I know ALG has a pilot pool because I'm swimming in it, but can anyone confirm or deny if PDT & PSA have a pilot pool? If so, approximately how many are swimming in them? Also, I heard the rumor that the seniority lists of the three WO's are being looked at to combine into one pilot group in the very near future. That could be very possible with all the front office operations move to ALG headquaters. Anyone know?
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
PDT & PSA Pilot Pools
- Thread starter Desiday
- Start date
- Watchers 4
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
328dude
Still turning two
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,647
All the pilots that where in the pool are in ground school now and are currently hiring. All classes are for the Dornier to cover the senior guys when they start CRJ class in Sept. 16 PSA pilots per month and 16 J4J guys. 32 total going to class each month.
I wouldn't count on them combining the three senority list's.
I wouldn't count on them combining the three senority list's.
BTDII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2003
- Posts
- 82
Desiday said:
Desiday,
As long as certain members of the PSA MEC remain in power, combining the WO's (in one form or another) will never gain momentum. These individuals want nothing to do with combined senoirity lists. How do I know you might ask? They said those words right to my face, and needless to say my jaw hit the floor.
Elections are coming up here soon, it should make for some interesting times.
Piedmont DHC-8
FUK ALPA & USAirways Mgt
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 34
its really nice to know that our bretheren over at PSA when somthing good happens to them are not willing to share in any of it. I like your post about there is no way that there will be a combined senority list. I guess you boys at PSA are really showing your true colors, you got it made so f*ck the other wholly owned carriers just to let you know we wouldn't do the same thing to you.
BTDII
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2003
- Posts
- 82
Piedmont DHC-8 said:
I think you may have misread my post. Most of the pilots at PSA are very concerned for what is happening to our brothers and sisters at PDT and ALG.
My post was to show that there are certain individuals in the MEC who were very vocal with me about how THEY do not want a merged list while myself ( and may others ) are STRONGLY FOR IT.
With elections coming up soon, the ability to get rid of these individuals will present itself.
Until then, know that I'm the biggest supporter of ONE LIST and if theres anything I can do to help any of you, all you have to do is ask.
Take Care
328dude
Still turning two
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,647
In a merger, you usually retain equipment and seat and base rights; so, a senior CLT Dash FO can't bump a junior TYS Do328 CA, for example.
The below was written by a Allegheny Pilot. Thaks to DG for the information.
Single Carrier Information
My name is ***********and I am currently employed by Allegheny Airlines, a US Airways Express carrier and wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways. I have developed this site to better inform pilots of their rights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). I have included a report developed by myself and another pilot who has since sought employment else where. Some of this is a reprint of the report I sent to the Allegheny Airlines Master Executive Council(MEC) meeting in March of 1998. Although, I am currently Chairman of the Single-Carrier Committee at Allegheny, this site was not requested or supported by my MEC, it is only a forum for my own advocation of this petition. I have included a link to National Mediation Board's web site at the bottom. I would recommend reading the RLA and their mission statement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NOTE: This summary and accompanying report examine the issue of single carrier relative to ALG, PDT and PSA.
Success in a single carrier petition does not force a merger of the three companies. Have any direct bearing on management structure. Directly result in a single contract and seniority list.
A SUCCESSFUL SINGLE CARRIER PETITION WOULD
Allow a single job action by the 3 wholly-owned as part of any subsequent section 6 negotiations. This follows from the NMB's finding that we constitute a ' single transportation system'
Facilitate development of a single negotiating committee/MEC structure. (This is dependent on our resolve)
A SINGLE MEC WOULD PROVIDE THE NEGOTIATING STRENGTH TO PURSUE A SINGLE CONTRACT AND SENIORITY LIST.
SUCCESS WOULD REQUIRE:
Broad, deep support from an informed pilot group.
Recognition that achieving a single contract and seniority list would require resolve through the negotiating process.
Acceptance by all three pilot groups that their respective MEC structures would cease to exist, being replaced by a single MEC representing the unified pilot group. (It is the view of the committee that failure to manage and promptly execute this change is the root cause of Eagle's current turmoil.)
Recognition that we can not force a merger, and therefor the resulting contract and seniority list must be able to accommodate three 'operating sites' .
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ATTACHED REPORT.
SINGLE CARRIER REPORT
WHAT SINGLE CARRIER IS NOT
'Single Carrier' is often portrayed as a method to force a merger of the three wholly owned airlines. Unfortunately this view is somewhat like looking through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.
'Single Carrier' pertains to the structure of union representation, not the structure of the corporation/s, and this is key to understanding the role that 'Single Carrier' may play in our future. The fundamental question in deciding to go forward with a Single Carrier Petition to the NMB is this:
Do the pilot groups of the three wholly owned regional want to put a single union structure, with one MEC, one MEC Chairman, and one Negotiating Committee, in place? And if so, are they willing to set aside their short-term interests and cultures in order to so?
Such a union organization would be a first step, but only a first step, toward the merger of seniority lists and achievement of a single contract.
DEFINITION OF PROBLEMS/ISSUES
Defining the actual issues that unification of our contracts is to address is the key first step that the MECs must take. I offer the following list as a starting point, but I strongly suggest that the MECs themselves meet and develop a master list of issues that all three pilot groups agree with.
Regional Jets being placed at contract carriers.
US Airways pilot group further restricting the career opportunities of our pilots through scope.
Flow-through
Employee whipsawing.
Growth at the individual airlines is managed so as to promote negative competition among the express pilot groups.
Furloughs at one subsidiary while hiring at another.
Internal politics at US Airways, rather than market forces and the efforts of employees/local management drive company developments
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
A. Pilots of ALG, PDT, and PSA. Concerns to how I would be effected.
B. ALG, PDT, and PSA MECs leaders. Concerns that MEC restructure would eliminate their position.
C. ALG, PDT, and PSA management's. Concerns that corporate restructuring would eliminate their jobs.
D. US Airways Pilots. Growing competition for their interest within US Airways.
E. US Airways management. Larger more formidable employee group to negotiate with.
F. NMB. The prompt and orderly resolution of disputes arising out of the negotiation of new or revised collective bargaining agreements; the effectuation of employee rights of self-organization where a representation dispute exists; and the prompt and orderly resolution of disputes over the interpretation or application of existing agreements.
G. ALPA. Political concerns dealing with different representative views and litigation.
HISTORY OF OTHER SINGLE CARRIER EFFORTS IN THE REGIONAL AIRLINE INDUSTRY
A. Northeast/Precision - Precision was represented by ALPA, while Northeast was an alter ego airline. ALPA was successful in its single carrier petition, but lost the subsequent representation election.
B. AMR Eagle - In 1994 a petition was filed with the NMB for a single bargaining unit, and eventually a single unit determination was issued by the NMB on behalf of the eagle carriers. This lead to an election to determine which of the unions already on the property would represent the pilot group (RAPA, APA and ALPA), which ALPA won. Ultimately a single contract was achieved, but the "price" paid by the Eagle pilots was a 16 year contract. There is considerable dissension at Eagle over the entire process, and lawsuits have been filed. It is critical that any single carrier effort has the full support of all the pilot groups.
C. MESA - The pilot of MESA where offered a single contract by their management after the company came under FAA scrutiny, and it is believed that the FAA pressured the company into consolidating the employee groups in the interest of improving operational control.
D. Ourselves in 1990 - This petition was filed by ALPA on behalf of the four regional airlines then owned by USAir. It was later dropped, under considerable pressure from both management and ALPA, "in the interest of supporting the merger of Allegheny and Pennsylvania airlines".
RAMIFICATIONS OF SUCCESS
As is being illustrated at Eagle at this very moment, it is possible to win the battle and lose the war. It is imperative that there be full and open discussion with the pilot groups about what would follow success in this endeavor, and that the focus be kept on the long term issues and interests.
A. Seniority list merger
Are the pilot groups ready and willing to deal with this matter?
B. Union restructuring
As already explained at the beginning of this report, this is the crux of any single carrier petition. Are the pilot's at all three regionals also ready to face this matter head on? Are the MECs ready to give up their power to a greater whole?
C. Merging corporate cultures
It would be a grave error to underestimate the friction that will develop between these three independent cultures. Again, are the pilots ready to face it?
D. Domicile restructuring
Bumping, fences, left seats and right seats. Need I say more?
RISKS
None of the paths to a single contract are free of risk, and identify those risks up front is the first step in managing them. This won't be an easy ride.
A. Creation of a volatile situation--turf will be threatened, and people (managers and union leaders) may well 'lash out' in an instinctive effort to protect their positions.
B. Results of CALPA-The situation in Canada illustrates what can happen when pilot groups 'go to war' with each other. Eagle is also becoming an illustration of this risk.
OTHER UNIONS THAT MAY BE INVOLVED
The role of other unions is not clear. In principle the NMB can find that a single bargaining unit exists in one employee group but not in another, though such a ruling in our case would have to be somewhat contorted. Another consideration is that the other unions may see the entire issue of single carrier differently than our counterparts at our companies and US Airways. In any case, some degree of communication should exist between our MECs and the other unions prior to taking any broad legal action.
A. IAM
B. Communications Workers of America
C. AFA
D. IBT
The below was written by a Allegheny Pilot. Thaks to DG for the information.
Single Carrier Information
My name is ***********and I am currently employed by Allegheny Airlines, a US Airways Express carrier and wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways. I have developed this site to better inform pilots of their rights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). I have included a report developed by myself and another pilot who has since sought employment else where. Some of this is a reprint of the report I sent to the Allegheny Airlines Master Executive Council(MEC) meeting in March of 1998. Although, I am currently Chairman of the Single-Carrier Committee at Allegheny, this site was not requested or supported by my MEC, it is only a forum for my own advocation of this petition. I have included a link to National Mediation Board's web site at the bottom. I would recommend reading the RLA and their mission statement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NOTE: This summary and accompanying report examine the issue of single carrier relative to ALG, PDT and PSA.
Success in a single carrier petition does not force a merger of the three companies. Have any direct bearing on management structure. Directly result in a single contract and seniority list.
A SUCCESSFUL SINGLE CARRIER PETITION WOULD
Allow a single job action by the 3 wholly-owned as part of any subsequent section 6 negotiations. This follows from the NMB's finding that we constitute a ' single transportation system'
Facilitate development of a single negotiating committee/MEC structure. (This is dependent on our resolve)
A SINGLE MEC WOULD PROVIDE THE NEGOTIATING STRENGTH TO PURSUE A SINGLE CONTRACT AND SENIORITY LIST.
SUCCESS WOULD REQUIRE:
Broad, deep support from an informed pilot group.
Recognition that achieving a single contract and seniority list would require resolve through the negotiating process.
Acceptance by all three pilot groups that their respective MEC structures would cease to exist, being replaced by a single MEC representing the unified pilot group. (It is the view of the committee that failure to manage and promptly execute this change is the root cause of Eagle's current turmoil.)
Recognition that we can not force a merger, and therefor the resulting contract and seniority list must be able to accommodate three 'operating sites' .
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ATTACHED REPORT.
SINGLE CARRIER REPORT
WHAT SINGLE CARRIER IS NOT
'Single Carrier' is often portrayed as a method to force a merger of the three wholly owned airlines. Unfortunately this view is somewhat like looking through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.
'Single Carrier' pertains to the structure of union representation, not the structure of the corporation/s, and this is key to understanding the role that 'Single Carrier' may play in our future. The fundamental question in deciding to go forward with a Single Carrier Petition to the NMB is this:
Do the pilot groups of the three wholly owned regional want to put a single union structure, with one MEC, one MEC Chairman, and one Negotiating Committee, in place? And if so, are they willing to set aside their short-term interests and cultures in order to so?
Such a union organization would be a first step, but only a first step, toward the merger of seniority lists and achievement of a single contract.
DEFINITION OF PROBLEMS/ISSUES
Defining the actual issues that unification of our contracts is to address is the key first step that the MECs must take. I offer the following list as a starting point, but I strongly suggest that the MECs themselves meet and develop a master list of issues that all three pilot groups agree with.
Regional Jets being placed at contract carriers.
US Airways pilot group further restricting the career opportunities of our pilots through scope.
Flow-through
Employee whipsawing.
Growth at the individual airlines is managed so as to promote negative competition among the express pilot groups.
Furloughs at one subsidiary while hiring at another.
Internal politics at US Airways, rather than market forces and the efforts of employees/local management drive company developments
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
A. Pilots of ALG, PDT, and PSA. Concerns to how I would be effected.
B. ALG, PDT, and PSA MECs leaders. Concerns that MEC restructure would eliminate their position.
C. ALG, PDT, and PSA management's. Concerns that corporate restructuring would eliminate their jobs.
D. US Airways Pilots. Growing competition for their interest within US Airways.
E. US Airways management. Larger more formidable employee group to negotiate with.
F. NMB. The prompt and orderly resolution of disputes arising out of the negotiation of new or revised collective bargaining agreements; the effectuation of employee rights of self-organization where a representation dispute exists; and the prompt and orderly resolution of disputes over the interpretation or application of existing agreements.
G. ALPA. Political concerns dealing with different representative views and litigation.
HISTORY OF OTHER SINGLE CARRIER EFFORTS IN THE REGIONAL AIRLINE INDUSTRY
A. Northeast/Precision - Precision was represented by ALPA, while Northeast was an alter ego airline. ALPA was successful in its single carrier petition, but lost the subsequent representation election.
B. AMR Eagle - In 1994 a petition was filed with the NMB for a single bargaining unit, and eventually a single unit determination was issued by the NMB on behalf of the eagle carriers. This lead to an election to determine which of the unions already on the property would represent the pilot group (RAPA, APA and ALPA), which ALPA won. Ultimately a single contract was achieved, but the "price" paid by the Eagle pilots was a 16 year contract. There is considerable dissension at Eagle over the entire process, and lawsuits have been filed. It is critical that any single carrier effort has the full support of all the pilot groups.
C. MESA - The pilot of MESA where offered a single contract by their management after the company came under FAA scrutiny, and it is believed that the FAA pressured the company into consolidating the employee groups in the interest of improving operational control.
D. Ourselves in 1990 - This petition was filed by ALPA on behalf of the four regional airlines then owned by USAir. It was later dropped, under considerable pressure from both management and ALPA, "in the interest of supporting the merger of Allegheny and Pennsylvania airlines".
RAMIFICATIONS OF SUCCESS
As is being illustrated at Eagle at this very moment, it is possible to win the battle and lose the war. It is imperative that there be full and open discussion with the pilot groups about what would follow success in this endeavor, and that the focus be kept on the long term issues and interests.
A. Seniority list merger
Are the pilot groups ready and willing to deal with this matter?
B. Union restructuring
As already explained at the beginning of this report, this is the crux of any single carrier petition. Are the pilot's at all three regionals also ready to face this matter head on? Are the MECs ready to give up their power to a greater whole?
C. Merging corporate cultures
It would be a grave error to underestimate the friction that will develop between these three independent cultures. Again, are the pilots ready to face it?
D. Domicile restructuring
Bumping, fences, left seats and right seats. Need I say more?
RISKS
None of the paths to a single contract are free of risk, and identify those risks up front is the first step in managing them. This won't be an easy ride.
A. Creation of a volatile situation--turf will be threatened, and people (managers and union leaders) may well 'lash out' in an instinctive effort to protect their positions.
B. Results of CALPA-The situation in Canada illustrates what can happen when pilot groups 'go to war' with each other. Eagle is also becoming an illustration of this risk.
OTHER UNIONS THAT MAY BE INVOLVED
The role of other unions is not clear. In principle the NMB can find that a single bargaining unit exists in one employee group but not in another, though such a ruling in our case would have to be somewhat contorted. Another consideration is that the other unions may see the entire issue of single carrier differently than our counterparts at our companies and US Airways. In any case, some degree of communication should exist between our MECs and the other unions prior to taking any broad legal action.
A. IAM
B. Communications Workers of America
C. AFA
D. IBT
Piedmont DHC-8
FUK ALPA & USAirways Mgt
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 34
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
