August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion

[cltrat]

Well, at US AIRWAYS, our work is cut out. I'm sure AH will want to bring the non-union work rule contract from United over to US AIRWAYS. The most critical thing that we know is that Parker made the decision to dump all new 70+ seat RJ's with PSA as opposed to Piedmont or American Eagle. Therefore, we have to keep our station classification language which includes any company jet over 69 seats to be tabulated for scope. That's what I personally would red circle over most everything else since it directly relates to the current scope. Secondly, we have to preserve the part time % and solid health care [when compared to AMR and UA].

The good thing is that we already have all 3 of these things in our contract and shouldn't have to give any of it up. With the company making record profits, the gains that I would like to see are scope. I know some may want more time off and that is worthy but without scope, we have nothing.

 
 
I couldn't agree more with that, I'd rather have less than that 26 an hour and know I am going to have it for say the next 10 years than get 26 and in 3 or 4 years be sitting in the unemployment office telling the guy next to me how I use to make 26 an hour.

 

[mike33]

 
 
I couldn't agree more with that, I'd rather have less than that 26 an hour and know I am going to have it for say the next 10 years than get 26 and in 3 or 4 years be sitting in the unemployment office telling the guy next to me how I use to make 26 an hour.

I'll already know how much you make. 

 

[cltrat]

I'll already know how much you make. 

haha point taken mike

 

[dca319]

This gal is an idiot.  She's an embarrassment to everyone on the east.  I wonder if her new 767 FO husband wrote it for her.
 
 
 
Dear USAPA Grievance Committee,


Thank you so much for your time in reading my grievance. I'll try my best to make my point as quickly as possible, but there are quite a few topics within this grievance I'd like to touch on.


First, I'd like to express my disagreement of allowing the West Furlough's who have been working on the East Operation for the last two years to move ahead of the 2007 and 2008 hires by issuing them their original America West date-of-hire. I myself was hired at USAirways on February 25, 2008 in which at that time USAirways and America West were still two seperate operating certificates. It is my understanding that our operation did not have a single operating certificate until late October 2008. That was eight months after I was hired. In my opinion, this makes me an original USAirways hire and feel it extremely unfair that the Transition Agreement does not reflect that. I also feel that it is extremely unfair to move a pilot from any other operation ahead of me or any other 2007/2008 hire on a seniority list.


Second, the Transition Agreement was written with the understanding that USAirways and America West would one day become one company, one union, one operation, one contract and one seniority list. To this date, we have separate seniority lists, separate contracts and separate operations. How is it that a pilot from a completely different operation and seniority list be moved ahead of another pilot at another operation on another seniority list? I understand that a future combined seniority list will make this argument null and void, but until then, moving a West pilot in front of any East pilot is a premature move that causes the East pilot to loose positions, career advancements and money. Also, what will happen to the West pilot if he/she is awarded their original America West date-of-hire on the East Operation and USAirways fails to ever merge with America West? What if we are never a single operation? What would happen to these West Furlough's if Doug Parker decided to sell off parts of the West Operation with this American merger to appease the DOJ? This might sound absurd to anyone reading this, but in 2008/2009 during the potential USAirways/United merger, the possibility of selling off some assets was indeed discussed. In fact, USAirways undoubtedly agreed to the idea of allowing Robert 'Bob' Johnson, President of Black Entertainment Television (BET) to buy 38 United Airplanes and operate them out of Washington, DC. The DOJ even then said we would be too big if we merged with United and they are saying the same thing now. Bill Franke in Phoenix, AZ has already indicated back in August of this year that he is interested in obtaining another, ''low cost'' operation and would like to operate it out of PHX. Franke appears to be after Frontier Airlines at this time, but nothing is official yet. My point is, if for whatever reason the Transition Agreement never comes to fruition, what happens to the America West pilot if they are given their original America West date-of-hire here at USAirways/The New American and our merger with America West never occurs? Will they be allowed to keep that original America West date-of-hire, when we aren't even fully merged with America West? Will they stay here on USAirways/The New American's property senior to someone like me when they never even interviewed at USAirways at all? Why not just hire someone from Southwest and allow them to keep their original Southwest date-of-hire. That to me is absurd.


Third, I am hearing that USAPA and USAirways are currently working together to modify the Transition Agreement that is dated 2005 to allow the West Furlough's to stay on the East Operation with their original America West date-of-hire. If this is in fact true, then shouldn't the pilot group as a whole get a chance to vote on this change? Can USAPA and USAirways just change the wording of an agreement without disseminating the possible change to the pilot group? If USAPA is indeed, ''the pilot's union,'' then I'd be very disappointed in my union if they just changed the wording of the Transition Agreement without fairly explaining the change to our pilot group and honoring our opinion and voice. Isn't that what USAPA was founded on? Changing the Transition Agreement now would be USAPA and USAirways' way of protecting the West Furlough's and their inconveince of having to go back to PHX. What about the inconvenience to the 2007 and 2008 hires of loosing job positions and wages do to the West Furloughs being placed senior to us? Why aren't we protected in the Transition Agreement when we were here at USAirways since before we even became a single operating certificate with America West? And furthermore, why not take a look back at the USAirways East Furlough's that went to work on the West Operation in 2005/2006 and give them, ''back pay'' for the position and money lost becuase they were not awarded their USAirways East date-of-hire at that time? I understand that they went to the bottom of the West Seniority List due to the wording of the Transition Agreement. If we change the Transition Agreement now, to give the current West Furlough's their original America West date-of-hire, then those 2005/2006 East Furlough's that went to work on the West Operation should have been awarded senior First Officer position's instead of reserve First Officer positions in which they actually held. Shouldn't they get back pay for those lost wages in 2005/2006? And if the Transition Agreement is going to be modified to allow the West Furlough's to stay on the East Operation with their original America West date-of-hire, why not extend that same offer to the 2005/2006 East Furlough's to move to the West Operation with their original USAirways date-of-hire?


Fourth, it's my understanding that USAPA and USAirways want to help, 'soften the blow' of the inconvience of the West Furlough's that physically moved themselves and their families to the east coast and are now being forced to move back to the PHX base. Is USAPA and USAirways also going to help the hundreds of PIT pilot's who moved their families to Pennsylvaina years ago with the understanding that they'd be based out of PIT for their entire career? What about the West pilot's that moved their families to LAS and then had to move them back to PHX when LAS was closed? Is USAPA and USAirways going to help them too? No one is forcing any West employee or East employee to do anything or move their family anywhere. It's just the nature of the industry we work in. Either you move or you commute. It's that simple and it's a choice we all have to make. But one thing that you are not allowed to do is bypass hundreds of other pilot's on a seniority list just because things don't work out the way you planned and you uprooted your whole family under the ospossis that your first choice base is going to stay open for the duration of your career. The way I see it, the West Furlough's are lucky to have been given an opportunity to fly while they were on furlough when they could have been sitting on the street with no flying job at all. I agree whole-heartedly to let them fly on our East Operation and stay their entire careers if they want to. Just don't put them senior to pilots that were originally hired by USAirways prior to our two companies obtaining a Single Operating Certificate. If the West Furlough's want to stay on the East Operation's Seniority List, then give them the date-of-hire in which they came over to the East Operation from the West Operation. If they want to go back to the West Operation, then by all means, give them back their America West seniority number and date-of-hire.


Finally, I understand that USAPA wants to set a presidence for date-of-hire. Not only do I understand, but I agree. I also understand that if you look at the West Furlough's and factor in longevity then they all will enivitably be senior to the 2007/2008 hires in the event that an Integrated Seniority List is ever put in place. But, by doing it now is a premature move that could cost any, 2007/2008 hire a seniority spot on a future Integrated Seniority List. And, by doing this prematurely, it is costing the 2007/2008 hires positions and wages. For example, I am currently on reserve when mutiple West Furlough's who came to the East Operation are holding Secondary Blocks because they, in my opinion, were prematurely placed senior to me effective June, 2013. Also, I am displaced off of the 757/767 in PHL when multiple West Furlough's who came to the East Operation can now hold the 757/767 in PHL. I missed the 757/767 in PHL by one number on the March 2013 bid. I held the 757/767 PHL bid in August 2013 by one number. And, effective November 2013, I am being displaced off of the 757/767 in PHL by four numbers. How is it fair that the East and West pilot groups are still two different seniority lists and a West pilot can be placed senior to an East pilot? I don't think that the Transition Agreement was written to allow that to happen. I don't have to tell you how important a seniority number can be. And I'm sure you can appreciate why I am trying to protect mine. Even one number can make a huge difference.


In conclusion, with regards to the Transition Agreement, I would like to point out that a presidence has already been set with the way it reads now. And if any changes are to be made to the Transition Agreement, it should be voted on by the entire pilot group. In my opinion the Transition Agreement should be changed to reflect all USAirways East pilots who were on East property prior to the implementation of the Single Operating Certificate dated October, 2008. And inclusive of the 2007 and 2008 hires. For example: In 2005 when the Transition Agreement was written there were USAirways East pilots on furlough and working on the West Operation while America West was fully staffed. Between 2005 and 2007, all USAirways East Fulough's were called back to the East Operation and again, America West stayed fully staffed. Both sides were fully staffed in 2007 and USAirways East even began to hire off the street. USAPA likes to call these pilot's, 'The Third Lister's,' but I like to refer to us as the 2007/2008 hires. Either way, the 2007 and 2008 pilots were on USAirways East Property prior to October, 2008 when the Single Operating Certificate was finally obtained. That same year, both the East and West Operation had to furlough pilot's do to rising oil prices and the Age 65 Rule being implemented by the FAA. The West Furlough's were not furloughed becuase of the, 'Third Lister's,' they were furloughed due to industry wide turmoil. So, I'm asking USAPA and USAirways to not punish the East pilot's hired in 2007 and 2008, (The Third Lister's) by placing the West Furlough's senior to us. We were furloughed as well. And we moved our families across the country as well to chase flying jobs. It was hard on everyone, not just the West Furlough's. When our own USAirways East pilot's were not given their-date-of-hire when they went to work on the West Operation why give the West pilot's their date-of-hire on our East operation? If you're going to change the Transition Agreement to benefit the West pilot's that came to work on the East Operation, then protect the 2007/2008 pilots who were here first, before the Single Operating Certificate was obtained. And furthermore, USAPA and USAirways wants me to give up my seniority and my livelihood on the primus and promise that we are inevitably going to merge with America West, and I don't agree with this because it's going on 8 years and it hasn't happened yet. I feel that any West Furlough that wants to stay on the East Operation should go behind the 2007/2008 hires. I feel that they should be given a date-of-hire that started the day they started flying on the East Operation. I personally feel that the union that I pay dues to and always have paid dues to is not looking after my best interest at all. And changing the Transition Agreement to benefit a group of pilots who at the time I was hired was flying on a completely different certificate is a movement that is highly detrimental to myself and the other 2007/2008 hires. It's a movement worthy of a DFR on behalf of the those 2007/2008 hires because USAPA isn't representing our best interests what-so-ever in this case. The 2007/2008 hires are loosing positions and money to a group of pilots who did not interview at USAirways, did not get hired at USAirways and would be on the street if it was not for USAirways.


Thank-you so much for your time as I know this grievance is a bit lengthy. I ask that you please give this grivence your full focus and consideration. And know that it isn't just about me. It's about the 98 USAPA pilots that were hired in 2007 and 2008 and the protection of our seniority numbers.

 

[cltrat]

you're not too smart yourself since you put it in the wrong forum

 

[700UW]

LMFAO, good one Rat.