trent890

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.

trent890

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.

ToiletDuck

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

Killer51883

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.

STILL GROUNDED

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

Hetman

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."

Cactusone

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

STILL GROUNDED

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.

trent890

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.

Hetman

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.