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

Psa J4J

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
Crzipilot said:
SVCTA,

just to get a few facts straight. Look up the definition of an Affected Pilot. And how one goes about getting onto the APL list.

• An “Affected Pilot” is a pilot on the US Airways Pilots System
Seniority List who (a) has been furloughed or has been issued notice of
furlough under Section 23(B) of the Agreement, (b) has been recalled
to US Airways and subsequently has again been furloughed or issued
notice of furlough, or (c) has received notice of furlough from MDA, a
Participating Wholly Owned Carrier, or a Participating Affiliate
Carrier

And a quick correction, is that the lawsuit they filed wasn't saying they were never part of mainline, quite the opposite. The arbitration they went through, was the company saying they were a seperate division, and their arguement was that they weren't. The airplanes going to republic was a change of control, not a simple sale of assets.

Anyways, alot of the arguments and assumptions that many have come up, just basically prove that the majority of you haven't read the LOA's governing this. If one did, some of the statements made wouldn't have been made.

Would one have received a furlough notice from MDA if one had taken the position flying the same aircraft for the same pay from the same base with Republic?
 
Just FYI I don't work for MDA, nor did I particpate in J4J.

How anyone can question whether MDA pilots are mainline pilots is amazing. What operating certificate were they using? USAirways'. Very simple.

Is this unfortunate for everyone involved? Yes. Is it being done per the J4J agreement that all parties signed? Yes.

You are justified in whining about how it sucks and you won't get to upgrade as soon, but please quit implying that this is some sort of illegal conspiracy. IMO, it's very unbecoming and illuminates one big reason this job has ceased being a profession.
 
The pilots in question that are elgible for the J4J are the ex-PDT/ALG guys that went to MDA, got a mainline seniority #, and then got furloughed. They are now on the APL list. All of the mainline guys have passed the opportunity to go to PSA. Like it or not, they will be elgible to particpate in the J4J program.
 
Therein lies the question, how is it that the language states they would be able to flow back to their respective wholly owned carriers and now they can come to PSA?
 
flyguy8 said:
The pilots in question that are elgible for the J4J are the ex-PDT/ALG guys that went to MDA, got a mainline seniority #, and then got furloughed. They are now on the APL list. All of the mainline guys have passed the opportunity to go to PSA. Like it or not, they will be elgible to particpate in the J4J program.

PDT nor ALG provided jets to PSA in exchange for jobs nor did they ever fly for mainline so how much of a gawd-awful-sh!tty mess is this becoming?
 
Original J4J Program, Originally supposed to have 80 something jets to PSA,
Dont' see anymore jets

Game has changed!

your jets went to Republic, go join em'
 
Pilots employed by a Participating Wholly Owned Company Carrier who became MDA pilot's or US Airways pilots under this Attachment B, may flow back to their respective Participating Wholly Owned Carriers. US Airways pilots employed by MDA, if furloughed from MDA may displace into positions at Participating Wholly Owned Carriers in order of their seniority as US Airways pilots in accordance with the Flow Through Letter of Agreement (LOA#__) to be agreed to by the Company and Association.

It's clear AA's attempt to enter into hurried negotiations during December for a flow through agreement with PSA, was an attempt to settle this part of LOA 91.

To this date, no flow through letter has been drafted or presented.
 
PoorJetDriver said:
Would one have received a furlough notice from MDA if one had taken the position flying the same aircraft for the same pay from the same base with Republic?

Well just to clarify something again, The republic positions are being filled via the J4J protocols and the APL list. I.E. these guys got furlough notices (I presume) and the positions and class dates have/are being posted as J4J open positions. It goes down the APL list to those that have preferenced republic or other. And yes there are guys taking those positions at Rep. now that the arbitration is over. How many not sure, someone else would know that.

328dude, I agree with your sentiment that the flow through went to the front burner due to the furloughs at MDA. I also agree that the PDT and ALG guys were supposed to flow BACK to their respective WO carrier. Not sure what's happend on the PDT side, something about the PDT MEC said they didn't want them back or something, might want to find out what happened there.

As to the comment that the MDA guys turned down PSA, well I think you'll find that's not all entirely true. There were positions at PSA and MDA open at the same time. So some never truely turned down PSA, they choose MDA first. At which time their name is "removed" from the APL list, as they had chosen a J4J position. The catch though is within the LOA's it states one becomes an Affected Pilot when furloughed from US/MDA etc etc.
The section you pointed out with the unnegotiated LOA, kinda states the same thing, except that the US guys can come to a J4J postiion with their US seniority, I.E. I would imagine meaning displacing the current J4J's at PSA.
From what I've also heard, it's supposedly 30 positions or so that are targeted for backfill, as well as determining whose eligible to bid on that or not. Dunno, just talk I've heard.

As to the AWAC jets etc.....what has been told, is that the original 70 jets on property are exempt from J4J. Mesa had the first 70 and AWAC is taking mesa's position so their jets are exempt.
Anyways, just forwarding what I've heard..
 
I am not sure what happened with the Flowbacks to PDT! I heard that a bunch of the agreements were never signed or official, thats the reason they didn't come back. Plus I am sure management didn't want a bunch of senior Capts. coming back (There were a bunch of Senior ALG folks that took the MDA offer instead of the merge with PDT) A lot of PDT people were a bit pissed because they wanted to keep some kinda of flowthru to mainline. Then there was (Like You Guys) all the FO's that didn't want them back because of Upgrades and etc. I probably would have have downgraded also, so I was kinda hoping it wouldn't happen also I guess.
All I can say is ALPA really screwed up with this J4J Thing. I really honesty can say now I am glad we didn't get any RJ's on our property if having to deal with this was gonna happen. Good Luck to all of us!!
 
As to the AWAC jets etc.....what has been told, is that the original 70 jets on property are exempt from J4J. Mesa had the first 70 and AWAC is taking mesa's position so their jets are exempt.
Anyways, just forwarding what I've heard..


The original 70 jets were operated by Mesa, Trans States and Chatauqua. Not all 70 went to Mesa.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top