline pilots and ALPA National sign first and then decide for yourself. If you sign first, they can change
agreement many times.
Originally posted by Deltoid
I wrote: "The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying. "
You replied:
What follows is the exact language from the USAirways CBA (from Section 1. B.), with emphasis (bold italics) provided by me.
Those "limits" are 12, for the 1st 12 months, increase to 25 during the 25th through 36th month (from effective date) and finally reach 35 regional jets after all USAir furloughed pilots are recalled (and event that occurred already and does not include the present furloughs).
While the language does not specify the wholly owned subsidiaries as differentiated from the sub contractors, the fact remains that the contract prevents the operation of any jet by the wholly owned subsidiaries initially and directly resulted in the subcontracting of the 35 RJs ultimately permitted under the exemption.
The cause of USAirways inability to effectively use regional jets is the ALPA scope clause in the USAirways CBA. That same scope clause has also de facto prevented the operation of jets by the USAir Group subsidiaries and literally forced the subcontracting of their work.
The most recent LOA 81 exacerbates that condition and further coerces the pilots of ALG, PDT and PSA, to either accept its onerous conditions, plus concessions to their CBA, or face increasing terminations, furloughs and perhaps even liquidation. Do I even have to mention that ALPA utilizes the dues of these pilots to negotiate contracts that will eliminate their work? It will be nothing short of miraculous if ALPA doesn't face multiple new litigation as a consequence.
I am quite confident that the cost structure of the WO's (negotiated by ALPA) was not lost on ALPA's attorneys or the USAir MEC when this contract was negotiated. Therefore, they had to be cognizant that the conditions they created would preclude the operation of regional jets by the wholly owned subsidiaries and literally force the subcontracting of their work to other "lowest bidder" carriers. That is exactly what happened in the past and is being repeated today.
While ALPA preaches to the high heavens its alleged effort to "raise the bar" and create higher compensation for regional pilots, ALPA (at the same time) writes mainline contractual provisions that make it impossible to do so. ALPA's efforts in fact operate to encourage subcontracting, create bidding wars among the small airlines, and force the lowering of regional pilot's compensation packages. All the while ALPA allegedly "represents" those regional pilots and collects their dues.
In 1999, ALPA sued Delta to prevent Comair pilots from flying certain routes, thereby attempting to deprive Comair pilots of a portion of their work. (Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Delta Air Lines, Inc, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 13196, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). [The suit was dismissed and deferred to the System Board]. This later resulted in the loss of work for Comair pilots.
In 2001 ALPA apparently "found religion" in it's public rhetoric with respect to Comair pilots. "Billed by ALPA president Duane Woerth as a crusade to recognize regional pilots as “real airline pilots” rather than de-facto trainees for the major airlines, the Comair negotiations were to become a “watershed event in reshaping how people think about and compensate pilots,” according to Woerth." Industry Braces for Fallout from Comair Strike Settlement, Aviation Int’l News, Aug. 2001.
Yet, with respect to the Comair strike, there is little doubt "the Air Line Pilots Association failed to achieve its ultimate goal in the minds of pilots and union officials alike." While ALPA fronted with the politically correct façade of support for the strike, in fact ALPA did nothing more than the absolute minimum legally required in backing the Comair pilots.
ALPA lawyers openly opposed the efforts of Comair pilot negotiators to achieve improved Scope of their own, more than once arguing (at the bargaining table) with management and against their own client. ALPA's Executive Administrator, I presume acting on behalf of ALPA's president, attempted to circumvent the Comair MEC by sending direct mailgrams to individual Comair pilots urging them to accept a contract that their own MEC had voted against recommending.
So, while the Association's President makes highly publicized statements (such as those made during the Comair Strike, see above) about ALPA's efforts on behalf of regional pilots, the union quietly negotiates, behind the scenes, to achieve the exact opposite.
The hypocrisy manifest in the difference between ALPA's rhetoric pro regional pilots and ALPA's overt actions against regional pilots is legendary.
(The) …. "Union may be likened to that serpent of the fables who on one body had two heads that fighting each other with poisoned fangs, killed themselves. [ Peter F. Drucker, The New Society: The Anatomy of the Industrial Order 14 (1951).]
Surplus1
I wrote: "The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying. "
You replied:
What follows is the exact language from the USAirways CBA (from Section 1. B.), with emphasis (bold italics) provided by me.
Those "limits" are 12, for the 1st 12 months, increase to 25 during the 25th through 36th month (from effective date) and finally reach 35 regional jets after all USAir furloughed pilots are recalled (and event that occurred already and does not include the present furloughs).
While the language does not specify the wholly owned subsidiaries as differentiated from the sub contractors, the fact remains that the contract prevents the operation of any jet by the wholly owned subsidiaries initially and directly resulted in the subcontracting of the 35 RJs ultimately permitted under the exemption.
The cause of USAirways inability to effectively use regional jets is the ALPA scope clause in the USAirways CBA. That same scope clause has also de facto prevented the operation of jets by the USAir Group subsidiaries and literally forced the subcontracting of their work.
The most recent LOA 81 exacerbates that condition and further coerces the pilots of ALG, PDT and PSA, to either accept its onerous conditions, plus concessions to their CBA, or face increasing terminations, furloughs and perhaps even liquidation. Do I even have to mention that ALPA utilizes the dues of these pilots to negotiate contracts that will eliminate their work? It will be nothing short of miraculous if ALPA doesn't face multiple new litigation as a consequence.
I am quite confident that the cost structure of the WO's (negotiated by ALPA) was not lost on ALPA's attorneys or the USAir MEC when this contract was negotiated. Therefore, they had to be cognizant that the conditions they created would preclude the operation of regional jets by the wholly owned subsidiaries and literally force the subcontracting of their work to other "lowest bidder" carriers. That is exactly what happened in the past and is being repeated today.
While ALPA preaches to the high heavens its alleged effort to "raise the bar" and create higher compensation for regional pilots, ALPA (at the same time) writes mainline contractual provisions that make it impossible to do so. ALPA's efforts in fact operate to encourage subcontracting, create bidding wars among the small airlines, and force the lowering of regional pilot's compensation packages. All the while ALPA allegedly "represents" those regional pilots and collects their dues.
In 1999, ALPA sued Delta to prevent Comair pilots from flying certain routes, thereby attempting to deprive Comair pilots of a portion of their work. (Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Delta Air Lines, Inc, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 13196, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). [The suit was dismissed and deferred to the System Board]. This later resulted in the loss of work for Comair pilots.
In 2001 ALPA apparently "found religion" in it's public rhetoric with respect to Comair pilots. "Billed by ALPA president Duane Woerth as a crusade to recognize regional pilots as “real airline pilots” rather than de-facto trainees for the major airlines, the Comair negotiations were to become a “watershed event in reshaping how people think about and compensate pilots,” according to Woerth." Industry Braces for Fallout from Comair Strike Settlement, Aviation Int’l News, Aug. 2001.
Yet, with respect to the Comair strike, there is little doubt "the Air Line Pilots Association failed to achieve its ultimate goal in the minds of pilots and union officials alike." While ALPA fronted with the politically correct façade of support for the strike, in fact ALPA did nothing more than the absolute minimum legally required in backing the Comair pilots.
ALPA lawyers openly opposed the efforts of Comair pilot negotiators to achieve improved Scope of their own, more than once arguing (at the bargaining table) with management and against their own client. ALPA's Executive Administrator, I presume acting on behalf of ALPA's president, attempted to circumvent the Comair MEC by sending direct mailgrams to individual Comair pilots urging them to accept a contract that their own MEC had voted against recommending.
So, while the Association's President makes highly publicized statements (such as those made during the Comair Strike, see above) about ALPA's efforts on behalf of regional pilots, the union quietly negotiates, behind the scenes, to achieve the exact opposite.
The hypocrisy manifest in the difference between ALPA's rhetoric pro regional pilots and ALPA's overt actions against regional pilots is legendary.
(The) …. "Union may be likened to that serpent of the fables who on one body had two heads that fighting each other with poisoned fangs, killed themselves. [ Peter F. Drucker, The New Society: The Anatomy of the Industrial Order 14 (1951).]
Surplus1
Last edited:
Capt.SpongeBob
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 23
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Question Any Other NXCub Drivers Out There?- Latest: lrobichaux
-
-
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
