![]() |
Originally Posted by rickt86
(Post 1588987)
Could they give psa our 700s and use them to meet the terms of their new cba?
|
Originally Posted by Moonwolf
(Post 1589067)
I wouldn't read too much into that. Part 117, and slow attrition in think added a surplus. Don't get me wrong, that would be great but I don't see us adding more 200's.
If anything Awac will either dangle -700s for concessions. Arw MEC will tell them to shove it. I have heard it from JRs lips "when PSA gets large RJ's there will be a void in the 50-seat market in CLT. We see an opportunity to backfill that flying." |
As a general opinion
I remember when a lot of PSA guys where jumping about having another pilot into USAir class. Now they are holding people, like a couple of guys here said. Another question gets into my head now, does the PSA contract have I writing that they will be part of AA after the SLI? Because when that happens there will be no more Airways... Loop wholes that have to be check by the PSA pilots. |
Originally Posted by PilotJ3
(Post 1589291)
As a general opinion
I remember when a lot of PSA guys where jumping about having another pilot into USAir class. Now they are holding people, like a couple of guys here said. Another question gets into my head now, does the PSA contract have I writing that they will be part of AA after the SLI? Because when that happens there will be no more Airways... Loop wholes that have to be check by the PSA pilots. Given the fact that this deal was negotiated with the merger in mind I hope that there is solid language. |
The TA states US airways or it's successor (ie the new American)
|
Originally Posted by What
(Post 1589310)
And PSA folks don't take this as an Eagle guys bashing you but rather someone helping you. Yes you guys are big boys and are ALPA but I would encourage for some to post the language here and or ask their reps for answer. You guys have worked for these executives much longer than us, but it seems like we are experts at this stuff since we have been getting shafted for 3 years now, and we understand the power of interpretation.
Given the fact that this deal was negotiated with the merger in mind I hope that there is solid language. I don't have it in front of me but the TA specifically states US Airways pre merger and any merged entity thereafter specifically mentioning The new AAG. |
Originally Posted by What
(Post 1589310)
And PSA folks don't take this as an Eagle guys bashing you but rather someone helping you. Yes you guys are big boys and are ALPA but I would encourage for some to post the language here and or ask their reps for answer. You guys have worked for these executives much longer than us, but it seems like we are experts at this stuff since we have been getting shafted for 3 years now, and we understand the power of interpretation.
Given the fact that this deal was negotiated with the merger in mind I hope that there is solid language. |
you passed the last TA (after eagle had said no the first time) for a preferential interview with no guarantees. Is that correct.
|
No. Not correct
|
Originally Posted by seafeye
(Post 1589406)
No. Not correct
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands