US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/18-6/23-Stay on Topic and Observe the Rules

[nycbusdriver]

The 9th circuit is under no legal obligation to agree with the 7th circuit. Perhaps you guys should try an undergraduate law class before venturing out into the wild....

(Rakestraw is not applicable for any number of reasons, this is just one of them)

You're right. But when two federal circuits issue opposite rulings, then it will likely go to the Supreme Court since the resolution of such disagreements is one of their functions.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

There are probably hundreds on the east who will get to the widebody captain seat without the Nic, but will remain narrow body f/o's with it.

That's not meant as an insult, but smarter people than you have been baffled by the arcane and intricate issues of pilot pay and seniority.

Talk about "arcane and intricate".......yeah like try Prater and the president of some sort of international express carrier group and the president of the Air Transport Carriers Assn. I stayed up tragically late last night because CSPAN reran these clowns testifying before a congressional committee. What a joke they all are! :down:

As I see it, the biggest reason pilots jumped off of ALPA and onto USAPA was Prater & Co. (He needs to go on a serious diet.) Whata' guy! He never answered a question directly. :down: The clown who represented the express carrier group, obviously not the pilot side of it, was a goofball who said "I'll have to get back to you on that." or "I don't have those numbers with me right now.".. :down:. .....what did he think he was going to do when confronted by a bunch of not too happy congressmen? He obviously was never a Boy Scout.

The air transport guy winced along with Prater and the aforementioned clown when pilot pay came up. Fatigue issues also came up with much more concern being show by congressmen than the clown panel. :down:

I am one who thinks less and less of our government but I'd have to say on this one,
Prater, clown, Airtransport guy =0 :down:
Gov=3

There was a forth man on the panel who lost a loved one in the Colgon tragedy and he was the only one of the four who made any sense at all.

There will be another hearing next week with the CEOs of airlines testifying. I will stay up three days in a row if I have to, to watch that clown panel~!!

Bring on the clowns!!

 

[Dog Wonder]

Will the Kung Fu Hillbilly be there?

 

[hp_fa]

The question remains: why on earth are you so interested in what happens at this airline now? Can't close that door?

I was a legal assistant for ten years before I left law and went to the airline. I left in 2005, shortly after the merger. As for why well this ties in both of my former occupations and it is damn interesting.

 

[hp_fa]

Ah....you never really were a flight attendant, were you?

You mean those weren't all luxury hotels I was staying at?

I especially liked that one we used to have for a short JFK layover....

Since I don't know if they still use it I won't name it.

 

[traderjake]

Your comments only display your ignorance of the issue. That's not meant as an insult, but smarter people than you have been baffled by the arcane and intricate issues of pilot pay and seniority.

Perfect example of the "Pilot-God" complex.

How dare a mere mortal have an opinion concerning matters of the gods.

Now you know why we get no respect from other employee groups.

 

[nic4us]

85% of the original East list will have retired within 10 years and will be replaced by East new hires while under separate ops. That means for example a new East pilot hired in 2011 may be able to bid East A320 Captain in 2015 while you can't. Do you think the new hire East pilots will be inclined to vote for a joint contract that ends separate ops and puts 1700 West pilots ahead of them pushing them from Captain back to junior F/O?

Your real problem is how will you get back to DOH if Wake issues an injunction requiring Nic.

Nic damages all pilots but especially West.

underpants

If your numbers are correct, that would mean 85% of the east is over 55 years old. I doubt your correct but will give you the benefit of the doubt. This will of course mean that in less than 5 and more likely 2 years, the east is going to have a very serious problem. A very large % will be over 60 and not be able to fly together. You will need joint ops just to find someone young enough to fly with you. Another problem is the widebody will be full of over 60s. Someone needs some young West captains just to keep their F/O seats. Now that there is what you call irony.

 

[cactusboy53]

I'm much more interested in how your new-hire class was determined at AWA.

Most airlines run each class by age....oldest=most senior.

Was that fair?

Why or why not?

Isn't that rather "arbitrary"?

Why are you senior to your FO at AWA? (assuming you are a Captain at AWA)

Why are some FO's at AWA blockholders and some on reserve?


DOH?


( It hurts...I know)

What an angry & sour person you seem to be. If you are that upset, you should find another vocation.

BTW I was senior in my class. I believe it was by size of appendage.....I have size 13 feet, so I won. Nothing arbitrary about that.

The time to move on without consequence has pretty much past. Now the time to move on with consequence & perhaps expense is just around the corner.

Why do you beat a horse that has been dead for two years?

Best of luck, skippy.

 

[tahitigirl]

Whenever I miss Springer, I come here.

Me too!!!

I've got an idea since we now are only a 3+ year old company (which sometimes seems more the age of some of it's employees). Why not set the order of seniority by age as of the date of merger. This will allow all to be captains before they retire. Just like the oldest kid passing down his/her clothes.

 

[Richard]

Just a reminder to keep your comments on the issues, and not the posters.....

 

[Poug Darker]

nic4us
"...in less than 5 and more likely 2 years, the east is going to have a very serious problem. A very large % will be over 60 and not be able to fly together. You will need joint ops just to find someone young enough to fly with you. Another problem is the widebody will be full of over 60s. Someone needs some young West captains just to keep their F/O seats..."

As long as separate ops are maintained, there is no problem. East list is separate from west list, as per the recent grievance result. No third list (which I disagree with entirely).
I would postulate in separate ops, mgmt would be 'forced' to hire to fill the east list (cheaper, too). However, if I'm wrong and the cost is higher to hire instead of combining ops, then maybe mgmt will have a reason to start negotiating in earnest.
If it weren't for that damned Nic list....

 

[Megasnoop]

If Dave Odell had a 75 DOH he could have gone back to the east with the other furloughees who were recalled east at USAPA's request. The pilots out West who actually had an east DOH, who refused recall after the Nic, well they are a different story.

We all know post-merger new-hires come back at the bottom of the list, either list. Non-probations should have their choices of where theyre recalled, in seniority order. But Odell, even with a 1975 date, would come East at the bottom of the list. His NIC "number" is useless in separate ops. If he chose east, hes making $20+K more a year as a 5-year line holder (with LOA84 rates). For the new-hires still on probation, I think they go East or West based on company assignment, not seniority. Imagine being stuck West and looking at losing thousands of $$ while in separate ops.

My point, the devil is in the details or lack of details. In 2 pages of detail, the TA (II,b,6/7) addressed East furloughees filling bottom slots out West. No mention at all of where West furloughees will be placed, if they can “bid†East at all, in the event of recall. Any interpretation problems in this gap have to be resolved between the company and CBA. And contrary to what you think DFR means, the CBA has to negotiate for the good of the majority. That’s absent a NIC-style arbitration in place and in force. The courts will resolve the NIC, so not going to rehash here.

When I read the TA I see an allowable 10% per year. If you say that only applies to the first year, that would mean the company can reduce either side at will.

Yours is a total misread & not logical. It has never been interpreted as 10% per year. Otherwise Parker would have already right-sized West down to 60% of its top. The company had the right to reduce the number of AC by 20% in 1st year of the merger.

b. During the first year following the consummation of the Merger Agreement, America West and US Airways will each maintain not less than 80% of the number of aircraft listed by month for that airline in Attachment B.

In our case they reduced us 20%, you they didn’t.

If you say that only applies to the first year, that would mean the company can reduce either side at will.

That’s totally illogical. 10% was the max floor. If you cant see that, no explanation is going to get through. But for those who want information, this is the TA language on the 10%.

c. For US Airways, the number of minimum aircraft will be re-established one year after the consummation of the Merger Agreement at the lesser of 279 total aircraft (excluding SJs), or the number of total aircraft then operated by US Airways (excluding SJs) less ten percent (10%), rounded to the nearest aircraft, with the daily utilization rate measured monthly as the average daily utilization rate for the prior twelve months less ten percent (10%).
d. For America West, the number of minimum aircraft will be established one year after the consummation of the Merger Agreement at the lesser of 140 total aircraft (excluding SJs), or the number of total aircraft then operated by America West (excluding SJs) less ten percent (10%), rounded to the nearest aircraft, with the daily utilization rate measured monthly as the average daily utilization rate for the prior twelve months less ten percent (10%).

Notice c says "re-established" and d says "established". Re in our case because our numbers was a moving target, subject to other LOAs. Your case, you had what you had. Not sure that makes sense, but the best I could do.

VERY clear the 10% was referring only to the first “year after the consummation of the Merger Agreement.†So, the company could knock off up to 20% of the number of a/c listed the first year, and further reduce that amount by an additional 10% and 10% less daily utilization, but only in the first year. That’s the read of one of our top former negotiators. If you can ID anyone on your side who was actually at the table and can say different, go for it. Otherwise your not making sense. Nic4us, don’t want to hurt feelings, but your way off base on this one.

 

[nic4us]

We all know post-merger new-hires come back at the bottom of the list, either list.

My point, the devil is in the details or lack of details.

No mention at all of where West furloughees will be placed, if they can “bidâ€￾ East at all, in the event of recall.

Yours is a total misread & not logical.

That’s totally illogical. 10% was the max floor. If you cant see that, no explanation is going to get through. But for those who want information, this is the TA language on the 10%.

Nic4us, don’t want to hurt feelings, but your way off base on this one.

I agree

I definitely agree

You are wrong about one thing though. The TA does say all the recall language is a two way street. i.e. in the event things change and the West has furloughs and the east needs pilots, West pilots would be offered recall to the east prior to hiring from the street, of this I am certain. This is found at the bottom of the section talking about recalling east furloughs to the West and is the last paragraph.

I will concede the 10% issue because the more I read the TA the further I become confused, some things are plain as day yet we lose an arbitration, others are convoluted and difficult to follow, as is the reduction phrasing.

Finally, no worries, it would be next to impossible to hurt my feelings on this board. My original comment was a dig at the east furloughs who after being recalled west, then furloughed west but recalled east, was a direct example of why your ODell comment was incorrect.

 

[Phoenix]

It NEVER ceases to amaze me that a group of people who are smart enough to fly huge pieces of aluminum through the sky at slightly less then the speed of sound can be so single mindedly stupid

Give Up you've LOST! All of you have lost.

The first guy on any list LOST
The Last guy on any list LOST

Total up the funds spent for lawyers on BOTH sides, add in the lost raises to date and kindly show me ONE pilot who will at age 60 or 65 come out with MORE money fighting each other instead of fighting the company. Use whatever seniority list you choose I defy you to show me one pilot who will gain as a result of this litigation regardless of income.

For a guy smart enough to sell copiers you seem stuck on one picture (pun intended ).

ALPA set the mold.. set the departure point... it is not possible to push reset and start with something else. The definition of seniority is the issue, and seniority is everything. There never will be peace.

Talk to a couple retired Northwest and Republic pilots if you want to see the future.

 

[Phoenix]

Ah....you never really were a flight attendant, were you?

Good point. Its obvious someone isn't who they say they are, or they possess a fringe and unrecognized "perspective" on things.