This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
I've semi-protected the article due to edit warring over the "Criticisms" section. I've left the section in as it is referenced, but have no strong opinions as to its retention or deletion. Suggest the issue is discussed here and consensus formed as to its retention or deletion. Further edit warring after said consensus has been formed will result in editors being blocked from editing. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but WP:SYNTH, all smoke and mirrors - for one thing there is no criticism in the refs used, of which there are three. The first ref merely reports US Airways' profit - and doesn't say it was a record profit, but record revenues. The second ref, which is the only one of the three to mention the contract, contains no actual criticism; it is also a blog, not a news story. This blog suggests that the contract is quote "along the same lines" as another contract at another airline that was described as a B-scale by a pilots' union representative at that airline. The third "ref" is a link to amazon.com's page about a book; we cannot accurately assess any information pertaining to this book but it seems to be used to assert that B-scales don't benefit the employer long-term. As I said, nothing but synthesis and it should be removed in its entirety. YSSYguy (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the text I have to agree with User:YSSYguy, this is all somewhere between WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:AXE. It should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YSSYguy said, "there is no criticism in the refs used". Okay. Let's call the section "Pay Caps".
YSSYguy said, "The first ref merely reports US Airways' profit - and doesn't say it was a record profit, but record revenues." :::Okay. See proposed rewritten section below.
YSSYguy said, "This blog" (The Dallas News is far from a "blog". The website itself is - from their own website - "Dallasnews.com is the official website for The Dallas Morning News newspaper.") YSSYguy continues, "...suggests that the contract is quote "along the same lines" as another contract at another airline that was described as a B-scale by a pilots' union representative at that airline." That "other airline" was American Airlines, who rejected it. Section rewritten, and submitted here on the Talk Page for review.
Lastly, YSSYguy said, "The third "ref" is a link to amazon.com's page about a book; we cannot accurately assess any information pertaining to this book". The book "link" is one provided to you by the Cite > Templates > Cite Book template. It is fully filled out including ISBN. Being able to cite an academic book published by The Cornell University Press is the advantage of actually being well read on the subject being edited and an entirely acceptable citation by Wikipedia protocol. Book citations are used on over 500,000 Wikipedia articles. See Template:Cite book
Acknowledging a watershed precedent in labor history, where airline employees are being disconnected from airline revenue and subsequent profitability is not WP: AXE, Ahunt . Yes, it's a bad deal for pilots, but this does NOT undermine its historical significance.
Proposed rewrite -
===Pay Caps===
"On the heels of one of the highest revenue years (2012) for parent company US Airways PSA's pilot union, ALPA, relented to concessionary pressures from PSA management in their newest contract. PSA management maintained that the pilot group should take some financial concessions in order to help replace their increasingly obsolescent fleet of CRJ-200's with larger CRJ-700's and 900's. Key amongst the concessions is limiting pay scale ascension for new-hire first officers (co-pilots) to a 4 year pay rate, and captains to a 12 year pay rate.[10] Terry Maxon, of The Dallas News, points out that American Airlines pilots recently voted down a similar deal. The AA pilots compared the deal to creating a "B-Scale". The use and subsequent decline of B-Scales is an antiquated practice which saw no long term benefits for airlines that used them in the 1980s and 1990s.[11]"
