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

[EastUS]

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 .

Wow!..I'm almost speechless here! (Hold the shock) Seriously...I mean..umm.."the VALUE" of anyone's ENTIRE CAREER?...all their years of service and sacrifice to keep an operation existing?...and, most amazingly..this omniscient genius even factored in and brilliantly "balanced" everything "to what an uncertain future MIGHT hold"? (Like say; hugely inflated fuel prices/perhaps another 911 type event/future major warfare/the reduction of the west markets due to economic forces and business decisions/etc?) Whew!..whenever ANYONE imagines themselves even remotely capable of even glimpsing the "uncertain future"..well..there's simply no sense in nonsense

Whew!...and ANY part of what you posted actually "makes sense" to you? Simply incredible...sheesh!...words are once more, completely inadequate here....

There's only one Being truly capable of doing what you claim Nicolau did..and He's hardly any mere mortal.

You also observed: "You are making an arguement for Date of Birth, not Date of Hire." I'm curious here = When anyone's ever walked into a new hire class at AWA, didn't they have seniority assigned by DOH?...and wasn't their DOB used to determine seniority within that class? Who, among the now rabid relativists at AWA, made the "argument" for such?...and why did it make complete sense to all of you for so long? Before any flustered responses = "But!..But!..that was before this merger!"/etc..I'll just note that one either believes in respecting others based on when they showed up and what work time they've achieved...or doesn't...Performing any"Flexible" or "Relative" flip-flops for personal convenience, represents only the purest forms of utter and complete hypocrisy.....period.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Clue

Do you really not see a difference between the Empire/Shuttle pilots who were integrated years ago - by another CBA, many of whom have left due to retirement, LTD, resignations, etc. - and the situation we are in today, in which we are still operating the two groups separately?

And what if the Empire/Shuttle pilots get the DOH they seek - and then we lose the DFR lawsuit and the Nic is thrust upon us by the courts.

I am not saying the E/S guys don't have a valid argument. But it simply isn't that simple.

 

[EastUS]

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.

I see your point. It's obviously my earnest belief that DOH, or at least LOS, should be the entire basis upon which any lists are constructed. I'd ask of you honestly = What's your suggested remedies for any lists, produced sometimes by the madness of Alpa's "relative" notions, that have unfortunately been in existence for sometimes decades, through many established contracts? Seriously; how does one "fix" such long established lists, within the context of making actually practical observations, if you please?

 

[Piedmont1984]

The bottom line for me on the DOH vs relative position debate is this. If a DOH integration causes a gross distortion in pilots' relative positions, then it should be discarded as unworkable. Likewise, if relative position causes gross distortions in respective pilots' DOH, then it also should be discarded as an unworkable methodology.

When both are discarded, the arbitrator is left with doing some honest, old fashioned work in crafting a methodology that reflects the disparate demographics of the two pilot groups. Nicolau failed on this count. And this methodology should have nothing to do with "financial condition", something that Nicolau bought into hook, line and sinker.

The Delta/NWA merger did not distort either metric to the extent the Nic award did here.

 

[ableoneable]

The Delta/NWA merger did not distort either metric to the extent the Nic award did here.

That is completely due to your perspective.

The only difference in that case was the fact that the airlines ages and that of their pilot populations were closer together than HP/AAA. Other than that the ratio used in the DL/NW merger is very close to the one that Nicolau used.

 

[EastUS]

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

Interesting. You first posted: QUOTE (BoeingBoy @ Apr 5 2009, 11:59 PM) "Like those absurdly ridiculous gains at the expense of the Shuttle pilots that your "principles" haven't prevented you from accepting? Sounds pretty flexible."

So..if I have this right..that was done via a "relative position".."which I've advocated all along"..but actually represented "absurdly ridiculous gains"? "One of us is obviously missing something" :blink:

 

[Piedmont1984]

That is completely due to your perspective.

The only difference in that case was the fact that the airlines ages and that of their pilot populations were closer together than HP/AAA. Other than that the ratio used in the DL/NW merger is very close to the one that Nicolau used.

That is my point. Because the demographics were much more compatible in the DAL/NWA case, the methodology that was used seems to have worked. If you examine their combined list, except for a small exception, no two pilots are separated by more than 4 or 5 years DOH. If it had been 17 years as in the Nicolau case, I seriously doubt it would have worked for them and in the aftermath of our debacle, it would not have been a workable solution for the arbitrators.

 

[EastUS]

If it had been 17 years as in the Nicolau case, I seriously doubt it would have worked for them.

Indeed. One need only look around "campus" here, to fully see just how well the "relative" absurdity of the nic travesty actually "works".......

 

[Captain Underpants]

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.

No I have to agree with you that an unprotected DOH list would not be equitable. USAPA is proposing a hybrid DOH list that protects relative position and career expectations through conditions and restrictions. It is DOH with relative position protected until enough East pilots are gone that DOH then equals pre-merger relative position or better. After that equilibrium point is reached the West pilots then move into the vacated East positions and greatly exceed their pre-merger career expectations. Those extra west pilot earnings are a benefit of the merger and not a problem since it is not then at the expense of the East pilots. At some point in the future there will be very few if any East pilots left and the effect for all the remaining West pilots would be the same as the company adding 200+ extra aircraft.

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".
Jim

The West claims 80% of pre-merger West pilots are stapled to the bottom with a DOH list. I just checked the USAPA DOH list and there are only 78 west pilots stapled below the last pre-merger East pilot and 100 new hires below the last pre-merger West pilot. All of those 78 West pilots are now furloughed and no longer bring a job to the pilot integration or much expectation of a recall. The attrition of around 2000 East pilots and differential growth rates have changed the "relative positions" that dramatically in just 3 years.

relative position = civil war

Nicolau = WWIII

DOH + C&R = problem solved

underpants

 

[ableoneable]

That is my point. Because the demographics were much more compatible in the DAL/NWA case, the methodology that was used seems to have worked. If you examine their combined list, except for a small exception, no two pilots are separated by more than 4 or 5 years DOH. If it had been 17 years as in the Nicolau case, I seriously doubt it would have worked for them.

I saw no mention of DOH/LOS in the arbitrators remarks about his methodology. That indicates that even if there had been a greater disparity in the airlines' ages he would have issued a finding paralleling Nicolaus's

The problem is that the solution does not live in a vacuum. To give credit for years served at one carrier means stripping seniority from the pilot at the other carrier. "Sorry that you were able to hold a line as a mainline captain before, because of X's LOS at carrier Y you now need to downgrade, i.e. surrender seniority, to make the other guy whole." This is the crux of the easts' position.

 

[Piedmont1984]

I saw no mention of DOH/LOS in the arbitrators remarks about his methodology. That indicates that even if there been a greater disparity in the airlines' ages he would have issued a finding paralleling Nicolaus's

The problem is that the solution does not live in a vacuum. To give credit for years served at one carrier means stripping seniority from the pilot at the other carrier. "Sorry that you were able to hold a line as a mainline captain before, because of X's LOS at carrier Y you now need to downgrade, i.e. surrender seniority, to make the other guy whole. This is the crux of the easts' position.

You keep saying "ages". I am refering to years of service to company. The younger pilot may very well have an earlier DOH. In which case, good for him.

Had the disparity in DOH/LOS been significantly bigger in the DAL/NWA case then I disagree with you, There would have been a tipping point. Where exactly I can't say, except to say the the Nic is well beyond the tipping point.

 

[EastUS]

To give credit for years served at one carrier means stripping seniority from the pilot at the other carrier. "Sorry that you were able to hold a line as a mainline captain before, because of X's LOS at carrier Y you now need to downgrade, i.e. surrender seniority, to make the other guy whole." This is the crux of the easts' position.

How's ANY of that actually true in this case? Conditions and restrictions preventing east pilots from bidding into west positions and bumping anyone, prevent anyone out west from suffering what you propose to be the case.

 

[ableoneable]

You keep saying "ages". I am refering to years of service to company. The younger pilot may very well have an earlier DOH. In which case, good for him.

You are correct. Age is the wrong word to use. Substitute pilot population with greater LOS everywhere I used age.

Had the disparity in DOH/LOS been significantly bigger in the DAL/NWA case then I disagree with you, There would have been a tipping point. Where exactly I can't say, except to say the the Nic is well beyond the tipping point.

There is nowhere in the award that the arbitrator references DOH/LOS as a decision point.

You think that there is a "tipping point" but even you can not define it quantitatively.

If the arbitrator wanted to reward east pilots for their LOS he would have had to do so by stripping west pilots of their seniority. Conditions and restrictions tend to fade and the list eventually controls. The east side believes that it is fair for a west captain to downgrade to provide an opportunity for an east pilot, and for a west pilot to go on furlough to provide a slot for an east furloghee. Nicolau rejected this logic as did the Delta/NW arbitrator.

 

[ableoneable]

How's ANY of that actually true in this case? Conditions and restrictions preventing east pilots from bidding into west positions and bumping anyone, prevent anyone out west from suffering what you propose to be the case.

First of all the conditions and restrictions stipulated by the east offered no protection to west pilots at all.

Secondly, even if they did C&Rs always fade with time. The arbitrator's goal is to craft a list as free of C&Rs as possible.

Third and most importantly,what you say is only true if managment decides post merger to "freeze" the two carriers and continues to grow/shrink them as independent units.

What happens in your scenario when west/east bases are closed, new bases opened etc. The airline does not stay in stasis after the merger.

After a merger it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what an "east" or "west" vacancy etc. is or is not.

That is the whole point of the merged list. It no longer is two separate carriers.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You are correct. Age is the wrong word to use. Substitute pilot population with greater LOS everywhere I used age.



There is nowhere in the award that the arbitrator references DOH/LOS as a decision point.

You think that there is a "tipping point" but even you can not define it quantitatively.

If the arbitrator wanted to reward east pilots for their LOS he would have had to do so by stripping west pilots of their seniority. Conditions and restrictions tend to fade and the list eventually controls. The east side believes that it is fair for a west captain to downgrade to provide an opportunity for an east pilot, and for a west pilot to go on furlough to provide a slot for an east furloghee. Nicolau rejected this logic as did the Delta/NW arbitrator.

As the C&R's fade, so do we geriatrics in the east. In the end you have an airline comprised mostly of former AWA pilots and new hires.

The Nic award is beyond the tipping point. It sacrifices too many years of service to this company on the altar of relative position.