US Pilots Thread 11/24-12/1-Discuss Pilot Labor Issues Here

[hp_fa]

After writing this I read the USAPA Watch update. I think this clip echo's my sentiment. Here is the exerpt at the end of the update:

"Appeals to the Ninth Circuit can take years. If US Airways is fortunate enough to survive the latest recession, it isnt likely that Mr. Parker is going to wait for the Ninth Circuit to rule before moving forward with his business plans. The time for a more rational approach is long overdue. There must be a better way."

There is. Accept Nic. Get West guys as dues paying members and cut expenses like crazy. Simple and easy.

 

[GuntherA320]

There is. Accept Nic. Get West guys as dues paying members and cut expenses like crazy. Simple and easy.

HP,

Problem is that all 3 of those things are extremely unlikely. East won't accept nic. Even if it is forced on them it will take years to implement which is what they want. West guys will never become "members". They may become "objectors" but most want no part of the union. Expenses??? What exactly do you propose we cut from employees now? A contract is still years away. It is a quandry that is unlikely to be decided very soon. This trial, in my opinion, is only the beginning.

Gunther

 

[Phoenix]

There is. Accept Nic. Get West guys as dues paying members and cut expenses like crazy. Simple and easy.

:blink: :wacko:

That was some good turkey...

 

[hp_fa]

Expenses??? What exactly do you propose we cut from employees now?
Gunther

The expenses I referred to are the legal fees being paid by both sides regarding the pilot issues.

 

[tazz]

The more I thought about the law mandating protections in labor integrations, the greater the doubt that it applies in fragmentation situations. So I looked it up and it only applies if there is a transfer of 50% or more of the equity or assets (by value). So if, for example, US sold the Shuttle off to another carrier the federal law with it's protections wouldn't apply to any employees that went with the shuttle.

It is possible to envision a situation wherein 2 or more other carriers bought pieces of US and none of the transactions triggered the federal law.

Jim

Section 1 of the AWA contract addresses this and the east contract has a "fragmentation" section. Needless to say the east guys should study theirs and decide whether they still want their contract intact should the above scenario take place.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Section 1 of the....

You are correct - the contract language would kick in at a lower level of assets sold off. Which is part of my point in all this. Fragmentation protection meant nothing to East when it was the old Eastern Shuttle that was sold to Trump - those pilots should have been considered new hires at Trump with a DOH to match. Principle and integrity would mean that East pilots would expect, even demand, that they should be given the same consideration they wanted to give the Shuttle folks if US were to sell off assets - new hire status at the acquiring carrier.

Jim

 

[sharktooth]

Principle and integrity would mean that East pilots would expect, even demand, that they should be given the same consideration they wanted to give the Shuttle folks if US were to sell off assets - new hire status at the acquiring carrier.

If someone is in possession of signed letters signing away their "Eastern seniority" and also stating that Eastern DOH would only apply for the initial ordering of the Trump list, how might that change your statement, if at all?

There was also the consideration that the Shuttle pilots would get enhanced relative integration sacrificing "buying into" the US retirement plan, as it existed then.

Perhaps the east pilots should emphasize how the west pilots wanted DOH for the ATA pilots. Would that be equivalent?

Your attempt to compare apples to oranges seems to be somewhat full of holes.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Your attempt to compare apples to oranges seems to be somewhat full of holes.

The usual claim of those who would reject being treated as they would have treated others in a similiar situation..."B..bu..but that was different."

If US did sell off assets under the fragmentation policy, would not the acquiring carrier likely insist that pilots transferred with the assest resign their US position?

Would not the pilots going with the assets probably insist that their seniority relative to each other be honored - a protection no offered in the typical ALPA boilerplate fragmentation language?

The only apples and oranges is whose ox is being gored....

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

Perhaps the east pilots should emphasize how the west pilots wanted DOH for the ATA pilots. Would that be equivalent?

I don't personally know if that is true or not, but for the purpose of discussion lets assume that is true.

There was nothing that I am aware of in ALPA policy that prohibited any party to take any position they wished during negotiations. However, when the parties fail to come to a negotiated settlement they then put the decision into the hands of outsiders and that is what happened at US Airways. Remember that Nicolau sure seemed to be asking East for a revised position and their attorney stated on the record that they were not offering a revised offer.

 

[Phoenix]

There was nothing that I am aware of in ALPA policy that prohibited any party to take any position they wished...

Bingo.

Yet I doubt you can you find one eskimo willing to buy snow.

 

[electricjet98]

There was nothing that I am aware of in ALPA policy that prohibited any party to take any position they wished...

And just as in the "real world", people must learn to take responsibility for their decisions.

 

[pilotn79]

Remember that Nicolau sure seemed to be asking East for a revised position and their attorney stated on the record that they were not offering a revised offer.

Looks like they missed their chance to compromise. Now they find their so-called union in court. People like me are going to make sure that USAPA is going to answer for the deception. Sooner or later USAPA's lies will catch up with them. Just ask Bill Clinton how that works.

 

[electricjet98]

Perhaps the east pilots should emphasize how the west pilots wanted DOH for the ATA pilots. Would that be equivalent?

Maybe you can explain where you are trying to take this "point". As I recall, the AWA & ATA MEC's held informal discusions in an attempt to make any possible merger proceed as smoothly as possible. Informal, because no merger was announced. The AWA MEC received some degree of critisizm from their constituents because they had informally agreed to the "concept" of DOH with restrictions in this particular case. I'm certain that if ATA had any pilots on furlough at that time, adding them to the bottom of the newly merged list would have been one of the restrictions. I believe that their arguement was based on the fact that ATA was a much smaller airline and that a DOH merger of the two groups of "working" pilots would also closely resemble a ratioed merger; the start-up and various expansion dates of the two airlines were very similar. It was also a fundamental belief among the two groups that it was important to make as fair as possible the list, so that the two groups could truely join as one and advance everyone's cause...something that is lost on USAPA. It should be noted that DOH was probably seen as a negative by most AWA pilots (and a big YAHOO, by most ATA pilots), but the overall positives of growth and pilot unity made it worthwhile.

Some of the various start-up and growth timelines are noted below.

Wikpedia:

ATA
ATA was established in August 1973 as American Trans Air (ATA) to provide aircraft for the Ambassadair travel club. Its first aircraft was a Boeing 720 named "Miss Indy", with a second Boeing 720 ("Spirit of Indiana") being added in 1978. ATA received its common-air carrier certificate in March 1981. Operations started as a charter carrier in 1981, with a fleet of eight Boeing 707s based in Indianapolis, Indiana. In 1983, American Trans Air introduced its first DC-10, a series -10, and was followed in 1984 by another, a series -40. Amtran, Inc., was founded by owner J. George Mikelsons in 1984, as the holding company for Ambassadair, ATA, and any future subsidiaries. The airline replaced the 707s with Boeing 727-100 trijets in 1984, and added Rolls-Royce powered Lockheed L-1011s (most of which were ex-Delta Air Lines and TWA) in 1985, and Boeing 757-200s in 1989. Scheduled service flights began in 1986 between Indianapolis, Indiana (Indianapolis International Airport) and Fort Myers, Florida (Southwest Florida International Airport).

AWA
One of the 1980s' greatest business success stories, the airline was established in February 1981 and started on August 1, 1983 using three leased Boeing 737 aircraft flying out of their base in Phoenix, Arizona with Ed Beauvais as CEO.[2] At the start, passengers could buy tickets on board the aircraft.

In 1985, America West had grown to the point that no more gate space was available at Sky Harbor International Airport. While the new Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor was approved in 1986, it became apparent that additional gates would be needed before Terminal 4 was completed, and a temporary concourse was added to the southwest corner of the Airport's Terminal 3, adding six gates (eventually a total of 11 gates by 1990) for the use of America West.

The airline's rapid growth continued in 1986, with the airline greatly expanding its fleet, primarily with Boeing 757s purchased from Northwest Airlines after Northwest bought out Republic Airlines, as well as the acquisition of a number of De Havilland Canada Dash 8 aircraft for local service from Phoenix and Las Vegas.

As 1989 opened the airline explored destinations beyond the United States, America West filed with Department of Transportation for a Phoenix to Sydney route, to connect with now defunct Ansett Airlines. However the proposal was rejected and the Reagan Administration awarded the route to another airline.

In 1989, the airline leased four Boeing 747 aircraft (formerly operated by KLM), offering service to Hawaii and Nagoya, Japan, as well as an expansion of service to many Mexican destinations.

 

[electricjet98]

PHILADELPHIA DOMICILE UPDATE
November 28, 2008

And thanks to all of you for providing continuing support to myself, Doug and Roger, and all of your other Board members and Officers, while we have collectively taken this new union from its infancy to where we are today. To have achieved the admiration and respect, not only of our own pilots but of the pilots from American, Southwest, AirTran and many others in such short of a period of time, is proof that standing up for what we believe in is more than just a cause. It is about what is right for the pilots of US Airways.

This is a joke , right?

It is with pleasure and honor that I announce to all of you that we have chosen Captain Woody Menear to fill my seat at the Board as a Vice Chair, in my vacancy, until the next round of elections take place in PHL. Woody shares my strong beliefs in standing up for our pilots through the concepts of principle, integrity and honor. These are the same beliefs that USAPA was built upon and you will be well served and represented by Captain Menear; of this, you can be assured.

These guys are a laugh a minute! Isn't this the same guy would said something about how much he hated the west pilots and the fact that the east had saved us? Oh yeah, he'll bring everyone together!

USAPA President, Steve Bradford and I were together, "back in the day"- interviewing law firms, including the one we ultimately selected, the one of Mr. Lee Seham. I have been an advocate, independent writer and generally a cheerleader for the wisdom of a pilot-centered union and have been there since the very beginning. Some of you will remember me at the ALPA offices at Herndon that warm May day.

Hey, is it to late to add this guy to the list of individuals in the lawsuit before Judge Wake?

 

[pilotn79]

PHILADELPHIA DOMICILE UPDATE
November 28, 2008

To have achieved the admiration and respect[/i][/b], not only of our own pilots but of the pilots from American, Southwest, AirTran and many others in such short of a period of time, is proof that standing up for what we believe in is more than just a cause. It is about what is right for the pilots of US Airways.

[

Taking a stand against USAPA has certainly earned the respect of the pilots I know from the companies listed above.