Talk:PSA Airlines

Semi-protection

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)

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)

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)

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]"--50.128.155.168 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The pay caps imposed upon PSA pilots by management are precedent setting, and as we can see from the volume of articles on it, noteworthy. There needs to be a section in this article regarding this event. I think the new text in the proposed pay caps section I suggest you work together on this section.--Rolander0001 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Who says it's precedent setting, and where's the "volume" you speak of? Feel free to post some links to other sources here. The blog by the Dallas Morning News writer (and it is a blog, it says so three times on the web page, including the URL) doesn't say that it's precedent setting, but it does suggest that the pilots under this contract will get preferential treatment in career progression. It also suggests that a similar contract was voted up at Pinnacle. You can't just pick out the bits that support your position and ignore the bits that don't suit you - that's synthesis; and after all, there must be a reason that the contract was voted up. I am well aware of how to cite a book, equally it is normal to cite a page number, but that's neither here nor there. I was merely pointing out that the book is not going to have any mention of this specific issue - all it demonstrates is that B-scales didn't have long-term benefits 20-odd years ago (and if they were in use then, further indication this contract can't be precedent setting), and as it hasn't been shown yet that this is a B-scale, it is of limited relevance.The USAToday article says that US Airways made a good profit but makes no mention of whether PSA is profitable. PSA is being run as a separate company, so the relevance of the parent's profitability is arguable. This is momething that is the province of pPrune, not an encyclopaedia. YSSYguy (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What this appears to be is a Concessions for Contracts scandal. [1] --172.56.27.63 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where's the scandal? Looks to me this is just the normal give-and-take when an employment contract is up for renewal, and it seems to me the pilots got a fair bit in return. YSSYguy (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, I don't see anything scandalous there and the ref presents it as normal labour negotiations. The press release from the pilot's union quoted sounds like they are happy with the deal. I don't see anything notable for an encyclopedia here at all. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

YSSYguy. I think you're missing the point on the precedent. Of course, there have been concessions made throughout history in order to keep airlines competitive. You're right. This however, is not the precedent. The precedent is that it normally takes place when a company is loosing money. PSA Airlines is a wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways. Their combined profits post under the stock ticker, LCC. Read the "Description" section in this stock link. [2] They may be managed separately, BUT, their financial health is not separable. A well written section on this belongs in the article. I think you are using the WP:HEAR strategy. Enough people have voiced their belief that a/the section belongs somewhere in this article. Time to start drafting.

Ahunt said, "The press release from the pilot's union quoted sounds like they are happy with the deal." You tell me the last time a leader, coming up on the short end of the stick, didn't spin a loss into a "victory". If he were to admit defeat, his voracity as a union leader would fall into question. Bye bye union seat. Using a quote from the union leader may be a part of the section. Allow readers to take from it what they will. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well if you are saying that the union is not a reliable source of information on their own labour negotiations then, okay, I guess we can't take anything they say as reliable. Then again, I am sure anything the company says would be equally suspect for the same reasons. Since they are the only two parties to the negotiations and the deal, that only leaves third parties, like the media, but they rely on first and second party information to put their reports together. Not sure that leaves any reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia has a problem then. ;) Just kidding. It obvious, as is the case in many article here on WP, that printed quotes can only be taken at face value if cited in a WP article.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well since we can't really second guess primary sources when talking about themselves, we usually take it at face value and say "this is what they said" and leave it at that. The alternative, as I indicated is just to decide that there is no reliable information on the subject from anyone and leave it all out entirely. In this case if we are going to include this I think we have to say that the pilot's union said, "When PSA pilots voted on our new contract in March, and on subsequent agreements, we had to make some difficult decisions. As a result, we preserved core provisions in our contract and improved pilots' job security here at PSA and career progression to our mainline partner. Today's announcement of a new aircraft order, coupled with our first scheduled seniority-based interviews at US Airways, prove that our tough decisions have borne fruit." - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the use of the quote. That said, this is a small airline. There will be very little written about it. Let's look at the PSA Airlines article itself, in the greater scheme of Wikipedia it's small. The "race-to-the-bottom" always happens in small steps. It seems Terry Maxon of Dallas News is the only mainstream journalist aware enough to be covering it. But just because only one person is covering the caps themselves doesn't mean it's not important. That's like saying just because the pancake sale at the local high school only had KLOC news covering it at the end of the 30 minute local news show, doesn't mean it shouldn't be broadcast. Journalism is an economy of scale. So is this Wikipedia article.

Let's look at this...

===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 procure an allocation of 30 new CRJ 900's from American Airlines [3] [4] 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] A statement from PSA's ALPA pilot union read,

"When PSA pilots voted on our new contract in March, and on subsequent agreements, we had to make some difficult decisions. As a result, we preserved core provisions in our contract and improved pilots' job security here at PSA and career progression to our mainline partner. Today's announcement of a new aircraft order, coupled with our first scheduled seniority-based interviews at US Airways, prove that our tough decisions have borne fruit."[5]

Terry Maxon, of The Dallas News, points out that American Eagle pilots recently voted down a similar deal. The American Eagle pilots compared the deal to creating a "B-Scale". [6] 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]"

I've used 3 news sources including Dallas News, Market Watch, AIN Online and added an ALPA News press release for the quote. Considering the size of the company, the size of "the deal", and the size of this PSA Wikipedia article, I think it's adequately covered.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)