August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

The arbitrator may have followed the process but his award was no where close to the tenets provided for in the ALPA merger guidelines. Westies always say that each merger turns on its own, not when Nic is the arbitrator. The Nic award in the US and Shuttle merger used the exact same methodology as the East/West Nic award. Give US X number of slots credited for the wide bodies then slot based on a ratio, staple furloughs to the bottom. Nic just explained the result of the East/West award differently, it was the same methodology as the shuttle award. He was lazy, he issued a horrible award based on what he felt was minimally acceptable under Alpa's guidelines. It is not the final word and most likely will never be used as a seniority list at any airline. What the East has done was our only choice, justifiable is an understatement. When the award is as screwed up as the Nic is, it can not, has not and will not be the final word.

The Nic award placed 650 guys younger then me ahead of me. Pre merger, I would have retired in the top 10. LOS, placed me in the top 100 at retirement, Nic top 700. Nic would have forever kept me out of the left seat on the W/B. How can you say that is not a wind fall? Oh yea, that snap shot in time theory...

The east merger committee's position in the SLI was LOS, it was not DOH. LOS with conditions and restrictions that kept me from bidding Phoenix for a period of 10 years at minimum, would have resulted in the fairest award for both sides. The C & R's would have had to be fairly extreme due to the extreme differences in the lists. Future furloughs, W/B flying, narrow body CAP upgrades, capturing attrition could have all been addressed in the C & R's, if Nic would have done his job. He did not.

As far as this idea that the bottom guy on the West list is equal to the bottom guy on the East list (relative seniority), why don't you ask the flying public what they would prefer, a guy with one month of experience flying at a major airline or a guy with 17, 15, 12, 10, 5 years experience.. Who would they pick to be their pilot? No flame bait, serious question. I would bet the results of the pol would be for 90%+ for the 5 - 17 year guy… even if he was furloughed at the time of the merger.

Skier

We have very different viewpoints. In all likelihood absent the merger you would not have retired from a WB seat, NB seat or any seat given the financial state of US. Not only was it very unlikely that you would have been recalled, but US was just another airline liquidation waiting to happen. Like so many others, you prefer to laud the benefits that came with the merger,but you are unwilling to accept the cost that came with it, namely being integrated by your seniority position with the merger partner.

There is simply no justification or rationalization that can be made for not honoring a contractual agreement that you entered into freely knowing full well that doing so contained risk of not getting what you wanted.

 

[EastUS1]

There is simply no justification or rationalization that can be made for not honoring a contractual agreement ......

B.S. "I'm somewhere around 13 or 1400 numbers senior to myself on the Nicolau Award," AFSHIN IRANPOUR

 

[Pi brat]

We have very different viewpoints. In all likelihood absent the merger you would not have retired from a WB seat, NB seat or any seat given the financial state of US. Not only was it very unlikely that you would have been recalled, but US was just another airline liquidation waiting to happen. Like so many others, you prefer to laud the benefits that came with the merger,but you are unwilling to accept the cost that came with it, namely being integrated by your seniority position with the merger partner.

There is simply no justification or rationalization that can be made for not honoring a contractual agreement that you entered into freely knowing full well that doing so contained risk of not getting what you wanted.

That is irrelevant. The merger was a fork in the road and once we went down the path to the right, we cannot know what would have been on the path on the left. Perhaps the path we took will lead to Chp 7 one day. Perhaps had we stayed on the other path another opportunity would have opened that would have been better than the current. No one can say and that is the fallacy of basing the future on a guess.

In a vacuum yes one should honor their agreements. The problem with that POV in this case is that a previous agreement allowed a course of action that allowed the ignoring of another agreement. The TA WAS controlling, and the SLI agreement could be ignored until it was completed. That's a fact, on that you guys are actually trying to use in the MOU argument, saying it completed the TA when it actually did away with it.

 

[end_of_alpa]

We have very different viewpoints. In all likelihood absent the merger you would not have retired from a WB seat, NB seat or any seat given the financial state of US. Not only was it very unlikely that you would have been recalled, but US was just another airline liquidation waiting to happen. Like so many others, you prefer to laud the benefits that came with the merger,but you are unwilling to accept the cost that came with it, namely being integrated by your seniority position with the merger partner.

There is simply no justification or rationalization that can be made for not honoring a contractual agreement that you entered into freely knowing full well that doing so contained risk of not getting what you wanted.

If ALPA was the party that negotiate the TA and ALPA had a duty to defend it why didn't Leonidas sue ALPA? I'm mean they were the PARTY that had the duty to defend it?

 

[end_of_alpa]

We have very different viewpoints. In all likelihood absent the merger you would not have retired from a WB seat, NB seat or any seat given the financial state of US. Not only was it very unlikely that you would have been recalled, but US was just another airline liquidation waiting to happen. Like so many others, you prefer to laud the benefits that came with the merger,but you are unwilling to accept the cost that came with it, namely being integrated by your seniority position with the merger partner.

There is simply no justification or rationalization that can be made for not honoring a contractual agreement that you entered into freely knowing full well that doing so contained risk of not getting what you wanted.

Prove it.

 

[end_of_alpa]

We have very different viewpoints. In all likelihood absent the merger you would not have retired from a WB seat, NB seat or any seat given the financial state of US. Not only was it very unlikely that you would have been recalled, but US was just another airline liquidation waiting to happen. Like so many others, you prefer to laud the benefits that came with the merger,but you are unwilling to accept the cost that came with it, namely being integrated by your seniority position with the merger partner.

There is simply no justification or rationalization that can be made for not honoring a contractual agreement that you entered into freely knowing full well that doing so contained risk of not getting what you wanted.

What LEGAL court cases can you point to that make your point? Prove it with facts and law, NOT speculation.

 

[CallawayGolf]

That is irrelevant. The merger was a fork in the road and once we went down the path to the right, we cannot know what would have been on the path on the left. Perhaps the path we took will lead to Chp 7 one day. Perhaps had we stayed on the other path another opportunity would have opened that would have been better than the current. No one can say and that is the fallacy of basing the future on a guess.

In a vacuum yes one should honor their agreements. The problem with that POV in this case is that a previous agreement allowed a course of action that allowed the ignoring of another agreement. The TA WAS controlling, and the SLI agreement could be ignored until it was completed. That's a fact, on that you guys are actually trying to use in the MOU argument, saying it completed the TA when it actually did away with it.

You are overreacting to the statements I made since I said it was likely not certain. But in doing so, you actually are making my point. The future is indeed uncertain and just because an east wide-body pilot was active on 9/26/2005 was by no means a guarantee that he would be active and a wide-body pilot on 10/1/2005 with or without the merger. The same should be said for every east and every west pilot. The hope for an attrition-based upgrade was not guaranteed or promised to anyone, again east or west. Career expectations means little to nothing when facing an uncertain future. IMO, that's why the NIC was focused mainly on the here and now based on the date of the integration. The logical formula had a clear purpose: to ensure those who had seats were able to retain them on the integration of the two groups on a combined list, again based on where the groups were at the consummation of the merger. Those who did not have seats had the same hope they should have had pre-merger, namely to hopefully return to active status at the lowest available seniority position.

Now to your second point, let's consider what would have happened if the award would have been generally been acceptable to the east and the west. In that case the award would heave been contractually required by the next CBA while the TA would have become nullified. Why is it different with the MOU? Why would the NIC survive and become effective at the sunset of the document that allowed its formation with a stand-alone but not with the MOU? Both documents, the TA and the MOU call for the TA to be nullified upon a final CBA agreement. So again, there is nothing wrong with the construction or the passage of the MOU, but rather in what USAPA plans to do regarding seniority as to why their current or future actions are being questioned from a legal perspective. But,if you're right about the nullification, why are you bothered by the west going to court and asking for a decision to be made once and for all on an hotly debated issue for six years?

 

[Pi brat]

If ALPA was the party that negotiate the TA and ALPA had a duty to defend it why didn't Leonidas sue ALPA? I'm mean they were the PARTY that had the duty to defend it?

And if the MOU is a dirty sneaky trick agreement, and the company was a party to that agreement, how did they get let off the hook but not USAPA?


That is like blaming the bad deal you got on the 2007 Nicolau Cruisemaster 500 on the salesman and not the sales manager.

 

[Freighterguynow]

. Like so many others, you prefer to laud the benefits that came with the merger,but you are unwilling to accept the cost that came with it,

The only 'benefit' is simply flying what we brought to the merger or, more precisely, SHOULD be enjoying if our block hours weren't being bled off to support the failing PHX hub.

That's our cost.

 

[Pi brat]

You are overreacting to the statements I made since I said it was likely not certain. But in doing so, you actually are making my point. The future is indeed uncertain and just because an east wide-body pilot was active on 9/26/2005 was by no means a guarantee that he would be active and a wide-body pilot on 10/1/2005 with or without the merger. The same should be said for every east and every west pilot. The hope for an attrition-based upgrade was not guaranteed or promised to anyone, again east or west. Career expectations means little to nothing when facing an uncertain future. IMO, that's why the NIC was focused mainly on the here and now based on the date of the integration. The logical formula had a clear purpose: to ensure those who had seats were able to retain them on the integration of the two groups on a combined list, again based on where the groups were at the consummation of the merger. Those who did not have seats had the same hope they should have had pre-merger, namely to hopefully return to active status at the lowest available seniority position.

Now to your second point, let's consider what would have happened if the award would have been generally been acceptable to the east and the west. In that case the award would heave been contractually required by the next CBA while the TA would have become nullified. Why is it different with the MOU? Why would the NIC survive and become effective at the sunset of the document that allowed its formation with a stand-alone but not with the MOU? Both documents, the TA and the MOU call for the TA to be nullified upon a final CBA agreement. So again, there is nothing wrong with the construction or the passage of the MOU, but rather in what USAPA plans to do regarding seniority as to why their current or future actions are being questioned from a legal perspective. But,if you're right about the nullification, why are you bothered by the west going to court and asking for a decision to be made once and for all on an hotly debated issue for six years?

I actually agree with you up until you say that Nicolau got it right. Surprised?

Career expectations are definitely tricky to nail down. Had PI merged with UA right after I got hired, UA would have argued that PI would never have gotten widebody A/C. Yet a year later we did. But unless you have a standard method to determine seniority(it used to be biased towards DOH) you have to have some way of accounting for career expectations. I agree that the starting point should be what you bring to the merger-pilots and aircraft. But I think you have to look at how the pilots would move ahead on their separate lists, then blend them. That's where I think Nicolau failed and we have shown other SLI's that back that up. I've always thought that if you were going to use some subjective method you should start with the fleet and pilot list at the day the merger was announced. Run those numbers out in a stovepipe fashion until the last pilot on the list retires and see what their progression looks like. Then blend the two lists so that the most guys number hit that line, with adjustment for what a certain % would "buy" on the new list. For example, AA has more widebodies, so a guy at 20% on their list would be able to "buy" more with his relative seniority than a guy on the US list would. After it's all over the list should be tested. Take guys at several points on the list and run their numbers. If you have huge disparities in their upward progression, you probably got it wrong-as Nicolau did.

If the Nic had been acceptable then it would have been a moot point. It would have been implemented and even if it hadn't, say for a delay in joint certificate, there would have been no language like 10h in the MOU. It would then be like Koontz testified to, but that is not the way it is.

 

[Barrister]

What was the seniority status of both? Was the east pilot mainline or MDA? If it was MDA then it wasn't unbroken mainline service. If it was all mainline then he must have had a very low seniority status.

No matter, you selected George Nicolau to determine the final outcome of the SLI and you gave him the full authority to determine your fate because you were unable to offer a solution that was found acceptable by both groups of pilots. Of course, if you think he got it wrong, you can ask him to modify it since he does retain exclusive jurisdiction over the award.

I have an idea. Why don't you Westies have a bumper sticker made up. It will look like this.

A 17 year USair Pilot junior to a AVA new hire? What's the big deal !!
Let us know how that works for ya!!! even in PHX

NICDOA....NPJB
I want to be 1400 numbers senior to myself!!! YHGTBSM !!

 

[traderjake]

LOA 93 Forever!

There's one for Barrister.

 

[traderjake]

CLT Pilots Survey!

We now have the CLT Pilots Survey site up and running with the first survey now available. The way we plan to run this program is to issue domicile updates and then follow-up with a survey. These surveys are designed to get your true feedback. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU TAKE THE SURVEY SINCE WE WILL VOTE IN PART BASED ON THE RESULTS! It is imperative that a significant amount of the CLT pilot population participates for a valid survey. Although all pilots can access this survey, only the CLT pilot’s answers will be used to calculate support for the issues being surveyed. If you have a question that you would like included in a future survey, please email us. The entire reason for this survey site is for us to be able to know and quantify how you, the line pilots feel.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I actually agree with you up until you say that Nicolau got it right. Surprised?

Career expectations are definitely tricky to nail down. Had PI merged with UA right after I got hired, UA would have argued that PI would never have gotten widebody A/C. Yet a year later we did. But unless you have a standard method to determine seniority(it used to be biased towards DOH) you have to have some way of accounting for career expectations. I agree that the starting point should be what you bring to the merger-pilots and aircraft. But I think you have to look at how the pilots would move ahead on their separate lists, then blend them. That's where I think Nicolau failed and we have shown other SLI's that back that up. I've always thought that if you were going to use some subjective method you should start with the fleet and pilot list at the day the merger was announced. Run those numbers out in a stovepipe fashion until the last pilot on the list retires and see what their progression looks like. Then blend the two lists so that the most guys number hit that line, with adjustment for what a certain % would "buy" on the new list. For example, AA has more widebodies, so a guy at 20% on their list would be able to "buy" more with his relative seniority than a guy on the US list would. After it's all over the list should be tested. Take guys at several points on the list and run their numbers. If you have huge disparities in their upward progression, you probably got it wrong-as Nicolau did.

If the Nic had been acceptable then it would have been a moot point. It would have been implemented and even if it hadn't, say for a delay in joint certificate, there would have been no language like 10h in the MOU. It would then be like Koontz testified to, but that is not the way it is.

I'm going to mostly agree with you and make a few comments/observations that hopefully does not distract from our state of agreement.

1. I think there may have been many ways to order the list. If such a scheme as you suggest would have been awarded and if it had a majority of support on both sides (75% or would be nice to see but probably way too high of expectations) then a JCBA would have been attained long ago. As I think you know, if that had happened it would have my full support just as the NIC does or DOH would if that's what the arbitrator decided.

2. Most of what we have been discussing here is a matter of opinion interspersed with facts. The opinions may never be reconciled as there has been precious little persuasion by anyone on the topic. Heck there are some who refuse to accept unquestionable facts because they are too emotionally invested in their opinions.

3. When it comes to an opinion, the only ways that really matter in all of this is that of Nicolau and those who sit as a justice in federal court. Nicolas's opinion was the final word on the award and that will not change regardless of what happens in court from this point. If Silver or the Ninth brings a final resolution, theirs will be final at that point even if, in our opinions, they got it wrong.

4. Stand by because this May shock you, but I'm going to give the NIC's chance of surviving into the the MOU process and the APA integration a 50:50 chance given the nullity language in the MOU. If there's and edge, I would actually give it to USAPA in winning that battle. That being said, if that happens, that means USAPA likely brings two separate lists into the SLI with the APA. The APA says they expect, not DOH, but something much more NIC-like than LOS/DOH. If that happens, the I suspect (opinion here) USAPA (if they are still in a position of representing LCC pilots at the time) will force a M/B arbitration instead of accepting APA's slotting proposals. If that happens, I think the west will come out of that far better than the would have with a stand-alone USAPA DOH list. I could easily be wrong, but that's my thinking at this point. No matter what happens in court or with a M/B arbitration, I would support the end result an would encourage all others to do the same.

 

[traderjake]

Posted by a West pilot at The Hanger:

"I just realized that the union that can't even negotiate an i-pad agreement with the company will be be negotiating our seniority with the APA, God help us all."