US Airways Pilots' Labor Discussion 4/2-4/8

[john john]

If Nic had presented an award that put a West junior F/O ahead of an East captain, I'd be of the opinion that he was wrong. On the other hand, believing that it's unfair to place an East junior F/O ahead of West captains doesn't mean I'm not concerned about what the future holds for my "former fellows". It just means that I don't believe that they should get a windfall from the integration any more than the West pilots should get a windfall. No matter how you dance around it or dress it up, putting a junior F/O ahead of captains is a windfall.

Jim

I thought just about ever pilot at USAirways East was a captain a some point

 

[john john]

On the other hand, I've said that the Empire pilots should have gotten relative position. I think the Shuttle pilots got what they should have gotten - relative position. I think that the West pilots should be integrated by relative position. Are you starting to see the consistency yet?

Jim

Relative position to who what when and where

 

[Captain Underpants]

On the other hand, I've said that the Empire pilots should have gotten relative position. I think the Shuttle pilots got what they should have gotten - relative position. I think that the West pilots should be integrated by relative position. Are you starting to see the consistency yet?
Jim

Jim,

Relative position at a snapshot point in time can only be a small consideration in a seniority integration. Pilots relative position move rapidly and somewhat randomly up and down over time making it useless as an integration method.

Take 2 sets of numbers between 1 and 10 and move them up and down the scale. You can take snapshots as many times as you like but will get different relative positions each time.

A United pilot hired in 2000 was a 737 Captain 2 years ago and is now about to be furloughed. What is his relative position? Using relative position if United merged 2 years ago he would merge as a captain and someone from the other merged airline would now take his pending furlough. He has 9 years seniority now but could find himself junior to a pilot who has not even started flying lessons yet in a future merger with an upstart or USAir. Relative position is subjective and unpredictable. With relative position you can have a pilot with 30+ years seniority fly F/O his entire career so younger and junior pilots can be captains longer.

Seniority based on longevity moves up at a constant and 100% predictable rate over time. The only 2 ways a pilot can move up is by growth or attrition. We know exactly with 100% certainty what day a pilot will be 65 years old. It make a solid and predictable base for building an integrated seniority list and allows for any relative position inequities to be easily balanced by conditions and restrictions.

Nic tried to use relative position as a basis and failed completely. Now we have civil war.

underpants

 

[BoeingBoy]

I thought just about ever pilot at USAirways East was a captain a some point

At some point being the operative part - some of those furloughed were, or could have been captains at some point. Most on both sides can, or will be able to hold a captain job at some point. In a merger, it's what job you have at that specific point that matters, and should determine where a given pilot fits in on the combined list. Not what that pilot may have had the seniority for at some point but lost the seniority to hold or what that pilot may be able to hold at some future point but hasn't gained the seniority for yet.

Relative position to who what when and where

If you don't know the answer to that, maybe a little research into the Shuttle merger, DL/NW merger, and Nic award is in order. For extra credit talk to the former TWA pilots to see what DOH would accomplish here.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

Relative position at a snapshot point in time can only be a small consideration in a seniority integration. Pilots relative position move rapidly and somewhat randomly up and down over time making it useless as an integration method.

[sorry for hitting the "post" button instead of the "delete" key to shorten the quote...]

That's your opinion. Three arbitrations have now said that you're wrong.

Of course it also makes liars of those who say that DOH=Seniority, as well it should. I know it's a strange concept to use seniority as a basis for seniority integration, but a seniority integration is what's being done. What you and others want is a combined DOH list with absolutely no credit for what seniority a given pilot may have held at the time of the merger, and not a combined seniority list.

The "why" is obvious - it tacks most of the West pilots at or near the bottom of the combined list. East gets most of the benefits of stapling the West to the bottom while wrapping themselves in a cloak of "integrity". They get to do much the same as APA did to the TWA pilots while proclaiming their "honorable true unionist methods".

Jim

 

[wopr21]

I thought just about ever pilot at USAirways East was a captain a some point

That is correct

All the East pilots had the seniority (DOH) to be captains at one point in their career.

Some chose not to because of personal reasons

wopr

 

[Megasnoop]

Your "legal outcome" is attempting to be used as an illegal "tyranny of the majority" to disenfranchise the minority. If that wasn't patently obvious Judge Wake would have ended this months ago and dismissed the dfr case which is what happens 95% of the time. Feeling lucky?

Illegal? Thats what the trial will decide. Care to back that 95% dismissal rate with ANY evidence? For me, dismissal means thrown out before verdict. You got a different definition? Most DFR suits get heard in court, no matter how ridiculous, yours included. Few FDRs ever win. Maybe only 5% win. Less than that survive appeal. Care to name even one that has won?

Jesus Christ...you guys are so far gone it's pathetic.

I find your religious reference to my savior, especially on Palm Sunday, to be most disagreeable, sir. Very poor taste.

Snoop

 

[nycbusdriver]

Like those absurdly ridiculous gains at the expense of the Shuttle pilots that your "principles" haven't prevented you from accepting? Sounds pretty flexible. Or being willing to "accept" LOS even though your "principles" insist on DOH? Sounds pretty flexible. <_< How about those Empire pilots - where's your angst about them being refused DOH by USAPA? Pretty flexible "principles" and "core union values" all around it seems. :down:

Of course, it's only your OPINION that there are any "absurdly ridiculous gains" by one side or the other via the Nic award. An opinion shared by those with the most to gain from DOH.

Jim

Yeah.

I remember your quite vocal and vehement objection to the combined list during the Shuttle merger. (NOT)

You certainly led the charge back then. (NOT)

It now makes perfect sense that you would take this stand.

 

[USPHX]

That would, incorrectly, assume that I even looked at the nic list. The whole nic-nonsense hasn't ever been any "It's ALL about Meee!" business for me personally. Project away at your pleasure though ..and yes.."lighten up" would be gently suggested

You haven't even READ the Nic??? INCREDIBLE!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Knowledge is power, too bad for you.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yeah.

I remember your quite vocal and vehement objection to the combined list during the Shuttle merger. (NOT)

You certainly led the charge back then. (NOT)

It now makes perfect sense that you would take this stand.

I'm not sure why you'd expect me to be against the outcome of the Shuttle arbitration, since it used relative position which I've advocated all along. One of us is obviously missing something...

Jim

 

[fatherabraham]

I find your religious reference to my savior, especially on Palm Sunday, to be most disagreeable, sir. Very poor taste.

Snoop

Thx for the post snoop! Ditto

FA

 

[cleardirect]

Illegal? Thats what the trial will decide. Care to back that 95% dismissal rate with ANY evidence? For me, dismissal means thrown out before verdict. You got a different definition? Most DFR suits get heard in court, no matter how ridiculous, yours included. Few FDRs ever win. Maybe only 5% win. Less than that survive appeal. Care to name even one that has won?

Snoop

You got the definition right but the application wrong.

All of the cases get heard. But most cases do not have the facts and rule of law with them. At that point a motion to dismiss is filed. The counts are looked at and decided. 95% of DFR case are DISMISSED at that point. Just like the wasteful RICO suit was DISMISSED with prejudice. The Addington case was decided that the facts and counts had merit and would go to trial.

This case cleared that very large hurdle of 95%. 5% survive the dismissal.The win rate is a different percentage.

A bit confusing here.

Few DFRs ever win. Maybe only 5% win. Less than that survive appeal. Care to name even one that has won?

You say the maybe only 5% win. Next point is about appeals. Then ask if any cases were won. Are you asking about the original cased or the appeal? Because if you are stating the 5% win you just answered your our question. 5% that means some must win. Or are you asking about the appealed case. Very good point about the appeal process. Please keep that in mind for later before usapa spends another fortune.

 

[nic4us]

Relative position at a snapshot point in time can only be a small consideration in a seniority integration.

Seniority based on longevity moves up at a constant and 100% predictable rate over time. The only 2 ways a pilot can move up is by growth or attrition. We know exactly with 100% certainty what day a pilot will be 65 years old. It make a solid and predictable base for building an integrated seniority list and allows for any relative position inequities to be easily balanced by conditions and restrictions.


underpants

underpants,

You are making an arguement for Date of Birth, not Date of Hire.

I agree with your first statement about the snapshot, but in reality that is not what happened. The arbitrator took into account the value of the individuals entire past career and balanced that to what an uncertain future might hold . The east put people on the stand ( Hershey testimony) and argued why taking his entire career he should have a senior position on the list. The West countered with why he did not deserve to jump in front of them based on their entire West career to date. My point being is the snapshot only locks your position relative to your side of the integration.

Seniority based on longevity does not move up at a 100% predictable rate. The false assumption you are making is that there are only 2 ways a pilot can move up. I can think of a third. During an integration the absolute junior pilot on one list is allowed to leepfrog every single pilot on the opposite list. That pilots seniority has just greatly improved without any net growth or attrition.

 

[nic4us]

I find your religious reference to my savior, especially on Palm Sunday, to be most disagreeable, sir. Very poor taste.
Snoop

I agree, an apology is in order.

 

[ClueByFour]

You're clearly blessed with an "interesting" sense of humor :blink: Explain, on the other hand..exactly how there's anything "righteous" about wishing to place said "two months' ahead of another's 17 years..or..would that also prove hopelessly and hysterically funny? At least we could fully agree on just how laughable that idea really is

You know, you never addressed the central issue:

You work for a company whose seniority list is not ordered by DOH or LOS. Your union that you have advocated for wants to order a merged list with another company by DOH/LOS.

It's literally and intellectually inconsistent. It reduces any cute lines between "blink" and "lol" tags to the work of one trying to duck the embarrassingly and inconveniently obvious: there is a double standard.

FWIW--I don't expect anyone who supports USAPA to defend this: it's indefensible (even with the shuck, jive, 17 years to 2 months and a "lol" smiley defense).

The truly entertaining part of it is that several of the Empire and Shuttle pilots have taken things beyond entertainment television and actually taken the steps to remedy this inconsistency in federal court.

PS: "It's better than cable, really." You must not have much viable diversity in your available channels. Perhaps you should consider satelite providers

It's a lot like cable: 57 channels of righteous indignation that says the same thing and is, like most things on cable, fiction.