PSA CRJ 701's

[jrcpilot]

Furloughedagain is correct. The concern I have is that over time if unions or airlines continue to maintain a rate of pay that does not give way to better pay over time then the compensation will stagnate over time. I am all for a seniority driven pay scale. Unfortunately pay has always been based on equipment and then seniority within the equipment. A big advantage to a seniority only scale and that is it eliminates a lot of transisitioning from one equipment type to another thus creating less training events in the school house. This is an area that some carriers are trying to look into as a way to reduce operating and training costs as well. Traditionally we have never established pay this way thus many union groups are cautious. I don't mind a blended rate or obviously being paid 70 seat rate versus a 50 seat rate but when you base your pay on a lower scale, it undermines future increases. I don't fault Skywest for not trying to create growth which is what they did. By agreeing to the new rate they were able to solidify a deal for growth for the next few years. Will see if it pays off once the expansion happens. If it works and the company increases their pay later down the road thats great. If not ...well your back to square one.

 

[surplus1]

Don't pull a "Skywest."

Think about this. PSA is a USAirGroup subsidiary. Another USAG subsidiary (USAirways/Mid Atlantic) has already "agreed" to rates for 70-seat jets. If I'm not mistaken, those agreed rates match the rates at American Eagle. It is therefore unlikely that a rate negotiated by PSA will be any higher.

If anything it will likely be lower .... since the company will argue that if the more "qualified" U pilots can do it for that, the "students" at PSA can surely do it for less. [ALPA is unlikely to oppose such an arguement, which is consistent with their thought process].

For those of you at PSA ..... that's not a slam at you, it's a slam at what ALPA did at USAirways, and elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USAirways pilot group was the "first" to seek the lowest common denominator for the 70-seat jets. It wasn't Skywest (who I think made a big mistake) and it wasn't MESA (which was hamstrung by another of ALPA's brilliant moves, which resulted in the birth of Freedom).

Let's keep track of the real history of these "events". It's out there for those that care to take the time.

 

[surplus1]

UPS has seniority based pay.

The pay scale is the same regardless of which airplane you fly.

As a result the 747 long range international is a very junior airplane over there -- whereas the 727 is very senior.

(the senior guy who lives in, say Dayton, bids SDF-DAY trips). There's no financial advantage to bidding the bigger airplane. Seniority based pay balances out the list a bit.

Be careful how you draw this comparison. It is true the UPS has a common rate for all types. So did CAL before their last contract.

However, the IPA did NOT do what Skwest has done. The IPA did not agree to fly 747's for 727 pay rates (which would be the equivalent of what Skywest has done, i.e., agree to fly up to 99 seats for 50-seat scale).

What the IPA did was lower 747 scale (slightly) and agree to fly 727's, etc., for higher than normal rates. That's a HUGE difference in technique/strategy.

There can be big advantages to a "common rate" (which is not a true "seniority based pay system") if it is properly structured (as the IPA did). However, when you agree to pay rates for your largest aircraft (and for aircraft that you don't even have) that match the rates of your smallest equipment, one can easily classify that as naive at best and stupid at worst.

Many carriers have "blended rates" for similar sized aircraft, among them USAirways, Delta, CAL and others. Comair has a blended rate for variants of the CL-65/200 (40, 44, 50 seats). That is practical when the variants are so similar. A difference of 20 seats (50 v 70) in such a small aircraft is a 40% variance. That's different from the variance in an Airbus 319/320 or some of the 737-200/300/400 series and so forth. Delta "blends" the 757/767, but levels the playing field with international overrides. With larger aircraft the equation is somewhat easier.

The difference in productivity of a 50-seat jet vs a 99-seat jet is nearly 100% (the Skywest formula). A common or blended rate in that situation strikes me as apples/oranges.

We shall see how long it will really take for Skywest to get the "new and improved 70-seat rate" that they all appear to believe will magically happen in 18 months (from their DOS). As one of them said, time will tell.

Good luck to PSA. Let's hope they don't "match" their 50-seat rates (for the -700) or we may well set a new "low ball" record.

Maybe we should revise the Guiness Book system an give the "record" to whomever can go lower than the most recent preformance.

 

[dogg]

328 dude,
as others have pointed out-UPS and Alaska(the two that I know about) have seniority based pay ie it does not matter what airplane you fly. this of course requires that that the big airplanes pay a little less and the little ones pay a whole lot more. So if you have 328's and CR-7's they all pay the same. based on seniority

 

[Dashcaptain]

I am assuming that this means that ALG and PDT are left with nothing again. This is wonderful!! I guess 18 airplanes at ALG by the end of 2004 is still the plan while PSA gets everything. I see how that is fair!! Good luck to us all.

 

[328dude]

Thanks Dogg for the clerification. I see what your getting at.

Dashcaptain, as said before...we do not decide where these aircraft go. ALG and PDT have both agreed to the same J4J's in theory, but have decided to not go with the 50/50 rule on the CRJ-700's. We on the other hand will only take these aircraft at a 50/50 rate. Nothing more. All CRJ equipment will be 50/50 or nothing.

lately, PDT and ALG's (mainly ALG's) attempt to do it at 100 percent mainline flying on the CRJ-700 at 100 percent if you get 50 seaters is yet again another undermining attempt to go against what we all three decided that it should be which is 50/50. Why is that?

Looks like ALG is not thinking that way anymore.

 

[the turtle]

328,

You already know the answer. It's reached the point where each of you is willing to sell the other two out. Don't complain, however...your MEC sold out ALG and PDT first!

Or maybe it's all Mesa's fault!

 

[328dude]

Turtle:

No offense, but I was looking for a ALG or PDT go to answer that.

I would match rather get into this discussion with someone from another wholly owned that knows what all three of us were dealing with. It's easy for you or others to make that assumption by knowing only what you think is to be true.

Is it MESA's fault? Another thread another time.

 

[Dashcaptain]

ALG never did not agree to the 701s at 50/50, we were only offered them under the terms of loa 83 which said mainline pilots would get them at 100% and we would staff the 200s at 100%. As far as I know, nothing else was offered. If they offered PSA something else then what we were, it sounds fair to me. Your ta was the only one with a snap-back clause if jets never showed up. No one else got that offer. Sounds fishy to me!!

 

[PDTGIMP]

328dude,

You are 100% wrong on PDT wanting, or negotiating to anything 100% for mainline!

50/50 or nothing is OUR position. We worry that your MEC will sell us down the river by going along with 100%. Remember, when we all began negotiating concessionary agreements, PSA made an agreement with U before we all got together to prevent any whipsawing and this is the exact result: ALL for one and nothing for the rest.

I've stayed quiet on this issue, but PSA and U know that allowing PDT and ALG pilots to flow to PSA or MDA at our 4, 5, or 6th year pay is expensive. So because of your apathy, we are hitting the street and on this very board CFI's with 400 hrs. are asking for interview help from PSA guys.

Take a stand and help the guys left behind by putting pressure on your MEC, which doesn't even let you vote!

 

[Long-Gonner]

Actually both Rick and Olaf layed out the plan for the reverse LOA 83 to the psa mec back in Aug or Sep at an open regular scheduled meeting of the psa mec. At that time the psa mec decided to stand firm on 50/50 for all aircraft no matter when they are taken delivery of. With a little luck, it looks like the 50/50 across the board just might happen.

 

[328dude]

Just to clerify, there is no off the street hiring going on, and don't expect to in a very long time. They are not even taking resume's as of the other day.

ALG and PDT's fate although dim, is of great concern to this pilot group. We have not forgotten and will help our fellow brothers or sisters as much as possible if that does if you go away.

However, I speak of only my belief and opinion and what I hope will happen if sadely they desolve ALG or PDT.

Long gonner is correct, it is on paper what ALG and PDT MEC's have sort of agreed to to bring RJ's to your property's. However, it is going against what the three wholly onwed stood up for (50/50) when this whole thing started in the beginning. PSA still stands firm on 50/50 or nothing and have from the start. ALG and PDT did at first, but that is not the case now.

However, I think it's a moot point at this time.

 

[Go Figuare]

Dude, you are full of #hit? I'd like to see this on paper that we will let the 700's come here at 100 percent mainline if we get 50 seaters.

I also heard a rumor on another site that PSA might not be getting all 60 50-seaters that were ordered.

How bout them apples.

 

[MECH]

Just remember that Northwest pilots get paid 171 to 193/hour to fly a 78 seat airplane. Do not sell yourself short.

 

[Long-Gonner]

wow, comparing a major airline that flys 747s to the Orient to a regional that currently has less than 40 total aircraft. What a DC9 pilot at a major makes will have no effect on our pay rates at PSA. What will have an effect: Eagle, Horizon, Skywest, Air Wisc, ASA, Comair, and unfortunately MESA. I don't think anyone intentionally goes in to a negotiation with the purpose of "selling themselves short".

 

[328dude]

Go Figuare:

Please leave the sandbox. Please review your own website for any further information before you respond without the facts.

Unlike PDTGimp and Dash which can have a civilized discussion on this board, you simply are not listening to what is going on, or would rather not. Go back to as you say, "Ponder the future of Airways". It will put you back in your happy place.

Thanks for the apples.

 

[UPSer]

Be careful how you draw this comparison. It is true the UPS has a common rate for all types. So did CAL before their last contract.

However, the IPA did NOT do what Skwest has done. The IPA did not agree to fly 747's for 727 pay rates (which would be the equivalent of what Skywest has done, i.e., agree to fly up to 99 seats for 50-seat scale).

What the IPA did was lower 747 scale (slightly) and agree to fly 727's, etc., for higher than normal rates. That's a HUGE difference in technique/strategy.

I believe that our pay is based on the 767, and on the new contract i've heard that we are going to try and base it on even larger A/C like the A-300 or MD-11 as the number of smaller planes in the fleet goes down and the number of larger ones increase.

 

[BTDII]

Dude, you are full of #hit? I'd like to see this on paper that we will let the 700's come here at 100 percent mainline if we get 50 seaters.

I also heard a rumor on another site that PSA might not be getting all 60 50-seaters that were ordered.

How bout them apples.

Go Figuare,

If you don't belive him, just ask your reps to furnish you with the memo written to Duane Worth, Bill Pollock, and Olav Holm dated December 14th, 2003. It should clear up any questions you might have about what your reps are willing to do.

For your second statement, well, if we don't get everything that was ordered for us, hopefully it will at least stay within the US Airways Group. Remember that that should be the real goal here, while also keeping in mind that along with the initial orders came options that are in excess of 300 aircraft. So just because nothing positive has happened on the ALG and PDT properties yet does'nt mean this is the absolute end.

Good Luck

And for those of you who belive that no one at PSA is trying to do whats right for ALG and PDT. This was written by a nobody 2 year FO at PSA and passed by a 6 to 0 vote by our MEC to be sent to the negotiating committee. Where unfortunately it has sat due to other issues taking priority.

It was a step in the right direction and would have helped any of your furloughed pilots. Although it has'nt gotten very far and it is now passed the point in time where it would have made a difference, it at the very least shows you how a great many of our pilots are willing to offer help.



Revision 3 September 5, 2003
Preferred Hiring Proposal

Proposal Between PSA Airlines (PSA) and the Airline Pilots in Service of PSA Airlines

Definitions:

“Combined Seniority List #1” is a reference to the current Wholly Owned Combined Seniority List for the purposes of flow to MidAtlantic and US Airways Mainline.

“Combined Seniority List #2” is a reference to what would be the Combined Seniority List of Allegheny and Piedmont Airlines only.

“Company” means PSA Airlines, Inc., its successors and assigns.

“Date of Hire” means the day a pilot enters training with the Company for the duties of a pilot.

“Furlough” means the removal of a pilot from active duty as a pilot due to a reduction in force or the period of time during which such pilot is not in the active employ of the Company as a pilot due to such reduction in force.

“Longevity” means the period of time, used for pay and benefit accrual purposes, commencing from date of hire.

“New Hire Position ” means any position that is created when a Jets for Jobs position is not claimed by a Pilot on the US Airways Affected Pilot List (APL) and reverts to the Company.

“Off the Street Pilots” means any pilot who is employed after August 1, 2003 by PSA Airlines Inc. through programs or processes other than the Jets for Jobs protocols or this Preferred Hiring Proposal.

“US Airways Affected Pilot List” means those pilots on Furlough from US Airways and eligible for the Jets for Jobs protocols.

Purpose:

To provide the Airline Pilots of Allegheny (ALG) and/or Piedmont (PDT) Airlines with job opportunities in the event of a Furlough at ALG and/or PDT Airlines. The Airline Pilots in service of ALG and/or PDT Airlines shall be referred to as Furloughed pilots so long as they meet the definition of “Furlough” above.


Implementation:

1. All “New Hire” positions created from August 1, 2003 until the date when PSA discontinues operations as a US Airways Express Carrier, shall be given to all furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilots that wish to accept such positions as Airline Pilots in service of PSA Airlines. The Company shall make every effort to make known, available New Hire positions, in a timely manor to the PSA ALPA Merger Committee. The PSA ALPA Merger Committee, working together with The Company, will be responsible for assuring that furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilots that wish to accept positions at PSA are notified of the available positions and class dates.

2. No furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilot shall interview for this position.

3. No furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilot shall give up Seniority at ALG and/or PDT Airlines.

4. No furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilot shall be on Probation.

5. In order for an ALG and/or PDT Pilot to come to PSA under this agreement, he or she must be furloughed as described above.

6. A Combined Seniority List of the ALG and PDT Pilots will be made in cooperation with all three of the ALG, PDT, and PSA MEC’s by Date of Hire then by age with their respective Companies. This list shall be called the Combined Seniority List #2 and be completed before the first CRJ or DO-328 New Hire, Transition, or Up Grade class that takes place after August 1, 2003.

7. The Combined Seniority List #2 of the ALG and PDT pilots will then be stapled to the bottom of the current PSA Pilot Seniority List dated August 1, 2003. This stapled list shall be referred to as the Stapled Seniority List and replace the current PSA Seniority List dated August 1, 2003. All Furloughed ALG and/or PDT Pilots will have a PSA Date of Hire, for the purposes of bidding only, of the Date of this new Stapled Seniority List only when furloughed from ALG and/or PDT.

8. Hiring of furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilots for each class will begin with the most senior furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilot with respect to the Stapled Seniority List.

9. In the event that a furloughed ALG and/or PDT pilot refuses the offer of employment at PSA Airlines under this agreement that person shall be removed from the Stapled Seniority List and not considered for employment under this proposal.

10. Longevity for the purposes of pay and benefits at PSA Airlines will start on the first day of ground school at PSA of the Furloughed ALG and/or PDT Pilot. Not the Date of Hire of the Stapled Seniority List.

11. This agreement in no way affects the three Wholly Owned (ALG, PDT, and PSA) Combined Seniority List #1 with regards to flow to MidAtlantic Airlines or US Airways Mainline.


"Disclamer for those of you who just skim through posts. The above proposal is just that, a PROPOSAL, and has not and most likely will not be ratified due to the amout of time that has past since the PROPOSAL has gone to the negotiating committe."

 

[PDTGIMP]

I stand corrected. That proposal was more than I thought was being discussed at PSA. I only wish it could be ratified and presented to managment.

In regards to the 50/50. Let me clarify the situation alittle. In an attempt to show solidarity to David Bronner a few months ago, we came to an oral agreement with U MEC whereby if 10 701's and 10 50 seaters came to PDT, we would fly the 50 and they would fly the 70. However, if it was all 701's, 50/50 to the end. Regardless, it was 50/50. Why would we suggest this split? Simply, Bruce Ashby and U managment have said they do not want or plan on purchasing any more than 60 50 seaters, as they believe they will be obsolete when competitors start integrating 70 seaters. We figured it was a dead issue, but U MEC is militant in regards to these 701, 705 or any other 70 seat airplane. So, this was our comprimise with them, which we believed could be sold to their MEC and membership, which is stupid anyway that our futures are tied to their members....unbelievable.

Anyway, it doesn't matter 'cause mainline MEC wants 100% anyway...so we are back at square one. Also, I'm almost postivie these 20 70 seaters are allowed under an LOA with U MEC whereby 50/50 is allowed but more than this number means 100% blah, blah....so I'm not too concerned yet.

Happy New Year y'all

 

[Auto-throttle]

Don't pull a "Skywest."

Bye Bye--General Lee

Hey General,

everyone SHOULD pull a skywest.

it's the best place to work. fastest upgrade, good money. and the mormon F/As are HOT.