MEC Chairman's Letter to AWA Pilots Regarding E190 Decision

[exB717Flyer]

They should not lose 15 plus years of seniority in merger process. Unacceptable.

I see. Would losing ten years of seniority be "acceptable"? How about five? Or three? Exactly where do you draw the line as regards an "acceptable" loss of seniority, because where ever you draw it means the AWA pilots will lose some as well. So who deserves to lose more seniority?

Here's the answer:

a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations

Expect Mr. Nicholau's decision sometime next spring. Good luck to all.

 

[N924PS]

b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.


This is an impossible condition to meet. Especially in this merger with the huge disparity in seniority.

But after reading arbitrator Eischen's decision on the E190 issue, one can only imagine what the combined USAirways system seniority list will bring.

 

[luvn737s]

Do you mean to imply that those decisions should be scrapped even though that means opening wounds on the West side? This is the largest pilot integration in history and there's gonna be a lot of displeased people, probably including myself. Deal with it.

I'm sure everyone will be "dealing with it". I am stating that the original 757 decision and it's protege' the E190 decision, are bad ones that should have never been made. The 757 and E190 flying should have been allocated right away, not pushed off into the future.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I don't think so. Many of the current furloughees had been flying up to 15 years prior to being furloughed. If fair and equitable is the mantra of this integration, the arbitrator could not in good faith allow someone who has been on the property a few years leapfrog these individuals. That would be a windfall.

When they return from furlough they will go to their rightful place on the seniority list, and the junior West FOs will remain so.

Absent policy language otherwise, furloughees normally get credit for time served on the property.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Why should someone who brought no job to a merger be slotted ahead of someone who did?

Exactly.

Why should an former America West pilot be allowed to bid CLT or PHL or any other hub except LAS or PHX?

Why should they be allowed to bid a widebody international or fill a vacancy created by a retiring US Air Captain?

After all, they brought none of these jobs did they?

 

[ClueByFour]

Exactly.

Why should an former America West pilot be allowed to bid CLT or PHL or any other hub except LAS or PHX?

Why should they be allowed to bid a widebody international or fill a vacancy created by a retiring US Air Captain?

After all, they brought none of these jobs did they?

I don't think they should be able to bid the widebody stuff until everyone who had a job from East has already gotten the chance. Thanks for asking.

They should (west pilots) be able to move up the list as East folks retire, however. They should not be displaced by someone who did not bring a job to the merger.

BTW, guys, the real world does not operate like this. In any way, shape, or form.

 

[N924PS]

I don't think they should be able to bid the widebody stuff until everyone who had a job from East has already gotten the chance. Thanks for asking.

They should (west pilots) be able to move up the list as East folks retire, however. They should not be displaced by someone who did not bring a job to the merger.

BTW, guys, the real world does not operate like this. In any way, shape, or form.

Where have you been dude, the airline industry is NOT the real world!

 

[Dorf]

They should (west pilots) be able to move up the list as East folks retire, however.

They will move up the list and not be displaced out of a job by a furloughee. However, when a vacancy opens and a furloughee is recalled into that vacancy, he/she shall take their proper place in seniority order, where ever that place is determined to be once the integration is complete.

 

[ClueByFour]

They will move up the list and not be displaced out of a job by a furloughee. However, when a vacancy opens and a furloughee is recalled into that vacancy, he/she shall take their proper place in seniority order, where ever that place is determined to be once the integration is complete.

Sure. I'm saying that in the real world (not airline world, I guess) the furloughee goes below everyone who brought a job to the table.

 

[Phoenix]

Why should someone who brought no job to a merger be slotted ahead of someone who did?
....

None of us really have any control over the arbitration of seniority integration. A small privileged group of folks behind closed doors will divvy the spoils of seniority integration, with power and far reaching effect. It will be similar to the small band of MEC pimps who flushed the billions of retirement benefits into the company coffer not too long ago and set an ignoble precedent for others to aspire to.

Just for fun, instead of using “possessions at time of merger (ie. a job on the backs of juniors and retirees)â€￾ as the criteria to establish a hierarchy, why not use “possessions sacrificed to date to save the airlineâ€￾?

Indeed, who is more honorable... the pimp or the pimped? Alas. It is too hard to tell.

It is just too hard to figure out. So lets at least make it entertaining by having a spirited arbitrator/dictator. I nominate the male and female pilot (one each, retired) who lost the biggest pension.

Who says we need "fair and balanced" in an arbitrator? Nonsense! The only way to get a just conclusion is to allow free course to exact revenge by those who were most wronged!

 

[Bear96]

BTW, guys, the real world does not operate like this. In any way, shape, or form.

So? You keep saying this.

So the "airline world" is different than the "real world" (whatever that means; why the airlines are any less "real" in your mind than other industries that have their own quirks, I have no idea). Big deal. In this instance, one way of doing things is not inherently "better" than the other way -- just different.

You have apparently become attached to the way you are used to doing things, and are implying that different ways are somehow "wrong."

There are different ways of looking at problems and solving them. Let those most directly affected by a given problem work it out through the dispute resolution mechanisms that are in place, and let them find the solution that works for them. If you don't like or understand the solution they come up with, you'll just have to deal with it.

The airline employment world has a highly unionized, seniority-driven mindset. There are different values and attitudes about work and jobs. They are different from the non-union world found in the Dilbert cubicles and glass office towers of Monday-Friday white-collar America, certainly. But that doesn't make them automatically wrong. I for one find it healthy to be exposed to different ways of approaching issues.