Furloughed Airways pilots....
- Thread starter blee256
- Start date
That would be contrary to the past actions of the pilot group. Furloughees have historically been the coin of choice for lower-tier flying expansion trades (J4J?), period. Why would the ASSociation allow anything of the sort in an operational merger?
/sarcasm
Wait a second, wasn't "Not one nickel, not one job" uttered about 1900 furloughs and SIGNFICANT nickels ago?
What I am interested in seeing is the contract carrier vs. wholly-owned fistfight that might ensue. The past Group attitude has been one of taking care of the neighbors and ignore the family. Who knows what the new management team will do... Gas sure is expensive. Who pays the fuel bill for the contract carriers?
/sarcasm
Wait a second, wasn't "Not one nickel, not one job" uttered about 1900 furloughs and SIGNFICANT nickels ago?
What I am interested in seeing is the contract carrier vs. wholly-owned fistfight that might ensue. The past Group attitude has been one of taking care of the neighbors and ignore the family. Who knows what the new management team will do... Gas sure is expensive. Who pays the fuel bill for the contract carriers?
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
[ QUOTE ]
Gas sure is expensive. Who pays the fuel bill for the contract carriers?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would guess it depends on the contract. I know that with CAL and XJT, XJT gets paid X amount per flight, no matter if they're full or not. It might also depend on some other factors. More than likely, they use the same fuelers at hubs as the mainline aircraft, so that fueling company might send one big bill to the mainline carrier. Just another link in the complicated chain that is regional airline flying.....
Gas sure is expensive. Who pays the fuel bill for the contract carriers?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would guess it depends on the contract. I know that with CAL and XJT, XJT gets paid X amount per flight, no matter if they're full or not. It might also depend on some other factors. More than likely, they use the same fuelers at hubs as the mainline aircraft, so that fueling company might send one big bill to the mainline carrier. Just another link in the complicated chain that is regional airline flying.....
[ QUOTE ]
XJT gets paid X amount per flight, no matter if they're full or not. I
[/ QUOTE ]
That's all well and good, except for two things:
1) That's XJT
2) That's XJT.
Airways CCs are flying routes now with RJs that a 50 seat Dash used to, for the exact amount of block time, for a TON more fuel. Why? The ridiculous notion of the contract carrier! There is NO reason for a jet to fly out and back a couple of times from CLT-GSO. If the carriers weren't guaranteed a fee for departure and had to come up with some way of actually turning a buck for Airways, they'd be GONE. They don't pay for their fuel, mainline does. Some manager somewhere is making bonuses on what some companies call "Statistics." The reward incentive isn't there for actually doing business, just ink on paper that the even higher-ups look at and see loads, completion factor, and a bonus of their own. I've jumped up and down on the phone with DX because we consolidated two flights from an outstation in NY to PHL, then consolided two more out of PHL, which ultimately left us with an empty plane [all of this was my idea]. What to do? Skip PHL and move on down the line to rejoin the sequence, saving fuel, fuel, some more fuel, and leaving another gate open in case somebody is sitting in the box? Nope. Had to get on in to PHL, so some stuffed shirt can bonus. Problem: As a WO, we're taking a bite because we don't have PAX on the dang plane. Ultimately, somebody in HQ saw this going on, shook his head, and dispatched the plane as a ferry to rejoin our sequence. He grew a brain, something only the CEO has been accused of lately.
Many, many pilots are waiting for these clowns to get axed, and a major shakeup is anticipated with the way planes are utilized. Gas is getting pricey, jets are still burning tons of it, and the contracts are allowing silly, silly utility without any risk (read: true profit).
Back to the original thread---
Bring back the furloughs, and hope ALPA doesn't hang them.
XJT gets paid X amount per flight, no matter if they're full or not. I
[/ QUOTE ]
That's all well and good, except for two things:
1) That's XJT
2) That's XJT.
Airways CCs are flying routes now with RJs that a 50 seat Dash used to, for the exact amount of block time, for a TON more fuel. Why? The ridiculous notion of the contract carrier! There is NO reason for a jet to fly out and back a couple of times from CLT-GSO. If the carriers weren't guaranteed a fee for departure and had to come up with some way of actually turning a buck for Airways, they'd be GONE. They don't pay for their fuel, mainline does. Some manager somewhere is making bonuses on what some companies call "Statistics." The reward incentive isn't there for actually doing business, just ink on paper that the even higher-ups look at and see loads, completion factor, and a bonus of their own. I've jumped up and down on the phone with DX because we consolidated two flights from an outstation in NY to PHL, then consolided two more out of PHL, which ultimately left us with an empty plane [all of this was my idea]. What to do? Skip PHL and move on down the line to rejoin the sequence, saving fuel, fuel, some more fuel, and leaving another gate open in case somebody is sitting in the box? Nope. Had to get on in to PHL, so some stuffed shirt can bonus. Problem: As a WO, we're taking a bite because we don't have PAX on the dang plane. Ultimately, somebody in HQ saw this going on, shook his head, and dispatched the plane as a ferry to rejoin our sequence. He grew a brain, something only the CEO has been accused of lately.
Many, many pilots are waiting for these clowns to get axed, and a major shakeup is anticipated with the way planes are utilized. Gas is getting pricey, jets are still burning tons of it, and the contracts are allowing silly, silly utility without any risk (read: true profit).
Back to the original thread---
Bring back the furloughs, and hope ALPA doesn't hang them.
Nick
Well-Known Member
In response to the original question, I don't know where I read this but it was a linked article probably in some other internet forum.
America West had planned to hire a certain number of pilots in a certain amount of time. Those pilots will now be the next US Airways pilots to be recalled.
America West had planned to hire a certain number of pilots in a certain amount of time. Those pilots will now be the next US Airways pilots to be recalled.
Bog
New Member
Seems pretty silly to fly a 737 from CLT to GSO, too. I've seen that a few times. If fact, I've non-revved on it. Quite a full flight, too. Fuel for the CCs is paid for by mainline (HP, UA, and US pay for ours). The entire concept of fee-for-departure must have made sense to some short-sighted bean counter, because it really is not a good idea for long-term corporate health. There is no incentive to offer a quality product at all.
How the seniority lists of HP and US get merged will be tough. With a "date of hire" merge, most of the HP pilots will be furloughed. With a "percentage of seniority" merge, you'll see some of the US furloughees come back, whilst some of the HP pilots hit the street. What exactly is fair when a money-making airline takes over a money-losing airline? Who knows. The last I heard is that the current pilots on the line will be merged, and the furloughs will be the next several classes of "newhires" at the combined mess. Hence, they'll never stop taking it up the tailpipe.
How the seniority lists of HP and US get merged will be tough. With a "date of hire" merge, most of the HP pilots will be furloughed. With a "percentage of seniority" merge, you'll see some of the US furloughees come back, whilst some of the HP pilots hit the street. What exactly is fair when a money-making airline takes over a money-losing airline? Who knows. The last I heard is that the current pilots on the line will be merged, and the furloughs will be the next several classes of "newhires" at the combined mess. Hence, they'll never stop taking it up the tailpipe.
A'right, a'right, a'right. I caught the tongue in cheek part of your post, and you're right- it DID make sense at some point for the contract carrier paradigm.
Unfortunately, that whole fuel thang changed upward a bit since then. I still maintain that contract carriers should hold outside-market flying for the convenience of that arrangement and mainline should adhere to keeping the core of a market in the WO structure(s). It makes no sense right now otherwise.
Unfortunately, that whole fuel thang changed upward a bit since then. I still maintain that contract carriers should hold outside-market flying for the convenience of that arrangement and mainline should adhere to keeping the core of a market in the WO structure(s). It makes no sense right now otherwise.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
As far as I know most (if not all) furloughed Airways pilots will be offered a slot at the new airline *before* the hiring pool that AWA has will be tapped. That starts after a certain date so AWA may choose to start draining the pool as much as they can now. I don't think anybody is going to be left out in the cold on this one, although only time will tell. An interesting thing is that the average age of the Airways seniority list is 53. I don't know the age of the AWA list but it is much younger. Many of the Airways pilots will be out in a few years anyways so they may not take the recall even if offered. As to how the lists will get merged? Nobody is saying anything about it that I have heard. Fortunatly it is the same union in the big picture so things have the potential to go smoothly. It's sort of funny, everybody in my company (with the exception of some of the J4J guys) have a Mainline seniorty number of 9999. I don't think we have to worry about it too much.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
[ QUOTE ]
A'right, a'right, a'right. I caught the tongue in cheek part of your post, and you're right- it DID make sense at some point for the contract carrier paradigm.
Unfortunately, that whole fuel thang changed upward a bit since then. I still maintain that contract carriers should hold outside-market flying for the convenience of that arrangement and mainline should adhere to keeping the core of a market in the WO structure(s). It makes no sense right now otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats shocking that a WO employee would think that WO should get the business.
A'right, a'right, a'right. I caught the tongue in cheek part of your post, and you're right- it DID make sense at some point for the contract carrier paradigm.
Unfortunately, that whole fuel thang changed upward a bit since then. I still maintain that contract carriers should hold outside-market flying for the convenience of that arrangement and mainline should adhere to keeping the core of a market in the WO structure(s). It makes no sense right now otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats shocking that a WO employee would think that WO should get the business.
It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
I mean, we're a wholly-owned sub of the company- not a contract carrier... our money is their money. We went into bankruptcy with them, and are the most profitable arm of the company as usual.
Now if we (PSA, PDT, and MDA) can just get Pollack out of the mainline MEC (he never met a concession he didn't like), the WOs would be served like we should. He's contract carriers' best ally when it comes to outsourcing work; he explicitly said he hates WOs. He's the enemy of a furloughee. He COULD have voted to keep the EMB170s on property (guess where they'd have gone!), but no. F the J4J guys! F the WOs!
What's shocking (and offensive) is an employee from a completely different company feels entitled to our biz, and has the TBs to say so. Better pray Parker (who has been travelling A LOT here in the NE) is brain dead and doesn't bring the -400 on property.
Why are they expanding our maintenance bays in SBY? The 400 fits (they parked one in there at the road show), but Parker wanted 8 more feet per footprint for the mechs. They have moved the flight support offices out and upstairs on his orders, and are expanding the hangars into the new space. The surveyors have been out at the airport every day for the past three weeks, (taxiing a 737-sized turboprop around here is a new challenge) and P himself has been in more than once since then.... DeHavilland's still tabling the original offer on the planes. We could actually pay for them ourselves, and since that whole commonality of type thing we would have them running in 29 days. No other airline* in the world can do that.
"Holy owned"? Y'ain't seen nothing yet.
Fuel, fuel, fuel baby- keep on climbin'! 1700 lbs/hr at 250 .... and 380kt!70 pax, 32 deg, 4000' runway at HXD... to PHL?!?!? Heck, we make something like 200,000 a WEEK in HXD alone (projected revenue loss for the retooling of the runway at two weeks of closure was 400,000), using weight-restricted 100s and stage lengths to DCA or CLT. SEE YA!
*jet operator/ non-dash TP. QX doesn't count!
I mean, we're a wholly-owned sub of the company- not a contract carrier... our money is their money. We went into bankruptcy with them, and are the most profitable arm of the company as usual.
Now if we (PSA, PDT, and MDA) can just get Pollack out of the mainline MEC (he never met a concession he didn't like), the WOs would be served like we should. He's contract carriers' best ally when it comes to outsourcing work; he explicitly said he hates WOs. He's the enemy of a furloughee. He COULD have voted to keep the EMB170s on property (guess where they'd have gone!), but no. F the J4J guys! F the WOs!
What's shocking (and offensive) is an employee from a completely different company feels entitled to our biz, and has the TBs to say so. Better pray Parker (who has been travelling A LOT here in the NE) is brain dead and doesn't bring the -400 on property.
Why are they expanding our maintenance bays in SBY? The 400 fits (they parked one in there at the road show), but Parker wanted 8 more feet per footprint for the mechs. They have moved the flight support offices out and upstairs on his orders, and are expanding the hangars into the new space. The surveyors have been out at the airport every day for the past three weeks, (taxiing a 737-sized turboprop around here is a new challenge) and P himself has been in more than once since then.... DeHavilland's still tabling the original offer on the planes. We could actually pay for them ourselves, and since that whole commonality of type thing we would have them running in 29 days. No other airline* in the world can do that.
"Holy owned"? Y'ain't seen nothing yet.
Fuel, fuel, fuel baby- keep on climbin'! 1700 lbs/hr at 250 .... and 380kt!70 pax, 32 deg, 4000' runway at HXD... to PHL?!?!? Heck, we make something like 200,000 a WEEK in HXD alone (projected revenue loss for the retooling of the runway at two weeks of closure was 400,000), using weight-restricted 100s and stage lengths to DCA or CLT. SEE YA!
*jet operator/ non-dash TP. QX doesn't count!
Bog
New Member
Well, I don't think that any of the WOs could have thrown $125 million into the U firepit to, basically, buy the E170s. U needed cash, Wexford had it. Same with Air Whisky. Sure, all that 50-seat flying could have gone to PSA. But ... cash is cash, and when you're beyond broke, you take what you can get. It's business.
I fully agree the E170s should stay in-house, but I'd rather see them at mainline than any of the WOs. I'm hoping that the HP MEC is able to secure any additional 90-seat flying at the new combined mainline carrier.
I fully agree the E170s should stay in-house, but I'd rather see them at mainline than any of the WOs. I'm hoping that the HP MEC is able to secure any additional 90-seat flying at the new combined mainline carrier.