ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[P51Pilot]

I once posed this question and never got an answer - 3 pilots work for different airlines but you have no way to tell which airlines. One has the seniority to hold widebody Capt, the second to hold 737 Capt, and the third to hold 737 F/O. Which has the most longevity and which has the least. Which has the most seniority and which the least? After all, if longevity is the same as seniority the answers should be obvious.

Jim

Take the 737 Captain. It may be all the airline offers. It could a company 1/2 the size. All the pilots senior to him could have a relatively young average age, so while he advanced quickly by timing a cycle right, his position will be stagnant long term absent growth.

The 737 F/O at brand B could be in a position where 90% of the list ahead of him will retire in the next 15 years, in a company that cut all the unprofitable flying. Upgrade and then advancement in larger aircraft will take place rapidly.

Neither persons position should be changed by the merger, and neither persons advancement especially within flying that came with their company should be affected. You can never get there with relative position. DOH with fences and conditions can achieve it. Virtual mergers like Air France/KLM where employee groups remain separate is another. Some sort of Dynamic seniority list that reverts to DOH over time is another. Again, snapshots and to simplistic. Maybe all an 83 year old, non-pilot, with non binding guidelines can come up with.

ALPA has always opposed legislation that would create baseball style arbitration for contracts because the argument is a "neutral" could not understand the dynamics of pay and the effects of work rule changes on pilots and it would take control away.

The only reason it exists for merger policy is lack of ownership and politics. Enough ambiguity exists so that no stand need be taken and different positions can be argue to defend and serve the political need of the day.

 

[zethya]

"US Airways Pilots Prepare for Union Election" :

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalys...E&cm_ite=NA

 

[CactusFlyr]

Good for you, I'm voting for USAPA for the very same reasons.

Have you read the premise that sparked A-M in the first place? Every merger (To my knowledge) using it as the basis have gone by DOH. How do you reconcile the fact that ALPA merger policy changed in '92? The old and the new policies cannot both rely on A-M as the basis of merging seniority. Quite the conundrum there.

What else is new? We know what's coming. As I said to another poster, knock yourself out. No, I'm sorry, Nic is not coming to a contract anytime at all. But keep having fun with the FUD.

Welcome to USAPA, you too will be welcome after Apr. 17th.

No Thanks.
:down:

 

[767jetz]

They should have foreseen this and didn't, only to appease junior pilots at UAL.

I get such a kick out of sh... errr... stuff like this. More of the same "It's everyone else's fault" mentality. In this case, you seem to forget that is was a majority vote, and United was only one of several groups who agreed that merger policy must change with the times to reflect the realities of the dergulated world we live in.

Seems hypocritical to me that you don't understand "majority rule" in that case, considering you seem to toot that horn quite loudly when it benefits you.

Hey oldie... do you ever take ownership of anything that is a result of your choices? Or is it ALWAYS someone else's fault? Does the will of a majority only work when it happens to agree with your point of view? But when it is contrary to your will it is somehow incomprehensible?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Take the 737 Captain. It may be all the airline offers.

Or it could be the smallest with the company flying up to 747's.

It could a company 1/2 the size.

So an airline's size now determines one's seniority???

All the pilots senior to him could have a relatively young average age, so while he advanced quickly by timing a cycle right, his position will be stagnant long term absent growth.

So that rapid advancement didn't result in gaining seniority???

The 737 F/O at brand B could be in a position where 90% of the list ahead of him will retire in the next 15 years, in a company that cut all the unprofitable flying. Upgrade and then advancement in larger aircraft will take place rapidly.

Or he could be at an inefficient company about to fall on hard times and be on the street in 6 months, not to return for 15 years.

Neither persons position should be changed by the merger,

Something we agree on!!!

and neither persons advancement especially within flying that came with their company should be affected.

So what may happen in the future should be suddenly be guaranteed???

You can never get there with relative position. DOH with fences and conditions can achieve it.

If you can get there with DOH, you can get there with relative position - denying reality doesn't change it. I've seen your suggested conditions and restrictions - like stick the West with what they had when the merger was announced and East takes everything else - including ex-ATA 757's, E190's, additional 330's, additional A320 series, A350's - none of which East had when the merger was announced.

Virtual mergers like Air France/KLM where employee groups remain separate is another.

That could work if you put in enough conditions and restriction to prevent both management pitting one side against the other and one pilot group from taking advantage of the other (like most of the new flying going to one side).

Again, snapshots and to simplistic. Maybe all an 83 year old, non-pilot, with non binding guidelines can come up with.

Again, the typical answers I get to the questions - cherry pick specifics to support your opinion and only your opinion. Truthfully, I expected nothing else.

Jim

 

[P51Pilot]

Again, the typical answers I get to the questions - cherry pick specifics to support your opinion and only your opinion. Truthfully, I expected nothing else.

Jim

Pot meet Kettle! Your opinion is well known and has never changed since the U-PI merger. If anything, you cling to the past and the perceived screwing you think you took. Oh wait, here comes the lecture about attacking the messenger. An opinionated pontificator has no room to be sanctimonious, so save the bandwidth. At least no more or no less than the other thousand posters here and their uniquely individual opinions and perceptions which have no more or less value than yours. UAL engineered the change to merger policy and simply because the change favored them and DAL, and NWA. Majority rules right? Spin it anyway you want but that is what it boiled down to, so why the cry when the same will rule the day here with USAPA? Everybody gets an non-arbitrary policy to boot.

It's all moot argument at this point and has been since 1991 when the policy changed and this potential train wreck was created. The train happened much to management's delight and ALPA's detriment. Of course I saw it coming 17 years ago and apparently you did not. I didn't know what airlines it would involve and under what situation but knew it would happen nonetheless.

A decertification and USAPA will now have to clean up ALPA's mess.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

No Thanks.
:down:

It's what I thought. The offer will remain though.

 

[ableoneable]

Pot meet Kettle! Your opinion is well known and has never changed since the U-PI merger. If anything, you cling to the past and the perceived screwing you think you took. Oh wait, here comes the lecture about attacking the messenger. An opinionated pontificator has no room to be sanctimonious, so save the bandwidth. At least no more or no less than the other thousand posters here and their uniquely individual opinions and perceptions which have no more or less value than yours. UAL engineered the change to merger policy and simply because the change favored them and DAL, and NWA. Majority rules right? Spin it anyway you want but that is what it boiled down to, so why the cry when the same will rule the day here with USAPA? Everybody gets an non-arbitrary policy to boot.

It's all moot argument at this point and has been since 1991 when the policy changed and this potential train wreck was created. The train happened much to management's delight and ALPA's detriment. Of course I saw it coming 17 years ago and apparently you did not. I didn't know what airlines it would involve and under what situation but knew it would happen nonetheless.

A decertification and USAPA will now have to clean up ALPA's mess.

Typical response. Absolutely no discussion of his previous points or arguments.

Just: "You're biased, your are spinning, Evil forces engineered the merger policy, USAPA will swoop in and everything will be well."

When you argue the point is to convince others, not yourself. I hope upon hope that it is you, or someone using your logic, who negotiates with the company on USAPA's behalf or better yet is the one testifying in the inevitable lawsuits. If this is the case the west has nothing to fear.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

I get such a kick out of sh... errr... stuff like this. More of the same "It's everyone else's fault" mentality. In this case, you seem to forget that is was a majority vote, and United was only one of several groups who agreed that merger policy must change with the times to reflect the realities of the dergulated world we live in.

Seems hypocritical to me that you don't understand "majority rule" in that case, considering you seem to toot that horn quite loudly when it benefits you.

Hey oldie... do you ever take ownership of anything that is a result of your choices? Or is it ALWAYS someone else's fault? Does the will of a majority only work when it happens to agree with your point of view? But when it is contrary to your will it is somehow incomprehensible?

You have so many double meanings I have a hard time following it. On the one hand majority rules, on the other we all voted for it. All I can say is BS!! I didn't vote on anything. I believe it was the BOD. For other issues it was the MEC. Even for some LEC meetings I get blamed for how a vote turned out when I just happened to be working that day. This is the problem within ALPA's extremely flawed structure to allow for the accusations you throw. Your justifications reek, just like ALPA.

My elected reps voted for it. Oh wait, I didn't get to elect the MEC members either. So it was my one vote for LEC reps that indirectly went all the way up to the BOD. Sorry, this is complete FUD from ALPA. I will stand up and take responsibility for what I vote for or against. When I get a chance to vote! :angry:

 

[P51Pilot]

Ok, here we go.

Or it could be the smallest with the company flying up to 747's.

As such, the position should be protected but seniority as defined by all other unions and each ALPA local independently as longevity. If Airtran tomorrow purchased EOS, by your arguments all EOS pilots should be placed ahead of all Airtran pilots and enjoy all future advancements ahead of them, even though hired more than a decade behind Airtran's senior pilots. That would be wrong but that's my opinion as surely as what you espouse to be your unbiased view of things.

So an airline's size now determines one's seniority???

No, just one of the many variables that no snapshot, heel clicking solution can solve.

So that rapid advancement didn't result in gaining seniority???

It happened because of a specific set of conditions and therefore DOH with conditions would be the solution that would not alter anything beyond what presently existed at the time of the merger.

Or he could be at an inefficient company about to fall on hard times and be on the street in 6 months, not to return for 15 years.

Again, conditions can be created for downturns just the same.

Something we agree on!!!

Yeah!

So what may happen in the future should be suddenly be guaranteed???

Entitlement arguments are purely self-centered. Its a union profession. The pilot demanding slotting instead of a DOH/condition protecting his current position is trying to circumvent anothers' career track on arguments of the future and do exactly that. Guarantee his position. The only thing that is an absolute guarantee is that pilots under current law must retire at 65. The only true solution to entitlement is for the free market to rule at everyone be hired or laid off at the company's whim with no restriction. Unions guarantee things, that in non-union professions, working stiffs have no control over.

If you can get there with DOH, you can get there with relative position - denying reality doesn't change it. I've seen your suggested conditions and restrictions - like stick the West with what they had when the merger was announced and East takes everything else - including ex-ATA 757's, E190's, additional 330's, additional A320 series, A350's - none of which East had when the merger was announced.

With DOH, the flying you quote above would not need to be fenced, unless one pilot group is handed a windfall.

That could work if you put in enough conditions and restriction to prevent both management pitting one side against the other and one pilot group from taking advantage of the other (like most of the new flying going to one side).

Absent USAPA, might be the only solution.

Again, the typical answers I get to the questions - cherry pick specifics to support your opinion and only your opinion. Truthfully, I expected nothing else.

Jim

Already answered.

 

[BoeingBoy]

An opinionated pontificator has no room to be sanctimonious, so save the bandwidth. At least no more or no less than the other thousand posters here and their uniquely individual opinions and perceptions which have no more or less value than yours.

As you said - pot meet kettle. You certainly seem to feel that your opinions have more value than those who happen to disagree agree with you. So much more value that you couch your opinions as facts and dismiss those who have differing opinions as unworthy - they should "save the bandwidth".

Just curious - where was your moral outrage when the Shuttle integration didn't go by "the only method" that can produce a fair result? Or are you one of the many that "thought they should have gotten their Eastern DOH" but were strangely mum both before and after they didn't. Outrage, just like principles, can apparently be very selective for some when it comes to justifying their actions.....

Jim

 

[P51Pilot]

Just curious - where was your moral outrage when the Shuttle integration didn't go by "the only method" that can produce a fair result? Or are you one of the many that "thought they should have gotten their Eastern DOH" but were strangely mum both before and after they didn't. Outrage, just like principles, can apparently be very selective for some when it comes to justifying their actions.....

Jim

I don't suppose you donated time and money to USAPA v.1 in 92 after the duty rigs were given away in the dark of night? That was long before the shuttle merger and it probably would have went down differently had ALPA gotten the well deserved boot back then.

 

[CapnCockroach]

Just curious - where was your moral outrage when the Shuttle integration didn't go by "the only method" that can produce a fair result? Or are you one of the many that "thought they should have gotten their Eastern DOH" but were strangely mum both before and after they didn't. Outrage, just like principles, can apparently be very selective for some when it comes to justifying their actions.....

Jim

I don't suppose you donated time and money to USAPA v.1 in 92 after the duty rigs were given away in the dark of night? That was long before the shuttle merger and it probably would have went down differently had ALPA gotten the well deserved boot back then.

I guess some questions are just "unanswerable".

 

[dariencc]

Just curious - where was your moral outrage when the Shuttle integration didn't go by "the only method" that can produce a fair result? Or are you one of the many that "thought they should have gotten their Eastern DOH" but were strangely mum both before and after they didn't. Outrage, just like principles, can apparently be very selective for some when it comes to justifying their actions.....

Jim

Actually, Jim, I recall the major disagreement of the time being over which date of hire the Shuttle pilots were entitled to, Eastern or Trump. The Shuttle group was required to resign from Eastern Airlines as a condition of going to Trump, so they no longer had an Eastern date of hire. But you already knew that.


Had the Shuttle pilots been given Trump DOH, they would still have been placed on the list ahead of many US Airways pilots. Interestingly, I never heard a peep of protest from the juniority that this would be an unfair windfall for the Shuttle group, who worked for a stagnant, undercapitalized company. No one called for them to be placed junior to new hires (like Save Dave) because the new hires had a more promising future, according to the conventional wisdom of the time.

But you knew that, too.

 

[KTM300]

I once posed this question and never got an answer - 3 pilots work for different airlines but you have no way to tell which airlines. One has the seniority to hold widebody Capt, the second to hold 737 Capt, and the third to hold 737 F/O. Which has the most longevity and which has the least. Which has the most seniority and which the least? After all, if longevity is the same as seniority the answers should be obvious.

Jim

You have obviously got an axe to grind. Maybe your son or grandson work for AWA. Maybe like one of our ALPA BRC members, your Mom works at the ALPA office. Maybe you are just jeolous. Whatever the problem you may have excepting what happened to you in the past or what ever is happening in your life right now doesn't matter. You know your question is irrelevent. For that matter, what difference does it make. Years of service matter. AWA did not buy USAirways. Seats come and go. Airlines are not run by airplane guys anymore. Pilots will never see the types of salaries we saw a few years ago. Pilots will always fight for seniority and because of that you have to set a standard. That standard can only be DOH

I've said it before...you seem like an intelligent guy. Look around the industry. Its changed. ALPA didn't. Get over it. What ever your holding on too doesn't exist anymore. Don't think that this will be the only airline to eliminate an albatross from the property. Incidently, ALPA announced their bus tour and made a stop in LGA were the Chief Pilot had to ask ALPA to conduct their business outside of the crewroom. No USAPA involved!!!