767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Not at all. But no surprise that you don't see it that way since it flies in the face of your position. Very typical.Splitting hairs aren't we?
Would you care to explain to me how one group could achieve a windfall absent the expense of the other?
Sure. I'd love to. (However I have a feeling the lesson would be lost on you since you tend to dismiss anything that does not conform to your view of the world.)
Just one example off the top of my head. If both groups were to negotiate a new pay scale with raises, but due to disparate original wages, one group ends up with a 5% raise while the other ends up with a 20% increase, this may be seen as a windfall by some. However, since it is not at the expense of the other group, it is perfectly acceptable.
By your definition, altering LOA 93 in order to get pay parity with the West would be a windfall to you and therefore unacceptable. But of course your tune changes when we talk of that subject. Perhaps it would be fair to you if whatever percentage of a raise you get to bring you up to current West rates could also be applied to the West so they will still make more than you? I'm sure you be agreeable to this so that there is no windfall on your part, right?
How about benefits from synergies? Let's say that you have 2 flights per week from PHL to CDG on a 330. But since the merger, the additional feed from PHX has made it possible to support a 3rd flight per week to CDG. Keep in mind this is not a new route, just one additional frequency to an established route. Is this a windfall to the East as a result of the merger? Sure. But it didn't come at the West's expense. The extra connecting traffic pushed the numbers in PHL over the threshold to support the additional flight. Under your definition, this should not be allowed! I'm sure you'd be agreeable to letting the West pilots fly some of these PHL-CDG flights on the A330 so that there is no windfall on your part, right?
its not relevant - same outcome either way you look at it.
Yes it most certainly is. - and no it most certainly is not.
Out of curiosity, why is a UAL pilot involving himself in an internal labor issue of US Airways?
Because I happen to support the West pilots in their fight to protect themselves from the slight of hand you are trying to foist upon them. And the fact that merger integration is every pilot's business. But I understand that it is difficult for you when reasonable arguments that shine light on reality and cast doubt on your position are introduced. Hence your desire to silence any opposing views.