Transfer of 70 seat aircraft to PSA in doubt
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 988
Transfer of 70 seat aircraft to PSA in doubt
While quickly redacted after it was leaked, the damage was already done. This basically admits what many of us have been hinting at, in addition to the fact that the PSA 50 seat aircraft will be getting parked sooner: PSA won't be able to staff the CRJ-700 from Envoy and the ability to transfer the entire fleet won't happen.
In all likelihood, the only pilots that can staff those planes are the Envoy pilots. Unless you think the Envoy pilots would agree to come over with junior bidding ability and if you think American management would agree to pay Envoy pilots the same longevity scale, the majority of the planes will likely stay at Envoy.
To transfer the airplanes with the Envoy pilots coming over to PSA, would cause a 6 month training gap for each pilot, that the regional industry cannot sustain right now since it is already against the wall with tight staffing.
In all likelihood, the only pilots that can staff those planes are the Envoy pilots. Unless you think the Envoy pilots would agree to come over with junior bidding ability and if you think American management would agree to pay Envoy pilots the same longevity scale, the majority of the planes will likely stay at Envoy.
To transfer the airplanes with the Envoy pilots coming over to PSA, would cause a 6 month training gap for each pilot, that the regional industry cannot sustain right now since it is already against the wall with tight staffing.
#2
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 988
The PSA MEC's true intention was to make the staffing of the CRJ-700 aircraft happen so they can guarantee more seniority. They didn't think this letter through before it was leaked. It validates that they can't staff the 50 seat aircraft and transfer of 70 seat aircraft.
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 387
That means every regional would shutdown. (Wishful thinking on my part)
#4
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CRJ-900/700/200 CA
Posts: 56
I think this is still a non issue. They are just following ALPA protocol. We should all wait and see what happens before we jump to conclusions. Of course, it would be best if the aircraft stay where they are but I think AAG already made their decision. If that's the case, then everyone should work for the best outcome for all involved pilots. Below is the e-mail we got today from our MEC. It explains why the e-mail was sent and you can read that it WAS NOT initiated by PSA MEC
"May 14, 2015
Dear Fellow PSA Pilots:
I’m writing to address some questions that have come up as to administration of ALPA policy dealing with transfer of aircraft between ALPA represented carriers. The language of the policy is in the ALPA Administrative Manual, Section 45, Part 4.
This policy applies if the acquiring ALPA carrier (here, PSA) agrees to employ pilots of the ALPA carrier transferring the aircraft (here, ENY) and to integrate them using the procedures of ALPA merger policy or a mutually satisfactory substitute process. It also provides that if the acquiring carrier does not intend to employ and integrate transferring pilots, “the President [of ALPA] shall urge the acquiring carrier to do so.”
Our carrier has not publicly stated its intent as to employing or integrating ENY pilots with respect to the announced transfer of 47 CRJ700s. ALPA’s President, Captain Tim Canoll is obligated by ALPA policy to “urge” our carrier “to do so.” Captain Canoll appropriately sought input from the ENY MEC Chairman and from me on this question.
In this context, I hope you will understand that my recent letter to Captain Canoll on this subject simply confirms that our ALPA President should carry out his own obligations under ALPA policy. Nothing more, nothing less. We should all have the reasonable expectation that our ALPA President will diligently follow ALPA policy, until we choose to change it going forward.
Fraternally,"
"May 14, 2015
Dear Fellow PSA Pilots:
I’m writing to address some questions that have come up as to administration of ALPA policy dealing with transfer of aircraft between ALPA represented carriers. The language of the policy is in the ALPA Administrative Manual, Section 45, Part 4.
This policy applies if the acquiring ALPA carrier (here, PSA) agrees to employ pilots of the ALPA carrier transferring the aircraft (here, ENY) and to integrate them using the procedures of ALPA merger policy or a mutually satisfactory substitute process. It also provides that if the acquiring carrier does not intend to employ and integrate transferring pilots, “the President [of ALPA] shall urge the acquiring carrier to do so.”
Our carrier has not publicly stated its intent as to employing or integrating ENY pilots with respect to the announced transfer of 47 CRJ700s. ALPA’s President, Captain Tim Canoll is obligated by ALPA policy to “urge” our carrier “to do so.” Captain Canoll appropriately sought input from the ENY MEC Chairman and from me on this question.
In this context, I hope you will understand that my recent letter to Captain Canoll on this subject simply confirms that our ALPA President should carry out his own obligations under ALPA policy. Nothing more, nothing less. We should all have the reasonable expectation that our ALPA President will diligently follow ALPA policy, until we choose to change it going forward.
Fraternally,"
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 323
While quickly redacted after it was leaked, the damage was already done. This basically admits what many of us have been hinting at, in addition to the fact that the PSA 50 seat aircraft will be getting parked sooner: PSA won't be able to staff the CRJ-700 from Envoy and the ability to transfer the entire fleet won't happen.
In all likelihood, the only pilots that can staff those planes are the Envoy pilots. Unless you think the Envoy pilots would agree to come over with junior bidding ability and if you think American management would agree to pay Envoy pilots the same longevity scale, the majority of the planes will likely stay at Envoy.
To transfer the airplanes with the Envoy pilots coming over to PSA, would cause a 6 month training gap for each pilot, that the regional industry cannot sustain right now since it is already against the wall with tight staffing.
In all likelihood, the only pilots that can staff those planes are the Envoy pilots. Unless you think the Envoy pilots would agree to come over with junior bidding ability and if you think American management would agree to pay Envoy pilots the same longevity scale, the majority of the planes will likely stay at Envoy.
To transfer the airplanes with the Envoy pilots coming over to PSA, would cause a 6 month training gap for each pilot, that the regional industry cannot sustain right now since it is already against the wall with tight staffing.
#8
patience
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,068
The PSA MEC's true intention was to make the staffing of the CRJ-700 aircraft happen so they can guarantee more seniority. They didn't think this letter through before it was leaked. It validates that they can't staff the 50 seat aircraft and transfer of 70 seat aircraft.
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 235
Yes, there are some 700s that start coming over in June and then we continue 900 deliveries in November stopping 700 transfers for a while. A lot can change in a year as we all know so quit saying you "know" what is going to happen...
#10
Dont count it until it has been delivered by a 9800 flight with the "Operated by Envoy" sticker removed. Not saying it wont happen, but again... wait till it shows up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post