US Pilots Labor Discussion 8/25- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[767intl]

This is quite true and if the "snapback arbitration" goes in favor of the east pilots I would anticipate those aircraft heading to the west ops almost overnight. Separate ops = whipsaw, one way or another.

Wrong again, Ames. Snapback won't change much of anything, except increase East pay checks. Why do you make all these poorly thought-out statements? Only 6 months on the board and you've lost credibility. "Those aircraft" can't go anywhere, not without modifying the TA. Under the TA, East metal stays flown by East, West metal stays flown by west. On whipsaw of block hours, that was covered in the TA, too. With the minimum hull and block hours provisions, the company has little room to shift flying. They went below minimum block hours last year and lost a grievance on it. As East block hours go up on INTL routes, sure, they can fly West metal on previous East routes, but they can't reduce total East or West block hours below the mins. Your pronouncements don't hold much water. Stick to the facts and maybe you'll get a little credibility back.

NMB will never release USAPA for self help. They will park you until you get over yourselves and actually negotiate towards something that won't be stifled by Federal Injunction.

Where are you getting this nonsense?

 

[Ames]

Wrong again, Ames. Snapback won't change much of anything, except increase East pay checks. Why do you make all these poorly thought-out statements? Only 6 months on the board and you've lost credibility. "Those aircraft" can't go anywhere, not without modifying the TA. Under the TA, East metal stays flown by East, West metal stays flown by west. On whipsaw of block hours, that was covered in the TA, too. With the minimum hull and block hours provisions, the company has little room to shift flying. They went below minimum block hours last year and lost a grievance on it. As East block hours go up on INTL routes, sure, they can fly West metal on previous East routes, but they can't reduce total East or West block hours below the mins. Your pronouncements don't hold much water. Stick to the facts and maybe you'll get a little credibility back.




Where are you getting this nonsense?

I suggest you read the TA. It lists, by tail number, the aircraft to be flown by each side. (what was brought to the merger) We are now discussing the additional aircraft since the acquisition and those are not on that list - they arrived subsequently. I do think before I post and the fact that I have been on this board for only six months is irrelevant. It's similar to your side calling westies "rookies" despite some of us having twenty years military heavy, fighter time and nearly a dozen type ratings.

The company did lose a grievance on block hours this year. It was a west grievance and the west had been the ones violated, to the east benefit. I never mentioned lowering east minimum block hours to favor the west. I did say that if the snapback went your way the additional flying (above the minimum) would head west.

Learn the facts and maybe you will attain some level of credibility at all.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I just wanted to say ONE THING that you could agree with.

Oh, I agreed that there had been a grievance on minimum block hours. Actually I don't disagree with the portions of your posts that I quote other than they are usually presented as "facts" when they're really opinion. Lots of "facts" get thrown around by both side - I guess they get said so much they seem like facts...

Jim

 

[Barrister]

I love the "nuclear option" drama. You do, of course, realize the briefcase Mowery carries with the supposed missle codes only has an overripe banana in it.

NMB will never release USAPA for self help. They will park you until you get over yourselves and actually negotiate towards something that won't be stifled by Federal Injunction.

Psst, Mr. Cleary, the folks you are dealing with are a bit brighter than you.

The nuclear option is quite simply a NO vote and seperate ops. Don't overlook the obvious!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[exB717Flyer]

If calling it a disagreement trivializes it, calling a war is a slap in the face to everyone that is or has ever faced bullets, bombs and swords. Whatever.

Oh, spare me the drama. Whatever yourself.

 

[BoeingBoy]

"Those aircraft" can't go anywhere, not without modifying the TA. Under the TA, East metal stays flown by East, West metal stays flown by west.

"Those aircraft" aren't East or West metal. Being post-merger additions not included in the East and West fleet as specified in appendix A of the transition agreement they are LCC pilot metal that the company can put anywhere and be flown by anyone. You can claim otherwise all you want but the facts are in the transition agreement.

On whipsaw of block hours, that was covered in the TA, too. With the minimum hull and block hours provisions, the company has little room to shift flying. They went below minimum block hours last year and lost a grievance on it.

So you're admitting that the West pilots can't lose block hours if PHX is downsized further. So where are those block hours needed to meet the minimum coming from? Possibly from the East where planes and block hours are above minimum?

As East block hours go up on INTL routes, sure, they can fly West metal on previous East routes, but they can't reduce total East or West block hours below the mins.

Remember that the transition agreement allows the West pilots to fly a good chunk of the TA routes - anything not flown or announced at the time the transition agreement was signed plus 2 additional TA routes. So what would that be - half more or less of the TA flying could be flown by West pilots with only the East minimum planes/block hours preventing it (and Parker could always give more A320 family planes to East while shifting that INTL flying to the West pilots).

It really is a shame that so many are so ill-informed about agreements with the company yet act as though they're the one's who know the facts...

Jim

 

[RSVP767]

so what authority does East cite to justify getting the lion's share of new equipment (and all the new block hours until last fall)? What VALID claim does East have to 7 A332's, 3 757's, and 25 E190's (reducing to 15)? East has added about 10% to the fleet plan fleet while West has only added about 3%.

Jim

It's called Minimum Fleet Requirement Jim. Even if all you claim is true, and I don't necessarily disagree, we are still only one or two hulls above minumum fleet requirements.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's called Minimum Fleet Requirement Jim. Even if all you claim is true, and I don't necessarily disagree, we are still only one or two hulls above minumum fleet requirements.

Let's see the numbers then. What is the East minimum fleet count and what is the actual East fleet count? I know that what you claim is the crew room "conventional wisdom" and may even be true, but I suspect that almost no one knows the actual numbers since the East and West fleets aren't separated in the various filings so let's see the numbers.

Jim

 

[RSVP767]

Let's see the numbers then. What is the East minimum fleet count and what is the actual East fleet count? I know that what you claim is the crew room "conventional wisdom" and may even be true, but I suspect that almost no one knows the actual numbers since the East and West fleets aren't separated in the various filings so let's see the numbers.

Jim

I honestly don't know the exact numbers Jim (as you suspected). I will look into it however and report back. Someone here may even beat me to the punch.

What I do know is that it was referenced by Parker himself in a 'Crew News' meeting. Both sides are within a couple hulls of the minumum requirement. As new hulls arrive, other are being returned. There has been no real net growth.

 

[RSVP767]

Let's see the numbers then. What is the East minimum fleet count and what is the actual East fleet count? I know that what you claim is the crew room "conventional wisdom" and may even be true, but I suspect that almost no one knows the actual numbers since the East and West fleets aren't separated in the various filings so let's see the numbers.

Jim

Here's what the Scope Monitoring Committee had to say as of the end of April:


Friday, April 30, 2010

Responding to recent reports in the media regarding aircraft fleet reductions, the Scope Monitoring Committee reports that the information that concerned our pilots and which was recently released to the financial industry by US Airways EVP and CFO Derek Kerr was technically correct; however, the Company's statement was a overall aggregate synopsis of the future aircraft “deliveries and returns” and not what was actually on our property at the end of a given month.

The Company remains in compliance of the minimum fleet size metric as per the Restructuring Agreement for both East and West pilot groups. Counts are as follows:

•Total Mainline Fleet Count, 2010YE – 339
•Total Mainline Fleet Count, 2010YE (excluding 15 E190s) – 324
•West Fleet – 121 (120 min)
•East Fleet (excluding 15 E190s) – 203 (202 min)

USAPA Scope Monitoring Committee

Yes, new hulls are arriving. Others are leaving. Net result......company keeping things just above minimums. Could we really expect anything less?

 

[RSVP767]

This is quite true and if the "snapback arbitration" goes in favor of the east pilots I would anticipate those aircraft heading to the west ops almost overnight. Separate ops = whipsaw, one way or another.

•West Fleet – 121 (120 min)
•East Fleet (excluding 15 E190s) – 203 (202 min)

Don't get your hopes up Ames.....I'd say not quite the watershed of aircraft you expected (when we win the LOA93 grievance). I suppose they could probably acheive the movement of ONE aircaft overnight however.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Don't get your hopes up Ames.....

I'll take the committee's numbers as accurate on the date specified. That still leaves a couple of things - call them food for thought. One is the block hour minimum - minimum fleet count doesn't prevent the company from shifting block hours where needed to comply with the block hour limits and the East should be well in excess of those (the E190's don't count toward fleet min but do count toward block hour min). The other is equipment type - for minimum fleet an A332 counts the same as an A319/733 so nothing prevents the company from shifting aircraft that aren't included in the transition agreement appendix A back and forth as long as the min fleet and block hours are complied with.

In other words, if the East should win the LOA93 pay grievance you could be betting your 767Intl job that Parker won't decide that it costs too much for the East to fly those A332's and create satellite West bases in PHL/CLT for the A332 flying while replacing the A332's flown by East pilots with A320's. Parker may be many things, but dumb isn't one of them. I'd be very surprised if they haven't looked at all these issues and know exactly what they can and can't do.

It seems that many East pilots consider the A332's, the three 757's, the E190's, and the remaining Airbus deliveries (especially the A332's) as "their" airplanes that can't be taken away. Depending on events, they may be sadly mistaken...

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

Where are you getting this nonsense?

Experience has proven that it's not nonsense. The NMB will park USAPA rather than free them to pull a failed strike attempt that would disrupt air travel (for a half hour, maybe) and in no way contribute to achieving their stated goals. When USAPA shows up with their DOH list, the NMB will tell them to stand in the corner.

But the members of USAPA can, through their BPR, order the negotiating committee (or is it the promised professional negotiators, I forget) to withdraw the DOH list and send a NIC inclusive tent agreement out (with their full endorsement) and prove to the NMB that it won't pass and they should be given the chance to proffer a DOH list to their members for ratification (and the legal consequences that follow).

 

[Ames]

I'll take the committee's numbers as accurate on the date specified. That still leaves a couple of things - call them food for thought. One is the block hour minimum - minimum fleet count doesn't prevent the company from shifting block hours where needed to comply with the block hour limits and the East should be well in excess of those (the E190's don't count toward fleet min but do count toward block hour min). The other is equipment type - for minimum fleet an A332 counts the same as an A319/733 so nothing prevents the company from shifting aircraft that aren't included in the transition agreement appendix A back and forth as long as the min fleet and block hours are complied with.

In other words, if the East should win the LOA93 pay grievance you could be betting your 767Intl job that Parker won't decide that it costs too much for the East to fly those A332's and create satellite West bases in PHL/CLT for the A332 flying while replacing the A332's flown by East pilots with A320's. Parker may be many things, but dumb isn't one of them. I'd be very surprised if they haven't looked at all these issues and know exactly what they can and can't do.

It seems that many East pilots consider the A332's, the three 757's, the E190's, and the remaining Airbus deliveries (especially the A332's) as "their" airplanes that can't be taken away. Depending on events, they may be sadly mistaken...

Jim

My point exactly.

 

[RSVP767]

I'll take the committee's numbers as accurate on the date specified. That still leaves a couple of things - call them food for thought. One is the block hour minimum - minimum fleet count doesn't prevent the company from shifting block hours where needed to comply with the block hour limits and the East should be well in excess of those (the E190's don't count toward fleet min but do count toward block hour min). The other is equipment type - for minimum fleet an A332 counts the same as an A319/733 so nothing prevents the company from shifting aircraft that aren't included in the transition agreement appendix A back and forth as long as the min fleet and block hours are complied with.

In other words, if the East should win the LOA93 pay grievance you could be betting your 767Intl job that Parker won't decide that it costs too much for the East to fly those A332's and create satellite West bases in PHL/CLT for the A332 flying while replacing the A332's flown by East pilots with A320's. Parker may be many things, but dumb isn't one of them. I'd be very surprised if they haven't looked at all these issues and know exactly what they can and can't do.

It seems that many East pilots consider the A330's, the three 757's, the E190's, and the remaining Airbus deliveries (especially the A332's) as "their" airplanes that can't be taken away. Depending on events, they may be sadly mistaken...

Jim

Jim,

Plausible, but not likely. First of all, the 767's will remain East per Attachments A and B. As for the 5 or 7 additional A330's not covered in the Attachments, the West can only operate 2 daily round trips from points east of the Mississippi to Europe and Caribbean (unless Parker takes them to the Pacific I suppose.....very unlikely). So, unless he would like to operate some domestically, I wouldn't hold your breath. Until we see any real growth, the minimum fleet will govern primarily.

Worst case.....we lose the 5 or 7 A332's, we see a little less International flying (less wear and tear on us) and we make MORE MONEY! I don't see a problem with that.

FYI - 20 A350's are on the East Attachment B (If we ever see them). Another PLUS for seperate ops if NIC is crammed up our a**.

Sorry Ames. Once again, not the watershed you dream of.