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.

If it goes through I would say Mesa's -900's

Why get rid of the most efficient and less expensive ones?

didnt they already announce that mesa was giving back airplanes to usair next year?

CRJ200s, at 2 per year

Probably PSA 700's because the company can.

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.

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!;)

I hear Comair is on the way out at Delta. That sucks.

he was talking about the plane chuckles :rolleyes:

What was the point of throwing that in? :confused:

Nah we're just heading towards a merger with Compass.;) Oh come on Cam you know I got mad love for ya, don't be hatin!:D

Yea, the flightinfo kids are here.

Does USAirway scope consider 700s large rjs?

Yes they are.
And its also my understanding that under the J4J program Airways still owes PSA 15 more of them too. 15 more they will never ever see.

All the more reason for PSA to get -900's in the future.

Actually, in order to benifit us ALL they should go to mainline.

I whole-heartedly agree

Hearing at Mainline on RJ issue was postponed. Don't recall when it is rescheduled for.

Sometimes it's not just about the aircraft. Regardless of what the courts find the company still made contracts with the regionals and will have to pay to break them. I have no idea who's runs out first but that could been a starting point.

According to the J4J LOA:

Small Jet= 50 seats or less
Large Small Jet= 51-76 seats
Larger than Large Small Jet= 86-99 seats

I am not making that up. Larger than large small jets.

Airways doesn't own those planes, they are being slowly withdrawn, but Mesa keeps them.

Why do the airline's contracts with other airlines trump an airline's contract with labor? I certainly don't mean that in a combative way Duck, but it just seems like the typical kind of labor ruling in recent years. Maybe it's time for the employee contracts to have as much weight - or even more weight - than the corporate-corporate contracts. Just a thought.


I'm not sure of the specific wording, but Mr. Parker could very easily play with the wording here. US Airways isn't paying for any RJs, but their wholly owned subsidiary PSA is. I know it's semantics, but that's exactly the kind of thing management loves to do and say.


I'll also add my 2 cents that no more aircraft should be added on the express side. Any new airframes should be added to mainline, and any wholly owned employees should get first dibs after any furloughed mainline pilots in the form of a flow through. 50 seat aircraft used to be mainline aircraft. Why shouldn't they be now?

I'm glad the mainline pilots are grieving this.

Has anybody heard any updates to this grievance?

Give it a month
 

Feb 5-6: Grievance Arbitration: TA Dispute #8 - Operation of Large Small Jets

From Feb 4 USAPA Update: "The Grievance Committee Chairman briefed the Board via teleconference. The Grievance Committee is in Washington DC for T/A Dispute 8 regarding the Company’s operating 18 more large small jets than permitted by the T/A. Typically, a decision takes three to four weeks after an arbitration hearing." :mad:

So if the mainline guys win, will that equate to recalls?

This will go down just like it is going @ Delta, I'd bet.

US Airways Express is "operating" the max amount of 'small jets' allowed by the scope. The remaining small jets are not being "operated" . . . they are "spares".:rolleyes:

Well it doesn't say they are operating to many "Larger than Large" jets so I am guessing RAH will send the 170's to Portland and replace them with 190's in Philly.

From LOA 91, "Consolidated Small Jet Agreement":


Definitions of Small Jets

A “Small Jet” will be defined as a jet aircraft that is a Small SJ, Medium SJ, or Large SJ, as defined below.

“Small SJs” are defined as jet aircraft with a certificated maximum seating capacity of 44 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight of 46,600 pounds. Any CRJ-240/400 aircraft configured for more than 40 seats shall be defined as a Medium SJ.

“Medium SJs” are defined as jet aircraft with a certificated seating capacity of no less than 45 seats and no more than 50 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight not greater than 65,000 pounds

“Large SJs” are defined as jet aircraft having a certificated seating capacity of 51-70 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight not greater than 75,000 pounds. In addition Large SJs include (a) the EMB-170 aircraft with a maximum certificated seating capacity of 78 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight of 82,100 pounds and (b) the EMB-175 aircraft with a maximum certificated seating capacity of 86 seats and a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight not greater than 86,000 pounds.

From LOA 96, "Transition Agreement":

B. Section 1.D.2 of the America West collective bargaining agreement will be modified to increase the maximum seating capacity of jet aircraft flown by Express carriers to a maximum seating capacity of 88 seats (or up to 90 seats if there are no first class seats) and/or certificated maximum take off weight of up to 90,000 pounds.

C. The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements will be modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at any given time at Express Carriers.

I think you ARE making that up. Please provide a reference for the usage of the "Larger than Large Small Jet" terminology in a US Airways or America West CBA/LOA document.:eek:

It may not equate to recalls, but one of the remedies sought in the grievance is to immediately refrain from additional future furloughs. So if the arbitration award is issued in early March, and it is granted in favor of the US Airways pilots, then the final furlough groups scheduled for March thru May should remain on the list as active pilots.

My personal hope is that winning this grievance WILL lead to recalls. Another remedy in the grievance is for the company to "immediately cease and desist from operating more than 93 Large SJ’s". So if 17 Large SJs worth of flying is suddenly going to be pulled out of the schedule, I suspect that flying will need to be covered by a E190/A319/B737 as the busier travel time of year approaches.

Of course it doesn't say anything about operating too many "Larger than Large SJ's" because there is no such term used by US Airways. In my opinion, Hetman made that up, unless he proves me wrong.

RAH recently secured their contract in exchange for giving Airways some $$$ during debt refinancing, so I don't see why RAH would move 170's to Portland. All 25 of the US Airways mainline E190 confirmed deliveries have been made, so "replacing" a mainline E190 onto a flight that used to be flown by an Express Large SJ means that the former E190 flight will then have to be covered by other mainline equipment.

Just reading about this makes me thank God that I'm not the guy that has to deal with it all.

the larger than large small jet term hetman used sounds like a definition bedford would come up with. hes all about redefining the terms of a contract. as far as recalls if the 17 170/900's are pulled off i doubt it. i bet usair would let psa/chq/ air wiskey pick it up instead of giving it to mainline. letting mainline have the flying would only make too much sense.

Either that or you'll see our 175's with a huge first class, and a downgrade to 170 pay.

Hearsay puts it in LOA 94. I have LOA 91 which does not contain the term. I can't find LOA 94 on the internet.

If it turns out I am full of crap (which will be neither the first or last occurrence), it is unintentional, I offer sincere apologies and respectfully request some catsup to make the crow go down a little easier.

LOA 91 does, however, define "Small Jet," "Medium Small Jet" and "Large Small Jet." This is only slightly less ludicrous than a "Larger than Large Small Jet."

LOA 94 is about US Airways Group equity and has nothing to do with RJ's or scope.

Regardless its a jet. I think if the forefathers had been thinking with the big head instead of the little one there wouldn't be anything with fans on it flying for anything other then mainline.

I think the smallest seating capacity of the "Large SJ's" is the 70-seat PSA CRJ-700. To replace the seating capacity of 17 Large SJ's, you would need at least 24 additional 50-seat Medium SJ's. Airways Managment has stated several times that there are already too many 50 seat jets in the Express system.

PSA's CRJ's are essentially financed through the parent company, US Airways Group, so I don't see them adding 24 more CRJ-200's to their fleet, given the current financial state of the industry.

AWAC's entire fleet of 70 CRJ-200's is already dedicated to service as US Airways Express. Without buying more airplanes and amending the contract with Airways, they'll be stuck with those numbers for the forseeable future.

Given the previous statements by Airways, I would again be quite suprised if they chose to increase the size of the Medium SJ fleet with the likes of CHQ and others. As PDT reduces some of the DH8 fleet in the coming months, there will already be additional flying that the Medium SJ's will have to cover.

Airways has 25 aircraft scheduled for delivery this year, with 29 being returned to the lessors. If this grievance goes in favor of the mainline pilots, and 17 Large SJ's are pulled out of service, my bet is with deferring some of the mainline lease returns and covering the flying that way. Yes, this may not lead to recalls of the furloughed pilots, but other upcoming grievances dealing with utilization, block hours and minimum fleet count should help in those efforts.

I agree. In a perfect world there would be so such word as "express" or "connection." Everyone would be hired into the right seat of a Beech 1900 and retire from the left seat of a 777 without ever changing jobs. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and no amount of recrimination will reset the clock.

As to the definition of "larger than large", I may have the LOA wrong or I may be completely off base, but I sincerely believe it is contained in the last j4j LOA somewhere. Regardless, of whether it is real or not, the concept goes back to STILL GROUNDED's statement quoted above as well as my agreement therewith. Had the airlines not splintered based on powerplant, manufacturer or seating capacity, the express carriers, and therefore j4j, would have never existed.