That's a weak argument. At the time of the merger US Airways had 257 aircraft and now 217 including the Emb 190's. Even including the remaining 15 EMB 190's which aren't protected and obviously replaced higher paying jobs the net loss is 40 aircraft on the East and will be 55 when/if they are sold. At the time of time of the merger on the East there were 28 757's down to to 18 including the 3 ATA 757's. The west has lost 24 airframes all which paid the same even thought they have taken delivery of many shiny new airbuses, i.e replacement aircraft just like the East. The number of aircraft lost out of either fleet has been roughly the same on a percentage basis but will be significantly higher on the East if the remaining EMB's are sold. Minus the 5 A330's, of those aircraft replaced with newer models, the East has lost a greater percentage of higher paying jobs. Any difference in the number of furloughs or lack thereof is purely a function of the East sides greater attrition.
US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/17- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
That's a weak argument. At the time of the merger US Airways had 257 aircraft and now 217 including the Emb 190's. Even including the remaining 15 EMB 190's which aren't protected and obviously replaced higher paying jobs the net loss is 40 aircraft on the East and will be 55 when/if they are sold. At the time of time of the merger on the East there were 28 757's down to to 18 including the 3 ATA 757's. The west has lost 24 airframes all which paid the same even thought they have taken delivery of many shiny new airbuses, i.e replacement aircraft just like the East. The number of aircraft lost out of either fleet has been roughly the same on a percentage basis but will be significantly higher on the East if the remaining EMB's are sold. Minus the 5 A330's, of those aircraft replaced with newer models, the East has lost a greater percentage of higher paying jobs. Any difference in the number of furloughs or lack thereof is purely a function of the East sides greater attrition.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
What reality based information do you have that would lead you to that conclusion? I know "quite" confident isn't "supremely" confident but I have to wonder how the words "confident" and "your side" could ever be located in the same sentence and maintain a straight face.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
True Dat!
L
luvn737s
Guest
Let me make sure I am understanding the east rationale correctly: If there had never been a merger, the furloughees would have been expected to come back at the bottom, but since there was they should be expected to come back into a west captain position?
Did you explain this thoroughly to Nicolau?
The west position is that if you were a Captain prior to the merger, you should expect to be a Captain after the merger.
Which of these two rationales do you think would make more sense to the average juror, much less a respected arbiter?
Did you explain this thoroughly to Nicolau?
The west position is that if you were a Captain prior to the merger, you should expect to be a Captain after the merger.
Which of these two rationales do you think would make more sense to the average juror, much less a respected arbiter?
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
Talk to the hand .......
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
WASHINGTON, DC 20572
(202) 692-5000
In the Matter of the
Application of the
35 NMB No. 69
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
CASE NO. R-7174
OF TEAMSTERS
(NMB File No. CR-6937
On June 12, 2008, the IBT filed an application alleging a representation dispute involving the Flight Deck Crewmember employees of Atlas and Polar
On July 25, 2001, Atlas and Polar advised the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) that they had entered into an agreement whereby AAWW would acquire all of the outstanding stock of Polar. AAWW acquired Polar in November 2001.
AAWW’s Board of Directors instructed management to merge the Atlas and Polar crew forces on November 5, 2004.
The Merger Representatives for both Polar and Atlas could not agree on an integrated seniority list and submitted their dispute to arbitration. On November 26, 2006, an arbitrator issued an award combining the Polar and Atlas Flight Deck Crewmembers into single seniority lists – one for Pilots and one for Flight Engineers.
After the arbitration award, the parties remained in dispute over the initiation of negotiations for a single CBA.
In July 2007, AAWW filed management grievances under both the Atlas and Polar contracts to compel ALPA to complete the single CBA negotiations. On behalf of the Atlas MEC only, ALPA agreed that it was contractually obligated to bargain. However on behalf of the Polar MEC, ALPA rejected AAWW’s grievance and refused to begin the negotiations
So now your saying Alpa is doing a good job! Interesting.
Clearly Alpa National is allowing each MEC represent their group as they see fit. (be it right or wrong) How can this be??? According to any and all east pilots, Alpa National makes their members do things they don't want and Forces them to give things up when they dont want to.
It's too late to go back now. usapa got you a Federal Injunction not Alpa and the NMB has not said a word against it either.
F
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #293
I guess I missed it. Where is the federal injunction telling those two airlines to immediately and in good faith negotiate a contract with the arbitrated seniority list? Would you please post that since you are making a comparison?
Next the article stated the one ALPA refused while the other ALPA group agreed. WE ARE NOT ALPA. We are a single bargaining union now USAPA. Thank to the east for forcing that.
So the Polar situation is NOTHING like our situation. How about I point to the NWA/DAL and say how well that went because the NWA people decided to live up to their obligation and commitments?
Keep fishing.
What he is inferring is that Wake overstepped his bounds and lacked knowledge of NMB/RLA/Labor laws and the 9th Circuit as part of its research and analysis will act accordingly and preserve the powers of the NMB, RLA, as well as Labor Unions themselves.
E
EastUS
Guest
Fascinating....Yawn.....So...When will the first system bid using the nic ever take place? Anybody out west?...Anyone at all?.....??? :blink:
Seriously people; if the west has all things "figured out" and the future's so easilly theirs to see...that shouldn't be the slightest bit of a tough question.
"Keep fishing" indeed.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
It is a simple question really: "ALPA merger policy yes or no"
The West pilots attempt to argue FOR the policy as it pertains the seniority award but (at the same time) AGAINST it in an attempt to impose some time line to a date certain contract.
I suggest you Mr. Clear/ AWA pilot need to live up to YOUR obligations. Starting with this one from Prater himself. "I repeat - there is no required timetable for implementation of the award"
That is what YOU agreed to.
I hope you also noticed the Polar MEC pulled out of joint talks in July 2007 - that has not changed as of January 2010
Maybe, better put, made serious errors in law.
Of course, conservatives/constitutionalists would say anytime a judge rules in a way that reinterprets statute from its original language and intent or creates new statute through judicial activism.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
What I was really referring to was that the Polar MEC is clearly within its right to pull out of negotiations if it feels that is in its members best interest and, after sitting on the sidelines for 4years, that's just tough doodoo for the Atlas guys.
Unless, to move the process foreword, the one side chooses to come off its position to placate the other.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #300
OK I can play what if. What if the ninth does rule in favor of usapa? We are still ONE bargaining agent not two ALPA units.
USAPA still has an obligation to get all us airways pilots a contract. Leaning on the excuse it is all managements fault will not last forever. People on this board telling us that it is usapa intention to never get a contract will also bring legal action from both sides by people that want to at least vote on a contract.
Do you see the difference? Two unions, one union. Different situation.
Two years form now and no contract could be another DFR. Not representing the pilots that want a better contract in favor of the junior pilots that are stealing upgrades. The NMB would be the first witness called. Question is usapa negotiating on good faith? If the answer is, no they are delaying. Case closed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
