Past PSA Interviews

[Flat-tire]

Does anyone know how long the interview process lasts for PSA? Also, how long is the class date from hire date?

 

[350DRIVER]

For what it is worth....


Just ran into a guy that was in my upgrade class (135) awhile back who was picked up by PSA last week. He had a tad above 1400 TT, 400 multi-engine +, (mostly multi-engine turbo-prop time), captain on C421, who was currently flying a caravan (Castle-CAK)... Supposebly interview was pretty easy and they offered him as early of a ground school date as next week but he felt that he should atleast give his current company a 2 week notice.... Apparently they are hiring like crazy and are very short on fo's right now. They are now telling successful applicants the day of the interview. . . He said interview was relatively easy, no sim ride, no DO-328 fire bottle test (or whatever they used to do), just a ATP written test. He did say that two that busted this test did not make it to the interview with Sellers and CP. I guess they have revamped the process from what it had been in the past. All new hires are going into the jet, they are phasing out all of the Dork props that Mr. Parson once made famous as captain.


good luck to ya,


3 5 0

ps>>> Keep in mind that the funeral director is on stby for Airways, they have a huge uphill battle in the future months. PIT will no longer be a base come sept. PSA's success will be dependent upon how well Airways does.... Be smart..... It will be no easy ride for them in the upcoming months.

 

[350DRIVER]

interesting article.....

Federal flight plan: Will election year politics tilt the scales for US Airways' bid to survive?

Sunday, July 04, 2004

By Dan Fitzpatrick, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette







Could the U.S. presidential election determine the fate of US Airways?

The airline's campaign to coax another $800 million from its unions and avoid a second bankruptcy will culminate this fall, just as the race for the White House enters its final few months. Pennsylvania, where US Airways employs about 13,000 and injects billions into the economy annually, is a critical state to Republican incumbent President Bush and Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry. And whether US Airways survives could impact how Pennsylvania votes, since the federal government was vital to US Airways' emergence from bankruptcy in 2003 and has the power to keep the airline alive through this election year.

The Arlington, Va.-based carrier, which is trying to lower its costs across-the-board by $1.5 billion, has said it needs to win $800 million in cuts from its unions by Sept. 30 or it could default on more than $700 million in federally backed loans, forcing the company to either sell assets or file for bankruptcy again.

Bush, then, has a tough decision to make.

Does the federal government continue to prop up the nation's seventh-largest airline serving major markets on the East Coast or does it pull its support and let market forces take over?

The answer "may turn on election-year politics," said local airline analyst Bill Lauer.

The Bush administration, needing Pennsylvania to beat Kerry, "can't let (US Airways) fail," said Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.

Because the presidential race is so close, Madonna believes four states will determine the election: Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania. Bush has already been to Pennsylvania more than two dozen times, and Kerry has made his share of visits, too, even spending part of this holiday weekend in the Pittsburgh area.

"They don't get any more important than our state," Madonna said. "That is the bottom line."

The Bush administration, Madonna added, could find itself divided between those who believe US Airways should succeed or fail on its own and those who "don't want to lose (US Airways) in the election cycle" and "don't want some horrible announcement coming this fall about the bankruptcy of a major airline."

A US Airways union leader put it more bluntly.

"Will the administration be willing to put out 13,000 employees in the state of Pennsylvania on the unemployment line one month before the election?" asked Bill Gray, president of the Transport Workers Union Local 547. "I think the Bush administration would be foolish to attempt to cause the unemployment of that many people with a high visibility company that affects so much of our economy in the commonwealth and ability of businesses in our state to travel."

Either way, said Yale University professor and former airline executive Michael Levine, "I think it will be a close call."

The issue of federal airline aid has been infused with politics since the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, events that crippled the airline industry. The Bush administration initially opposed the idea of loaning money to airlines in need, but Congress disagreed, creating the Air Transportation Stabilization Board to bail out carriers that needed help.

The federal board Congress created to evaluate each loan application is a three-person group comprising one appointee from the Treasury Secretary, one from the Transportation Secretary (both Bush cabinet appointees) and one from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the board has been inundated with appeals and counter appeals from troubled airlines, their healthier rivals and politicians hoping to influence the board's decisions. Authorized to hand out as much as $10 billion, the board has backed $1.56 billion in loan guarantees to six airlines, the largest being $900 million to US Airways.

Not every airline has been successful before the board, however. United Airlines, the nation's second-largest carrier, was turned down for the third time last week after seeking a $1.1 billion guarantee. The bid failed despite attempts by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from United's home state of Illinois, to sway the panel. A White House official also "expressed concern over the situation," according to The New York Times.

The United decision, according to some observers, proves that while the federal airline board may have been susceptible to political persuasion when first created, it is now acting more independently, as it should.

"I think every politician would do well to stay clear of this now," said airline analyst Darryl Jenkins. "There is no benefit they could get from any interference. I think they will stay as far away from this as they can."

The two Pennsylvania senators, Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, both of whom supported US Airways' first application for federal aid, argue that political considerations will not play a part in US Airways' ability to survive during an election year. If US Airways defaults on its loans this fall, "what (we've) seen with United is what (we'll) see with US Airways," said Santorum. "This is a board, not the president running this thing."

If US Airways cannot persuade its unions to cut their costs by another $800 million annually, and the airline remains unprofitable, "I think you are going to find it highly unlikely to get any flexibility (from the airline loan board)" -- despite the board's willingness in March to restructure US Airways' loan terms in exchange for an early $250 payment. That decision drew opposition from the Treasury appointee, Brian Roseboro.

The board members "are serious," Santorum said. "They are not political tools." United, which had its loan package rejected last week, "flies into a lot of politically sensitive states, too."

Specter, who plans to meet with US Airways Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lakefield this week, disagreed that election-year politics would force Bush to get involved in the survival of an airline, even one with such a large presence in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

"I don't think the president is going to play politics," Specter said. "He is not going to get involved. He doesn't do that. . . The board has to make an independent judgment. . . If the president were to engage in heavy-handed tactics, it would boomerang."

Even Kerry, who supported the creation of the federal airline loan board, may have to address the issue of US Airways if the situation worsens in the fall. Many employees at the airline still remember when Kerry asked, in a 2000 letter to the U.S. Justice Department, that the government not approve a proposed merger between US Airways and United Airlines, saying that the airline would not go under as a stand-alone carrier but that if it did, it would be better for consumers.

"Even in the worst-case scenario," Kerry wrote, according to The Washington Post, "if US Airways were to shut its doors permanently, the country would indeed be left with five instead of six major carriers."

Kerry, as the Democratic candidate for President, has the endorsement of the pilots union, which has been discussing new cuts with US Airways, and the machinists union, which refuses to sit down with the airline or reopen its contract yet again. Many airline observers cite the resistance of the machinists as a reason why US Airways will not be able to get the cuts it needs by fall and why the issue of US Airways' survival could land in the lap of the federal government in the middle of a heated presidential campaign. As Tom Miklavic, negotiator for the International Association of Machinists' fleet service workers, put it: "If that drags (US Airways) back to bankruptcy, we'll see them in court."

But Lakefield, US Airways' CEO, pledged on Friday "to do everything in our power to protect (the government-backed loan) and the cash it represents."

"Our very survival depends on it."

(Dan Fitzpatrick can be reached at [email protected] or 412-263-1752.)