LET THE BLAME GAME BEGIN!

[AWA320]

Kid you are trying to rush things and land now. I am going to continue to fly and see if we are going to make it. Here is a good training video for not rushing to judgement.Wait and see video

You use the tag line of the great nostradamus, now do has he did look into the future and tell us all what will be...

 

[Hawkhunter]

[
Lets face it the powers that be, the big carriers will never change the merger policy. UAL young carrier, DAL young carrier but both carry the big stick and they make ALPA move!! Now this is not meant to piss people off but it's a fact. We still have people on furlough and so does UAL. They will never vote to make a change of this magnitude. So what do we do? We have got get paid and get as many as we can on the active list prior to the next integration. We already know how that will turn out as our two groups were the test rats to this new policy...
[/quote]

So in other words, I got your seat now I want you to fight so I get more money come on guys help me out. Love AWA320

 

[A320Driver]

I absolutely agree with you there. As an F/A, we are so very fortunate to have had the DOH upheld by AFA MECs nationwide. While I certainly am no better than a west F/A, I would be royally peeved if he/she had only 4 years and transferred to my base and was now SR. to me with my 21 years for bidding, vacation, etc.
Seniority is the only thing we have left that means anything and now this award has taken that away ?
My last F/O was 250 away from Captain in LGA and he has now moved back 1600 seniority numbers....how would you feel if that happened to you ? So I reiterate...you need to walk a mile in another man's shoes....what if that was YOU that just moved down 1600 numbers ? How would YOU feel ? Bet it wouldn't be so fair then.

What this FO failed to mention to you is that he was 250 numbers from the junior LGA Capt spot. He is now about 450 numbers from the junior LGA Capt spot.
The "pity pot" continues to try and persuede people into sympathy for them. He "lost" 1600 numbers. What he fails to mention is that 950 of those numbers are already in the left seat in Phoenix and Vegas. Slots he never would've had access to in the first place.
No worries. He will progress due to the East attrition and lack of an acceptable contract to both sides.
You need to realize there are 2 sides to every story. Facts can come across as a lesser or greater gain/loss depending on how the story teller chooses to present them.

The same people claim they lost 15 years seniority. He is still getting his max pay and vacation accrual, while the west guy is still working up to that level.
I'm not saying there is no room for complaining, but, please, present your side accurately.

 

[A320 Driver]

What this FO failed to mention to you is that he was 250 numbers from the junior LGA Capt spot. He is now about 450 numbers from the junior LGA Capt spot.
The "pity pot" continues to try and persuede people into sympathy for them. He "lost" 1600 numbers. What he fails to mention is that 950 of those numbers are already in the left seat in Phoenix and Vegas. Slots he never would've had access to in the first place.
No worries. He will progress due to the East attrition and lack of an acceptable contract to both sides.
You need to realize there are 2 sides to every story. Facts can come across as a lesser or greater gain/loss depending on how the story teller chooses to present them.

The same people claim they lost 15 years seniority. He is still getting his max pay and vacation accrual, while the west guy is still working up to that level.
I'm not saying there is no room for complaining, but, please, present your side accurately.

Another name thief...

A320 Driver B)

Accept no substitutes.

 

[ussnark]

You are correct, it's called the ALPA MERGER POLICY and it was followed to the letter.

Except, it was not.

US west, get ready for Scooter Libby, up your tutu.

What this FO failed to mention to you is that he was 250 numbers from the junior LGA Capt spot. He is now about 450 numbers from the junior LGA Capt spot.

OK, to be "fair", the moron from HP 250 numbers juniors from a PHX Capt slot should not go to about 450 numbers junior?

Didn't happen, richard. Not only that, the same HP dude is now plus 275 numbers senior to the bottom PHX slot, no windfall there, of course! :-7

 

[nostradamus]

You use the tag line of the great nostradamus, now do has he did look into the future and tell us all what will be...

What nostradamus sees

Nostradamus vision of future Usairways employees

What nostradamus sees

Nostradamus vision of future Usairways employees

come on everyone, get your hands up in the air.

 

[AWA320]

[
Lets face it the powers that be, the big carriers will never change the merger policy. UAL young carrier, DAL young carrier but both carry the big stick and they make ALPA move!! Now this is not meant to piss people off but it's a fact. We still have people on furlough and so does UAL. They will never vote to make a change of this magnitude. So what do we do? We have got get paid and get as many as we can on the active list prior to the next integration. We already know how that will turn out as our two groups were the test rats to this new policy...
So in other words, I got your seat now I want you to fight so I get more money come on guys help me out. Love AWA320

Hold on bro let's back up a few notches. You assume that I have a some golden seat. I am and will be stuck in the right seat for several years as a result of this merger and age 65 so lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

And yes you damn right, if I have to be stuck for several more years as an f/o I certainly want to be paid a lot better than I am now!!!!

 

[Bud8EE]

Yes, it may. (But I asked this before and got no response: So when's the vote already? Two weeks have passed since I last asked it and still nothing. I'll try again. When's the vote? If you're not happy, go already! Shoo!)

Sorry Bear, but I am unhappily employed at NWA! If ALPA doesn't grow up, I am more than ready to show them the curb and save a few thousand in dues each year. My understanding is members of the APA only pay 1% and they are probably getting better representation. If the union is going to create divisive national policies, I have a strong desire to cut our subsidizing the elite 3 piece suit, briefcase carrying individuals who "think" they are "pilots" but would rather play tiddly winks in Herndon and "rub shoulders" with congressmen and feel and inflated sense of self importance.

I think this is both a stretch and a non-sequitur. You seem to be under the impression that the ALPA merger policy is obviously unfair. However, the fact remains that ALPA, through a process of representative democracy, adopted the policy. Presumably, a good number of ALPA-represented pilots preferred the current policy over a strict DOH policy. They think it is fairer the way it is now. The LCC/East group would therefore seem to be an outlier in its thinking. So maybe it is better for ALPA if East pilots go their separate way, if their thinking is so different from the majority of other ALPA pilots.

To my knowledge, either on a local level or nationally, the membership has never been polled on the issue of national merger policy. Many probable weren't even aware of what it says. Failed leadership has created such apathy that at any level, things tend to get done in the back room, or the dark of night, absent the view or oversight of the rank and file membership. Many times on the National Level it breaks down to things simply be done according to who the Elephants and Ants are and having nothing to do with the spirit of brotherhood. Every BOD you have the various MEC's go down with political animals in tow and outside of the "boy's club" vacationing, anything that is done is deal cutting, strong arming and political in nature.

Even if the membership's wishes were known, there is a fair chance they would not be followed. Age 60 is a terrific example. Both by poll and survey the majority of ALPA pilots indicated they wanted their "union" to maintain it's position of mandatory retirement at age 60 and yet by an 80% majority the executive board voted to change ALPA's stance on the issue. I'm 58, 30+ years in and in the top 2% but I was ready to concede retirement to the wishes of the union. The union only cares about those in power not the wishes of the rank and file. They will use the argument that, "well it was going to happen anyway, so we need to be part of the process." What bull####! Do what your membership asks, or just go ahead and quit fighting cabotage because hey its going to happen anyway. Might as well concede the next contract will be concessionary and start figuring out where the cuts will hurt the least.

It's no wonder there are currently 8 DFR lawsuits against ALPA from 5 different carriers and there may be even more than that.

Seems like the U pilots have been dragging the industry-wide bar down for years now, as ALPA members. NOW all of a sudden they are concerned with the effect their caving in to management will have on the industry as a whole? Isn't it a little late to be wringing your hands over that?

No argument there but hey, you must think what is happening is going to reverse that trend instead of accelerate it, since you seem to think what is happening to the East pilots as fair, right, and something ALPA should defend.

But according to the East spin-mongers, a good chunk of the East pilots are mostly about to retire in a couple of years anyways, right? (You know, all the screaming about how the arbitrator didn't adequately consider "attrition.") So your concern shouldn't be a major threat for very long, right?

Again ALPA just changed it's Age 60 stance against the wishes of the majority, so they get to drag down the industry for another 5 years.

I agree that is the major drawback with a policy like that which ALPA adopted, as opposed to a purely objective measure like DOH. However, a rigid DOH method would cause "unfair" outcomes in certain situations as well. There are plusses and minuses to both concepts . . . advantages and drawbacks to each . . . two sides to every coin . . . you gotta take the good with the bad . . . I won't get bogged down in cliches, but that's life. ALPA chose the more subjective system, despite its faults, because in the eyes of the majority of ALPA members (or at least representatives), the good in such a policy outweighed the bad.

Again you quote the majority as if ALPA knew what the majority opinion was or would have even followed it. DOH along with conditions and restriction could have accomplished all the goals of the current policy, whatever they really are since any two people could ague them differently.

The problem with going down that road is that if you set the standard for "fair and equitable" to be what you appear to want it to be and throw out this decision, in any future merger someone will ALWAYS be able to argue that a given merger was not "fair and equitable." Under the current policy, the solution to that problem must be that "fair and equitable" is what an arbitrator says it is.

If the award is tossed then the prudent thing for the BOD to do, would be to have the National Merger Committee to rewrite the policy and remove the vagaries. An arbitrator's decision should not be viewed any differently than a rouge judge who makes a decision inconsistent with the law. You use the appeals process, which in this case, would be the ALPA executive council.

You are making a distinction without a difference. You can try to characterize this as "wholly internal." Arbitration, like the U.S. system of litigation, is at its heart an adversarial process. It is therefore more accurate and useful to characterize the merger that happened as East vs. West (rather than some sort of "internal process"), just like a traditional grievance is Management vs. Union. The two situations are comparable in material ways.

My point was that if a party (East; Management) that initially agreed to binding arbitration is later permitted to renege on that commitment just because it doesn't like the outcome of the arbitration, that makes the whole system break down. You can't say, "OK, I'll agree to binding arbitration if I win the arbitration. If I lose the arbitration, all bets are off and we'll just keep starting over until I get the outcome I want."
Not only does it have the "authority" to do this, but is has the obligation to do so.

Actually you can agree to binding arbitration and appeal the outcome in court and have an award vacated on certain grounds.

Could you please point to the ALPA policy, bylaw, constitutional provision or whatever to which you are apparently referring that permits ALPA to second guess an arbitrator's decision in a situation like this and decide if it wants to "allow" it before it becomes binding? I have asked this before but never gotten a response. From what I have seen posted here several times previously, the ALPA policies / bylaws / etc. indicate ALPA is obligated to follow the arbitrator's decision in this matter. But if there is something in ALPA's rules I am not aware of, please educate me.

The policy mandates that the award combine the pre merger seniority list in a "fair an equitable" manner keeping in mind 5 goals. I mean come on, "fair and equitable" and "keeping in mind". It's a non-speak policy and someone should have seen this disaster coming. ALPA administers it's own merger policy and is charged with being the one to present the combined list to the company. ALPA has jurisdiction in this matter, not the NMB or some other entity. If the arbitration board was erroneous or misrepresented the goals in regards to the policy, ALPA can use it's authority under the merger policy "interpret and application". Application of this policy is charged to the Executive council, which I imagine is the authority being exercised currently in not turning over the Nicalou list to US Airways. I can't remember when this broke but I think they have held the list back for about a month now.

You are correct, but "settling policy disputes" is different than "following an arbitration decision." You are trying to change the subject. What "policy dispute" is there? Has there been a motion brought at an ALPA EC meeting to change the merger policy (or whatever the policy is within ALPA to change policy)? If so, great; let it go through the process.

I believe that is currently where this is.

Maybe that is the problem. Maybe the East pilots thought there was some sort of dispute or argument about the merger policy that was actively being debated at the time of the arbitration. There was not. Or perhaps the East pilots thought the arbitrator's job was to make up a policy on the fly on his own to apply just to this situation. That is something an arbitrator does not have the authority to do (unless the parties gave him that authority, which they did not in this case).

Again, due to it's subjective nature and evidenced by the opinions here, they believe the arbitration board failed on every count and there is nothing "fair and equitable" about it. The executive council is obviously making a determination on whether that opinion is correct.

Along with trying to determine the political winds, ascertain the potential fallout, and of course the legal ramifications of whatever their decision is. <_<

The policy was (is) what it was (is). There was no dispute. The arbitration panel was told, "Resolve this dispute based on this criteria." The panel was obligated to follow the ALPA merger policy as written.

ALPA doesn't even know what their policy really says. Who gets to determine what "fair and equitable" is? I guess the executive council does and that has a lot more to do with politics than anything else.

 

[Mr Furlough]

You are correct, it's called the ALPA MERGER POLICY and it was followed to the letter. I would suggest reading it along with the award several times so that you have a crystal clear understanding of both.

Fraternally

Geez AWA320, thanks so much for setting me straight! You seem to have the infinity for reading. Perhaps you have stumbled upon the fact that the Nicolau award is currently being scrutinized. By none other than those who own the rights and responsibility for our MERGER POLICY (as you put it).

Allow this point of view, if you wish to; Nobody, and I mean nobody, is sure what that piece of trash policy means. But, in reality, there seems to be a great deal of uproar as the result of a poorly conceived idea within our union. And the assessment part of that is currently underfoot.

Whether we like it or not (for the record-I'm not overjoyed!) this is now yet another process. I think (and I don't demand that you agree) that the Nicolau award won't stand in it's present form. I would be happy to share my thought process in this, but it would probably incite, unnecessarily, many of my fellow pilots in the west. So I will simply hold my thoughts, born from experience, to myself.

I will say this: Should ALPA National decide to modify the Nicolau Award the pilots in the West that will be hurt the most is the medium to senior range. Those pilots will be locked out of the "goodies". The two year guy can't loose in all of this-he/she is just to darn young. Attrition will provide all that pilot would ever need.

The "Save Dave" champagne just might turn around and hurt those who simply should not be injured in this process. And believe it or not, that's not the way I personally want it.

Best,

 

[EastUS]

I don't see a threat to ALPA's survival by following its own rules.

You're flat-out joking I assume?

I was going to reply to East up top but you had such a dam good point that I can target you both right here.

Lets face it the powers that be, the big carriers will never change the merger policy.

We're..at least temporarily..a "big carrier" we've a vote as well sir..do NOT EVER shortchange yourself, us, nor any hopes/expectations as to what you "think" will happen...battles and lives are easilly lost that way. Question being = Do we squander ALL in our internal fighting..or do we look to the future merger?

Addendum 320: "I think we all can agree that the real money is in the international markets" This is hopefully, the last "nyaah-nyaah" that I'll need to post sir..but exactly Who brought the "international" stuff to this abortion of a marriage?....Can we NOW/Finally just get on with trying to find something workable here?

Like it or NOT=We're now in the same "family"..we can play Cain and Able if we choose...or NOT

 

[Mr Furlough]

You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the ALPA merger policy is not based on strict DOH.

Reciting over and over that strict seniority / DOH "should" be how the lists are merged doesn't change the fact that that simply is not how ALPA does it. The time to make your arguments for DOH was when the current merger policy was being written.

Mr., Captain, or First Officer Bear96,

I have done a considerable amount of ALPA work in the past. OK? I know how ALPA works. Also, I have been furloughed in the past enough to "wet my beak" in some serious business. In that experience I have come to realize that the "intent" of policy means a heck of a lot more that the "written" policy. So when you couple the concept of "seniority" vs. the concept of "merger policy"-things get a bit dicey. Further, that it's never-over. Every single deal in life is met right around the corner from the next.

So rather than us slinging mud via electrons, I will say; we will see, we have yet a ways to go.

 

[EastUS]

Mr., Captain, or First Officer Bear96,

I have done a considerable amount of ALPA work in the past. OK? I know how ALPA works. Also, I have been furloughed in the past enough to "wet my beak" in some serious business. In that experience I have come to realize that the "intent" of policy means a heck of a lot more that the "written" policy. So when you couple the concept of "seniority" vs. the concept of "merger policy"-things get a bit dicey. Further, that it's never-over. Every single deal in life is met right around the corner from the next.

So rather than us slinging mud via electrons, I will say; we will see, we have yet a ways to go.

Actually..Bear's rather been earlier quite persistent as to having a noted, and insistent presence as being a "lawyer"...Understand that even Kennedys can finally pass the "Bar"..although they can neither fly, nor drive so as to literally save anyone's life.

Why anyone accords any actual credence to his opinions here baffles me...He hasn't stated any "Pilot" affiliation..and lawyers are about as commonplace as mosquitoes at any common BarBQ.

 

[EastUS]

Firstly, it may precipitate US Airways departure from ALPA.

At this point?=I see no reason to even expect the continuance of Alpo. Ladies/Gentlemen..let's all "do the math"...can ANY of us recall ANY situation within the last twenty frickin' years wherein Alpo actually,...I mean as in:EVER..."Helped" the pilots' group?

I'm all ears

ALL that I've actually EVER seen is a buncha' totally WORTHLESS "politicians" running off to "ALPA Vacations"/alleged "meetings" at fine hotels..and without doubt: mostly slapping each other on the back to mutually congratulate themselves as to figuring out a way to be where they were...sipping drinks by poolside..rather than "shudder/gasp" actually flying the line...but still making by far vastly more money than those of us who DO actually work.,..taken out of your "dues" and "assessments", and being so much "smarter" than the rest of us who actualy do love to fly/do anything actually usefull....That these worthless pimps still even pretend to be "Captains"/"Pilots" or anything less than purely knee-pad waring, totally BJ con-artists/politicians strikes me as an umitigated display of utter gall. ever wonder when thte last time any Alpa guy's "uniform' was actually worn in flight?=Don't..they pretty much DO NOT FLY once they attain the status of "Made Men" within "the Alpo Family"..they just wear the fresh dry cleaned "uniforms" to fool you/us.

Does it NEVER even "occur" to you guys at AWA that one of your MEC geeks has only 1500 hours or so of actual airline flying? If he actually liked to FLY...how is that even POSSIBLE?..Was he born just last year?....Does that not allow you even the slightest "hint" that we've all been in the hands of BS "politicians"? Do ANY of you actually think that that clown's actually a "pilot"?, versus a "Politican?"..well..we've our fullest manifest "doubts" in the east about "ours" as well.

Perhaps this a good time for us to actually consdier what being a "Pilot" actually means...and re-think our union notions, as per Alpa..which has apparently existed for sufficient time as to becom utterly corrupt, and hopelessly ineffective.

 

[A320Driver]

Except, it was not.

US west, get ready for Scooter Libby, up your tutu.
OK, to be "fair", the moron from HP 250 numbers juniors from a PHX Capt slot should not go to about 450 numbers junior?

Didn't happen, richard. Not only that, the same HP dude is now plus 275 numbers senior to the bottom PHX slot, no windfall there, of course! :-7

Our junior Captain was number 1099 (1/01/07) out of 1865 active pilots. Captain positions were eaten up by the time you get to 59% on the list.
The East junior Captain was number 2015 out of 3073 (3003 if you extract furloughed pilots senior to the most junior active) Captain positions are not filled until you get 67% of the way through the list.
What does it mean?
The pilots in the East are more likely to bypass upgrade than their counterparts in the West.
So when you tell me an East guy (Lets call him Al)was 250 numbers away from the junior Capt position (call him Bob)(737 DCA), this is a guy (Al)who was at the 75th percentile on the East list.(2015 + 250 / 3003) So lets say this guy (Al)was number 2265 in the East. He is now 3589 on the combined list. The list is now numbering 4830 (4900 minus the 70 furloughees). He is now in the 74th percentile (74.3%). The junior East Captain's (Bob)new number is 3153. He (Al)is 436 numbers from the junior East Captain position and 619 numbers from the junior West Captain position. The difference is primarily because of the bypass rate (no heart jokes please) of the East pilots.
Maybe he should look at how many East FOs were senior to him before(659) and after (1008). Only 349 AWA FOs came in senior to him. So again I say it is overdramatic to only focus on your West counterparts' DOH and to focus on how your number increased (every pilot beyond the first 517 has a higher number now)
Al has a new number of 3360 by years end and Bob 2939 due to attrition alone. Oh well, 'nuff said, I'm sure I'm not changing anyone's mind here anyway.

One other comment. Perhaps someone can answer this. The East proposal was DOH adjusted for LOS, right? The list presented during the hearings appeared to be straight DOH. I didn't see any adjusting for LOS. Mr Furlough, you say you are a 19 year East pilot? (correct me if I'm wrong). Did you have any furlough time? If so, how long were you on furlough? Do you believe you should be accruing seniority while on furlough status?

Thanks.

PS. My apologies to A320 Driver. I didn't mean to be a name thief. It took me numerous attempts to create an account here, and I was just plugging in names. I'll see if I can change it to something else.

 

[Mr Furlough]

Mr Furlough, you say you are a 19 year East pilot? (correct me if I'm wrong). Did you have any furlough time? If so, how long were you on furlough? Do you believe you should be accruing seniority while on furlough status?

Thanks.

Mr. or is it Ms. A320Driver,

You want to know if you can water my years of service down by arguing whether or not I was furloughed? Son, I was carrying the can befor your momma learned to cross her leggs!

You want a free lunch-try the soup kitchen!