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.    --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. 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 and Gregory Polek of AIN are the only mainstream journalists aware enough to be covering it. But just because two people are 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 and KSML news covering it at the end of their 30 minute local news shows, 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   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."
 * 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". 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)
 * I had to click on WP:HEAR to seee what you meant, and it appears you are accusing me of engaging in disruptive editing after consensus has been reached. There is no consensus - there isn't a flood of people on this page arguing we must have this in the article, there's only you and a drive-by comment by Rolander, and you haven't convinced me that this section is needed at all. There is no scandal, there are no criticisms, this is what goes on when contracts are being negotiated - you give a little, you get a little. The AINOnline source (the only one you have found which is both a reliable secondary source and has something to say on the subject, because Maxon is writing a blog and the Market Watch source has no bearing on this) states that 48 PSA pilots must be hired to mainline each year. I don't know how many pilots PSA has, but it looks to me that a big percentage of the captains won't get to 12 years and the FOs will be moving into left seats fairly quickly as well. So what's the big deal and where is the coverage of this issue? YSSYguy (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with User:YSSYguy - the union has publicly stated that they are happy with this deal, the airline is happy with it, all part of normal union negotiations. I don't see anything worth adding to the article on this from what you have presented. - Ahunt (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the recent changes made to this section, which are still not properly supported by refs, the consensus here is that this section does not belong in the article. There were labour negotiations, there was a settlement, the company and the union have both said publicly they are happy with it, that makes the whole thing non-notable from an encyclopedia point of view. The refs only support that the American Eagle pilots are not happy with what the PSA pilots accepted, but they are not even party to the deal. That is an American Eagle issue, not a PSA issue. Despite your attempts to blow this into something controversial there is no real evidence that this is worth including. Unless you can bring in some new information I will just remove the whole section as "no consensus to include this". - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, since no new evidence has come forward and the discussion seems to have concluded with a consensus that this doesn't belong here, I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not have consensus.
 * User:Valenciano
 * User:Mjroots As neutral
 * [] User:172.56.27.63
 * User:Rolander0001
 * And, myself. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't either. Valenciano's edit does not equate to agreement with your position. An IP removed an entire section of text (which by your reasoning constitutes disagreement with your position) and this was reverted by Valenciano, which is pretty-much standard procedure when an entire section is removed by an IP - which you well know, to judge by comments (since deleted) on your Talk page. Mjroot's edit to protect the page that you linked to above means nothing in the context of this discussion, and he has stated neutrality elsewhere, so that doesn't add to consensus either way. IP User 172.56.27.63 made a passing comment expressing a personal opinion about the contract only, and did not express any opinion about whether the material should be mentioned in the article; and the other edit you attributed to the IP was Rolander's (which you have linked to already, so I struck it out). Rolander's contribution is a bit odd - s/he has edited only one article on WP, and this Talk page. Anyway, assuming equal weight for all Users who have edited the article and those who have commented here, and including Rolander as a result; there are two 'for' and five 'against' if you count the IP that was reverted by Valenciano and the other two IP editors who removed the text; so consensus is leaning towards the removal of the material in question. Changing the subject, which airline do you work for? YSSYguy (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I originally semi-protected the article to stop an edit war as an alternative to blocking editors as I wanted them to discuss the issue. I've had another request to semi-protect the article from . This would not be effective as semi protection only affects IP and newly registered users. The alternatives are fully protecting the article, issuing bans etc or further discussion and acceptance of the WP:CONSENSUS by all. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, and as User:YSSYguy tabulated, the consensus is that this does not belong here. More to the point, as I already noted, this describes a normal union negotiation that both the company and the union publicly stated they were happy with the outcome from. The refs clearly quote this. The only party that was unhappy was the union at a rival company who felt this set a bad precedent for them. It is clearly not notable to the subject of this article and the consensus is that is doesn't belong here. You were asked to make a case to retain this text and you did not do so in more than a week, so, as per the consensus it gets removed. You need to make a convincing argument and gain a consensus to keep it, neither of which you have done. Your lack of acceptance of consensus and the logic explained here is getting into WP:DEADHORSE territory. To be this determined to include this against consensus it is starting to feel like you have some WP:AXE to grind here. Perhaps you should just explain your connection to this subject to us, so we can all understand why you think this must be included. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Staying on your last question; you hit the nail right on the head. I work in the Part 121 Regularly Scheduled Airline Transport industry. The name of the remitter of my paychecks would certainly be familiar to you. What airline do you work for Ahunt? I know. It's apparent that you don't work for any airline or any regulatory body? It's not only apparent judging from the list of Sport and Ultralight aircraft related articles you've either started or edited, but also how you have little or no actual understanding of the airline industry itself. This is a massive problem I've discovered with Wikipedia. There are scores of under-qualified users editing on many topics on which they have little or no actual experience. The agreement reached by PSA pilots and management has far reaching consequences in the industry reaching well beyond US Airways' little subsidiary. But you don't see or understand the macro effect of this micro agreement. Maxon and the Eagle pilot union do. Either you don't understand or your feigning ignorance in the effort to push your point.
 * Both of you - Ahunt and YSSYguy - know so little about airline transport aviation management that YSSYguy even advertised his lack of knowledge by trying to impeach the validity of a citation from the academic book, Up in the Air, saying that, "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."
 * I replied, "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"
 * Most labor agreements don't even make public print because they are contracts, and most contracts, either labor or other, are kept CONFIDENTIAL to those involved. Why has this one made as many public appearances as it has? Because it's more than just any other labor agreement which effects only The Company. May I suggest that this is a point at which those with valid, but only passing, interest in the airlines step aside and let those who have the most practical experience in their field edit as they seem academically fit. The reason I don't jump on to one of your Ultralight/GA articles and start throwing my opinions around that I don't think this, or that, is notable is because I don't have enough practical experience in that field. Your publishing in that field truly is venerable. It would be like the peanut gallery questioning the judge for me to question you. Respectfully however, I find the same is true here. You are simply out of your league here on this issue. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gee, you are so right, it's like you've known me all my life. It's clear to me now that I have sat around with my thumb up my arse and haven't picked up any knowledge at all since I started working for an airline in September 1993, so Thank You for holding a candle up to throw light on my abject failure to demonstrate basic human skills for the last twenty years and five months - I must have had a stroke or some other brain injury in my youth without realising it; and your ability to read what's left of my enfeebled mind from the other side of the Pacific Ocean (incredible - your brain must be the size of a basketball, can I have someof it? I clearly need it) with respect to my alleged "trying to impeach the validity of a citation from the academic book", where you didn't and haven't yet quoted a page number (which is what you should have done) - "advertising my lack of knowledge" is exactly what I was trying to do there, well done for picking that up. You have yet to find more than two sources discussing the contract (and I'm being generous here, because Maxon is writing a blog). The "far reaching consequences" you speak of is crystal-ball-gazing on your part. You don't know why American Eagle pilots rejected their completely separate agreement (unless you were in the room with some of them when they voted, in which case I grant that you may know why some of them voted against it). You have scraped together a few sticks and tried to build a house out of it with woodworking glue, and it's fallen down. You tried to claim that a majority was in favour of keeping the text and when I pointed out that the opposite was in fact the case, you have resorted to throwing mud around trying to devalue the arguments of two of those against your position. That's what a person does when she or he has no case - attack the opposition and hope they will be discredited. Ahunt writes about ultralights, therefore he knows nothing about airlines? Good grief. You are pissing in pockets and telling people it's raining. YSSYguy (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insults and the the threats. You should probably start by reading WP:NPA and also WP:COI since you indicate you are personally involved in this issue.
 * As User:YSSYguy correctly surmised I write about ultralight aviation, but I have have worked in air carrier operations as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. I am sure you would be surprised to find out that I was not only an air carrier captain, but held management positions as well. The reason I spend most of my time here writing about ultralights is that I also spent many years flying them too (in fact on my off days, when not doing commercial flying) and mostly because no one else is tackling adding ultralight aircraft types to our WikiProject Aircraft task of creating articles on all aircraft types that have flown. Your threat to attack articles I have started is without merit, as all are referenced to independent third party sources that establish notability. If you vandalize articles you will be blocked.
 * Regardless of the fact that you have incorrectly assumed that User:YSSYguy and I have no expertise in air carrier aviation, one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that it actually can be written by non-experts, as long as they understand notability and work from reliable sources. That said, you have managed to try to cast yourself as an expert and dismiss our contributions through threats and insults here when you should have been logically making a case as to why this text should be retained. Having sifted through your arguments all I get from you is that you are angry that this contract was signed because it affects your employment and therefore it must be mentioned in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahunt said, "Your threat to attack articles I have started is without merit..." and, "...and the the threats." Now spin-doctoring too. I told you why I don't edit your articles dude. Your alternative interpretation falls under WP:SYNTHESIS. If we can't trust your reading comprehension on a Talk page, why are we supposed to trust your judgement on what's in these articles? Hmm? Anything to have your way, huh? More later. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, look at that. It's already later. My list of users who have either restored the section, weighed in on the valid notability of the section or agreed in full with my edit, goes to show you do not have a consensus to strike the section. It should exist in some way shape or form. You two have lost the ability to WP:HEAR.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is it? You are down to insulting other editors and pretending you have consensus when you don't? I'll be kind here and just state that we are down to a WP:DEADHORSE situation. As per WP:BRD you put this in, it got reverted, we have discussed it. You need a solid consensus to put this back in and you don't have that. More editors think it doesn't belong than does. It's been removed, so time to move along. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I cant see that the addition adds anything to the article, unions and management negotiated and came to a deal is just the everday stuff of business, nothing of note and adding that somebody else (who has nothing to with the airline) doesnt like it is not notable. Support that the challenged text is not added. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Alliance in the info box
This is a history article and the alliance should indicate the airlines' history. It does not to be sanitized to remove historical alliances. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the airline did not cease operations. It is a subsidiary of AA Group then why it would be kept historical? 166.147.125.13 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding. The article covers the history of a current operating airline, just like all the airline articles, and, in fact, all the company articles do. We don't erase old history when things change, we add to it instead. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like an IP editor has reverted and reorganized again. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

dead link in references needs updating
Reference number 4 "PSA Airlines Company History" is a dead link (http://www.psaairlines.com/cohist.asp). The correct new link is: http://www.psaairlines.com/about/history/ I am unable to edit this section; if the owner of the reference section wishes to update the link for Reference number 4, please do so. Thank you. 69.113.7.84 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Callsign vandalism
Callsign has been repeatedly been changed to "POO STREAK". 2600:1700:13A8:2000:B48D:759E:8C8C:3157 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)