US Pilot Labor Thread 10/19-10/26

[Freighterguynow]

While the East was getting the ex-ATA 757's, ETOPing other 757's, and getting the E190's to replace planes lost in BK, West was losing planes. The only gain on the West was the ETOPS mod on the HI 757, which was a gain in F/O positions. Don't forget the current furloughs, either - they've taken the brunt of those. Your "fact" needs a little adjustment.

Jim,

You paint too rosy a picture about conditions on the East. We got the ATA 757's but parked others. We got the E-190's but parked 737s. Overall, before the furloughs started, I went backwards on the 737/A319 while the E-190 jobs ramped up.

As far as the furloughs, the reductions were done by block hours in domicile. The reductions were greater in PHX and LAS so too were the furloughs.

 

[Freighterguynow]

My point was that post arbitration was not the time to negotiate.

You were never going to get a joint contract with the NIC intact because it would've been concessionary for the East pilots.

Seriously, what's harder voting down a contract or voting out ALPA in favor of a completely new and unproven entity? Maybe if we stayed with ALPA and spent the next 2 or 3 years voting down TA after TA you'd finally grasp this. I love that little "integrity matters" jingle you guys love to pat yourselves on the back with: fact is nobody on the East agreed to concessions nor to give up membership ratification of a new contract.

 

[tazz]

You were never going to get a joint contract with the NIC intact because it would've been concessionary for the East pilots.

Seriously, what's harder voting down a contract or voting out ALPA in favor of a completely new and unproven entity? Maybe if we stayed with ALPA and spent the next 2 or 3 years voting down TA after TA you'd finally grasp this. I love that little "integrity matters" jingle you guys love to pat yourselves on the back with: fact is nobody on the East agreed to concessions nor to give up membership ratification of a new contract.

Freighterguy, reread my post. I was referring to negotiations regarding seniority by the merger committees. The merger committees negotiated, as per alpa merger policy. We got nowhere because of the east firm stance on DOH. We went to arbitration, as per alpa merger policy. We got the Nicolau decision. Alpa national/that moron Prater attempted to restart negotiations on the Nicolau decision because the east didn't like what they got. The west didn't buy it but did continue to negotiate for a joint contract. The east chose to discontinue those negotiations.

By the way, I am not much for slogans/jingles but if you have read my posts this past week you will see that I have identified agreements made by both parties and broken by the east, upheld by the west. Integrity, indeed, does matter.

 

[electricjet98]

I love that little "integrity matters" jingle you guys love to pat yourselves on the back with: fact is nobody on the East agreed to concessions nor to give up membership ratification of a new contract.

But you did, by agreement of your pilot elected representatives, agree to follow and adhere to a written process (ALPA policy) that sequentially included negotiation, mediation and finally, binding arbitration.

 

[Irideover]

Jim,

You paint too rosy a picture about conditions on the East. We got the ATA 757's but parked others. We got the E-190's but parked 737s. Overall, before the furloughs started, I went backwards on the 737/A319 while the E-190 jobs ramped up.

As far as the furloughs, the reductions were done by block hours in domicile. The reductions were greater in PHX and LAS so too were the furloughs.

I agree, FGN. The June 05 bid had 2702 active East, The July 08 bid had 2800 active East. Oct 08 has 2644 active.
Where is the ATA 757 and 190 growth? All move up on the east since merger announcement
was because of attrition.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You paint too rosy a picture about conditions on the East. We got the ATA 757's but parked others. We got the E-190's but parked 737s. Overall, before the furloughs started, I went backwards on the 737/A319 while the E-190 jobs ramped up.

Where is the ATA 757 and 190 growth? All move up on the east since merger announcement was because of attrition.

Anyone care to quote the transition agreement section dealing with new aircraft not identified by tail number. Wasn't there an arbitration over the issue of how new equipment would be divvied up? Something about Westies hold "IOU's" for a portion of that new flying until combined ops allowed them to cash in those "IOU's."

So when the TA is helpful (like separate ops) it's fully in force, but when it's inconvenient (splitting new flying during separate ops) it's thrown out...

Jim

 

[Irideover]

Not really - I'm talking about the difference between the East on the merger date and the East as it exists today, in terms of how the post-merger changes have affected advancement over the last 3+ years. The only place financial condition comes into play is that "old" US didn't have the money to take the post-merger actions (757's & 190's) that the merged company had. Since those post-merger changes on the East side affected advancement, I think they're fair game to throw into the discussion. That post-merger advancement is part and parcel of the "Look how much advancement there's been and it'd stop under Nic."

Jim

I thought we were discussing merger integration methods and reasoning behind each. the above quote is what I was rebutting. Aircraft fleets and staffing are BOD and management decisions and pilots have NO input, except what is contained in their CBAs. ( and CBAs are up for interpretation any time also).

 

[Irideover]

So when the TA is helpful (like separate ops) it's fully in force, but when it's inconvenient (splitting new flying during separate ops) it's thrown out...

Jim
[/quote]


How did we go from merger integration to the transition agreement? Again, the company puts the fleet where they want without input from pilots or USAPA. How do define new flying? What about the old flying that was lost? How do we identify that? It's easy to point to a new T/A flight and say GROWTH, but, no one seems to point to all the domestic flying that went out the back door.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I thought we were discussing merger integration methods and reasoning behind each.

How did we go from merger integration to the transition agreement?

Sorry - I forgot that the TA doesn't matter until it's useful, then it's sacrosanct...

Like Oldie and his "management decisions or financial condition shouldn't enter into the seniority integration"....until it's useful for arguing his side. Then it's all about those poor F/O's waiting patiently all those years to upgrade - a wait due to management decisions or financial condition. Suddenly those management actions and the company's financial condition should be part of the seniority integration equation.

With you, it's following the TA when it's advantageous like in separate ops but disregarding it when it cuts the other way like for new equipment.

Jim

 

[john john]

I can say it, but the rules effectively didn't change and certainly didn't change midstream (I'd use that for changing the rules in the middle of a merger).

The old rule was a preference for DOH but not to the exclusion of the 5 or 6 goals - i.e. DOH as long as it met the goals. The new rule has just the goals - DOH isn't excluded as a possibility as long as it meets the goals.

Jim

ps - actually there's one less goal for seniority integration since one of the enumerated goals is "improving pay and working conditions" which really applies to joint contract negotiations.

So did or did not APLA National change there merger policy regarding seniority integration after the PI AL merger and during the botch UA US merge. All to change the system and the way seasoned employees and junior employees are deal with. Did or did not APLA change there seniority merger policy and is APLA trying to change it now.
Sounds like a pair of pants to me

 

[BoeingBoy]

The merger policy change I described was between those two mergers IIRC (hence my remark that it wasn't "midstream", AKA mid-merger, in my opinion}. I think it happened around 1992-1993. As I said, the change was basically just removing "a perference for DOH but not to the exclusion of". It wasn't as drastic as going from mandating DOH to totally discarding DOH.

Just a little history - ALPA didn't have a merger policy prior to deregulation since the CAB directed how mergers were handled (like the famous Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's). Only with deregulation, when the CAB ceased having a role, did ALPA develop a merger policy, and it was never straight DOH as far as I recall (and I became an ALPA member in 1979, the year after deregulation happened). I'll freely admit that I no longer have the original ALPA C&B/L's that I was given as an apprentice member, though, so can't look it up to see if my memory is correct.

I understand from posts here (which you've most likely read too) that the UA MEC passed a resolution concerning a possible change to ALPA merger policy and planned to take it to the ALPA BOD meeting (have no idea when that meeting was/will be). I vaguely recall something posted here that sounded like a "workgroup" would be formed to explore possible changes, but don't remember if that was something the ALPA BOD was doing or something the UA MEC was recommending.

Jim

 

[nostradamus]

Because, although they are being furloughed out of seniority, they are being furloughed none the less. Their children will need the coverage just as much.

Agreed. Furloughed pilots families should receive health insurance if they do not have coverage from other sources. Regardless if they are members or not. We should all get together on this one.

You find some that will argue about non members should not be included and others claiming they take care of their own, and they would not be in this situation if you didn't...........................

Get the insurance started now, include all furloughs. Then get back to suing and insulting each other after the job is done.

 

[john john]

Just a little history - ALPA didn't have a merger policy prior to deregulation since the CAB directed how mergers were handled (like the famous Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's). Only with deregulation, when the CAB ceased having a role, did ALPA develop a merger policy, and it was never straight DOH as far as I recall (and I became an ALPA member in 1979, the year after deregulation happened). I'll freely admit that I no longer have the original ALPA C&B/L's that I was given as an apprentice member, though, so can't look it up to see if my memory is correct.

Jim

Allegheny-Mohawk Merger LPP
I say use it write it in to law and be done with it

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModule...ocumentID=35357
http://www.fordharrison.com/shownews.aspx?show=2888
From our friend http://www.fhsolutionsgroup.com/showconsultant.aspx?show=45

 

[ableoneable]

Agreed. Furloughed pilots families should receive health insurance if they do not have coverage from other sources. Regardless if they are members or not. We should all get together on this one.

You find some that will argue about non members should not be included and others claiming they take care of their own, and they would not be in this situation if you didn't...........................

Get the insurance started now, include all furloughs. Then get back to suing and insulting each other after the job is done.

I agree with you and appreciate the sentiment but it is not to be.

USAPA is adamant that only furloughees who are fully paid up will be eligible.

East 2007 hire; still employed. West 2004 hire; furloughed.


This is not a dig at you Nosto, I do appreciate what you are saying.

 

[InternationalShannon]

I don't, but this forum is enough for me (rough and tumble as it can be). Besides, there's probably more than a few that get more than their fill of my opinions already. I also like seeing what's happening with the other employee groups. Lastly, you gotta admit that some of the non-pilots here have a sharp wit (yeah, you're one International Shannon!!).

Jim

Hahaha Jim already knows I have a me-too clause as well. Except I'm like "a conversation? Me TOO!!" and I worm my way in somehow.

I love you, my winged badarses!!