2014 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

Yeah, that's how arbitration works.   Both sides agree to arbitrate their dispute, and then only abide by the decision if the numerically larger group believes the result is "fair."
 
If that larger group doesn't believe it's "fair," it spends years and millions of dollars running away from the result to prevent its implementation.
 
On top of that, their refusal to abide by the arbitration to which they earlier agreed results in thousands of pilots  working for regional airline wages from 2005-2013, sacrificing a couple billion dollars in wages over those years and, in the process, helps to drag down wages at other airlines.
 
Wow.   Insist on Date of Hire, refuse to present anything at the arbitration other than the demand for Date of Hire, and then, when the result isn't Date of Hire, take a "heads we win, tales you lose" approach.   

 
 
The arbitrator has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of their decision.  Nothing... As should be obvious by now.  
 
The "Award" has no implicit efficacy.  None.  No one is "preventing" it.  It has no power of itself.  It is not being "prevented".  It is simply lifeless without a contract...The Nic has no legal advocate to incorporate it into a contract.  
 
The Nic is dead, and there are no contractual parties that are interested in breathing life into it.  

 

[FWAAA]

And the parent unionALPA recognizes the award is unfair, and has the parties meet to remedy it, fully aware the alternative is to have the bargaining agent launched. And people like you too stupid to grasp the concept of a 17 yr un furloughed pilot going with a new hire is to be accepted as fair and reasonable.
Had it happened to you, I am sure you would have just sat there. Hypocrite.
Your treatment of TWA spawned the entire legislation.

Ahh, yes.   When you've got nothing else, start with the name-calling.   

 

[Freighterguynow]

Yeah, that's how arbitration works.   Both sides agree to arbitrate their dispute, and then only abide by the decision if the numerically larger group believes the result is "fair."
 

No contract - no list.

Agreed to by all.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Ok, I follow you there but the panel will have to decide the authority granted by the MOU right?
Does the MOU grant 3 merger parties? Does the panel have the authority to rule on disputes that predate the signing of the MOU?
Etc.

Yes.
No.
No.

 

[luvthe9]

 
Wow.   Insist on Date of Hire, refuse to present anything at the arbitration other than the demand for Date of Hire, and then, when the result isn't Date of Hire, take a "heads we win, tales you lose" approach.

Wow,. Insist on the NIC, refuse to present anything at the arbitration other than the demand for the NIC, and then, when the result isn't NIC take a " heads we win, tales you lose" approach.


Remember this one...... " Our former MEC and our union leadership played a very high stakes game of poker by not dealing at Wye River. Freund was right, we were risking everything..and right now, it looks like we lost. They need to take responsibility for that "



Remember this one......... "Yes, the East offered the NIC. They just wanted to protect their retirement attrition, which stalled by the change in Age-60. Looking back, that offer must look like a home run to any West pilot right now, but last February the EAST MEC and ALPA couldnt get to first base with it."



Now tell us all why you did not accept the NIC.........now you go run along son. Stay locked in PHX if you want.


Now stop your whining, Ferguson and Koontz screwed you guys over, you we're given false hopes and bad legal advice.

 

[EastUS1]

Remember this one...... " Our former MEC and our union leadership played a very high stakes game of poker by not dealing at Wye River. Freund was right, we were risking everything..and right now, it looks like we lost. They need to take responsibility for that "


.........now you go run along son. Stay locked in PHX if you want.

 
Yep. Pretty much. Don't you kinda' miss all those west postings about how "Karma's a Bit-h"?

 

[Mach85ER]

And the parent unionALPA recognizes the award is unfair, and has the parties meet to remedy it, fully aware the alternative is to have the bargaining agent launched. And people like you too stupid to grasp the concept of a 17 yr un furloughed pilot going with a new hire is to be accepted as fair and reasonable.
Had it happened to you, I am sure you would have just sat there. Hypocrite.
Your treatment of TWA spawned the entire legislation.

 
 
Claxon,
 
You've ranted a few times on APA's treatment of TWA.
 
Where would you have placed the TWA pilots on the AA seniority list on day one?
 
Short and sweet summary please.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

FWAAA, I believe the name calling started with you! The "LARGER GROUP" !  That larger group decided it was time to put an end to another larger group driven by the whims of self interest, now your self interest is what? Nope we figured that one out, AIRCAL, TWA, you live in a glass house brother !

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

85ER, Simple the first merger policy pleez, and how many times and why did it ever change? We aint ALPA any more!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

LUV that relative position BS, 2 things NEVER CHANGE, 1- THE DAY YOU HAVE THE AGE AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE JOB! 2- THE DAY 65YEARS YOUR FORCED TO RETIRE!, aint ratios, ! YEARS OF AVAILABLE SERVICE PLAIN SIMPLE!

 

[Mach85ER]

MUTATIS,
 
You obviously are uniformed about the AirCal merger. I haven't seen one poster that is.
 
You guys keep raising that one as some unfair treatment. It is funny to keep reading those comments from you and others.
 
Every merger is different. APA didn't fall under ALPA merger policy.
 
 
Now where would you have place the TWA pilots given AA managements past history of eliminating flying. A substantial amount of short haul TWA was dead on day one, as was it's caribbean routes, Cairo, Riyadh and TLV. The real risk was there.
 
I'll try again, where would you have placed them?
 

 

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Well 85er, my guess you were hired in 85, and as far as your comments about my knowledge of merger and merger policy, I will give you a pass my friend, your continual contention to hitch a pilots career to its MNGMNT is the  fallacy of every merger, We were the stronger carrier therefore! There was a REASON, AIRCAL was bought by AA, TWA etc. As with the demise of Pan AM, although UNITED luved their PACIFIC, Somebody luved BRANIFFs South AMERICA routes to buy them, So your point is I am just guessing the stronger MNGMNT is the pilots future in his career expectations? I can only speak for myself, hired by more than 3 majors the same month, I made my choice for my own reason, at the time ! I had the AGE for the qualifications and made a choice as did the pilots hired at other carriers, if you had a crystal ball when the airlines were deregulated maybe you should have shared it but then again DOH or LOS was the policy, AGE you have the QUALIFICATIONS, AGE your forced to retire , they are not ratios! MM!

 

[Mach85ER]

Well 85er, my guess you were hired in 85

 
 
Nope. The Mach85 came from cruise speed of the bid I held at the time. Tried something easy to remember and not some ego trip like I was accused by some idiot earlier in the discussion.
 
When I got hired a few years later the choices were more clear. TWA was in the dumps and it was a seniority play. Most in my era took it because "they were going to be senior and upgrade fast". That was the answer 90% of the time.
 
Despite what you posted, I did and still support giving the the guys that were hired in the mid 1980's at A-Scale carriers relative merge and seat protection. APA did that for those TWA guys at AA.  APA set the deal up that protected them in their hub, while keeping AA pilots out and preserving their seniority if it remanied a viable airline system. APA did not want to eat the risk of another Aircal/Reno. Those pilots under 65 and hired in the pre-1988 era are still flying Captain at AA. Their seniority for bidding sux, but they kept their seats. FYI, that agreement keep me from upgrading for 3-5 years while TWA flying disappeared and they moved onto other AA flying. What I never supported was giving those that took a definite riskier job move of joiningTWA post 1989 and then demanding they slide right into AA seniority. The former TWA guys who resigned and went to AA at that time (a larger amount) objected to that also.
 
FYI, AA bought the Latin American routes from Eastern (BK and sub level payscales) who I believe bought them from Branniff.
 
My crystal ball was correct at the time. The TWA interview went into the trash and the US invite went into the "last resort" pile even though the pay was better.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

As you allude to relative position and kept "YOU " from upgradeing ,  there lies the rub! As I contend AA bought those carriers for a monetary purpose, maybe you should take your frustration on your lack of upgrade out on them! Relative , guess we both have something in common, a little, maybe I will hand my letter of employment at your carrier (AA) that I never regreted politely declineing! MM!

 

[Mach85ER]

Nope, no frustration taken out on them. I save that for past AA management.
 
If I was mid 1980's or prior, I would have turned down this B-Scale subdweller also. Plenty of better qualified guys did at that time.