One more reason for seniority-based system

[Bear96]

[ You and USA320pilot are saying that when EA went bust, those pilots should have been able to walk onto any other airline's seniority list with their EA DOH (you know, to honor their experience at EA)?


No. U did not go "bust." AWA did not go "bust." This has NOTHING to to with EAL.

I did not say U or AWA went bust. And if you don't like my EA example, substitute it for the no-longer-in-existence airline of your choice. Should TW pilots have been able to come over to U with full DOH seniority? PA? (Remember, you are the one who brought up rewarding experience in this thread.)

Nice dodge of the question.

So tell my if you believe, in your heart, a two month "new hire" probation pilot should go ahead of a pilot in continuous, unbroken employment for 19 years.

It depends on how a merger policy is written. If the policy is to merge by DOH, then no, the two-month pilot should not go ahead of the 19-year pilot. However under ALPA's current policy, which expressly rejects a straight DOH seniority merge, it may be OK depending on the other factors enumerated in the policy and the relative situations of the two pilots on the eve of the merge. It would have to be a pretty extreme situation to justify the two-month pilot going ahead of the 19-year pilot, but U was in a pretty extreme situation.

The time to argue DOH is the ONLY way ALPA should merge seniority lists has long passed, at least for the U/HP merge.

(BTW, in the U/HP situation, how many examples are there of two-month HP pilots ending up on the list ahead of 19-yr continuously employed (i.e., never furloughed) U pilots? Seriously, I am curious.)

 

[prechilill]

I did not say U or AWA went bust. And if you don't like my EA example, substitute it for the no-longer-in-existence airline of your choice. Should TW pilots have been able to come over to U with full DOH seniority? PA? (Remember, you are the one who brought up rewarding experience in this thread.)

Nice dodge of the question.
It depends on how a merger policy is written. If the policy is to merge by DOH, then no, the two-month pilot should not go ahead of the 19-year pilot. However under ALPA's current policy, which expressly rejects a straight DOH seniority merge, it may be OK depending on the other factors enumerated in the policy and the relative situations of the two pilots on the eve of the merge. It would have to be a pretty extreme situation to justify the two-month pilot going ahead of the 19-year pilot, but U was in a pretty extreme situation.

The time to argue DOH is the ONLY way ALPA should merge seniority lists has long passed, at least for the U/HP merge.

(BTW, in the U/HP situation, how many examples are there of two-month HP pilots ending up on the list ahead of 19-yr continuously employed (i.e., never furloughed) U pilots? Seriously, I am curious.)

Bear96, you are spot on with your assessment of this U/HP mess. Be thankful United dumped the merger with U...

 

[767jetz]

And which part of the ALPA merger policy address that YOU are entitled to a windfall?

First of all, I do not work for US or AWA. So my interest in this fight is fairness and the precedent it sets for the industry.

However, WRT the West pilots and perception that they got a windfall, you are simply wrong and IMO your inflated expectations are self induced.

I do not believe that West pilots are entitled to a windfall, as per ALPA merger policy. I think everyone is entitled to their relative position before the merger and their reasonable expectations for the future, absent a merger. The west did not get a windfall, because if you take any cross section of the group from either side and look at what they could bid prior to and post merger, it is about the same. Not perfect, but as close as one can expect given the circumstances.

A furloughed pilot is still a furloughed pilot; an Airbus captain is still an Airbus captain; a pilot retiring while furloughed will still retire in furlough; a pilot who would have retired as an f/o and never seen a captains seat will still do the same; etc. etc. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The only ones who feel they they were screwed were those of you who thought this merger would repair the years of stagnation and downgrades you endured by ending up at a troubled airline that you chose to work for in the first place. Those who thought this merger would reallocate the wealth and get them a payback for their tough luck are disappointed and have had their (unreasonable) expectations dashed. Others feel cheated that in the next merger they no longer have hope of taking a widebody position ahead of a more deserving DL or NW or UA pilot. So in reality it is the East who were hoping for a windfall, and now cry foul because they didn't get it.

 

[aquagreen73s]

The only ones who feel they they were screwed were those of you who thought this merger would repair the years of stagnation and downgrades you endured by ending up at a troubled airline that you chose to work for in the first place.

And, for whatever reason, chose to remain at. In light of all the evidence suggesting that it was a mistake to remain on that sinking ship, they chose to stay. Kudos to those that found greener pastures at JetBlue, SWA, Airtran, and even AWA.

 

[767jetz]

Does it suck for the 19 year pilot, yes it does. But you have to face that fact that 19 years at U got you the same relative seniority as a two month pilot at AWA.

Exactly. It does suck. And it sucked before the merger also. Call it what you want... bad luck; poor career decisions; whatever. It sucked before and it sucks now.

What makes the East think this merger was going to erase this unfortunate consequence created by working for a historically troubled airline? It won't. It can't. It shouldn't. And there is no support within ALPA's pilot community for the reallocation of wealth being attempted by the East.

 

[Mr Furlough]

First of all, I do not work for US or AWA. So my interest in this fight is fairness and the precedent it sets for the industry.

However, WRT the West pilots and perception that they got a windfall, you are simply wrong and IMO your inflated expectations are self induced.

I do not believe that West pilots are entitled to a windfall, as per ALPA merger policy. I think everyone is entitled to their relative position before the merger and their reasonable expectations for the future, absent a merger. The west did not get a windfall, because if you take any cross section of the group from either side and look at what they could bid prior to and post merger, it is about the same. Not perfect, but as close as one can expect given the circumstances.

A furloughed pilot is still a furloughed pilot; an Airbus captain is still an Airbus captain; a pilot retiring while furloughed will still retire in furlough; a pilot who would have retired as an f/o and never seen a captains seat will still do the same; etc. etc. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The only ones who feel they they were screwed were those of you who thought this merger would repair the years of stagnation and downgrades you endured by ending up at a troubled airline that you chose to work for in the first place. Those who thought this merger would reallocate the wealth and get them a payback for their tough luck are disappointed and have had their (unreasonable) expectations dashed. Others feel cheated that in the next merger they no longer have hope of taking a widebody position ahead of a more deserving DL or NW or UA pilot. So in reality it is the East who were hoping for a windfall, and now cry foul because they didn't get it.

I don't know where you are getting your data. But it doesn't match mine. Fact is, the projection models I saw had my seniority number at 153 at age 60. Yes, I slugged out some tough years over here, not all, but some. But what loomed was a vast amount of retirements. That coupled with the fact that I was positioned senior, relative to the nearly 1,900 pilots on furlough, I believe that the potential for upward mobility was reasonable.

Today is a completely different story, but one with no clear outcome. It's interesting how some chastise us for the unfortunate events of this industry. But I can assure you, I'm no loser as some here advance, and I'm no dummy either. What kind of system do we have where longevity at the same company is swept aside as to allow for a much junior person to leap frog and mitigate such potentials?

 

[saabslime]

I don't know where you are getting your data. But it doesn't match mine. Fact is, the projection models I saw had my seniority number at 153 at age 60. Yes, I slugged out some tough years over here, not all, but some. But what loomed was a vast amount of retirements. That coupled with the fact that I was positioned senior, relative to the nearly 1,900 pilots on furlough, I believe that the potential for upward mobility was reasonable.

Today is a completely different story, but one with no clear outcome. It's interesting how some chastise us for the unfortunate events of this industry. But I can assure you, I'm no loser as some here advance, and I'm no dummy either. What kind of system do we have where longevity at the same company is swept aside as to allow for a much junior person to leap frog and mitigate such potentials?

What you don't seem to understand is this isn't the same company you worked at before. Yes we kept the name but aside from that it's a whole NEW airline. Technically, as of the PID, all active pilots have the same longevity at the new US Airways. Your old seniority bought you exactly the same position on the new list. This wasn't a DOH integration, it was a seniority integration and the sooner you can accept that the better off we'll all be.

 

[767jetz]

Fact is, the projection models I saw had my seniority number at 153 at age 60.

The problem with your thinking as that you are arbitrarily putting a value on a simple number. What did your number get you at East prior to the merger? What does your new number get you now at the new USAirways? The answer is: basically the same darn thing. So how can this be soooooo unfair as you claim?

If all you can say is that at retirement your number would have been 153 and now it will be some other number, then your argument is very weak. When you retire with your new number, what will that new number get you in your last years? Probably about the same thing it would have gotten you absent a merger.

What kind of system do we have where longevity at the same company is swept aside as to allow for a much junior person to leap frog and mitigate such potentials?

What you fail to accept is that you do not work for the same company any more. After the merger, USAir (East) and AWA no longer exist. You all now work for the new USAirways. So your number is irrelevant and so is your years of service. You all (East & West) have the same longevity at your new company, with a starting point determined by what you brought to the table relative to the new collective.

That is the way our industry works. If you chose to leave USAir and hire on with another airline years ago, do you think you would have been entitled to take your years of service with you? If that were the world we lived in, I'd be taking my resume to AA as soon as they hire again so I can go fly 767's for them and have a pension again. But we all know that is a fantasy. Just as your desire to keep your old number is a fantasy.

 

[phasersonstun2]

How about a system based on flight hours within the company?

Someone with xxxxx hours WITHIN the company is paired with someone with xxxxx hours and so on.

 

[Mr Furlough]

The problem with your thinking as that you are arbitrarily putting a value on a simple number. What did your number get you at East prior to the merger? What does your new number get you now at the new USAirways? The answer is: basically the same darn thing. So how can this be soooooo unfair as you claim?

If all you can say is that at retirement your number would have been 153 and now it will be some other number, then your argument is very weak. When you retire with your new number, what will that new number get you in your last years? Probably about the same thing it would have gotten you absent a merger.
What you fail to accept is that you do not work for the same company any more. After the merger, USAir (East) and AWA no longer exist. You all now work for the new USAirways. So your number is irrelevant and so is your years of service. You all (East & West) have the same longevity at your new company, with a starting point determined by what you brought to the table relative to the new collective.

That is the way our industry works. If you chose to leave USAir and hire on with another airline years ago, do you think you would have been entitled to take your years of service with you? If that were the world we lived in, I'd be taking my resume to AA as soon as they hire again so I can go fly 767's for them and have a pension again. But we all know that is a fantasy. Just as your desire to keep your old number is a fantasy.

"That is the way our industry works. If you chose to leave USAir and hire on with another airline years ago, do you think you would have been entitled to take your years of service with you?"

Actually, when you are involve with a merger, that's not how it works. It may be the way you want it to work, but 14 out of 15 EC members agree, that is not how it works.

Insofar as where the new list projects me at age 60, I will be no where near where I would have been. As I would have every AWA pilot ahead of me.

You guys throw around old company/new company as if it were some kind of shell game. Fact is, this is the same company we both worked for.

"So your number is irrelevant and so is your years of service." Well partner, we are going to see about that-aren't we?

 

[ClueByFour]

Actually, when you are involve with a merger, that's not how it works. It may be the way you want it to work, but 14 out of 15 EC members agree, that is not how it works.

That's not what the EC said. Your MEC is (again!) feeding the pilot group the very drivel the latter wants to hear and is going to have it's head handed to it when the EC declines to pitch the award.

 

[EastUS]

(BTW, in the U/HP situation, how many examples are there of two-month HP pilots ending up on the list ahead of 19-yr continuously employed (i.e., never furloughed) U pilots? Seriously, I am curious.)

How many examples of someone contiuously employed for 19 years being forever placed below a two month new hire do you need to see the utter absurdity of this "award"?

That's not what the EC said. Your MEC is (again!) feeding the pilot group the very drivel the latter wants to hear and is going to have it's head handed to it when the EC declines to pitch the award.

That's certainly possible. It's also very likely that Alpa will "have it's head handed to it" if there's no acceptable resolution forthcoming from them

 

[Bear96]

How many examples of someone contiuously employed for 19 years being forever placed below a two month new hire do you need to see the utter absurdity of this "award"?

How many you got?

 

[767jetz]

It's also very likely that Alpa will "have it's head handed to it" if there's no acceptable resolution forthcoming from them

You guys talk like it would be such a HUGE loss to ALPA if you guys walk and find another union.

Let me remind you that you are a small group among many others. Just look who the top contributers are to the ALPA PAC year after year, or how many votes were cast for Prater during the election by various pilot groups. Based on the way you have been behaving, and your lack of integrity, most of us would say "good riddance!" We are better off without you.

Please decertify ALPA already and go somewhere else so we can stop listening to your threats.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You guys talk like it would be such a HUGE loss to ALPA if you guys walk and find another union.

Let me remind you that you are a small group among many others. Just look who the top contributers are to the ALPA PAC year after year, or how many votes were cast for Prater during the election by various pilot groups. Based on the way you have been behaving, and your lack of integrity, most of us would say "good riddance!" We are better off without you.

Please decertify ALPA already and go somewhere else so we can stop listening to your threats.

It doesn't take the biggest disruption to start an avalanche. The prospect of this pilot group leaving ALPA and thereby starting a chain reaction has ALPA National plenty worried.

Furthermore, all this talk about financial condition, bad career choice, etc., has nothing to do with merging two pilot groups together. This is a union issue and ALPA merger policy says nothing about "financial condition".