US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 12/16-22

[N924PS]

With separate Ops an F/O upgrade to Captain will be a 50% raise and we'll have 100% of the East Captain vacancies ....

What Captain vacancies are you referring to?

There won't be many upgrades in the near future at USAirways East or West. In fact, since the Age 60 attrition has ceased, with a few exceptions, no movement for years to come.

The best one can hope for is an $11.00 raise upgrading to E190 Captain from a Group 2 airplane. Or staying in the right seat International A330 or B767 as a few widebodies join the fleet next year. Unless they turn out to be replacement rather than additions to the fleet.

 

[hp_fa]

Got a question for you HP,

Say the Arbitrator rules in the companies favor ( my bet ) that the separate ops furloughs were fully in compliance with the TA. That would seem to impact a DFR suit in front of Federal Judge. If the judge were to issue a ruling at odds with the arbitration then who trumps whom?

Easy answer. The judge trumps all. I would **guess** that the judge would take note of any decisions and keep them firmly in mind when crafting whatever decision(s) he makes, but the judge definitely trumps and arbitrator.

 

[electricjet98]

Say the Arbitrator rules in the companies favor ( my bet ) that the separate ops furloughs were fully in compliance with the TA. That would seem to impact a DFR suit in front of Federal Judge. If the judge were to issue a ruling at odds with the arbitration then who trumps whom?

Thanks

Are you suggesting that a private arbitrator would/could trump a Federal Judge?

 

[electricjet98]

Say the Arbitrator rules in the companies favor ( my bet ) that the separate ops furloughs were fully in compliance with the TA. That would seem to impact a DFR suit in front of Federal Judge. If the judge were to issue a ruling at odds with the arbitration then who trumps whom?

And you may wish to read-up on what the Judge thinks of this arbitration. From the court transcripts:

(starting on pg 10)
THE COURT: All right. I don't want to quarrel with
you, but I don't feel like I'm getting a straight answer to my
question. Because I don't see how you can eliminate furloughs
without having somebody fly flights unless you are going to
have pilots paid for not flying.
So are you taking the position that new seniority East
Pilots must be furloughed in favor of West Pilots meaning that
West Pilots will be flying those flights in place of the
furloughed New-Hire list East Pilots?

MR. SEHAM: If I might have -- because, frankly, this
is not an aspect that we have considered, may I confer?

THE COURT: Well, maybe we don't -- you can -- I think
maybe you can confer when we take a break, because this
question and the lack of an answer to this question seems to me
to be a very important aspect to reaching a conclusion of
whether USAPA's grievance is a good faith grievance at all. If
you are not seeking to put some pilots out and other pilots in
the cockpit, it may be nothing more than an appearance rather
than a substantive -- joining in the substantive -- that aspect
of the substantive claim of the West Pilots.


(starting on pg 53)
THE COURT: And I'm trying to pin you down. It may be
a bit of a challenge, but I want a straight answer. I'm going
to ask you again. Is the union going to argue in that
proceeding that in order to protect West Pilots, East new-hire
list pilots must be furloughed first and their positions given
to West Pilots?

MR. SEHAM: No.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm clear about that.

MR. SEHAM: That grievance, if the Court considers
that testimony relevant, was originally brought to our
grievance chairman by a West Pilot. That West Pilot requested
that this grievance be filed. It's been submitted to a system
board. We have asked the company -- we have described to the
company that this is a matter of urgency. We have requested
that the company immediately cease and desist from furloughing
any pre-merger West Pilots until all the pilots, east and west,
have been furloughed from the new-hire list. We are processing
that grievance expeditiously. It's scheduled to be heard on
January 8 and 9 before Arbitrator Bloch. I understand the
plaintiffs have suggested that we are insincere in this
grievance.

THE COURT: That strikes me as obviously doomed to
failure.

MR. SEHAM: The grievance? Our grievance?

THE COURT: The way you cast it, patently doomed to
failure. And that does bear upon the judgments I have to make
on that good faith grievance.

 

[sharktooth]

In 2005 before the merger a 1986 DOH earned a USAirways pilot the bottom FO position.

Perhaps, a 330 FO hire date in 1987, might have been bottom FO. Not certain where you got your info but, you are wrong for most everything else.

 

[Phoenix]

... a private arbitrator ..

When did he become a "private" arbitrator? Not too long ago these boards were full of the "federal" arbitrator.

 

[cleardirect]

Perhaps, a 330 FO hire date in 1987, might have been bottom FO. Not certain where you got your info but, you are wrong for most everything else.

At the time of the merger 2005.

Dean Colello is a July 1988 hire. Mr. Colello was on furlough at the time of the merger. You really don’t get much more bottom of the list than that. An F/O with a 1987 hire date was only 200 numbers from furlough. On a list of 3176 someone 200-300 from furlough is the bottom of the F/O list.

That would be a very strange seniority list indeed if the bottom 9% can hold wide body F/O slots. Just how desirable would those WB positions be if the bottom 9% were flying them?

 

[N924PS]

Perhaps, a 330 FO hire date in 1987, might have been bottom FO. Not certain where you got your info but, you are wrong for most everything else.

Perhaps Boeing Boy, who was on the ALPA Bid Closing Committee might have this info in his archives. Even the most senior 1987 hires that I know were flying F/O on Group 2 airplanes.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Let me look....you want 1987 hire date and what they could hold today and on merger date (or closest bid effective date to merger)??

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

First new hire class in 1987 was a 1/5/87 hire date (22 years in a couple of weeks) and those folks were holding things like CLT 737 F/O (~middle of list), PHL A320 (~middle of list), PHL 737 F/O (~between middle & top 25% of list) at the time of the merger. On the latest bid (effective Feb 09) they're holding things like DCA A320 F/O (near top of list), CLT 737 F/O (top 25% of the list), CLT A320 (top third of the list). So for the most part they're just further up the list in their base/equip/seat, although there are some base changes (CLT tends to be the senior base, DCA, LGA, BOS take turns being the most junior except for the 190's) and 737<>A320 changes (the A320 generally runs more senior than the 737 in bases with both).

Jim

ps added: the class was fairly large - 30-40 people - so I didn't check everyone's position for 2005 and 2009. I just checked the top 6-8, figuring that everyone below them wouldn't be able to hold anything better.

 

[Freighterguynow]

The east knew that they could continue to steal any benefits of this merger by stalling.

Yea, my mistake it's 38%.

Talk to the hand ....

 

[usabusdriver]

In this short statement many things are said. First one of the very reasons that we are in court for DFR. The east knew that they could continue to steal any benefits of this merger by stalling. The judge sees this. He may find a way to balance that inequity that has happened over the last year.

Next not sure what kind of calculator was used but a captain makes 124.88 FO 85.29.

That figures to 31.8% not 50.0%

Yea, my mistake it's 38%.

Talk to the hand ....

Well, my calculator must be broken.

124.88 - 85.29 = 39.59 / 85.29 = 46.4 % raise

:bleh:

 

[exB717Flyer]

Perhaps, a 330 FO hire date in 1987, might have been bottom FO. Not certain where you got your info but, you are wrong for most everything else.

As was pointed out, I should've said 1988 instead of 1986. BFD. So in 2005 the bottom USAirways employed pilot was a 1988 hire. Was he junior or senior? What else do you claim I was wrong about?

 

[flynomore]

As was pointed out, I should've said 1988 instead of 1986. BFD. So in 2005 the bottom USAirways employed pilot was a 1988 hire. Was he junior or senior? What else do you claim I was wrong about?

=========================================================

during those 24 months USAir, PSA and Piedmont all told hired around 1100 pilots. Not a small number and in fact a "BFD." Your continued use of that date over time undermines your assertion.

To answer an earlier post about attrition, that is the elephant in the room. A real, NS-BFD Amigos.

 

[cleardirect]

=========================================================

To answer an earlier post about attrition, that is the elephant in the room. A real, NS-BFD Amigos.

This is what three arbitrators of the DAL/NWA arbitration had to say about attrition. There is more if you care to read it. But the NS-BFD does not seem to be such big deal to Bloch and the other arbitrators. I guess that Nicolau also agreed with the others. Attrition has some value just not as much as the east likes to believe.

Equity demands that the Northwest pilots’ expectations not be fully foiled by the merger. Fairness, however, requires some tempering of the potential impact power of the adjustment mechanism. It would be myopic for this Board to focus solely on the stand-alone attrition expectations of the NWA pilot group. We accept they may constitute a legitimate career expectation, but one must also consider other elements reasonably regarded as potentially dampening those expectations.20

20 It is also appropriate to consider gains that flow from the merger. While it is true that both pilot forces are compensated relatively well, by comparison with the average U.S. airline, it is also the case that, on a stand-alone basis, Northwest Pilots were paid less than their counterparts at Delta. Due to the success of the parties in bargaining a new Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (“JCBAâ€￾) effective October 30, 2008, (October 30, 2008, is the date of corporate closing of the merger.) Northwest Pilots enjoyed immediate benefits averaging 9.51% across the group. Delta characterizes this as equivalent to the value of one to two-and-one-half upgrades, depending on the equipment type, for each pre-merger pilot. (See DX-21 at 11-13; DX-37 at 2; Tr., 2549-55.)