US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Allegheny-Mohawk.
"When Allegheny purchased
and merged operations with New York based
Mohawk in 1972, the merger representatives
again achieved a negotiated solution based
on date of hire with conditions and restrictions.
Like the Lake Central pilots in the previous
merger, the Mohawk pilot group included some
furloughees at the time of the Allegheny-
Mohawk merger. The seniority integration
agreement adjusted the Mohawk furloughees’
dates of hire to account for that furlough. It
further adjusted their dates of hire to the extent
necessary to place them below the most junior
active pilot."
Mike Cleary is accurate. Looks like Nic got it right.
"When Allegheny purchased
and merged operations with New York based
Mohawk in 1972, the merger representatives
again achieved a negotiated solution based
on date of hire with conditions and restrictions.
Like the Lake Central pilots in the previous
merger, the Mohawk pilot group included some
furloughees at the time of the Allegheny-
Mohawk merger. The seniority integration
agreement adjusted the Mohawk furloughees’
dates of hire to account for that furlough. It
further adjusted their dates of hire to the extent
necessary to place them below the most junior
active pilot."
Mike Cleary is accurate. Looks like Nic got it right.
Or, you could use this one and say he got it wrong:
Republic-Hughes Airwest
One of the most comprehensive discussions
of the issue appears in the 1981 seniority integration
arbitration decision by Arbitrator Richard
Bloch in the Republic-Hughes Airwest
merger. Republic acquired all of the stock of
Hughes Air Corp., which operated Hughes
Airwest, in October 1980. The previous year
had been a difficult one for Hughes Airwest,
which had furloughed 117 pilots, about 20
percent of the workforce. Although Republic,
too, was facing financial difficulties, none of its
pilots were furloughed, and it continued to hire
pilots through August 1980. The ALPA Merger
Policy Arbitration Panel adopted a length of
service methodology, giving no credit for time
spent on furlough prior to the merger, and
assigned seniority numbers as of the merger
date of October 1, 1980. In arriving at this
methodology, Arbitrator Bloch acknowledged
that furloughed pilots remain wedded to their
airline, often choosing to forgo employment
elsewhere in order to retain the potential to
return to a high-paying and desirable job. He
explained:
The choice, difficult as it is, arises as a result
of comprehensive employment protection incorporated
as a significant contractual bargain.
It is an alternative to full unemployment
and gives the pilot the absolute right to return
as soon as his number is reached. This is a
right that often extends for many years. One
may readily acknowledge the equities of protecting
relative seniority within a given pilot
seniority list, as is provided by contract. But
in the context of comparing lists in the merger
situation, the equities are different.
In the difficult business of analyzing respective
strengths and weaknesses, furloughs
become an important (and one of the few)
objective indices of carrier performance. As
between carriers, the fact that one keeps its
workforce working is significant. This has
been recognized in virtually every arbitrated
dispute in this area.
In this case, Airwest contends . . . that its
pilots have “paid their dues” through necessary
layoffs and fleet regeneration. One may
accept this argument as having contributed
to Airwest’s viability at the time of the merger.
It is part of the basis upon which this Board
has adopted the basic length of service approach.
It would be inconsistent, however, to
at once acknowledge these previous hardships
as “dues paid” while at the same time
crediting—“repaying”—the individuals for
such time spent and thereby ranking them
even higher on the final list. The relative
positions of these pilot group and the equities
of the case do not support such a result.
The panel therefore declined to extend even
partial seniority credit for time spent on furlough
before the merger.
In spite of the deduction of all furlough time,
the chosen methodology resulted in the placement
of some Airwest furloughees at the time
the award was issued senior to working Republic
pilots. This result was justified, in Arbitrator
Bloch’s view, “as a result of more extensive,
albeit prior, active service by the furloughed
pilot.” He emphasized, however, that the award
does not permit a furloughed pilot to displace a
working pilot. And in order to avoid what he
termed “a mechanical ‘switching’ effect wherein
a pilot recalled for a minimal period of time
displaces another,” the award required a recalled
pilot to remain active for 60 days before
exercising displacement rights.
Significantly, the methodology employed by
the Bloch panel did not distinguish in any way
between furloughs completed years before the
merger and those ongoing as of the merger date.
Both pilot groups had experienced furloughs at
different times, with a greater number of Republic
pilots having had some furlough time.
Hughes Airwest pilots, however, had experienced
more total days on furlough and 76 of
them had accumulated over four years of furlough
time. One of the pilot neutrals wrote a
separate concurring opinion in which he disagreed
with the refusal to give partial credit for
time spent on furlough. In his view, the Hughes
Airwest pilots with the greatest furlough time
were disadvantaged by this approach. Partial
credit was warranted, he contended, to “allow
them to move up the list to a position that is
more commensurate with their age, job expectations,
and date of hire.” This position, however,
did not carry the day.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Absolutely correct.
But the point is - there is no gold standard.
But the point is - there is no gold standard.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
I will break my "ignore the village idiot" rule for this one.
I crossed no line. I am just the messenger. Did I get under your skin? There will be no retraction, as you demanded and threatened in your PM to me.
Let's review the facts:
- You consistently level ridiculous attacks and unsubstantiated accusations at me and others, with your standard verbiage of "you are part of a group who... (fill in the blank)." You use this and other "guilt by association" tactics almost every day, with no proof to link your target directly and specifically to your accusations.
-I adopted your style and tactic in response, and linked you to a group who supports a child predator. Specifically, Joseph Pereira, a US Airways pilot recently convicted of taking obscene pictures up the skirt of a 15 year old girl.
- You responded by lying and saying he was fired, which he was NOT. He was only suspended by the company. I provided proof of this, yet you never responded. USAPA has done nothing to have this pilot who molested a young girl, fired. You have done nothing to encourage your union to have him fired, have you? You are a member of USAPA, are you not? Therefore you certainly ARE part of a group who IMO supports a child molester, and I will continue to express it as long as I feel it is true. Otherwise your group would not protect his job. Why would you want a person who preys on young girls in your group? At least ALPA has a code of ethics. Does USAPA have one?
- FYI, as a father of 2 young girls I assure you that if a pilot at my airline was convicted of such a crime I would be VERY vocal to my union about removing him from the property permanently.
- Webster's definition - molest: to make improper advances to, esp. of a sexual nature.
As for a retraction, that is not going to happen. Unless you can prove to me that your union tried to remove Joseph Pereira from your company or at least your union, and was unsuccessful. Until then it is my opinion that my statement is factually accurate. Alternately, you could provide proof that you are NOT a member of USAPA and NOT a US Airways pilot. Then my statement would be factually incorrect, and in that case I would retract it.
Going forward I would be happy to stop repeating the statement if you do the following:
1) provide the proof to back up your accusations against Boeing boy, or retract what you have said about him.
2) retract your statements accusing me and others of being linked by association to a group who perpetrated some perceived injustice against you, another airline, or humanity in general.
3) cease and desist your daily rants and accusations, AND take a more mild mannered demeanor on this forum.
It matters nothing to me either way. You can carry on with the status quo for all I care, and I will continue to state my opinions as I see fit, ignoring you most of the time. Freedom of speech is a good thing. Or you can consider the three requirements above to change the status quo. The choice is yours, but it is not negotiable.
US Airways Pilot Pleads Guilty to Upskirt Photo
"Authorities say Pereira used his cell phone to take photos under the skirt of a 15-year-old girl on June 24.
US Airways spokesman Morgan Durrant says the 55-year-old pilot from Wexford, Pa., is suspended."
US Airways Pilot Pleads Guilty
"He will be evaluated for a sex offender treatment program."
Nos is a hypocrite. Now back to ignoring the village idiot.
You did cross a line, and that was low. Have you seen anyone singing that guy's praises on here? As a father, I have few choice thoughts for him and to include us with him is low. Very telling.
- Banned
- #8,932
Once again your wrong, I was a stock clerk when I left US Airways, they were not eliminated.
Dont let the facts get in your way.
So what lie, misinformation or insult will you try next.
Personally, I think it's disgusting to be discussing "young girls" in any context on these webboards much less the way you few posters are discussing them. You really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Yeah, one guy is whacked and mentally screwed up.........but what does that have to do with the rest of us.
ManDachine
Member
- Feb 4, 2004
- 96
- 30
And Nos crosses a line with every post. Unfortunately he suffers from psychological problems and is incapable of handling anything (except maybe young girls).
Jim
That is a all time low, you should be ashamed for bringing something like that into a pilots debate.
Jim
That is a all time low, you should be ashamed for bringing something like that into a pilots debate.
Here are a few questions for you.
Do you think nos crosses a line when he claims that West pilots are drug runners and scabs because of some event that happened in Australia many years ago? (Guilt by association.)
Do you think nos crossed a line when he accused boeingboy of personally stapling pilots even though he doesn't have any proof? (More guilt by association.)
Do you, have you, or will you ever take a stand against nos and publicly claim on this forum that he crosses a line when he does the same thing?
Do you think it's OK for nos to send threatening PM's to people for voicing their opinion, that happens to be factually correct, considering nos' history?
I'm sure no one actually believes that anyone is responsible for those "upskirt" photos except for the perpetrator of the crime. But I see no problem linking nos to a "group who will not have him fired for such conduct," since nos seems to do nothing but the same to others around here. Nos should not dish out what he can't take. Those of you getting all offended are not looking at the whole picture and the context of the players involved. It's called giving someone a good old taste of their own medicine, to expose their hypocrisy.
BTW, I didn't see where 767jetz included you or anyone else except nos with him.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Read Jetz's post again. All Jetz did was borrow Nos's proprietary method of slinging scurrilous generalizations based on one inidividual's actions. It worked quite well because Nos sure didn't like it. Rather than chiding Jetz, you should be applauding Jetz for taking the time to help make the Village Idiot a little less of an idiot.
"-I adopted your style and tactic in response, and linked you to a group who supports a child predator."
I don't see any group supporting a child predator. He's wrong.
I'm not a fan of sum/nos, whoever he is. He calls me a waffler when I dare disagree, but I think most issues we disagree on are in a little different realm than this. To be honest, I just skip over most of his posts since you guys really don't need help taking him on.
So what about scabs and drug runners at other airlines? What does that have to do with the rest of us? At least in this case it actually happened, and recently. I find the scab an drug running accusations just as offensive. I didn't see any of you coming out to condemn those comments from nos.
You guys sure do seem to have a totally separate set of rules and standards that you hold yourselves and your buddies to. Try leveling the playing field and maybe you'd have some more credibility.
No, I disagree with a lot of that, just like I disagree(and take on) west posters that link east guys to this type of issue, accidents ect. I don't see any west poster, with the exception of LynardSkynard(sp?) taking your own. See my response to Aquagreen, he said part of a group.
Stuff like what that guy did should be left out of the other issues.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
