US Pilots Labor Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oil Prices Threaten Airline Profitability. Did USAPA/Pilots miss Our Opportunity to Negotiate a Pay Raise During Profitability?

See Story



...your links don't work that you have posted through unbiasedfacts.org.


At any rate some news outlets were saying that Carriers like Jet Blue were already adding a "fuel surcharge" to their ticket sales..........I wonder if Team Tempe is smart enough to do that?
 
I can't wait to see how the SLI goes down for UAL. Look at all those UAL Pilots who "don't bring a job to the table"......1,417 furloughed+269 on Military Leave+76 on personal leave.........Oh wait, ALPA changed the rules again for UAL......LOS......LMAO, that was a smart move ALPA.........
FYI, the merger committee and the MEC have been very clear from the start that while the argument will be made to protect the furloughees as much as possible, historically arbitrators do not give heavy consideration to furloughed pilots. Expectations are being managed realistically, with history and precedent as our guide.

Additionally, with a change in work rules on the CO side to UA standards, plus any improvements in the joint contract, there will be a shortage of around 800 positions throughout the system, creating that much movement for everyone over night and bringing our furloughs back years before they would have absent the merger. That is a huge benefit for them regardless of how SLI works out.

Also there is a misconception that slotting looks at your individual seat position. It does not. It looks at the seat position of your group within a range of seniority numbers (aka NW/DL), regardless of the position you bid. It also looks at the number of positions in a category and class for each side. Therefore a very senior 767 f/o who could hold 767 captain but bids f/o for quality of life will still end up in the seniority range as his peers who are 767 captains, wherever that might be. That's what they mean by merging numbers and not positions. Same goes for those on military or personal leave. It does not affect where they end up on a final list. It is impossible for a person on a leave of absence to end up junior to someone on his own respective list prior to the SLI.

Saying otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the process.

And more clarification of the posted numbers. UA furloughed about 1000 ACTIVE pilots when they parked the 737 fleet. They had to go 1417 deep to get 1000 flying pilots off the list due to junior pilots on leaves, military or otherwise. Many took voluntary furloughs to go on to other professions and better deals while keeping their seniority number. They may or may not come back. But there were around 400 pilots already not flying when the furloughs happened.
 
Didn't US Airways pay off some of AWA ATSB loan? This is getting comical again.....
Comical - well said. If US had the cash to pay off another carrier's ATSB loan why didn't they have the cash to make their own payroll? It wasn't US that put up the cash to pay off the HP loan, it was the investors who funded the merger because they perceived a financial gain could be gained by the merger. Paying off the ATSB loan was one of the promises made to the DOJ as they were evaluating the benefit to the consumers of allowing the two carriers to join together. US didn't have two unspoken for dimes to rub together in September of 2005.
 
Additionally, with a change in work rules on the CO side to UA standards, plus any improvements in the joint contract, there will be a shortage of around 800 positions throughout the system, creating that much movement for everyone over night and bringing our furloughs back years before they would have absent the merger. That is a huge benefit for them regardless of how SLI works out.


Has Management already agreed to "a change in work rules on the CO side to UA standards"?
 
OMG, you are saying America West didn't but US Airways???????
HP acquired US through a reverse acquisition where HP was the acquiring business entity but the US name and operating certificate would be the go-forward business name owned by an entirely different group of stakeholders than they were previously. The HP stockholders approved the acquitison which gave them new LCC stock that was also issued to the various big money investors who also funded the transaction. HP didn't have the cash to buy up all of the debt of US, but they did have the management team able to give the outside investors confidence in their capital investments.
 
HP acquired US through a reverse acquisition where HP was the acquiring business entity but the US name and operating certificate would be the go-forward business name owned by an entirely different group of stakeholders than they were previously. The HP stockholders approved the acquitison which gave them new LCC stock that was also issued to the various big money investors who also funded the transaction. HP didn't have the cash to buy up all of the debt of US, but they did have the management team able to give the outside investors confidence in their capital investments.

So, was it an acquisition or a merger? They don't mean the same thing. What do the papers say???

Driver B)
 
Management is chomping at the bit to sell out the West pilots. Hopefully all Westies understand that completely by now.

Please, tell us more. I see no evidence of this. EVERYTHING management does is designed to:

1. Line their pockets
2. At the expense of ALL the employees
3. And cover their a**es while doing so.

They are an "Equal Opportunity" plunderers.
 
Two federal judges agree with me (Wake and Bybee) that usapa has broken federal law and has a DFR against the west pilots as of now.

Two federal judges (Graber and Tashima) of the 9th stated the case is not ripe until the contract is ratified with my cba and lcc. Both judges stated this will be an UNQUESTIONABLE RIPE DFR against west pilots by usapa.

Otter

How about including 5 to 8 Supreme Court justices on the side of Graber and Tashima? Did you miss that little event? (I have to assume at least one justice was interested in looking closer at the Ninth's ruling, otherwise Addington never would have made it into conference.)

Oh, and maybe we should include the en banc judges of the Ninth who also refused to review the three-judge panel ruling.

Looks a little more lopsided against Addington now, doesn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top