Does anyone remember the question? I dont read it if the big "proof" is up. CP1 do you know?I expect an e28 magnitude melt-down in the the near future from Nosum.
Never got your PROOF yet, Jim?
How long have you been waiting from the BS Meister?
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Dream on smiley boy.
The only thing you got was from the other end of the horse. I'm sure APA had a long sitdown( something you will understand) with the circus of leonedas. Dream on little boy someday you will come to your senses and back the DOH.
You see Jim, this is one of the many places that you go off track. You grasp on to one little part of the post, don't know or research the history, then make statements.
Agua said months ago that we were overstaffed on C/Os. I asked him how he came to this conclusion, and he said because he counted more C/Os than F/Os. some analysis, huh? I said there could be ANY(not all) reason for that and could he think of any? C/Os having more vacation and sick leave than some F/Os won't complete the picture, but could be a reason. Of course F/Os don't affect C/O staffing, but it can explain some of the difference in numbers in each seat. I laughed at his complete and thorough analysis.
We run out of AB captains many times at different bases.
I like you admission that you were WRONG. Big man there Jim. So let me get this right, I did say to let it play out, just not enough? Ever heard of taking the kettle off the stove? Let me assure you, your defense of the C3 has not helped them one bit, just kept it stirred. I really think that is what you enjoy.
You could have sent the C18 defense fund some money. Did you do that? I did. You sure run your mouth a lot to say "there is nothing I can do". You're outed.
15%? more like 30% isnt it?
You know, this place is kind of like playing with a litter of Jack Russell puppies sometimes. "Bark, who barked, was that me? I'm hungry, look......a butterfly!"
If you would pay attention to the threads you are jumping into you would get it. I don't care. I was giving aqua crap for his stupid post. If you will go back to the original post I said "interesting". What the guy posted was interesting about how it came about and went on to bite them, but I didn't say it would prove USAPA would win or not. You guys jumped to all the other conclusions!!!
I don't know if it was a good idea to get Kasher, don't know it wasn't, don't really think it will make a difference, but you sure do.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #12,802
BS. I was only responding to that one little part. You asked a question and I answered it - back when "we" had up to 7 weeks of vacation there was a reason for there to be more captains than FO's. That reason went away with all the other concessions. There's not a captain flying (other than possibly the E190) that doesn't have the full three weeks, as do most of the F/O's. Minor variances I can understand, but then you've got about double the F/O/IRO's on the widebodies which makes up for a lot of junior F/O's not having over 1 week of vacation.
Perhaps you'd like to explain it to this old farm boy - after all, I only did bid closing for 16 years so know so very little compared to an expert like you...
Jim
7 vs 3 or 3 vs 1. Much difference? Also, not many guys retiring with a full sick bank at $14 an hour. Aqua didn't break out widebodies vs narrow, just made a blanket statement "I know the east is overstaffed because I count more C/Os than F/Os". Not this airplane, not that base, a blanket statement. No break down of POTA's, reserve block time, pay caps, nothing but his math. But keep defending it, it's all you can do. You're looking bad Jim.
In those 16 years did you ever see this outfit way overstaffed in one base and way under in another? I sure did go to school a lot for nothing if resource planning always had it right.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #12,804
Don't know - is that the score for a hockey game or what?
You'd have a hard time proving that. A - the two year window till retirement hasn't been open long, and B - based on the limited time that window has been open there isn't a trend showing more medical leaves than before the window opened.
Was that statement wrong or just not divvied up like you'd like it? Give your own evidence to disprove it if the statement is wrong. Count the Captains and F/O on the last bid instead of just lashing out because you didn't like the statement.
Absolutely - after every furlough. You know as well as I that management would try to run the airline as long as it could without recalling furloughees. But the furloughees are all back plus new hires. That was usually not an every base, every equip, every seat thing until it got to the point that they couldn't run the airline with the available pilots. Your point?
The training make some bases temporarily short or overstaffed. That's a known fact - everyone awarded a position is not trained on the effective date of that bid while those trained early can cause some bases/equip/seat to be slightly overstaffed. System wide it usually balances out.
So go on - explain why that blanket statement was wrong...
I'll ignore the slight this time although you're getting to the point of putting a zinger in every post that you, the knower of all things who is never wrong, make.
Jim
What happens when you send a bunch of clowns to negotiate the simplest things? A circus breaks out.
NAC on Age 60 Developments
Age 60 Update
Your Negotiating Advisory Committee looks forward to the time when we can write an upbeat report to you concerning our dealings with the Company. Unfortunately, once again, we are unable to do that. Many times we have felt we have made progress, only to later be surprised by a response from the Company that sets us further back than where we started.
The latest chapter in this saga concerns our attempts to find a solution to the restrictions faced by our age 60 pilots on international flight segments. As you may know, any flight flown outside the US cannot have both a Captain and First Officer who have reached age 60. This causes problems for our pilots when they bid monthly schedules or attempt to modify their schedule. Considering that we now have hundreds of pilots who have reached 60, this problem is affecting more and more of our pilots.
We have had numerous discussions with the Company on this issue and felt we were very close to an agreement in principle on a workable solution that addressed the needs of both sides. After last month's mediation session we only had two items remaining and we were confident we would be able to settle them in short order. Unfortunately, the Company pulled the football away from us again with their latest proposal.
Two years ago, we had agreed on a process, proposed by the Company, that would allow a First Officer to choose, during both the primary and secondary line bid, whether he wanted to avoid any age 60 conflict or accept conflict trips. This would give the pilot the most flexibility in the bid process. If a pilot accepted trips with conflicts then the pilot accepted the responsibility that he may not be able to fly the trip and then have to make up the time at some other point during the month. While not ideal, at least the pilot would not be forced to a reserve line (as the Company now proposes) if there were only conflicted lines remaining at his seniority level. Unfortunately, with their last revision the Company has taken away this provision in the secondary line bid process. In the latest proposal, a pilot who cannot hold an un-conflicted line or an IRO line will be forced to a reserve position while pilots junior to him are lineholders. This is unacceptable -- a pilot who would otherwise be able to hold a line, but for the age 60 restriction, should not be forced to sit reserve for that month
To make matters worse, the Company is also now proposing that a Captain can now be forced to a secondary IRO line. Since Captain bids are run first this would severely limit the ability of line holding FOs to keep a secondary line and would result in them being bumped back to reserve. While the Company does have the ability to fill an IRO seat with a Captain, it is only if there are absolutely no First Officers available -- not on a monthly bid award. Even worse, the Company is proposing that both Captains and FOs can be forced, out of seniority, to a reserve line if all secondary lines create a conflict.
Another area of concern was pay protection for trips that a pilot could not fly due to an age 60 conflict. We had proposed some pay protection provisions that would have had minimal economic impact to the Company, but they were unwilling to entertain the concept. In lieu of obtaining pay protection, we attempted to relax the provisions concerning protecting certain trips in your schedule. Although we were able to obtain relief on protecting the last trip of the month, the Company refused to apply this to other trips in the month. Why should a pilot who has a conflict be forced to hold that trip until two days out, when he could have picked up a non-conflict trip earlier in the month? If the Company is going to require a pilot to hold a conflicting trip and is subsequently removed two days prior because the conflict remains, then that pilot should receive some type of pay protection. The Company position is that they will only allow the pilot to pick up another trip 'coverage permitting,' but if they don't allow it then that's too bad. The Company wants the burden for this to fall completely on the pilots' shoulders while they reap the benefit. They can't have it both ways -- if they want the ability to keep you on the trip until two days out, then they must pay protect you for the trip. If they are unwilling to do that, then they should allow you to pick up other trips. Their view is that they should not be on the hook for any increased costs associated with a change in regulations, so they want to wash their hands of this. The Company, who lobbied heavily for the law change and has saved millions in training costs by not having to replace all these pilots, should be willing to compromise with their pilot group in this area.
We also proposed that the Company bundle as many international flight segments together as possible into the fewest pairings and lines. For example, if there is a daily CLT-MEX turn, it would be better to put those flights together in one pairing rather than sprinkle them throughout different pairings. This would minimize the chances of conflicts for our age 60 pilots. While the Company said they would endeavor to minimize the conflicts, they didn't want to be bound to do so by contract language. Considering this Company's track record, what are the chances they would honor a deal without specific language to back it up?! Once again, the Company shows how little interest they have in working with this pilot group; it's their way or no way.
Finally, this issue further illustrates the Company's unabashed contempt for US Airways pilots. Here we have a circumstance, largely precipitated by the Company's attempt to mitigate attrition-based training costs, that has created problems for both the Company and the pilots, and the Company is looking at the dilemma myopically at best and opportunistically at worst. They have taken what started as a joint effort to find a solution and turned it into a land grab marked by contempt and indifference. We have to ask ourselves why some pilots continue to go the extra mile for this management team.
Paul DiOrio - Chairman
704-340-5098
[email protected]
Jeff Davis
877-332-3342 x 6001
[email protected]
Dean Colello
704-307-9768
[email protected]
Or reach us all at: [email protected]
NAC on Age 60 Developments
Age 60 Update
Your Negotiating Advisory Committee looks forward to the time when we can write an upbeat report to you concerning our dealings with the Company. Unfortunately, once again, we are unable to do that. Many times we have felt we have made progress, only to later be surprised by a response from the Company that sets us further back than where we started.
The latest chapter in this saga concerns our attempts to find a solution to the restrictions faced by our age 60 pilots on international flight segments. As you may know, any flight flown outside the US cannot have both a Captain and First Officer who have reached age 60. This causes problems for our pilots when they bid monthly schedules or attempt to modify their schedule. Considering that we now have hundreds of pilots who have reached 60, this problem is affecting more and more of our pilots.
We have had numerous discussions with the Company on this issue and felt we were very close to an agreement in principle on a workable solution that addressed the needs of both sides. After last month's mediation session we only had two items remaining and we were confident we would be able to settle them in short order. Unfortunately, the Company pulled the football away from us again with their latest proposal.
Two years ago, we had agreed on a process, proposed by the Company, that would allow a First Officer to choose, during both the primary and secondary line bid, whether he wanted to avoid any age 60 conflict or accept conflict trips. This would give the pilot the most flexibility in the bid process. If a pilot accepted trips with conflicts then the pilot accepted the responsibility that he may not be able to fly the trip and then have to make up the time at some other point during the month. While not ideal, at least the pilot would not be forced to a reserve line (as the Company now proposes) if there were only conflicted lines remaining at his seniority level. Unfortunately, with their last revision the Company has taken away this provision in the secondary line bid process. In the latest proposal, a pilot who cannot hold an un-conflicted line or an IRO line will be forced to a reserve position while pilots junior to him are lineholders. This is unacceptable -- a pilot who would otherwise be able to hold a line, but for the age 60 restriction, should not be forced to sit reserve for that month
To make matters worse, the Company is also now proposing that a Captain can now be forced to a secondary IRO line. Since Captain bids are run first this would severely limit the ability of line holding FOs to keep a secondary line and would result in them being bumped back to reserve. While the Company does have the ability to fill an IRO seat with a Captain, it is only if there are absolutely no First Officers available -- not on a monthly bid award. Even worse, the Company is proposing that both Captains and FOs can be forced, out of seniority, to a reserve line if all secondary lines create a conflict.
Another area of concern was pay protection for trips that a pilot could not fly due to an age 60 conflict. We had proposed some pay protection provisions that would have had minimal economic impact to the Company, but they were unwilling to entertain the concept. In lieu of obtaining pay protection, we attempted to relax the provisions concerning protecting certain trips in your schedule. Although we were able to obtain relief on protecting the last trip of the month, the Company refused to apply this to other trips in the month. Why should a pilot who has a conflict be forced to hold that trip until two days out, when he could have picked up a non-conflict trip earlier in the month? If the Company is going to require a pilot to hold a conflicting trip and is subsequently removed two days prior because the conflict remains, then that pilot should receive some type of pay protection. The Company position is that they will only allow the pilot to pick up another trip 'coverage permitting,' but if they don't allow it then that's too bad. The Company wants the burden for this to fall completely on the pilots' shoulders while they reap the benefit. They can't have it both ways -- if they want the ability to keep you on the trip until two days out, then they must pay protect you for the trip. If they are unwilling to do that, then they should allow you to pick up other trips. Their view is that they should not be on the hook for any increased costs associated with a change in regulations, so they want to wash their hands of this. The Company, who lobbied heavily for the law change and has saved millions in training costs by not having to replace all these pilots, should be willing to compromise with their pilot group in this area.
We also proposed that the Company bundle as many international flight segments together as possible into the fewest pairings and lines. For example, if there is a daily CLT-MEX turn, it would be better to put those flights together in one pairing rather than sprinkle them throughout different pairings. This would minimize the chances of conflicts for our age 60 pilots. While the Company said they would endeavor to minimize the conflicts, they didn't want to be bound to do so by contract language. Considering this Company's track record, what are the chances they would honor a deal without specific language to back it up?! Once again, the Company shows how little interest they have in working with this pilot group; it's their way or no way.
Finally, this issue further illustrates the Company's unabashed contempt for US Airways pilots. Here we have a circumstance, largely precipitated by the Company's attempt to mitigate attrition-based training costs, that has created problems for both the Company and the pilots, and the Company is looking at the dilemma myopically at best and opportunistically at worst. They have taken what started as a joint effort to find a solution and turned it into a land grab marked by contempt and indifference. We have to ask ourselves why some pilots continue to go the extra mile for this management team.
Paul DiOrio - Chairman
704-340-5098
[email protected]
Jeff Davis
877-332-3342 x 6001
[email protected]
Dean Colello
704-307-9768
[email protected]
Or reach us all at: [email protected]
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #12,806
A question for any of the West pilots since I'm too lazy to dig it up in the FAR's. Does the FAA rule about no Capt and F/O over 60 apply to the Hawaiian routes also? Or since they're technically within the U.S. does the rule not apply. Not that you'd have as much trouble with it as the East side anyway.
Jim
Jim
Oh, I'm I on double, non-secret probation now? Scary. I'm waiting for a real admission that you were wrong and an apology about the C18 and C3.
It's so simple. Being an AB captain and living with POTAs and watching days with no reserves, it was hard for me to just accept a west pilot's( that tends to spout off about things he doesn't know about) word that the east is overstaffed. We know there are a lot of variables and his simplistic analysis didn't cut it . I asked for, what is that term...........oh yeah, proof.
There are plenty on here that I send no zingers to-those I respect, east and west. You are not one of those.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #12,810
You posted an 'here's how I feel about this' concerning the C18 and C2. That's different than correcting a poster that still brings up the charges about the C18 or C3. You apparently haven't said "East poster so and so, you should stop making those accusations", etc, etc. That would be too much trouble for what - correcting an East poster. Not you, you just sit back and take the cowards way out - "Well, they all ignored me but I tried."
When I've corrected a West poster, I quote the pertinent part of his/her post and tell them how and why they're wrong.
You might as well take that veneer of seeking middle ground off - it's not fooling anyone. You'll jump all over a Westie for making what you consider to be a mistake, go on and on for pages, but won't do the same to your pals. Hypocrisy at it finest...
Jim
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
