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

[Pi brat]

War, disagreement, dispute, whatever - I really don't care what anyone calls it. Confiscated as in most East posters consider those additional post-merger jobs as belonging to the East pilots. I defy anyone to find the 7 A332's, 3 757's, and whatever number of E190's that are left anywhere in the transition agreement fleet plan for the East. If they're not there they're fair game for either side - the company can decide to move them or have them flown by either side's pilots (this in addition to the other language about TA, Caribbean, and HI flying).

All of that makes the snide comments about PHX shrinking all the more interesting. With the minimum block hours requirement, shrinkage at PHX will force the company to make block hours available to West pilots in the East bases as long as separate ops exist. Maybe some East posters (not you) should be more careful what they wish for since they may get it...

Jim

I see your fan club gave you 3 green thumbs up on this one!

Now Jim, you are always on us about the words we use and I believe it was last week you admonished me for not getting your words right. So, I copied and will paste directly from your post:

"You know, those post merger airplanes that East has now confiscated as it's own, just like the post-merger 757's and E190's." Highlights added by me.

Now, not being the wordsmith you are I looked up confiscated, to to make sure I understand what you are saying. Here's a short one that is kind of what I was thinking, from Merriam-Webster online:

2: to seize by or as if by authority

So if we take confiscate and make it past tense that means that what you wrote was saying the east pilots seized the flying from the west. That's not true. The company allocated the flying. Many east pilots might think the deserve it all, and USAPA might not be fighting to help the west get anymore, but nobody "confiscated" anything.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

This is one eastie that absolutely does not want PHX to shrink. I want it to grow like a mother and keep all those guys out there and not in CLT, unlike all the other mergers we have been through.

😀

 

[Pi brat]

Oh, spare me the drama. Whatever yourself.

Yes, I should, you guys create enough for yourselves. Love ya, mean it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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

That's true, if you're only talking about the TA routes the East operated or had announced when the transition agreement was signed. As I said a number of posts back, however, there are a lot of TA routes that were announced after the transition agreement was signed that the West pilots could operate. Plus the two TA routes allowed by the transition agreement.

Airplanes are the limit on West flying TA flights - 7 A332's and 3 757's - not the number of European routes the West could operate. But that's potentially as many as 10 TA routes that the West could fly if Parker wanted to do it. All he would have to do is put enough A320's on the East side to replace the A332's and 757's to meet the minimum fleet count. In other words, a big enough West satellite base in the East part of the country to be worthwhile.

Just a rhetorical question, but did you ever wonder why the West was allowed by the transition agreement to operate 2 European routes "flown or announced" when they had no planes to operate those flights? No widebodies, few ETOPS 757's. Could Parker have been thinking ahead to possible future (at that time) deliveries?

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Yes, both aircraft were subject to arbitration and, like all arbitrations east/west, the west did NOT receive what was awarded.

And in all the arbitrations the west wanted it all and NOW! The difference in the 757/190 is the arbitrator didn't give it to them.

I'll be honest with ya, it's been a long time since I read those awards and I'm too lazy to look them up, but don't you have to wait until we have a joint contract/seniority list to get those awarded positions?

 

[BoeingBoy]

"You know, those post merger airplanes that East has now confiscated as it's own, just like the post-merger 757's and E190's." Highlights added by me.

Now, not being the wordsmith you are I looked up confiscated, to to make sure I understand what you are saying. Here's a short one that is kind of what I was thinking, from Merriam-Webster online:

2: to seize by or as if by authority

Or, putting it in the past tense, seized as if by authority. As you say, "Many east pilots might think the deserve it all". I would say that many East pilots see the extra flying generated by the post-merger deliveries as belonging to the East. In their minds, they've seized that flying so ergo confiscated it.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Or, putting it in the past tense, seized as if by authority. As you say, "Many east pilots might think the deserve it all". I would say that many East pilots see the extra flying generated by the post-merger deliveries as belonging to the East. In their minds, they've seized that flying so ergo confiscated it.

Jim

No,no,no.........faulty logic. They had neither the authority or power to control that flying, ergo they cannot confiscate it.

 

[luvn737s]

and USAPA might not be fighting to help the west get anymore, but nobody "confiscated" anything.

Are you saying that USAPA is taking sides among it's members? Say it isn't so!!

That would be one of those DF- something-or-others.

 

[Pi brat]

Are you saying that USAPA is taking sides among it's members? Say it isn't so!!

That would be one of those DF- something-or-others.

I said might, I don't really know but I can't see them going out of their way to push A330 towards the west. I'm sure there are pilots everyday, east and west, that feel the union has failed it's DFR. They usually just don't feel they have the power or money to fight it.

 

[Freighterguynow]

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.
Jim

Can't do it Jim - it's specifically forbidden by the Flight Attendant TA.


As usual, those PIT gals did a far better job than ALPA ever could.

 

[767intl]

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.

Spot on, RSVP767. Jim and Ames won't give up on their weird/near-impossible scenarios. The company's short and long-term aircraft removal and acquisition plans are pretty much in stone. They change like glaciers. Since we're at (near) minimum fleet AND block hours on BOTH fleets, losing East or West planes scheduled to go off lease requires the new hulls and block hours to be essentially divided East-West. That's not whipsawing. Any whipsawing which happened, happened 2005-2006 timeframe. Whipsawing is drawing down one side, increasing the other. If your both near the bottom anyway, that's not going to happen. Ames' scenario makes no sense.

Only surprise acquisitions could change things. Even then, I can't imagine Parker sending new 330s out west for West crews to fly to where? PHX-PHL? PHX-CLT? Until there PHX-Asia routes, 330s in PHX make no sense. On current and announced flying, PHX crew are not allowed to fly more than two daily round trips to Europe (Section II, B, 4, e). To make sense of that, the West crews would have to fly PHX-Europe. No plans for any of that, assuming the 330s would even have the range. Some can, most can't. If our 330 routes stay PHX/CLT-Europe, Parker would have to train West pilots on the 330s. He'd also have to DH them to either PHX/CLT, unless PHX-CLT/PHL traffic made 330 sense. NOT! He can't do a tempo base for West pilots back East, at least not according to the TA (II,B,9). it's all bluster from Boeing and Ames.

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

Sorry for being so ill-formed, Boeing, but fact is, we're near block bottom back here already. And with only a few hulls being added/removed the next 3 years, I don't see whipsawing. Your scenario makes little sense. IF (big if), we win on all issues of LOA93 arbitration, don't expect a TA coming out that is less than what we are awarded.

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.

Sorry, Jim. Satellite (temporary) bases not allowed on other side's turf.

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.

You may want to read the TA, too. You can't use one part to make your point and ignore II,4,b,c,d.

Facts are, we're near/at bottom both hours and hulls. That was my point. Parker is handcuffed in ability to whipsaw. The TA, with all its faults, did stop that from happening. The cost of training, DHing crews, no tempo bases allowed doesn't work for number crunchers in PHX. The "rookies" remark goes back 3 years ago to a stupid remark by repudiated former East MEC Chairman Jack Stephan, as I remember. It only resonated amongst the die-hard ALPAcrew. I, for one, never used it. Quit trying to shape the debate with wornout red herrings.

IF (big if), we win on all issues of LOA93 arbitration, don't expect a TA coming out that is less than what we are awarded.

 

[767intl]

Can't do it Jim - it's specifically forbidden by the Flight Attendant TA.


As usual, those PIT gals did a far better job than ALPA ever could.

Ouch, Freighterguynow. Jim doesn't like it too much when his scenarios are blasted away by facts. As I understand, East FAs have a lock on the INTL flying out of CLT/PHX until after full crew integration? That wont happen until after single pilot contract? IS that how the AFA agreement reads?

The F/A will have a new contract soon. That means the east F/A's will be flying with west pilots. Kind of removes that road block.

I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that. At least not from the FAs I have talked to. And trust me, clear, there all very senior, very in the know. Maybe you ought to substitute the word "could" for "will."

 

[cleardirect]

Can't do it Jim - it's specifically forbidden by the Flight Attendant TA.


As usual, those PIT gals did a far better job than ALPA ever could.

The F/A will have a new contract soon. That means the east F/A's will be flying with west pilots. Kind of removes that road block.

 

[767intl]

And in all the arbitrations the west wanted it all and NOW! The difference in the 757/190 is the arbitrator didn't give it to them.

I'll be honest with ya, it's been a long time since I read those awards and I'm too lazy to look them up, but don't you have to wait until we have a joint contract/seniority list to get those awarded positions?

Good points, PI brat. To be fair, the West wanted 90% of the 3 additional 757 slots. They didn't arbitrate. Freund told them they'd lose. So they took 50% (maybe less, I don't have the exact data, too lazy to look up also) of those slots as an IOU after we have a single contract. Interesting enough, we offered them 33% (maybe 50%, again, too lazy to look up) of the CA and FO slots based on DOH, to begin immediately, spring 2006. They turned it down! Lot of brains working there.

The 190s went the same way. 33% of the slots to be awarded in seniority order after a new single contract. We offered them 33% (maybe more) back in summer 2006, based on DOH. They turned it down. Again, real men of brilliance. By the time this all settles out, whether NIC or DOH, I doubt if anyone except near the bottom will bid the 190 CA slots anyway, unless the pay is negotiated up. Since the 190s are East-based and pay for 190 CA is not much above 5th-year West pay, I can't see a mad rush for those holes by Westies. Wet lost that arbitration, but time will show they probably didn't lose much.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No,no,no.........faulty logic. They had neither the authority or power to control that flying, ergo they cannot confiscate it.

"As if by authority." Actual authority isn't required by the definition you supplied. You can still see it in the statements made by some East posters in the last few threads - those planes are flown by East crews and it will stay that way.

To make peace, however, I'll let you pick the word. What would you call it when a group claims a right to something that they have no authority to claim?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I see lots of talk but very few facts. For example, satellite bases are allowed but TDY isn't (read IIB8). So much faith in the FA transition agreement while ignoring that it only applies until the FA's are integrated. Airplane delivery plans are set in stone? That stone changed quickly late last year when US put off deliveries. I assume 767Intl is referring to IIB4b,c, & d which specifies how minimum fleet and block hours are determined. Maybe he/she should read it again. Note that min block hours is based on the previous 12 month's average less 10%. Unlike min fleet, min block isn't a set figure. With the reduction in capacity during 2009, what is happening to min block?

Jim