CB53 has lied again to his constituents. The Nic was offered with conditions that would be expired now. Mitch Vasin, Koontz and the 2004 hire angry F/O crowd miscalculated and destroyed the west pilots careers. Vasin especially talked them into a corner. 10 long years absent the Nic have passed. How the west and APA can begin to reference it as a start point is absolutely ludicrous.luvthe9 said:
2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 512 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 6 of 14
With respect to wages, the Company’s proposal – the Kirby Proposal – is still on the table in current negotiations (Hemenway Trial Tr. 862:2-11), and Plaintiffs’ witness, Russell Payne, testified that he recalled that West MEC Chairman McIlvenna (and the East MEC chairman) considered the Kirby Proposal for pay to be “woefully inadequate.” (Tr. 644:15-19).
Plaintiffs dispute this fact on the grounds that this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. # 508 ¶ 21). However, Plaintiffs did not make a hearsay objection, or any objection, when Mr. Payne was asked about his recollection of the “woefully inadequate” comment. Further, Plaintiffs’ objection now (that “[t]his cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted – that, in fact, the Kirby proposal was inadequate,” Doc. # 508 ¶ 21) has no merit in any event because Defendant was not
trying to prove that the Kirby Proposal was in fact inadequate but rather that the West MEC chairman regarded the proposal as inadequate. Based on the fact that the East and West MEC’s were not prepared to accept the Kirby Proposal, Mr. Payne agreed that “we can’t sit here and prognosticate when it would have been TA’d.” (Tr. 644:23-25). And when asked, “[t]herefore we can’t prognosticate as to when a final contract altogether would have been TA’d, correct?” Mr. Payne responded, “Not with any certainty, no.” (Tr. 645:1-3).
With respect to wages, the Company’s proposal – the Kirby Proposal – is still on the table in current negotiations (Hemenway Trial Tr. 862:2-11), and Plaintiffs’ witness, Russell Payne, testified that he recalled that West MEC Chairman McIlvenna (and the East MEC chairman) considered the Kirby Proposal for pay to be “woefully inadequate.” (Tr. 644:15-19).
Plaintiffs dispute this fact on the grounds that this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. # 508 ¶ 21). However, Plaintiffs did not make a hearsay objection, or any objection, when Mr. Payne was asked about his recollection of the “woefully inadequate” comment. Further, Plaintiffs’ objection now (that “[t]his cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted – that, in fact, the Kirby proposal was inadequate,” Doc. # 508 ¶ 21) has no merit in any event because Defendant was not
trying to prove that the Kirby Proposal was in fact inadequate but rather that the West MEC chairman regarded the proposal as inadequate. Based on the fact that the East and West MEC’s were not prepared to accept the Kirby Proposal, Mr. Payne agreed that “we can’t sit here and prognosticate when it would have been TA’d.” (Tr. 644:23-25). And when asked, “[t]herefore we can’t prognosticate as to when a final contract altogether would have been TA’d, correct?” Mr. Payne responded, “Not with any certainty, no.” (Tr. 645:1-3).
Summer/Fall 2007 – US AIRWAVES
29
Editorial
A List That Has Absolutely Nothing To Do with Seniority
Richard Obermeyer (LGA) Editor, US AIRWAVES
"The mere fact that length of service is given no consideration in the merger policy goes so against the normal thinking of an airline pilot as to be absurd. "
By the end of this editorial, I will probably have said enough bad things about enough people in power that I should probably have titled this piece, "My Farewell Address." I am not going to do that only because I always believe in saying and doing the right thing, no matter the consequences, so why change now?
Let’s start with the easiest and most obvious target, George Nicolau. Mr. Nicolau is an experienced arbitrator, having rendered many decisions, including many involving pilot seniority mergers. I sat in the gallery during virtually all of the testimony. I spent many hours listening to our merger committee discuss the case, and I talked at length with both the committee and our attorneys and experts. Mr. Nicolau’s award is both astonishing in its inconsistencies and in the devastation it will wreak on the careers of the US Airways pilots. The words of the award and the list don’t match up. Mr. Nicolau claimed to have ratioed working pilots with working pilots, and yet the working pilots at the bottom of the US Airways certified list were not included in that ratio.
Next, he said that he protected the top 517 US Airways pilots—unfortunately, more than 10% of that number have already retired. What that means is that the day this list is implemented, if it ever is, a significant number of former AWA pilots will be able to bid the premium widebody flying.
In the words of his award, Mr. Nicolau says that he put working pilots with working pilots, and yet this award doesn’t do that, since 326 active pilots shown on the AAA certified list were all placed below the last AWA pilot. These were the pilots working at MDA. Many of these pilots are now recalled and working on mainline aircraft with top-of-scale longevity, and yet they were placed on the merged list below AWA pilots with less than two months of longevity at the time of the merger.
Mr. Nicolau is not the only reason for the fallacy of this award. Let’s consider the merger policy itself. In the day-to-day work life of every airline pilot in this country, what is the set of numbers most important to them? Clearly, it is their date of hire. It controls nearly every aspect of their work life, yet inexplicably it is not relevant in a merger under ALPA’s merger policy.
Please, if you are an airline pilot, and you can look me in the eye and tell me that makes sense to you, I would like to meet you. Date of hire or length of service controls your hourly wage, how much vacation you receive, and when you get to use that vacation. It decides when you work each month, whether you are home for your child’s birthday, or if you will spend Christmas with your family.
The mere fact that length of service is given no consideration in the merger policy goes so against the normal thinking of an airline pilot as to be absurd. Should this list have been put together with only length of service and no restrictions? Obviously not, just as it is absurd that Mr. Nicolau used ratios and slotting with virtually no conditions and restrictions. If the policy stated that the lists shall be combined based on length of service and that conditions and restrictions shall be made to ensure that the other goals are accomplished, wouldn’t that be clear and make sense to every airline pilot?
The merger policy, as it is written, allows an arbitrator to make decisions based on what he believes a pilot’s career expectations are. Does
Page 2
30
US AIRWAVES – Summer/Fall 2007
Editorial
"The Executive Council has an obligation much larger than just ensuring that no fraud was committed. What is the point of having a policy if it isn’t followed, and there is no remedy? "
that mean the aircraft, jobs, and attrition that each side brings to the merger, or does it mean the pilot’s expectation based on the decisions made by the management of the pilot’s pre-merger airline? I don’t think any pilot really wants their position on a merged list determined by the performance and decisions of their management in the years leading up to the merger.
Here is what this bad policy meant in my own case: On August 9, 1999, I took a type rating check ride on the A320 as part of the process of becoming a captain at US Airways. It just so happens that on that same date, there was a new hire class at America West. Thinking back to the summer of 1999, US Airways had in excess of 5,000 pilots and was hiring new pilots each month. As a matter of fact, some of those new-pilots at US Airways were pilots who had re-signed their position at America West in order to take a job at US Airways. Why would they do that? Clearly, because at that time, their career expectation was better at US Airways.
By the logic of this merger policy as misapplied by Mr. Nicolau, I would have been approximately 3,300 on the merged list if I had possessed the foresight to better understand my career expectations on August 9, 1999, and taken a new-hire position at America West instead of a captain’s position at US Airways. Instead, Mr. Nicolau believes that I should be placed at number 4,460 on the combined list surrounded by AWA pilots who were still on probation at the time of the merger.
A discussion of the merger policy brings us to the Executive Council and their role in this debacle. I saw a false analogy put forward on one of the webboards that related this integration to a baseball game, so I want to extend that analogy here.
Many of you know that in my spare time, I am an NCAA official and umpire many college baseball games each year. Now we all know that the rules of baseball state that the umpire’s judgment is final; sound familiar so far? That won’t be the point of this little story. Clearly, there are a set of rules that an umpire must follow when officiating a game. As a matter of fact, the 2007 NCAA baseball rulebook covers 138 pages, and I am required to take a recurrent test on those rules each year. Some of these rules are rules of the umpire’s judgment and some are rules of fact. Some rules of the umpire’s judgment are so sacred that any questioning of that judgment results in the immediate ejection from the contest of the person questioning the umpire. This means if a participant in the game wants to argue with me about whether the pitch was a ball or a strike, I will immediately end their involvement in the game.
Other rules are rules of fact, such as number of outs each team gets, the length of the game, and the distance to the bases and pitcher’s mound. The umpire can’t decide to let the players use non-approved equipment. If the bases are not the proper distance, if the pitcher’s mound is not in the right spot, is the game result final and binding? If the umpire decides that each side should only get two outs per inning, should the result of the game be allowed to stand or should the side that feels they were disadvantaged be allowed to appeal to the NCAA in order to seek a remedy?
The Executive Council has an obligation much larger than just ensuring that no fraud was committed. What is the point of having a policy if it isn’t followed, and there is no remedy? The job of the EC must be to ensure that all of the policies of the Association are followed. The policy says that one group should not gain a windfall at the expense of the other. Clearly that portion of the policy is not adhered to in this list by the transfer of thousands of years of captains’ pay from one group to the other, and yet because there is no evidence of fraud and because the rules were fair, the Executive Council wouldn’t act.
That leads to the next group I will offend. The communications coming from our counterparts in the West are beyond compare, both in their lack of complete truthfulness and in their out-right audacity. Let’s begin with the big red herrings that they like to toss into the mix. They say, first of all, that our attrition is a myth because we have first officers and guys on furlough who are retiring.
Let’s just consider the many hundreds of active pilots retiring during the next 7 to 10 years. Are they spread throughout the list? Yes. Is every single one of those guys senior to Jim Ziegler, one of the most junior pilots on our list who has never been furloughed? Yes, they are, so every one of those retiring pilots represents attrition that the AAA pilots brought to this merger that should benefit Jim Ziegler, not the 1,800 AWA pilots who were put on the list ahead of him.
Do the retirements benefit every AAA pilot equally? No, but they benefit some AAA pilots and therefore should not have been transferred to the AWA pilots. The way this list is constructed, the AAA active pilot retirements benefit virtually every single AWA pilot at the expense of Jim Ziegler, an AAA pilot now in his
Page 3
Summer/Fall 2007 – US AIRWAVES
31
Editorial
twentieth year here with no furlough time. Where I come from, we call that a windfall. Funny how AWA’s communications don’t want to tell that part of the story. The next false argument made in the AWA communications is the one that says that, since our models showed every pilot always bidding to the highest-paying piece of equipment as soon as possible, our number of captain years lost as a result of this list is somehow false. We say that this number is over 4,000 years of captain flying that was transferred to the AWA pilots. They make no attempt to say what the real number is, but they say our number is wrong and that our model is wrong. They try to say that since real- world bidding isn’t what was reflected in our model, then the number produced by the model is not valid. Is that really the case? Clearly, this is another argument made by the AWA pilots designed to confuse the issue.
Let’s set up a simple example: There are 10 widebody Captain positions available. In this example, East pilots will be identified with an "e" before their number and West with a "w." The 10 widebody positions are filled by the following pilots before the merger: e1, e2, e5, e6, e8, e10, e11, e13, e19 and e21. Now let’s say that pilot e8 retires. On the merged list, there is a section of the list that is as follows: e11, w8, e12, w9, e13 e14, w10, e15. In this example, w9 bids for and is awarded the position. Even if no AAA pilot except for the aforementioned Jim Ziegler wanted that position, is that a transfer of widebody Captain’s pay from an AAA pilot to an AWA pilot?
Since virtually every AWA pilot on the merged list is ahead of Jim, if one of them bids for and fills that position, is the year of Captain’s pay transferred to a West pilot or not? The fact that the model used "stove piped" the bidders is irrelevant to the fact that the transfer occurred. The model used by the AAA pilots never attempted to identify the actual pilot who lost the pay, merely the fact that some pilot lost it. Somehow the communications coming from the AWA pilot leadership leaves that part out.
Now for the worst of the statements made by the AWA pilot leadership. They say that they would be outraged if the AAA pilots are brought up to parity with them on rates of pay. Bottom line here is that the AWA pilots don’t believe that we should be paid as much as them. Let me say that again: Two years after this merger, even after the AAA pilots supported the changes that enhanced the AWA pilots’ retirement, and even after they have been brought into our profit sharing plan, they don’t think that we should receive equal pay for equal work. If we aren’t willing to accept the outrageous Nicolau award, then we aren’t deserving of equal pay for equal work. Did the AWA pilots express their outrage when any other group or individual was brought to pay parity with their counterpart on the other side? If the situation was reversed, would the AWA pilots want equal pay for equal work? Did the AWA pilots believe that they should receive parity when it came to retirement plans? Just to be clear here, the leadership of one labor group will be outraged and will actively oppose the members of another labor group getting a raise.
Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "Unless the AAA pilots drop their opposition to the Nicolau award, the AWA pilots don’t believe the AAA pilots deserve equal pay for equal work!"
In essence, if you are willing to give your future to the AWA pilots, then they will believe that your work is worth as much as theirs. I guess there is a different kind of trade unionism in Phoenix. They must have missed the part of "Flying the Line" that talks about the theory of pattern bargaining that says you jack the house up one corner at a time. Too bad the AWA pilots weren’t members of our union during the B- scale era. If they were, they would have learned that the top of the scale will stagnate while the B-scale is eliminated. In the end, the AWA pilots will get a bigger raise if the pay rates are equal at the start, because we will all be united in that fight, but they will have to learn this lesson all on their own.
"The model used by the AAA pilots never attempted to identify the actual pilot who lost the pay, merely the fact that some pilot lost it. "
29
Editorial
A List That Has Absolutely Nothing To Do with Seniority
Richard Obermeyer (LGA) Editor, US AIRWAVES
"The mere fact that length of service is given no consideration in the merger policy goes so against the normal thinking of an airline pilot as to be absurd. "
By the end of this editorial, I will probably have said enough bad things about enough people in power that I should probably have titled this piece, "My Farewell Address." I am not going to do that only because I always believe in saying and doing the right thing, no matter the consequences, so why change now?
Let’s start with the easiest and most obvious target, George Nicolau. Mr. Nicolau is an experienced arbitrator, having rendered many decisions, including many involving pilot seniority mergers. I sat in the gallery during virtually all of the testimony. I spent many hours listening to our merger committee discuss the case, and I talked at length with both the committee and our attorneys and experts. Mr. Nicolau’s award is both astonishing in its inconsistencies and in the devastation it will wreak on the careers of the US Airways pilots. The words of the award and the list don’t match up. Mr. Nicolau claimed to have ratioed working pilots with working pilots, and yet the working pilots at the bottom of the US Airways certified list were not included in that ratio.
Next, he said that he protected the top 517 US Airways pilots—unfortunately, more than 10% of that number have already retired. What that means is that the day this list is implemented, if it ever is, a significant number of former AWA pilots will be able to bid the premium widebody flying.
In the words of his award, Mr. Nicolau says that he put working pilots with working pilots, and yet this award doesn’t do that, since 326 active pilots shown on the AAA certified list were all placed below the last AWA pilot. These were the pilots working at MDA. Many of these pilots are now recalled and working on mainline aircraft with top-of-scale longevity, and yet they were placed on the merged list below AWA pilots with less than two months of longevity at the time of the merger.
Mr. Nicolau is not the only reason for the fallacy of this award. Let’s consider the merger policy itself. In the day-to-day work life of every airline pilot in this country, what is the set of numbers most important to them? Clearly, it is their date of hire. It controls nearly every aspect of their work life, yet inexplicably it is not relevant in a merger under ALPA’s merger policy.
Please, if you are an airline pilot, and you can look me in the eye and tell me that makes sense to you, I would like to meet you. Date of hire or length of service controls your hourly wage, how much vacation you receive, and when you get to use that vacation. It decides when you work each month, whether you are home for your child’s birthday, or if you will spend Christmas with your family.
The mere fact that length of service is given no consideration in the merger policy goes so against the normal thinking of an airline pilot as to be absurd. Should this list have been put together with only length of service and no restrictions? Obviously not, just as it is absurd that Mr. Nicolau used ratios and slotting with virtually no conditions and restrictions. If the policy stated that the lists shall be combined based on length of service and that conditions and restrictions shall be made to ensure that the other goals are accomplished, wouldn’t that be clear and make sense to every airline pilot?
The merger policy, as it is written, allows an arbitrator to make decisions based on what he believes a pilot’s career expectations are. Does
Page 2
30
US AIRWAVES – Summer/Fall 2007
Editorial
"The Executive Council has an obligation much larger than just ensuring that no fraud was committed. What is the point of having a policy if it isn’t followed, and there is no remedy? "
that mean the aircraft, jobs, and attrition that each side brings to the merger, or does it mean the pilot’s expectation based on the decisions made by the management of the pilot’s pre-merger airline? I don’t think any pilot really wants their position on a merged list determined by the performance and decisions of their management in the years leading up to the merger.
Here is what this bad policy meant in my own case: On August 9, 1999, I took a type rating check ride on the A320 as part of the process of becoming a captain at US Airways. It just so happens that on that same date, there was a new hire class at America West. Thinking back to the summer of 1999, US Airways had in excess of 5,000 pilots and was hiring new pilots each month. As a matter of fact, some of those new-pilots at US Airways were pilots who had re-signed their position at America West in order to take a job at US Airways. Why would they do that? Clearly, because at that time, their career expectation was better at US Airways.
By the logic of this merger policy as misapplied by Mr. Nicolau, I would have been approximately 3,300 on the merged list if I had possessed the foresight to better understand my career expectations on August 9, 1999, and taken a new-hire position at America West instead of a captain’s position at US Airways. Instead, Mr. Nicolau believes that I should be placed at number 4,460 on the combined list surrounded by AWA pilots who were still on probation at the time of the merger.
A discussion of the merger policy brings us to the Executive Council and their role in this debacle. I saw a false analogy put forward on one of the webboards that related this integration to a baseball game, so I want to extend that analogy here.
Many of you know that in my spare time, I am an NCAA official and umpire many college baseball games each year. Now we all know that the rules of baseball state that the umpire’s judgment is final; sound familiar so far? That won’t be the point of this little story. Clearly, there are a set of rules that an umpire must follow when officiating a game. As a matter of fact, the 2007 NCAA baseball rulebook covers 138 pages, and I am required to take a recurrent test on those rules each year. Some of these rules are rules of the umpire’s judgment and some are rules of fact. Some rules of the umpire’s judgment are so sacred that any questioning of that judgment results in the immediate ejection from the contest of the person questioning the umpire. This means if a participant in the game wants to argue with me about whether the pitch was a ball or a strike, I will immediately end their involvement in the game.
Other rules are rules of fact, such as number of outs each team gets, the length of the game, and the distance to the bases and pitcher’s mound. The umpire can’t decide to let the players use non-approved equipment. If the bases are not the proper distance, if the pitcher’s mound is not in the right spot, is the game result final and binding? If the umpire decides that each side should only get two outs per inning, should the result of the game be allowed to stand or should the side that feels they were disadvantaged be allowed to appeal to the NCAA in order to seek a remedy?
The Executive Council has an obligation much larger than just ensuring that no fraud was committed. What is the point of having a policy if it isn’t followed, and there is no remedy? The job of the EC must be to ensure that all of the policies of the Association are followed. The policy says that one group should not gain a windfall at the expense of the other. Clearly that portion of the policy is not adhered to in this list by the transfer of thousands of years of captains’ pay from one group to the other, and yet because there is no evidence of fraud and because the rules were fair, the Executive Council wouldn’t act.
That leads to the next group I will offend. The communications coming from our counterparts in the West are beyond compare, both in their lack of complete truthfulness and in their out-right audacity. Let’s begin with the big red herrings that they like to toss into the mix. They say, first of all, that our attrition is a myth because we have first officers and guys on furlough who are retiring.
Let’s just consider the many hundreds of active pilots retiring during the next 7 to 10 years. Are they spread throughout the list? Yes. Is every single one of those guys senior to Jim Ziegler, one of the most junior pilots on our list who has never been furloughed? Yes, they are, so every one of those retiring pilots represents attrition that the AAA pilots brought to this merger that should benefit Jim Ziegler, not the 1,800 AWA pilots who were put on the list ahead of him.
Do the retirements benefit every AAA pilot equally? No, but they benefit some AAA pilots and therefore should not have been transferred to the AWA pilots. The way this list is constructed, the AAA active pilot retirements benefit virtually every single AWA pilot at the expense of Jim Ziegler, an AAA pilot now in his
Page 3
Summer/Fall 2007 – US AIRWAVES
31
Editorial
twentieth year here with no furlough time. Where I come from, we call that a windfall. Funny how AWA’s communications don’t want to tell that part of the story. The next false argument made in the AWA communications is the one that says that, since our models showed every pilot always bidding to the highest-paying piece of equipment as soon as possible, our number of captain years lost as a result of this list is somehow false. We say that this number is over 4,000 years of captain flying that was transferred to the AWA pilots. They make no attempt to say what the real number is, but they say our number is wrong and that our model is wrong. They try to say that since real- world bidding isn’t what was reflected in our model, then the number produced by the model is not valid. Is that really the case? Clearly, this is another argument made by the AWA pilots designed to confuse the issue.
Let’s set up a simple example: There are 10 widebody Captain positions available. In this example, East pilots will be identified with an "e" before their number and West with a "w." The 10 widebody positions are filled by the following pilots before the merger: e1, e2, e5, e6, e8, e10, e11, e13, e19 and e21. Now let’s say that pilot e8 retires. On the merged list, there is a section of the list that is as follows: e11, w8, e12, w9, e13 e14, w10, e15. In this example, w9 bids for and is awarded the position. Even if no AAA pilot except for the aforementioned Jim Ziegler wanted that position, is that a transfer of widebody Captain’s pay from an AAA pilot to an AWA pilot?
Since virtually every AWA pilot on the merged list is ahead of Jim, if one of them bids for and fills that position, is the year of Captain’s pay transferred to a West pilot or not? The fact that the model used "stove piped" the bidders is irrelevant to the fact that the transfer occurred. The model used by the AAA pilots never attempted to identify the actual pilot who lost the pay, merely the fact that some pilot lost it. Somehow the communications coming from the AWA pilot leadership leaves that part out.
Now for the worst of the statements made by the AWA pilot leadership. They say that they would be outraged if the AAA pilots are brought up to parity with them on rates of pay. Bottom line here is that the AWA pilots don’t believe that we should be paid as much as them. Let me say that again: Two years after this merger, even after the AAA pilots supported the changes that enhanced the AWA pilots’ retirement, and even after they have been brought into our profit sharing plan, they don’t think that we should receive equal pay for equal work. If we aren’t willing to accept the outrageous Nicolau award, then we aren’t deserving of equal pay for equal work. Did the AWA pilots express their outrage when any other group or individual was brought to pay parity with their counterpart on the other side? If the situation was reversed, would the AWA pilots want equal pay for equal work? Did the AWA pilots believe that they should receive parity when it came to retirement plans? Just to be clear here, the leadership of one labor group will be outraged and will actively oppose the members of another labor group getting a raise.
Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "Unless the AAA pilots drop their opposition to the Nicolau award, the AWA pilots don’t believe the AAA pilots deserve equal pay for equal work!"
In essence, if you are willing to give your future to the AWA pilots, then they will believe that your work is worth as much as theirs. I guess there is a different kind of trade unionism in Phoenix. They must have missed the part of "Flying the Line" that talks about the theory of pattern bargaining that says you jack the house up one corner at a time. Too bad the AWA pilots weren’t members of our union during the B- scale era. If they were, they would have learned that the top of the scale will stagnate while the B-scale is eliminated. In the end, the AWA pilots will get a bigger raise if the pay rates are equal at the start, because we will all be united in that fight, but they will have to learn this lesson all on their own.
"The model used by the AAA pilots never attempted to identify the actual pilot who lost the pay, merely the fact that some pilot lost it. "
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
All true, just wanted to cover retirements..........but the NIC or nothing crowd hijacked the entire airline and wrecked thier careers..........the former PHX rep was one of the biggest liars to his own group........guess he was trying to save face, a few more years in the fishbowl!Claxon said:
Well this was what I has hoping to avoid!! The key here people is to set
up with UAL and get a prenup. Parker and team are not about to let u sap
ass block their deal with UAL. We need to focus on reaching out to as many
people in the UAL MEC as we ALL CAN. FENCE the prick in the east for 30yrs
Ray Burkett
C82 First officer Rep
Vice Chairman
Earth to Ray! Set up a “prenup” with UAL? Ray, ALPA’s not our CBA any more. And YOU aren’t the C82 FO Rep anymore. C82 doesn’t exist anymore. In fact, the entire LAS base isn’t going to last through the fall!
Sorry, Ray, but the UAL MEC isn’t going to give you or AWAPPA the time of day. They are represented by ALPA and ALPA is hanging it out if they negotiate with any group that isn’t the CBA. If they do and get caught at it, they could end up with a DFR that will make their $50+ million Duke-Spellacy settlement in the 1990s look like a parking ticket fine. The UAL MEC Merger Attorney is AWAPPA’s Jeff Freund. Can you say conflict of interest? How can he represent us and the UAL pilots at the same time? How can he give us any legal advice on defending the NIC while he’s representing UAL’s MEC? If a merger announcement is made, who do you think he will represent?
Enough of Ray’s fantasy union. At the bottom of this U-Turn is a summary of the first round of planned reductions over at UAL. The source is their internal employee “newsline.” We believe that the information is authentic. Note that the “first set of changes… will enable us to remove 30 of our B737 aircraft, the least efficient of our fleet.” At 6.5 crews (13 pilots) per aircraft, that’s a hit of 390 pilots on the streets. Proportionally, that would mean a furlough of about 148 LCC pilots if we were “fairly and equitably” sharing the pain.
The UAL internal forecast is just a blip on the radar screen when compared to the “What if” comments by Chicago Tribune reporter Julie Johnsson, written yesterday. According to her article (paraphrased, because of copy write laws – the link is: <http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun-united-tilton-mergermay11,0,1669926.story>http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun-united-tilton-mergermay11,0,1669926.story), the New “U” could park the entire 737-300 fleet (111 aircraft) of both carriers, producing over a billion dollars synergies.
At 13 pilots per plane, that’s an 11% reduction or 1443-pilot furlough from the total of approximately 13,000 active pilots. Proportionally, under ALPA’s “fair and equitable pain sharing,” the West hit could be about 192 furloughs.
So, does anyone really want a piece of that “fair and equitable” ALPA-pie or a Ray Burkett “prenup?” As much as you might hate USAPA, Ray, they do control both contracts. More importantly, they control the TA and its floor of 120 West planes and 202 East planes.
The U-Turn
Airline Capacity Reductions --
Fall Schedule Reflects More Strategic, Profitable Flying Choices; Capacity Reductions Posted May 9, 2008
Fall schedule changes reflecting our previously announced capacity reductions in narrowbody flying are being finalized. The reductions are part of our five-point plan announced April 22 to combat fuel costs in an extremely challenging environment and are intended to maximize profitable flying. The first set of changes, which are effective September 2, represents approximately 75 percent of our planned capacity reductions. When complete, these reductions will enable us to remove 30 of our B737 aircraft, the least efficient of our fleet.
"With the reality of record-high fuel prices and a softening U.S. economy, we need to resize our business as reductions are occurring across the industry to address these unprecedented challenges," says John Tague, chief operating officer. "This will enable us to leverage our capacity discipline to continue to lead the industry in passing on commodity costs like fuel surcharges, developing new revenue streams like our second checked bag policy, and reducing non-fuel costs and planned capital expenditures."
The focus on the fall schedule resulted in decreased frequency in several markets, but increases in others where we see profitable demand and less competitive pressure. Those markets that will see added flying include several Canadian cities from our DEN and ORD hubs.
In total, capacity reductions reflected in the schedule effective Saturday, May 10, vary from hub to hub, based on market conditions:
Hub Departures Percent of Consolidated
UA/UAX Departures
San Francisco 12/5
Los Angeles 12/5
Denver 19/4
Washington Dulles 9/3
Chicago 0/0
These changes represent 75 percent of our commitment to reduce domestic mainline capacity by 30 aircraft. The remaining 25 percent will announced later this month as we continue to closely analyze our schedule.
We are also focusing on more profitable international flying with widebody aircraft, such as our announcement earlier this week to launch service to Moscow and Dubai from our Washington Dulles hub (see the May 9 NewsReal). The aircraft for these two new destinations will be available as a result of our decision to delay our San Francisco-Guangzhou service, as well as our seasonal schedule changes.
Check NewsReal in the coming weeks for more information about the fall schedule.
up with UAL and get a prenup. Parker and team are not about to let u sap
ass block their deal with UAL. We need to focus on reaching out to as many
people in the UAL MEC as we ALL CAN. FENCE the prick in the east for 30yrs
Ray Burkett
C82 First officer Rep
Vice Chairman
Earth to Ray! Set up a “prenup” with UAL? Ray, ALPA’s not our CBA any more. And YOU aren’t the C82 FO Rep anymore. C82 doesn’t exist anymore. In fact, the entire LAS base isn’t going to last through the fall!
Sorry, Ray, but the UAL MEC isn’t going to give you or AWAPPA the time of day. They are represented by ALPA and ALPA is hanging it out if they negotiate with any group that isn’t the CBA. If they do and get caught at it, they could end up with a DFR that will make their $50+ million Duke-Spellacy settlement in the 1990s look like a parking ticket fine. The UAL MEC Merger Attorney is AWAPPA’s Jeff Freund. Can you say conflict of interest? How can he represent us and the UAL pilots at the same time? How can he give us any legal advice on defending the NIC while he’s representing UAL’s MEC? If a merger announcement is made, who do you think he will represent?
Enough of Ray’s fantasy union. At the bottom of this U-Turn is a summary of the first round of planned reductions over at UAL. The source is their internal employee “newsline.” We believe that the information is authentic. Note that the “first set of changes… will enable us to remove 30 of our B737 aircraft, the least efficient of our fleet.” At 6.5 crews (13 pilots) per aircraft, that’s a hit of 390 pilots on the streets. Proportionally, that would mean a furlough of about 148 LCC pilots if we were “fairly and equitably” sharing the pain.
The UAL internal forecast is just a blip on the radar screen when compared to the “What if” comments by Chicago Tribune reporter Julie Johnsson, written yesterday. According to her article (paraphrased, because of copy write laws – the link is: <http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun-united-tilton-mergermay11,0,1669926.story>http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun-united-tilton-mergermay11,0,1669926.story), the New “U” could park the entire 737-300 fleet (111 aircraft) of both carriers, producing over a billion dollars synergies.
At 13 pilots per plane, that’s an 11% reduction or 1443-pilot furlough from the total of approximately 13,000 active pilots. Proportionally, under ALPA’s “fair and equitable pain sharing,” the West hit could be about 192 furloughs.
So, does anyone really want a piece of that “fair and equitable” ALPA-pie or a Ray Burkett “prenup?” As much as you might hate USAPA, Ray, they do control both contracts. More importantly, they control the TA and its floor of 120 West planes and 202 East planes.
The U-Turn
Airline Capacity Reductions --
Fall Schedule Reflects More Strategic, Profitable Flying Choices; Capacity Reductions Posted May 9, 2008
Fall schedule changes reflecting our previously announced capacity reductions in narrowbody flying are being finalized. The reductions are part of our five-point plan announced April 22 to combat fuel costs in an extremely challenging environment and are intended to maximize profitable flying. The first set of changes, which are effective September 2, represents approximately 75 percent of our planned capacity reductions. When complete, these reductions will enable us to remove 30 of our B737 aircraft, the least efficient of our fleet.
"With the reality of record-high fuel prices and a softening U.S. economy, we need to resize our business as reductions are occurring across the industry to address these unprecedented challenges," says John Tague, chief operating officer. "This will enable us to leverage our capacity discipline to continue to lead the industry in passing on commodity costs like fuel surcharges, developing new revenue streams like our second checked bag policy, and reducing non-fuel costs and planned capital expenditures."
The focus on the fall schedule resulted in decreased frequency in several markets, but increases in others where we see profitable demand and less competitive pressure. Those markets that will see added flying include several Canadian cities from our DEN and ORD hubs.
In total, capacity reductions reflected in the schedule effective Saturday, May 10, vary from hub to hub, based on market conditions:
Hub Departures Percent of Consolidated
UA/UAX Departures
San Francisco 12/5
Los Angeles 12/5
Denver 19/4
Washington Dulles 9/3
Chicago 0/0
These changes represent 75 percent of our commitment to reduce domestic mainline capacity by 30 aircraft. The remaining 25 percent will announced later this month as we continue to closely analyze our schedule.
We are also focusing on more profitable international flying with widebody aircraft, such as our announcement earlier this week to launch service to Moscow and Dubai from our Washington Dulles hub (see the May 9 NewsReal). The aircraft for these two new destinations will be available as a result of our decision to delay our San Francisco-Guangzhou service, as well as our seasonal schedule changes.
Check NewsReal in the coming weeks for more information about the fall schedule.
Claxon said:
No matter that they turned it downed really, since they're all still eagerly awaiting the first heralding bugle call about the nic being "it" after all. Why, just the thought of others in their same "class" and craft being even allowed the proper attrition/advancement they actually earned was/is nothing short of unthinkable to the self-styled "spartan soldiers." One simply can't ever "fix stupid"....even 10 years after the fact...Infantile, mindless greed's just another component of wholesale "stupid" therein...and where has any of that childish insanity ever gotten them?
10 years later, and all we're still hearing is how essentially "special" (and of course "righteous") they are, and how some "bigger brother" of theirs is forever-and-always going to come "get" us all, even after a full decade now. How ridiculous is THAT? For reference: September 12, 1962: JFK made his properly famous speech about "landing a man on the moon...within this decade" and against all imaginable odds, it actually happened. American fighting in WWII lasted from Dec 1941 to Sept 2nd 1945 and forever changed the whole world. Meanwhile, in the real world as well; !0 years after the nic and the "spartans" are still stuck in their pathetically self-described "Fishbowl"....Just sayin'....
"Meanwhile, in the real world as well; !0 years after the nic and the "spartans" are still stuck in their pathetically self-described "Fishbowl"....Just sayin'..."
Admittedly trolling for chuckles here, but would some mighty "spartan" kindly explain the situation more "clearly" for us all? Extra points freely given for supposed "reasons" the east should suffer any current nightmares are of course available....? Seriously; I'd love to hear just how anyone in PHX can even imagine that your last full decade's "brilliant" strategy has actually netted you anything at all, so let's have it...? What've "you'se" even got left to offer us all anymore?...Well, other than the residual fantasy that the arbitrators will somehow deem "you'se" far more "worthy" than even the "Native Americans" of course?...Perhaps especially since "you'se" clearly "saved" them as well? C'mon...hit us up with your next nonsense kids. We could always use some more good laughs.
Admittedly trolling for chuckles here, but would some mighty "spartan" kindly explain the situation more "clearly" for us all? Extra points freely given for supposed "reasons" the east should suffer any current nightmares are of course available....? Seriously; I'd love to hear just how anyone in PHX can even imagine that your last full decade's "brilliant" strategy has actually netted you anything at all, so let's have it...? What've "you'se" even got left to offer us all anymore?...Well, other than the residual fantasy that the arbitrators will somehow deem "you'se" far more "worthy" than even the "Native Americans" of course?...Perhaps especially since "you'se" clearly "saved" them as well? C'mon...hit us up with your next nonsense kids. We could always use some more good laughs.
Doug Parker Letter 08/16/2007
Dear US Airways Pilot:
I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
May 12, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 10
2058
You will recall the testimony of plaintiff Mark Burman. He's the man who verified the complaint in this action for the plaintiffs who agreed that the union election between ALPA and USAPA was basically a referendum vote rejecting the Nicolau Award.
May 12, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 10
2009
You had plaintiff witness Ken Stravers, former chairman of the West Merger Committee, agree that the term log-jam was appropriate. Plaintiff Mark Burman recognized that there was an impasse. Plaintiffs' witness Russell Payne, former member of the ALPA -- the West ALPA MEC merger committee, agreed that the Wye River meetings were to resolve the impasse that existed and that they didn't succeed. Named plaintiff Steve Wargocki confirmed he had described the impasse that had arisen between the two sides as a quagmire.
Dear US Airways Pilot:
I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
May 12, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 10
2058
You will recall the testimony of plaintiff Mark Burman. He's the man who verified the complaint in this action for the plaintiffs who agreed that the union election between ALPA and USAPA was basically a referendum vote rejecting the Nicolau Award.
May 12, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 10
2009
You had plaintiff witness Ken Stravers, former chairman of the West Merger Committee, agree that the term log-jam was appropriate. Plaintiff Mark Burman recognized that there was an impasse. Plaintiffs' witness Russell Payne, former member of the ALPA -- the West ALPA MEC merger committee, agreed that the Wye River meetings were to resolve the impasse that existed and that they didn't succeed. Named plaintiff Steve Wargocki confirmed he had described the impasse that had arisen between the two sides as a quagmire.
Claxon said:
Well I do not complain as much as the east pilots commuting to west coast cities who were not in favor of the scab union: lost $1/2 million, 170 days of vacation and countless hours commuting to PHL, DCA and CLT, so the angry east f/o's could start a scab union and work for less than their West counterparts.
You exist in a very fragile glass house type environment.nic4us said:
Wage disparity from other peer groups, has not been a concern for west pilots since 1983.
Could you please ask david braid, fergie. peeper, tony, aux and others how much they lost since 2007? I do not expect you to include their tie purchases and army of lyingitas contributions for the last 10 years.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2010%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Compensation/Pilots/Average%20Annual%20Wages%20and%20Salaries%20-%20PILOT%20AND%20CO-PILOT%20PERSONNEL.htm
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2010
- 2,125
- 2,148
How much have you cost the senior west pilots? Remember your one pilot that was losing $1700.00 per month.nic4us said:
nevergiveup said:
The senior West pilots were willing, and have contributed much, to AOL to defend our seniority rights against the former bargaining agent and the perils of a scab union.
The West's cost of lost potential wages falls squarely on the inept ability of said scab union to perform the most basic of union duties, while they collected the highest dues in the industry, and even an inordinately high rate compared to any union.
DFR much??
- Status
Similar threads
