USAPA Files

[AAA73Pilot]

Just what I figured. The USAPA gerbils have no real answers - no fallback position. Its all or none. And the last part of my question was not an insult - I feel it will be a pretty fair representation of the reaction following USAPA defeat.

We do have fall back positions. The last part of your statement was and is an insult. Along with your current reply. If you want to discuss those plans, I'll be happy to give you my opinion. I doubt very seriously you would pay any attention to what is being said though. I am wondering what your going to come up with next to call us. To quote another poster, you're a never ending source of amusement.

 

[luvn737s]

I really doubt you believe your own fear mongering. Why would there be a merger between a start-up and US? Only in the event US lands back in bankruptcy (in which case US would be parted out after the fact, IMHO) would a start-up be involved. So try looking at more realistic scenarios.


Let's look at this from another angle. Say furloughs occur, do we furlough the 25 year pilot or the 1 year pilot?

MM

Suppose there had been no merger and furloughs had occured at each of their respective airlines. Which pilot would be furloughed? Answer: Both of them.

If simply by being involved in a merger allowed you to suddenly have 1800 pilots to absorb any future furloughs, I would say that's a windfall. The Nicolau decision took this into account and used a slotting formula that spread any future furlough pain proportionally. If the pilot was on furlough during the merger, as a result of whatever hardship his airline was in, their status was such that their return to the line was in jeopardy and may never have occurred, thus they were placed after every active pilot.

 

[EastUS]

Are you suggesting one of those methods as a compromise?
Jim

By no means...there's abundant insanity, and whimsical nonsense afoot as is. No consistency is/would-be ever possible with some farcical notions of "relative seniority"...the "relative" deletes all notions of seniority...period. One may argue indefinately about the supposed merits of non DOH "relative seniority"..and I'll simply offer up the current situation as proof that such is, in the final analysis...pretty much naught more than unworkable insanity. I'll grant that the Nic 'award" is the most easilly played, and utterly absurd example...but the concept's hopefully clear. Similar, or even greater monstrosities are extremely likely in the future, should Alpo reign supreme..and "relative" anything rule the day. "Relative" is virtually identical in value to "opportunistic"...and has no actual roots in any viable concept of 'seniority".

Any discussion of "relative" seniority wouldn't be fully complete without also addressing the notion of "relative" gravity, or, more properly; "relative" wholesale insanity. Personally? I've found ample reasons for faith in the notion of gravity working...whether it inconveniences me, or I'd prefer to think it merely "relative"..concerns gravity not the least bit.

 

[nostradamus]

Suppose there had been no merger and furloughs had occured at each of their respective airlines. Which pilot would be furloughed? Answer: Both of them.

If simply by being involved in a merger allowed you to suddenly have 1800 pilots to absorb any future furloughs, I would say that's a windfall. The Nicolau decision took this into account and used a slotting formula that spread any future furlough pain proportionally. If the pilot was on furlough during the merger, as a result of whatever hardship his airline was in, their status was such that their return to the line was in jeopardy and may never have occurred, thus they were placed after every active pilot.

You were hired 6 months before the merger in 2005. By the way are you going to participate in the slowdown your AWA pilot union public web site is insinuating. I have a link to it below and find it very troubling and possibly illegal. It is highlighted in red letters.

AWA pilot public web site

 

[EastUS]

Suppose there had been no merger

There was...

 

[b737fo]

"Relative" is virtually identical in value to "opportunistic"

So is DOH when it would allow a person who was on furlough to jump right into a captain seat of new equipment within a short period of time...

I am back so maybe nostradamus has a new person to use when he/she surfs for old posts to link to. BTW don't forget to link to the old resolution that the AAA MEC passed pulling their JNC in direct violation of the transition agreement they signed (which is what I found "troubling"). That is if you want to be fair when you call out one of the pilot unions.

 

[Piedmont1984]

DOH would be the foundation of any agreement. What is placed on that foundation can be as elaborate as the two sides wish it to be.

Any merger between two union pilot groups should follow precedent, tradition and history. Numerous factors should be considered, but the underlying and most compelling factor when merging two groups of the same craft has always been, and should continue to be, date of hire.

ALPA decided - or allowed - itself to move away from this long standing and well established principle; as a result we find ourselves in the current predicament.

Like the poet said, "Good fences make good neighbors".

 

[michael707767]

DOH Any merger between two union pilot groups should follow precedent, tradition and history. Numerous factors should be considered, but the underlying and most compelling factor when merging two groups of the same craft has always been, and should continue to be, date of hire.

precedent and tradition? Has every past USAir merger gone DOH?

I venture a guess that in the history of ALPA there have been as many mergers that did not go DOH as the ones that did.

 

[luvn737s]

You were hired 6 months before the merger in 2005.

I was? Where? Why didn't somebody tell me? That kinda news ought to come registered mail!

 

[sharktooth]

Ok, name a solution (any solution) which doesn't require either side to abandon their position or be forced to accept the other's position.

Ah, now you want to place conditions onto what you quoted. I already pointed out that by your own verbiage, the two sides, if you want to characterize the conflict as such, are not even talking the same language. Instead of "walking the property" and agreeing on what each party sees, you seem to insist on using verbiage based on vague concepts that is interpreted differently by each party.

I have always found that education and mutually agreed upon facts are a great starting point for sharing treasures like your careers.

I don't dispense biases - everyone seems to have an adequate supply, especially you. So I assume that should have been "Dispensing with your biases...."

Jim

Everyone has biases. You seem to allow your negative experiences from Kagel overwhelm your normal good judgement. A solution can never present itself as long as everyone's biases are hidden, especially from themselves. Jerry Glass counts on that.

I believe that were a likely future extending from an acceptance of the "nic" fully explored, many thinking pilots would understand the extreme negative dangers in pursuing that option.

You were a victim of such a path. Can you articulate the quagmire that resulted?

 

[EastUS]

So is DOH when it would allow a person who was on furlough to jump right into a captain seat of new equipment within a short period of time...

I am back so maybe nostradamus has a new person to use when he/she surfs for old posts to link to. BTW don't forget to link to the old resolution that the AAA MEC passed pulling their JNC in direct violation of the transition agreement they signed (which is what I found "troubling"). That is if you want to be fair when you call out one of the pilot unions.

Adressing the first: Proper fences would prevent any such from happening. The sort of fences that AWA's so adamantly opposed to.

For the second: I don't think that many out east much care nowadays about anything that a select few Alpoids (east or west) have done within their cloistered, and isolated little circles. They've created the problem, and cannot reasonably be expected to "fix" anything. Note that the major emphasis in recent ALpo "communications" has been little more than horescrap offered up to feebly attempt thwarting the "raid" against Alpo. Should they succeed...it'll be back to Alpo BS/business as usual..only worse..and yet more "managed expectations", none of which has been shown for years as being at all beneficial to line pilots. I find the curent Alpo posturing to be both pathetic and hypocritical in extremis. It amounts to "Ummm...sorry for the huge monstrosity that we've made...but...just "Trust Us"...we'll make everything better immediately...just shoo away those evil "raiders" that don't believe in Alpo..The Great and Powerfull. Get out your pom poms, and, most importantly...just keep sending us your money so we can live happily ever after on flight pay loss/etc...at least untill we can weasel our way up into Alpo Notional, wherein we can get fairly rich at your expense, and virtually "retire" immediately. Trust and believe in us, do no independent thinking, and all will be well. Keep sending in that money though. Dont forget that in any future merger under our august Alpo umbrella, that we'll be just as likely to produce another abortion that sells out ALL of you, east and west, if it makes our lives easier.Thanks ....Suckers

 

[BoeingBoy]

Ah, now you want to place conditions onto what you quoted.

Nice try but you missed.....

I said:

And this is why there won't be a consensual solution forthcoming any time soon.......

East is insistent that any acceptable solution must be based on a list constructed by DOH while West is insistent that any acceptable solution must be based on the Nik award. Bridging that gulf requires capitulation on the core issue by one side or the other.

Unless one side submits to the other's demands, the only solution is for the underlying list to be forced on one side or the other, but then the "winning" side will have no reason to seek solutions to the implementation problems - conditions and restrictions.

Then you proceeded to explain why DOH was the proper way to create the underlying list - which would require either capitulation by the West or be forced on the West - exactly what I said were the only ways to end the stalemate.

Then I said:

Like I said, as long as the chasm exists between the two sides over how the basic list is put together, there will be no solution.

To which you replied:

Two different things entirely. Attempting to place one against the other is like comparing apples to quarks.

and, no, I am saying DOH guarantees stability. The "nic" guarantees nothing in the future but insecurity, for all.

To which I replied:

Just another angle to convince the world that DOH is the only basis to use. In other words, you want the West to accept DOH while they're waiting for the East to run out of options and (be forced to) accept Nik. Until one side loses this fight, talking about anything else is just a waste of hot air. Unless you've got another way to construct the list that would be acceptable to both sides?

And you said more of the same:

No sir.

I am simply saying that "nic" and DOH are not on the same playing field. Choosing "nic" puts one on a different universe altogether and opens up all sorts of unexpected, unanticipated and negative implications altogether for all.

I reiterated the same point I made in every post:

To repeat my original point - as long as East insists on using DOH to construct the list and West insists on the Nic award there is no solution short of one side or the other being forced to accept the other's position.

And your reply:

There is always a solution....

So I asked for one of your solutions, with the same conditions I consistently expressed which you consistently danced around:

Ok, name a solution (any solution) which doesn't require either side to abandon their position or be forced to accept the other's position.

So you dance around with no real answer except the standard- DOH is the only acceptable way to construct the basic list. Meanwhile, the West position is that Nic is "final and binding". So other than stating (yet again) why DOH is preferable, do you have a solution that doesn't require capitulation or forcing that solution on one side or the other. Because otherwise you're talking about the second step - step 1 for East is West "having a revelation" and accepting DOH, and step 2 is conditions and restrictions. Hard to get to step 2 until step one is accomplished. And six months of hurling insults back and forth hasn't made one iota of difference or one millimeter of movement......

 

[Black Flag]

QUOTE (BoeingBoy @ Nov 24 2007, 11:33 PM) *
Ok, name a solution (any solution) which doesn't require either side to abandon their position or be forced to accept the other's position.


OK two lists....Nic for flying the PHX/LAS bases and DOH for East flying

 

[BoeingBoy]

OK two lists....Nic for flying the PHX/LAS bases and DOH for East flying

At last an innovative solution. On the other hand, both sides have to give up their position as far as the other side's bases are concerned.

However, with the expectation that most widebodies and new flying will be in the East, it would require getting the West to give up their Nic "final and binding" position for that flying, which means they wouldn't see much of it. Then there's furloughs - which list is used? How about new bases (if any)? Which list governs in those? Plus, which list will be used if another merger comes along? Will East be OK with using Nic for that? Or West OK with DOH?

So we're really talking about step 2 again. There's lots of options for that step, but until the current stalemate gets solved they're useless. Which apparently is what sharktooth can't grasp.

Jim

 

[b737fo]

Adressing the first: Proper fences would prevent any such from happening. The sort of fences that AWA's so adamantly opposed to.

How can you suppose to know what the West official negotiating position is when the group you elected to represent you hasn't been at the negotiating table for months

How can you know if there is any leverage or compromise to get a joint contract when there is no JNC

I look forward to the day that USAPA has to answer in specifics their strategy to get this pilot group a new contract with one seniority list that doesn't alienate either group. So far I have yet to hear from a USAPA organizer about how they can represent my interests. Anxiously holding my breath.