US Airways East ALPA MEC Conference Call Update

[Phoenix]

Yes, you miss the point. While both retirement and DOH are carved in stone, what either gets you in the future (your expectations) are not.

...
What the future brings is dependent on more factors than DOH and retirements, many of which can have a much more profound effect. The East's last 16 years should have taught them that, but apparently it didn't for many.....

Jim

I don't see how I missed your point at all, Jim. It appears I answered it just fine. Your answer reveals as much.

Sixteen years ago pilots used mandatory retirements and DOH to project their career expectations. Did they not? Why would you cite their failed expectations if it was not to show that mandatory retirements and DOH are not necessarily reliable factors for career expectations?

The presence of subsequent factors, that cannot be foreseen, does not change the fact that 16 years ago it was mandatory retirements and DOH that largely formed a pilots "career expectations." At any point in one's career, the most obvious and concrete factors remain mandatory retirements and DOH.

Admittedly there are subsequent factors that cannot be known by anyone. One could speculate pessimistically about supposed future unknown factors and imagine all the horrible effects they could have. One could even imagine them to be so powerful to obliterate all "career expectations". Or one could alternatively speculate with an unfounded optimism and come up with the opposite result. Who knows who could guess the actual outcomes based on unfounded pessimism or optimism? But that is the point. Career expectations are based on "knowns" not "unknowns".

To admit that we don't know what we don't know (and cannot know what we don't know) about the future, does not therefore demand we throw out all knowledge we do have when evaluating one's "career expectations."

So what if you have proved that pilots cannot be certain they are correct when they hold career expectations. It remains that they have them (based on the factors they do know) and the merger policy stipulates as much.

So what if two pilot groups can theoretically be wrong about their expectations? Should one group be required to have an unreasonably pessimistic expectation while the other is required to have an overly optimistic expectation?

So then what unknown factors should be speculated on to discern a merged list? Or, what factors should one use in consideration for "career expectation"---with effects on, or even to the exclusion of, mandatory retirements and DOH?

There may be some that existed at this snapshot. What are they?

 

[Barberpole]

What does the East want to be happy? It is clear the list won't be merged based on DOH. What are the demands to make this "more fair"?

So many don't seem to understand this concept but IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE EAST WANTS. It's all over. No appeals in binding arbitration. none. ever...never..ever...

There won't be much sympathy from Alpa national either. The east reached way too far and it backfired. It was their own ill conceived plan to chase DOH (LOS is the same in this case) at all costs.

To the east pilots:
Do you think any other Alpa carrier wanted to see it go DOH? Parker keeps saying that he wants to merge again. If it had gone DOH and then we merged with UAL, virtually every single AAA pilot would be able to hold Widebody CA at UAL. That would go over like a fart in church.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The presence of subsequent factors, that cannot be foreseen, does not change the fact that 16 years ago it was mandatory retirements and DOH that largely formed a pilots "career expectations."

Agreed, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Having expectations is one thing as long as the individual (or group) realizes that it may or may not come to fruitation because of a variety of factors. Like the factors than caused a 1990 newhire's expectations to not be fulfilled.

Pretending that one group's expectations are inarguably accurate and will come true and that their placement on a combined seniortiy list should reflect the fact that their expectations will come true is something completely different.

Look at it this way. In 2000, that 1990 newhire approaches a senior F/O and says "When I was hired my expectation was to be a senior F/O by now so I deserve to be senior to you." What are the odds of the senior F/O not laughing in his face?

Yet, the argument now seems to be that one group "expects" certain advancement over time and wants to move further up the seniority list to make those expectations more likely to come to fruitation. Not surprisingly, the other side (which have expectations of their own) aren't terribly open to the idea.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Agreed, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Having expectations is one thing as long as the individual (or group) realizes that it may or may not come to fruitation because of a variety of factors. Like the factors than caused a 1990 newhire's expectations to not be fulfilled.

Of course expectations can fail to be realized. The arbitrators job is to assess what he knows and ascribe realiisitc expectations.

Pretending that one group's expectations are inarguably accurate and will come true and that their placement on a combined seniortiy list should reflect the fact that their expectations will come true is something completely different.

The arbitrator is supposed to sift through the knowns and make that call.

Look at it this way. In 2000, that 1990 newhire approaches a senior F/O and says "When I was hired my expectation was to be a senior F/O by now so I deserve to be senior to you." What are the odds of the senior F/O not laughing in his face?

Yet, the argument now seems to be that one group "expects" certain advancement over time and wants to move further up the seniority list to make those expectations more likely to come to fruitation. Not surprisingly, the other side (which have expectations of their own) aren't terribly open to the idea.

Jim

The argument isn't about moving up the seniority list. To do so would be to change one’s DOH and position to take advantage of everything a seniority number provides, which would be unjust.

The question at hand is about whether the seniority list was appropriately divined (career expectations being somewhat of a prophecy) in compliance with ALPA merger policy. Indeed does ALPA merger policy provide for a process that can do so?

Clearly since no one is jumping in and explaining what known factors should be considered when ascribing “career expectationsâ€￾ then apparently there are not too many of them that are definable and knowable.

Either there is a known measure for “career expectationsâ€￾ or there is not. If we are going to argue that “career expectationsâ€￾ means nothing because you can take no confidence that they will come to pass, then ALPA screwed the pouch by inserting a meaningless phrase into a proscriptive process that each side was obligated to effect, but by definition could not.

On the other hand if it is a definable phrase that needed to be included in the policy, then ALPA was under obligation to define it.

In either case, the union failed its members, which is attested to by "we won, you lost, suck it up." (not too unlike, we are senior now, you will be senior one day. Suck it up.)

 

[awausairtech]

I can fix this whole mess POOF! All pilots, Not on furlough Are CAPTAINS and all on Furlough at this time are First Officers. When a spot opens the first Officer move up to Captain. The DOH only holds for the aircraft you can hold and the new award as per the arbitrator set is for seniority in case of furloughs. What this does is give the 20 year guys on furlough when returning back in slot for the aircraft he /she wanted to fly also make the pay scale a 5 year top out. Let’s say 50/100/125/150/160.00 PER HR. (ONE PAY SCALE A330/757/767/A320/A319/737/EMB190). NOW as we can see if you use the DOH and Seniority Arbitration Award this would be fair for all. This way as said on here (I WILL NOT JERK GEAR FOR ANYBODY JUNIOR TO ME!) Per DOH he is in the left seat. may not work but it could be a start?????? With no first officers maybe you guys will play nice LOL… Have a nice DAY!

 

[BoeingBoy]

The arbitrators job is to assess what he knows and ascribe realiisitc expectations.

Who says he didn't ascribe realistic expectations - the side that yells the loudest?

The arbitrator is supposed to sift through the knowns and make that call.

Ditto...

The argument isn't about moving up the seniority list. To do so would be to change one’s DOH and position to take advantage of everything a seniority number provides, which would be unjust.

Odd, that's exactly what I thought all the "That X year West SOB shouldn't be above our Y year pilot" was about - who's where on the seniority list.

No - what happened is just another case of expectations gone unfilled. The East merger committee attempted to warn the pilots that expecting DOH was unrealistic. They posted past rulings by this arbitrator showing that DOH was unrealistic. The committee computer guru that created all the projections showing the effects of attrition said that expecting DOH was unrealistic.

Some portion of the pilot group very vocally refused to accept anything but DOH and literally forced the MC argue a losing case. Now that the warnings have come true, that portion of the pilot group still refuses to accept that their expectations were unrealistic and demands "justice".

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Who says he didn't ascribe realistic expectations - the side that yells the loudest?

That of course is the problem. ALPA cannot answer your question.

Career expectations is not defined by ALPA. Therefore ALPA has dictated a merger policy that it cannot bring to fruition; so what bennefit is it? It would seem that nothing in the ALPA merger policy insures an integration of the seniority lists any differently than if the two were of different unions, without a common merger policy at all.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Jack,

Jack said: "What does the East want to be happy? It is clear the list won't be merged based on DOH. What are the demands to make this "more fair"?"

USA320Pilot comments: In my opinion, a fair compromise would be to let the Nicolau Award stand, but negotiate an agreement between the parties for a meaningful fence that would prevent East pilots from bidding PHX/LAS crew based and West pilots from bidding East Coast bases. In addition, there would be shared growth and shared scope protections (minimum East/West fleet counts, minimum block hours, minimum pilot positions, and shared furloughs).

This way each pilot group would maintain its pre-merger career expectations and the combined pilot group could negotiate a joint CBA.

If something like this does not happen the majority ALPA East pilots are ready to go to war with their West breathern.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

That of course is the problem. ALPA cannot answer your question.

And as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't. Do you want them to dictate the construction of a combined list when ALPA represented carriers merge? I wouldn't - too great a risk that the side with the most votes (& dues money) would be favored instead of having an impartial balancing of the equities. Likewise, I'm personally glad there's no longer a "one size fits all" mandate. Although I can see that those whom that size fits would like that approach - they're unlikely to experience the pain of forced to wear a size that doesn't fit - it doesn't address the variety of things that make every merger different.

I believe the policy correctly provides guidelines or goals, not mandated outcomes. The policy provides that the two merger committees negotiate the best way to meet those guidelines or goals without presupposing any particular outcome.

Failing a negotiated solution, the policy specifies that an arbitrator - agreeable to both sides - is charged with the task of determining how to best meet the guidelines/goals with that determination binding as pre-agreed by both sides.

Seems like a pretty good process to me. One side going through that process with unrealistic expectations seems more of an indictment of that side than of the process.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Do you want them to dictate the construction of a combined list when ALPA represented carriers merge?

Do I think they should be competent enough to define seniority integration among dues paying members? Really?

I wouldn't - too great a risk that the side with the most votes (& dues money) would be favored instead of having an impartial balancing of the equities.

If ALPA cannot be counted on beyond “We don’t know, but you better use common sense when we send you to the arbitrator cause he might beetch slap stupid pilots,â€￾ then the logical conclusion is there is after all no merger policy at all.

Oh yeah, nevermind.

 

[phasersonstun2]

To the east pilots:
Do you think any other Alpa carrier wanted to see it go DOH? Parker keeps saying that he wants to merge again. If it had gone DOH and then we merged with UAL, virtually every single AAA pilot would be able to hold Widebody CA at UAL. That would go over like a fart in church.

I agree that every carrier wanted U east to go RP. As far as the fart in church, well that depends on if its' a church with padded benches or one of those ol' stone mason odd-smelling dark and mysterious Catholic churches with a wooden bench that would broadcast your intestinal signature like a woodpecker on a telephone pole.

 

[Barberpole]

Jack,

Jack said: "What does the East want to be happy? It is clear the list won't be merged based on DOH. What are the demands to make this "more fair"?"

USA320Pilot comments: In my opinion, a fair compromise would be to let the Nicolau Award stand, but negotiate an agreement between the parties for a meaningful fence that would prevent East pilots from bidding PHX/LAS crew based and West pilots from bidding East Coast bases. In addition, there would be shared growth and shared scope protections (minimum East/West fleet counts, minimum block hours, minimum pilot positions, and shared furloughs).

This way each pilot group would maintain its pre-merger career expectations and the combined pilot group could negotiate a joint CBA.

If something like this does not happen the majority ALPA East pilots are ready to go to war with their West breathern.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Good thing your opinion doesn't matter!! AWA would never agree to anything resembling your proposal. Sorry pal it's over. No appeal process in binding arbitration.

We'd all be much better off spending our time on something productive such as figuring out how to secure a new contract. You are wasting your time here debating the award....for that matter so am i....see ya

 

[b737fo]

Jack,

Jack said: "What does the East want to be happy? It is clear the list won't be merged based on DOH. What are the demands to make this "more fair"?"

USA320Pilot comments: In my opinion, a fair compromise would be to let the Nicolau Award stand, but negotiate an agreement between the parties for a meaningful fence that would prevent East pilots from bidding PHX/LAS crew based and West pilots from bidding East Coast bases. In addition, there would be shared growth and shared scope protections (minimum East/West fleet counts, minimum block hours, minimum pilot positions, and shared furloughs).

This way each pilot group would maintain its pre-merger career expectations and the combined pilot group could negotiate a joint CBA.

If something like this does not happen the majority ALPA East pilots are ready to go to war with their West breathern.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Well that would have been an appropriate starting point for talks between the two MCs when they met after the arbitration hearings before the decision. Instead there was no movement towards a mutually acceptable position to both East and West.

I hope we can work together towards securing a new beneficial contract but if the "majority ALPA East pilots" would rather go to war with their brothers and sisters in the West than good luck to us all. I guess I will reluctantly see you on the other side of the battlefield.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Do I think they should be competent enough to define seniority integration among dues paying members? Really?

As I said, there are those who would rather have ALPA precisely define one method of seniority integration - usually the method that favors themselves more often than not. I personally disagree - every merger is different and a precisely defined method can't possibly balance the equities in every case.

If ALPA cannot be counted on beyond “We don’t know, but you better use common sense when we send you to the arbitrator cause he might beetch slap stupid pilots,â€￾ then the logical conclusion is there is after all no merger policy at all.

I've reread my posts and can't find that sentiment anywhere. I have intimated that going into and thru the process with unreasonable expectations is a recipe for disappointment. But if it makes you feel better to blame ALPA for it's policy or the arbitrator for "beetch slap[ing] stupid pilots", that's your perogative I guess. It's human nature to be upset when one doesn't get everything they want and to blame others for the failure to get it.....

Jim

 

[exB717Flyer]

Another point about the power entrusted to the arbitrator: s/he technically doesn't even have to follow ALPA Merger Policy (though by all accounts he should). Witness the E190 arbitration last year. Y'all remember that, right? That arbitrator deliberately violated our signed Transition Agreement. The TA called for the sharing of captain positions for any new equipment and provided for "bridge" training to the other operating certificate to make it happen. The E190 Award said no, AWA doesn't get any E190 seats until the final integration is complete. The first question from my mouth, "can he do that?" Appararently he can.