I Love PSA
10-07-2013 | 02:28 PM
#2971
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Left
I've read the TA.
While it does say "US Airways Group commits to ALPA...Group shall place no less than thirty (30) 71-90 seat jet aircraft on the PSA operating certificate" upon the passage of LOA 4, there is absolutely zero language mandating that those be growth airframes.
Given that the specter of expiring leases was used to help sell LOA4, what makes you so confident Group will renew those expiring leases AND add "no less than 30 71-90 seat jet aircraft"?
Put yourself in management's shoes: they can completely and totally fulfill their LOA 'commitment' by adding 30 900s while ridding themselves of your entire -200 fleet...which they could do before this LOA, and can still do after. As previously mentioned that would result in a net loss of airframes...and Parker has made his dislike of 50s rather clear over the last few years.
Will Group do that to PSA? Nobody knows. But there's nothing that says they can't or won't, if it is financially advantageous for them to do so.
While it does say "US Airways Group commits to ALPA...Group shall place no less than thirty (30) 71-90 seat jet aircraft on the PSA operating certificate" upon the passage of LOA 4, there is absolutely zero language mandating that those be growth airframes.
Given that the specter of expiring leases was used to help sell LOA4, what makes you so confident Group will renew those expiring leases AND add "no less than 30 71-90 seat jet aircraft"?
Put yourself in management's shoes: they can completely and totally fulfill their LOA 'commitment' by adding 30 900s while ridding themselves of your entire -200 fleet...which they could do before this LOA, and can still do after. As previously mentioned that would result in a net loss of airframes...and Parker has made his dislike of 50s rather clear over the last few years.
Will Group do that to PSA? Nobody knows. But there's nothing that says they can't or won't, if it is financially advantageous for them to do so.
Agree that the language is less than solid but at this point in time(for the next 5+ years) Airways needs 50 seat feed. We have literally the newest 200s in existence at PSA.
Airways isn't going to shift that flying to a more expensive carrier, like Whiskey, just for the sake of saying "gotcha" to PSA.
The leases are so dirt ass cheap on our 200s that Airways even now makes money on them.
10-07-2013 | 02:32 PM
#2972
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Left
you're statement is intentionally misleading to make is sound like when you include everyone (244 out of 530), even people that cannot vote, that the TA passed with less than half of pilots agreeing with it. And trying to play the "whoa is me", 'it's not my fault' card. Including people that cannot vote is the same as trying to justify including people that are 'just about' to turn 18 in a presidential election.
If you believe this (in bold), then you do not understand the political system. I don't know how long you've been in this industry, so I guess i'll explain this too. in southern states, democrats that do not vote are basically voting republican because they are not opposing the majority. And visa versa in states like california.
In the PSA situation and in the regional industry these days, the majority is to accept concessions in fear of keeping your job, therefore non voters are basically yes votes because they're not banding together to oppose the threat/majority. Hence the reason behind the STOPTHEWHIPSAW movement, someone smart understood this principle and did something about it. If the TA at eagle had gone to a pilot vote, probability is in favor of it being passed. We all got lucky that it didn't make it to the pilots for a vote. The biggest threat, as others have said in here, is when one of the big regionals accepts concessions, we are all screwed because pilots wanting to hold the line no longer hold the majority
-and yes, jumpseat wars are stupid. even though the PSA and pinnacle guys did sell us all out
If you believe this (in bold), then you do not understand the political system. I don't know how long you've been in this industry, so I guess i'll explain this too. in southern states, democrats that do not vote are basically voting republican because they are not opposing the majority. And visa versa in states like california.
In the PSA situation and in the regional industry these days, the majority is to accept concessions in fear of keeping your job, therefore non voters are basically yes votes because they're not banding together to oppose the threat/majority. Hence the reason behind the STOPTHEWHIPSAW movement, someone smart understood this principle and did something about it. If the TA at eagle had gone to a pilot vote, probability is in favor of it being passed. We all got lucky that it didn't make it to the pilots for a vote. The biggest threat, as others have said in here, is when one of the big regionals accepts concessions, we are all screwed because pilots wanting to hold the line no longer hold the majority
-and yes, jumpseat wars are stupid. even though the PSA and pinnacle guys did sell us all out
I'm not trying to defend PSA. You are missing my point. The numbers I am giving are to open people's eyes when they think they want to try to prove a point and deny a jumpseat to a PSA pilot.
10-07-2013 | 03:03 PM
#2973
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Agree that the language is less than solid but at this point in time(for the next 5+ years) Airways needs 50 seat feed. We have literally the newest 200s in existence at PSA.
Airways isn't going to shift that flying to a more expensive carrier, like Whiskey, just for the sake of saying "gotcha" to PSA.
The leases are so dirt ass cheap on our 200s that Airways even now makes money on them.
Airways isn't going to shift that flying to a more expensive carrier, like Whiskey, just for the sake of saying "gotcha" to PSA.
The leases are so dirt ass cheap on our 200s that Airways even now makes money on them.
10-07-2013 | 03:26 PM
#2974
Guest
Posts: n/a
We'd disappear instantly without any growth airplanes already on property. Would rather get stocked up for nuclear winter then rely on 14 -700s. Growing now... And we will be cost effective enough that I wouldn't be surprised they give us more airplanes to replace the -200s down the road. We are now a 10 year fixed cost asset. From a business standpoint it makes sense.
10-07-2013 | 03:51 PM
#2975
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
We'd disappear instantly without any growth airplanes already on property. Would rather get stocked up for nuclear winter then rely on 14 -700s. Growing now... And we will be cost effective enough that I wouldn't be surprised they give us more airplanes to replace the -200s down the road. We are now a 10 year fixed cost asset. From a business standpoint it makes sense.
10-07-2013 | 03:56 PM
#2976
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by PeopleMover90:
"From a business standpoint it makes sense."
And from an all pilot's standpoint, it was a very big career mistake, even though any individual pilot can justify it. Singular perspective versus global perspective - management wins.
"From a business standpoint it makes sense."
And from an all pilot's standpoint, it was a very big career mistake, even though any individual pilot can justify it. Singular perspective versus global perspective - management wins.
10-07-2013 | 04:08 PM
#2977
Guest
Posts: n/a
Read my posts. Simply pointing out what it looks like and why we would not lose net 5 airplanes in 2019 or another economic disaster.
"Keep your friends close but enemies closer." If we refuse to understand managements perspective or goals, we will not be able to collectively bargain effectively. You all with your war mongering attitudes will achieve nothing. It comes in gifts such as a Trojan horse where we as pilots can finally have a last say. If we keep going down a path of disagreement and disillusion, we aren't immune to even ****tier deals. Even the government can't get along right now and forced a shutdown. If we don't get what management sees, our counter bargaining abilities are ruined.
This deal could have definitely been negotiated better. Absolutely. But a management troll? You're funny.
"Keep your friends close but enemies closer." If we refuse to understand managements perspective or goals, we will not be able to collectively bargain effectively. You all with your war mongering attitudes will achieve nothing. It comes in gifts such as a Trojan horse where we as pilots can finally have a last say. If we keep going down a path of disagreement and disillusion, we aren't immune to even ****tier deals. Even the government can't get along right now and forced a shutdown. If we don't get what management sees, our counter bargaining abilities are ruined.
This deal could have definitely been negotiated better. Absolutely. But a management troll? You're funny.
10-07-2013 | 05:55 PM
#2978
Doing One Pilot's Job
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,884
Likes: 119
Agree that the language is less than solid but at this point in time(for the next 5+ years) Airways needs 50 seat feed. We have literally the newest 200s in existence at PSA.
Airways isn't going to shift that flying to a more expensive carrier, like Whiskey, just for the sake of saying "gotcha" to PSA.
The leases are so dirt ass cheap on our 200s that Airways even now makes money on them.
Airways isn't going to shift that flying to a more expensive carrier, like Whiskey, just for the sake of saying "gotcha" to PSA.
The leases are so dirt ass cheap on our 200s that Airways even now makes money on them.
10-07-2013 | 09:08 PM
#2979
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
We'd disappear instantly without any growth airplanes already on property. Would rather get stocked up for nuclear winter then rely on 14 -700s. Growing now... And we will be cost effective enough that I wouldn't be surprised they give us more airplanes to replace the -200s down the road. We are now a 10 year fixed cost asset. From a business standpoint it makes sense.
10-08-2013 | 04:55 AM
#2980
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Left
right, it makes sense for management. They clearly won this battle, if times are good they now have dirt cheap labor, and if times get bad they now have dirt cheap labor that they can pay freeze and move airplanes at will. How is management having all the leverage and power a good thing for the PSA pilots? From my perspective, y'all gave up almost all of your power and leverage in exchange for next to nothing.
If they want to come back to us for say, more planes, then we could negotiate a little more aggressively. They mentioned the fact that staffing could become an issue in the near future and that we could get some improvements to the deal later on to help attract pilots.
Our NC is putting their money where their mouth is on this one as they are right in that "pay cap" area and will immediately feel the effects of this TA.
I think it makes sense.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
