E
EastUS
Guest
I do sometimes have difficulties following some that are just a bit too exceedingly "simple"....Carry on with the one-liners if it amuses you to do so though.
US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/11- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
I do sometimes have difficulties following some that are just a bit too exceedingly "simple"....Carry on with the one-liners if it amuses you to do so though.
E
EastUS
Guest
The question was asked by the poster to highlight a specific issue regarding ripeness. If you, as is clearly the case, entirely missed that...well...one "might" then suggest some caution with observations about anyone else being "clueless"...just a thought, and one I'm certain will be entirely without the slightest effect on future rantings....
E
EastUS
Guest
I must admit to great personal difficulty whenever attempting to process the subtle intricacies of "thought" you routinely offer up via the pithy one-liners, so please bear with me here:
1) How is it possible to "hide behind DOH"? DOH/longevity represents a person's collective contribution and experience. In precisely what fashion can one "hide" behind such presumably shameful pretense?
2) Given that it's my often expressed postion that the two groups should remain seperate...umm...how am I trying to "steal"..well...ANYTHING from the west pilots?
3) So...even though the individual addressed was at work "here" years prior to AWA ever even being dreamt of....he also is "hiding behind DOH"?...and of course, trying "to steal" something from the west? WTF? :blink:
Sigh...I just flat give up here. Is there anyone out there who can translate the gibberish, that I'm vainly struggling to reply to, into at least some semblance of a logical, english language based presentation?
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
I really wish the 9th would go ahead and release it's ruling - so that we can all begin to speculate about something else :blink:
I agree.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
1) Once the seniority integration went to binding arbitration and the award was subsequently issued, the union that represents the pilots was bound by the terms of the agreement to honor the award. The union’s attempt to thwart the award by advancing and promoting a DOH seniority system represents a breach of that agreement and of their duty to fair representation. Encouraging the union to pursue DOH in light of the above is shameful because it advocates violating agreements and federal labor law. Claiming that DOH is somehow more noble than honoring the law and contractual obligations is an attempt to distract attention from these facts. I think “hiding behind DOH†is a descriptive euphemism given the circumstances.
2) You may be confusing your personal beliefs and actions with the duty the union holds to abide by and honor their agreements. However, supporting and advocating for the union to violate it’s agreements is equivalent to advocating financial harm to those who have a rightful claim to the agreements. Advocating a position that brings financial gain to one group at the expense of another group by way of contract breach and violating federal law is disgraceful. The forced taking from one group to give to another group is called stealing.
3) Years worked is only relevant to what a person’s seniority status was prior to integration. DOH became irrelevant to this issue once the arbitration award and integrated seniority list was published.
Harry Callahan
Veteran
Would some one on the West please answer a simple question ? Why should some one with " a few years" be put ahead of some one with "many" years ?
East,
Since doh is clearly inequitable in this case, to claim it to be the "Gold Standard" is doing just that. The east interest is not rooted in any sort of moral high ground where they claim DOH sits. DOH just gets them where they want to go, Stapling AWA, which essentially is what DOH does. You guys tried to merge the Shuttle guys by W-2's when you saw their hire dates and with the Piedmont merger your MC guy Kirch argued for Relative. Clearly you all have no deep rooted belief other than what screws the other guy.
Flip
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
Binding Arbitration produced a relative seniority list that integrated the two lists based on a pilot's relative position on the pre-merger list. A pilot who was in the 25th percentile before the merger was essentially in the 25th percentile on the new integrated list. The merger produced more pilots, more planes, more routes but the same relative position when combined. This is true for both sides. So in this example if you had a higher seniority number than 75% of your peers before the integration, you effectively were still ahead of 75% of your peers after the integration. DOH is irrelevant in a relative seniority integration; what matters is where someone is on the list relative to their peers.
Because a respected Arbitrator, agreed upon by both sides decided to do it that way.
I can see why but no east pilot would see them. They do not want to come to grips with the one thing that was in the Alpa merger policy and is even now their beloved usapa merger policy.
CAREER EXPECTATIONS
East pilots do not wish to honestly look at the danger they were in absent the merger.
Had they been realistic, and acknowledged this even to themselves and saw that they were at risk of the effect of this and move off the DOH crap when told by Nicolau. Things could have and would have been different and no doubt BETTER than what we have.
Flip
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #386
Read the entire Nicolau award, not just the list. He explains the reasons better than any of us can.
An arbitrator decide how this list would be put together not west pilots.
Now explain why 85% of the west pilots should have been put below east furloughed pilots?
Explain why east pilots can't understand final and binding?
N905TW
Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 89
- 5
Excellent post Flip.
On this point, I have a friend who was a late 99 hire on the East. I ran into him while on a layover in mid 2004, whereby that time he of course was furloughed, and we talked about US Airways and his future. His view was that he would NEVER return to a US cockpit, since the company "was about to implode". His exact words were something like "there is NO FUTURE there", and people were jumping anywhere they could "like rats off a sinking ship". He had moved on to another carrier and was happy.
Fast forward a few months, and oh how things had changed! The deal goes down with AWA, and he is on the phone constantly. He had a copy of their list. He had a copy of our list. Suddenly he was drinking the Eastie Koolaid and everything was just peachy, he was counting his days until A330 ground school, and of COURSE he should be senior to me with his whopping few months of service. Rah Rah Rah! DOH! Rah Rah Rah!
Some will say that the East were holding onto their "DOH" as a principle. For the majority however, they knew exactly what DOH would do to advance their careers on the backs of the West. This "woe is me" from the East is getting stale. They had every chance and then some for an integration list created with their input, and they basically gave the finger to the company, the West, and the arbitrator.
HPearlyretiree
Veteran
- Nov 6, 2002
- 1,880
- 1,614
Define whether those people were actually working, or on furlough.
Could you answer a question for me? What part of "binding" do you not understand?
I have been at US airways for over 22 years. According to Nic I am junior to someone hired about a year prior to the merger. I have worked here the whole time under some very difficult times. Took huge pay cuts to keep this thing alive. The only I had left to look forward to is big time attrition and possibly getting into the right seat of a wide body and hold a block for a couple years for a decent pay check. Nic would allow someone almost new to jump into that widebody before me by tapping into attrition that I worked long and hard for. I understand what binding means but sometimes there are issues that are so wrong that they must be corrected for the future of this profession.
Many excellent replies to this post, however, I have one more to add.
Your question is not "simple". It is actually somewhat complicated and leading. In reality, what you are implying, has nothing to do with the foundation of this award, nor does it occur throughout the award. Argueably, it does not even happen in this award, as no one had either "few" or "many" years, however, we did all have relative status.
However, the "simple" answere is, because that is what was the fair thing to do in our circumstance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
