Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   US Airways scope violation Grievance (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/34552-us-airways-scope-violation-grievance.html)

Cactusone 12-12-2008 09:57 PM
US Airways scope violation Grievance
 
Have any of the Express guys heard or have there companies commented on the grievance being put up by mainline pilots? The arbitrator was suppose to go over it on the Dec 8th but the company witness got sick:rolleyes:. Anyway they want to ground 17 big rj's but haven't said who's.



To recap prior updates, the TA Dispute #8 was filed because the Company is currently in violation of the total number of “Large Small Jets” they are permitted to operate under the terms and conditions of the Transition Agreement. The Agreement authorizes the Company to operate a maximum combined total (East and West) of 93 Large SJ’s; they are currently operating 110 Large SJ’s. The remedies sought in arbitration include:
Requiring the Company to immediately cease and desist from operating more than 93 Large SJ’s as defined in Section VIII of the Transition Agreement,

H46Bubba 12-12-2008 11:07 PM
If it goes through I would say Mesa's -900's

logic1 12-13-2008 07:38 AM
Originally Posted by H46Bubba (Post 517529)
If it goes through I would say Mesa's -900's
Why get rid of the most efficient and less expensive ones?

Killer51883 12-13-2008 08:16 AM
didnt they already announce that mesa was giving back airplanes to usair next year?

king10pin02 12-13-2008 08:58 AM
Originally Posted by Killer51883 (Post 517685)
didnt they already announce that mesa was giving back airplanes to usair next year?
CRJ200s, at 2 per year

Theonemarine 12-13-2008 08:59 AM
Probably PSA 700's because the company can.

seafeye 12-13-2008 12:59 PM
Ahh Doug P. said that they wouldn't park any airplanes they owned or had current leases on. Just wouldn't make sense to park airplanes that you are making payments on. So he says....

Theonemarine 12-13-2008 01:16 PM
Originally Posted by seafeye (Post 517828)
Ahh Doug P. said that they wouldn't park any airplanes they owned or had current leases on. Just wouldn't make sense to park airplanes that you are making payments on. So he says....
Wouldn't be the first time he backed on his word. You may be right though since it wouldn't make sense. But the contract carriers need the contractual minimum flying so where would the frames come from? Certainly not RAH's 170 fleet. Especially after "injecting" (read bribing) money into Airways.

H46Bubba 12-13-2008 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by logic1 (Post 517660)
Why get rid of the most efficient and less expensive ones?
Because:
1. Airways isn't paying leases on them. If they park PSA -700's they're bleeding cash due to having to pay leases and not making revenue.
2. MAG hasn't infused Airways with cash like Republic has, which was smart of BB to pretty much keep them safe in a situation like this.
3. MAG is on the way out at Airways anyways.
4. You must work for MAG. I was management at MAG and MAG is by no means efficient!:rolleyes: But you are correct about them being cheap!;)

CamYZ125 12-13-2008 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by H46Bubba (Post 517926)
3. MAG is on the way out at Airways anyways.
I hear Comair is on the way out at Delta. That sucks.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands