48 was the number when we had 480 pilots, either at the end of the year or when the last 900 arrives, jun2015, that number changes to match our growth in pilots

The envoy crj's were coming to psa long before the vote

And herein lies the fundamental problem at ALL regional airlines that most lifer regional guys don't seem to get: YOU DON'T OWN ANY OF IT!

Not the flying, not the aircraft, not the passengers, etc. Maybe the company owns a building somewhere, but that's about it.

AAG decided to move some assets from one wholly owned subsidiary to another. Emphasis on subsidiary just in case you missed that.

*************************

And how fast will the newest hires at RAH, XJT, SKW, Air Whiskey, or even envoy flow to AAG?

Granted, if your ultimate goal is to fly for American/US Air, the last place you probably want to be is at PSA, PDT, or envoy. But if you have your sights set on DAL, UAL, SWA, JB, UPS, FEDEX, Alaska, Hawaiian, Atlas, Spirit, Frontier, etc.,......then being #1344 at PSA really won't hold you back.

Actually we had scope language on those crjs up till summer 2011 when our mec gave it away for bull flow

Rickt86, a lot of truth in that statement and we have been paying for that since then

So let me make sure I understand something:

Envoy pilots are fully justified in giving concessions for job "security" when it's there own jobs but when someone else does it it's "selling out?"

Am I missing something?

We had a rouge mec that was boardline in bed with management. We never got to vote on this, they flat out traded our scope language for flow language, the pilots had no say. This began a process of mec replacement, as well as LEC.

I don't think we voted on it. I was on probation anyway at the time so I couldn't vote, but I think it was our horrible MEC at the time that gave it away.

So Eagle pilots didn't vote it in then, and to answer your question, no, we wouldn't be justified, just as PSA and PDT were also not justified in selling out.

The Useful PSA Thread
 

Ok let me see if I have the score right.
1.You guys got called out for the BS story that you voted yes to a Great contract with SAP, but turns out you already had it before the yes vote.
2. You guys got called out for the BS story that you voted yes for concessions in fear for your jobs, but that turned out to be a lie also
3. Your latest excuse is the Envoy 700s were yours before you voted yes, so it's really the Eagle Pilots fault for voting NO right? Oh wait , whatever do you mean you voted before they did........

That about cover it. Stay Classy PSA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Interesting, good to know.

At the same time, regardless of how a particular pilot group gets to wherever they are, you've got to make decisions based on the facts as they are, not how you want them to be.

Envoy pilots made their decision knowing that airplanes could go, but they still have certain protections in place, i.e. the 824 and the Protected Pilots.

PSA and PDT made their decisions knowing that it would be far easier for their smaller pilot groups to be shut down and aircraft sent somewhere else.

Said another way, the risks that the PSA and PDT would've incurred with a No vote were much greater than the risks that Envoy took with their No vote.

My own theory is that had both PSA and PDT voted no, everyone would be patting them on the back wishing we weren't them while watching PDT disappear and PSA airplanes joining the former Envoy 700s at Mesa.