AWA Alpa thread 11/2-11-8

[oldiebutgoody]

ALPA former policy of DOH made more sense in the pre-deregulation era when carriers merged with like carriers. Now any combination of legacy-legacy or legacy-startup mergers can and do happen. ALPA's current policy allows for all things to be considered, obviously most important amongst them career expectations, a wholly subjective idea that can only be fairly defined by a neutral party. And that's what Nicolau did, per Policy.

The whole "career expectation" thing was totally ignored by Nicolau. AWA CEO AND President both acknowledged that BOTH carriers would have ceased to exist. Puts both even in "career expectations" to me. Also, the West did not have any wide body or international flying at the merger time. So just how are they now entitled to it? I never heard anybody in the East talking about straight DOH, but that everyone should get credit for time served with the company. The arbitrator ignored all of it, even choosing to use an incorrect seniority list for the East guys which was submitted by the West side. Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander. ALPA's entire goal in this was to destroy the East guys seniority for future mergers. If the Nic award stands, they accomplished their goal.

 

[cactusboy53]

Your pilots (America West) scabbed, flew drugs and had the lowest pay and benefits in the industry, I guess that really has helped the 54,000 pilots that belong to ALPA......

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...............GET OVER IT!

 

[ableoneable]

The whole "career expectation" thing was totally ignored by Nicolau. AWA CEO AND President both acknowledged that BOTH carriers would have ceased to exist. Puts both even in "career expectations" to me. Also, the West did not have any wide body or international flying at the merger time. So just how are they now entitled to it? I never heard anybody in the East talking about straight DOH, but that everyone should get credit for time served with the company. The arbitrator ignored all of it, even choosing to use an incorrect seniority list for the East guys which was submitted by the West side. Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander. ALPA's entire goal in this was to destroy the East guys seniority for future mergers. If the Nic award stands, they accomplished their goal.

Oldie it is great to see someone commenting on the award who has clearly never read the award.

"AWA CEO AND President both acknowledged that BOTH carriers would have ceased to exist."

Wow, a stunning statement. Too bad it never happened. Parker said that absent ANY future mergers AWA may well have had to enter chapter 11 proceedings and absent this merger AAA would certainly have faced liquidation. Hardly a statement placing the futures of both carriers on an even stance. Parker would have continued shopping for another carrier, perhaps acquiring some of AAA's assets in the chapter 7 proceedings that would have shortly followed.

"So just how are they now entitled to it? I never heard anybody in the East talking about straight DOH, but that everyone should get credit for time served with the company. The arbitrator ignored all of it, even choosing to use an incorrect seniority list for the East guys which was submitted by the West side. Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander."

Another startling revelation; The arbitrator ignored all of the East's arguements? Incredable. As in it has no credence whatsoever. He simply found the east's arguement had no merit. The conditions and restrictions contained in the east proposal were laughable. The net result of the east's formulation would have been the eventual exchange of positions between west captains and east furloughees. The arbitrator saw this for what it was; a huge windfall gained by the east at the espense of the west. As for the seniority list you state that the arbitrator used an incorrect list submitted by the west. Again, incredable! As in complete horse ####. Even the east's proposed final combined seniority list showed the disputed pilots as furloughed. How you can turn around and then say "Well the east did not really mean it when they showed those pilots as furloughed. You should have based your arbitration on the list we meant to submit not the one we really submitted." This is the arguement you are making.

"Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander."

I guess it does if you base your opinion not on the evidence but instead on what you have "heard" the evidence looked like. I sure hope that you are never on a jury. "Well no your honor I really did not pay attention during the trial but I did hear these two other people talking about the case and based on what they said I think this guy is clearly guilty."

Congratulations Oldie, you win the most idiotic post of the day award.

 

[exB717Flyer]

The whole "career expectation" thing was totally ignored by Nicolau. ... Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander.

Have you actually read the Award? You may disagree with him but to say he ignored it is a lie. He carefully explained his reasoning. If you'd like, I have the Nicolau Award in Word format and I can email it to you. Just PM me your email.

ALPA's entire goal in this was to destroy the East guys seniority for future mergers.

That's right, bubba, the whole world just wants to screw the East pilots -- and give the West pilots a winning lottery ticket. Yep, you've got it all figured out. Do you date the Tooth Fairy as well?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Oldie it is great to see someone commenting on the award who has clearly never read the award.

"AWA CEO AND President both acknowledged that BOTH carriers would have ceased to exist."

Wow, a stunning statement. Too bad it never happened. Parker said that absent ANY future mergers AWA may well have had to enter chapter 11 proceedings and absent this merger AAA would certainly have faced liquidation. Hardly a statement placing the futures of both carriers on an even stance. Parker would have continued shopping for another carrier, perhaps acquiring some of AAA's assets in the chapter 7 proceedings that would have shortly followed.

"So just how are they now entitled to it? I never heard anybody in the East talking about straight DOH, but that everyone should get credit for time served with the company. The arbitrator ignored all of it, even choosing to use an incorrect seniority list for the East guys which was submitted by the West side. Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander."

Another startling revelation; The arbitrator ignored all of the East's arguements? Incredable. As in it has no credence whatsoever. He simply found the east's arguement had no merit. The conditions and restrictions contained in the east proposal were laughable. The net result of the east's formulation would have been the eventual exchange of positions between west captains and east furloughees. The arbitrator saw this for what it was; a huge windfall gained by the east at the espense of the west. As for the seniority list you state that the arbitrator used an incorrect list submitted by the west. Again, incredable! As in complete horse ####. Even the east's proposed final combined seniority list showed the disputed pilots as furloughed. How you can turn around and then say "Well the east did not really mean it when they showed those pilots as furloughed. You should have based your arbitration on the list we meant to submit not the one we really submitted." This is the arguement you are making.

"Looks pretty slanted to me, and I'm a bystander."

I guess it does if you base your opinion not on the evidence but instead on what you have "heard" the evidence looked like. I sure hope that you are never on a jury. "Well no your honor I really did not pay attention during the trial but I did hear these two other people talking about the case and based on what they said I think this guy is clearly guilty."

Congratulations Oldie, you win the most idiotic post of the day award.

You, sir, clearly have no clue. I have read the ENTIRE award, and just because I don't agree with YOUR interpretations, as I would guess MANY don't as well, you have no right to call anyone names. If you can't make an intelligent argument, as is demonstrated by your juvenile, elementary school style of debate, you should educate yourself. I see the fact that individuals with less than a year employed (not even off probation) being placed ion the list ahead of 17 year pilots to be THE windfall. Also, check your facts. Many folks were left out of the award dur to the fact that the list used was INCORRECT, and in fact was submitted by the other side. I guess we'll see who prevails soon enough, and my money is not on the West. No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator, but I'll guarantee that no one, except maybe the West folks that feel like they won the lottery, is happy with what is developing from this.

I think YOU need to educate YOURSELF, so as not to embarass yourself again!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Have you actually read the Award? You may disagree with him but to say he ignored it is a lie. He carefully explained his reasoning. If you'd like, I have the Nicolau Award in Word format and I can email it to you. Just PM me your email.That's right, bubba, the whole world just wants to screw the East pilots -- and give the West pilots a winning lottery ticket. Yep, you've got it all figured out. Do you date the Tooth Fairy as well?

I said it and I meant it. I read the award completely. His reasoning is incomplete. Oh, and by the way, I married her.

 

[ableoneable]

You, sir, clearly have no clue. I have read the ENTIRE award, and just because I don't agree with YOUR interpretations, as I would guess MANY don't as well, you have no right to call anyone names. If you can't make an intelligent argument, as is demonstrated by your juvenile, elementary school style of debate, you should educate yourself. I see the fact that individuals with less than a year employed (not even off probation) being placed ion the list ahead of 17 year pilots to be THE windfall. Also, check your facts. Many folks were left out of the award dur to the fact that the list used was INCORRECT, and in fact was submitted by the other side. I guess we'll see who prevails soon enough, and my money is not on the West. No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator, but I'll guarantee that no one, except maybe the West folks that feel like they won the lottery, is happy with what is developing from this.

I think YOU need to educate YOURSELF, so as not to embarass yourself again!

So you claim to have read the ENTIRE award. (and YOU claim that I employ a juvinile, elementry school style of debate.)

"I see the fact that individuals with less than a year employed (not even off probation) being placed ion the list ahead of 17 year pilots to be THE windfall."

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the word windfall means. The arbitrator clearly found that taking a pilot who held a captain seat and subjecting him to downgrade and furlough while at the same time taking a pilot who was currently furloughed and placing him in a position where he could hold that same captain seat, while the first pilot was on the street, was clearly a demonstratable windfall by one at the expense of another.

Some of those pilots on the bottom of the AWA list had actually quit USAir (ie not furloughed, they quit because they saw no future there) and decided to cast their lot with AWA. This is indicitave of how the two carriers were viewed. (For all the claims about what a world class place USAir was and how fantasic and real the career expectaions were, there is not a single example of an AWA pilot making the opposite migration.)

Leaving all that aside, YOU see a windfall in the fact that a pilot with less than a year was placed ahead of a 17 year pilot. I must ask, what gain did the west pilot experience and what loss did the east pilot feel in this situation? Did the west pilot's bid position in terms of pay, equipment, schedule etc. change in any way? Similarly did the east pilot's? The answer is no. The two pilots could hold the same schedules, seats etc after the award as before. If you knew anything about arbitrations you would know that arbitrators do not like to pretend that they can see very far into the future. A fair decision to them is one in which results can be measured as much in the here and now as possible. By this measure the final award resulted in the smallest ripple in the pond. That is to say the day after the Nicolau award was theroetically adopted there would be very little if any change to the seniority effects for any pilot on the combined list. The same can not be said of the east proposal, however.

"Also, check your facts. Many folks were left out of the award dur to the fact that the list used was INCORRECT, and in fact was submitted by the other side."

Really, the list the arbitrator used was incorrect? (excuse me, INCORRECT) Please explain to me why and how this list was incorrect. The east did not dispute the west list once during the arbitration process. As I pointed out earlier even the east's final combined list showed the disputed pilots as inactive. Please point out to me where in the award, or the arbitration transcripts, the arbitrator decided to use the west list over the east's. You can't, because in fact the seniority lists used were agreed to ahead of time and were exactly the same.

"No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator, but I'll guarantee that no one, except maybe the West folks that feel like they won the lottery, is happy with what is developing from this."

Thank you for urging me to "get educated." I, in turn, urge you to learn how to express yourself using english. "No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator" I am not sure what concept you are trying to convey here but I will surmise it is a ham handed attempt to call into question the arbitrator's impartiality. I believe you are claiming that either ALPA national or the west had some form of direct input into the final deliberations of the arbitration panel and that no one will acknowledge that it happened, or did not happen, and who is the they that the phrase "no-one" represents? Very confusing.

"I think YOU need to educate YOURSELF, so as not to embarass yourself again!"

Believe me, I am not the one who should be embarassed by this exchange.

I will however correct my final statement; You have now tied for the most idiotic post of the day and both of them are yours. I congratulate you on this achievement as it would have been difficult to achieve even if you intended to win the award.

 

[exB717Flyer]

I said it and I meant it. I read the award completely. His reasoning is incomplete.

You're entitled to your opinion but George Nicolau is a lot more qualified than you or I to interpret what's meant by "career expectations". Just having an opinion doesn't back up your assertions.

 

[sharktooth]

Wow, a stunning statement. Too bad it never happened. Parker said that absent ANY future mergers AWA may well have had to enter chapter 11 proceedings and absent this merger AAA would certainly have faced liquidation.

Actually, Parker stated that US would be in ch11 (which they were already, duh). I agree he also stated that AWA would indeed enter ch11 and likely would not exist a year (That little contingency plan, zanzibar, was it? that was never brought up to the nic). Parker never said anything about liquidation, at least for US.

You're getting your liquidations mixed in with at least three flavors of bankruptcy. and before you state that ch7 is liquidation, you should know that technically, that is not true. Glossing over the high points, ch7 is simply surrendering the management job to creditors, who may or may not liquidate.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

So you claim to have read the ENTIRE award. (and YOU claim that I employ a juvinile, elementry school style of debate.)

"I see the fact that individuals with less than a year employed (not even off probation) being placed ion the list ahead of 17 year pilots to be THE windfall."

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the word windfall means. The arbitrator clearly found that taking a pilot who held a captain seat and subjecting him to downgrade and furlough while at the same time taking a pilot who was currently furloughed and placing him in a position where he could hold that same captain seat, while the first pilot was on the street, was clearly a demonstratable windfall by one at the expense of another.

Some of those pilots on the bottom of the AWA list had actually quit USAir (ie not furloughed, they quit because they saw no future there) and decided to cast their lot with AWA. This is indicitave of how the two carriers were viewed. (For all the claims about what a world class place USAir was and how fantasic and real the career expectaions were, there is not a single example of an AWA pilot making the opposite migration.)

Leaving all that aside, YOU see a windfall in the fact that a pilot with less than a year was placed ahead of a 17 year pilot. I must ask, what gain did the west pilot experience and what loss did the east pilot feel in this situation? Did the west pilot's bid position in terms of pay, equipment, schedule etc. change in any way? Similarly did the east pilot's? The answer is no. The two pilots could hold the same schedules, seats etc after the award as before. If you knew anything about arbitrations you would know that arbitrators do not like to pretend that they can see very far into the future. A fair decision to them is one in which results can be measured as much in the here and now as possible. By this measure the final award resulted in the smallest ripple in the pond. That is to say the day after the Nicolau award was theroetically adopted there would be very little if any change to the seniority effects for any pilot on the combined list. The same can not be said of the east proposal, however.

"Also, check your facts. Many folks were left out of the award dur to the fact that the list used was INCORRECT, and in fact was submitted by the other side."

Really, the list the arbitrator used was incorrect? (excuse me, INCORRECT) Please explain to me why and how this list was incorrect. The east did not dispute the west list once during the arbitration process. As I pointed out earlier even the east's final combined list showed the disputed pilots as inactive. Please point out to me where in the award, or the arbitration transcripts, the arbitrator decided to use the west list over the east's. You can't, because in fact the seniority lists used were agreed to ahead of time and were exactly the same.

"No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator, but I'll guarantee that no one, except maybe the West folks that feel like they won the lottery, is happy with what is developing from this."

Thank you for urging me to "get educated." I, in turn, urge you to learn how to express yourself using english. "No one will acknowledge what level of input either side or ALPA had to the arbitrator" I am not sure what concept you are trying to convey here but I will surmise it is a ham handed attempt to call into question the arbitrator's impartiality. I believe you are claiming that either ALPA national or the west had some form of direct input into the final deliberations of the arbitration panel and that no one will acknowledge that it happened, or did not happen, and who is the they that the phrase "no-one" represents? Very confusing.

"I think YOU need to educate YOURSELF, so as not to embarass yourself again!"

Believe me, I am not the one who should be embarassed by this exchange.

I will however correct my final statement; You have now tied for the most idiotic post of the day and both of them are yours. I congratulate you on this achievement as it would have been difficult to achieve even if you intended to win the award.

WAAAA! Cry like the baby you are. Tantrums just show your maturity level!

 

[ableoneable]

WAAAA! Cry like the baby you are. Tantrums just show your maturity level!

Tantrums? Hardly.

I did refute evey one of your admittedly weak arguements. For all of your complaints about my style of debate you offered nothing to challange any of my points or to back up any of your assertions, which boil down to the fact that you "feel" the award is unfair because a 17 year pilot is junior to a one year pilot. (No fact, no logic just your "feelings" about the unfairness of it all.)

You are the one behaving like a child, and not a very bright one at that.

Get back to me when you can actually say something substantitive.

I look forward to a long silence.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Tantrums? Hardly.

I did refute evey one of your admittedly weak arguements. For all of your complaints about my style of debate you offered nothing to challange any of my points or to back up any of your assertions, which boil down to the fact that you "feel" the award is unfair because a 17 year pilot is junior to a one year pilot. (No fact, no logic just your "feelings" about the unfairness of it all.)

You are the one behaving like a child, and not a very bright one at that.

Get back to me when you can actually say something substantitive.

I look forward to a long silence.

Look everyone....diatribes like this are not going to help ANYONE. How about the reasonable discussion?

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Look everyone....diatribes like this are not going to help ANYONE. How about the reasonable discussion?

Nicolau was already very reasonable when he explained himself in the award. Yet, the east folks will have none of that. Likewise, many west posters have done the same, yet east folks will have none of that either. Do you have any other suggestions?

 

[nycbusdriver]

You're entitled to your opinion but George Nicolau is a lot more qualified than you or I to interpret what's meant by "career expectations".

That's the nuttiest thing I've heard in ages. Who is more qualified to interpret "career expectations" than the folks WORKING the career who actually HAVE the expectations?

 

[end_of_alpa]

The latest letter from the AWA MEC Chairman to the interim president of USAPA has just been posted.

http://usairlinepilots.org/AWA_MEC_letter.htm