USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prove it.
Guys hired in October 86 have December 99 guys senior to them - 13 years, equalling about 1100 positions. The 86 guys were to be in the top 150 at or near retirement, with the Nic they will be 1100+150. THAT equates to NO WIDEBODY captain seat - EVER, while some guy that was learning to ride his BICYCLE in 1986 is going to get that seat.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
 
To be honest what does age, military service, route network have to do with this particular lawsuit ?

Very little, as this proceeding's purely about advancing self-interested opportunism, or defeating it. Let's leave it to the jury, and I've certainly no idea how they'll vote on any of this.

If you truly and honestly have no problem with examples such as the child, then perhaps learning to ride a bicycle while others were flying the line, becoming magically "senior" to them...well...There's really just not much more to be said there......
 
Guys hired in October 86 have December 99 guys senior to them - 13 years, equalling about 1100 positions. The 86 guys were to be in the top 150 at or near retirement, with the Nic they will be 1100+150. THAT equates to NO WIDEBODY captain seat - EVER, while some guy that was learning to ride his BICYCLE in 1986 is going to get that seat.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Your logic escapes me. How can a person who happens to be younger get the seat first if he is of the same seniority? If the bicycle ride is placed next to an 86 hire who will never see widebody, then the bicyle rider will also not see it while the 86 hire is around.

Your math puzzles me even more. I think it is wrong. It fails to take into account many parameters, and is simply untrue. For starters you assume no West attrition for the number of years it would take an 86 hire to move from the bottom of their list to top 150.

1100 numbers is all an 86 hire lost. I lost close to 1500. Dave Odell lost what 2800? Are you sure an 86 hire only lost 1100 numbers, man you folks got a windfall. You get the top 517, an 86 hire only loses 1100, Coello only lost 1880 compared to Odell's 2800+. What are you even complaining about?
 
Your logic escapes me. How can a person who happens to be younger get the seat first if he is of the same seniority? If the bicycle ride is placed next to an 86 hire who will never see widebody, then the bicyle rider will also not see it while the 86 hire is around.

Your math puzzles me even more. I think it is wrong. It fails to take into account many parameters, and is simply untrue. For starters you assume no West attrition for the number of years it would take an 86 hire to move from the bottom of their list to top 150.

1100 numbers is all an 86 hire lost. I lost close to 1500. Dave Odell lost what 2800? Are you sure an 86 hire only lost 1100 numbers, man you folks got a windfall. You get the top 517, an 86 hire only loses 1100, Coello only lost 1880 compared to Odell's 2800+. What are you even complaining about?
'Only' 1100 numbers out of 1500? And losing all east wide body attrition to westies?! What are you smokin? Anyone who thinks this is 'right' or 'just' or 'fair' is wrong.
 
'Only' 1100 numbers out of 1500? And losing all east wide body attrition to westies?! What are you smokin? Anyone who thinks this is 'right' or 'just' or 'fair' is wrong.

Where do you get 1500? Odell's number on the jan 09 West seniority list is 1757. At the time of the merger I think he was north of 1800. Did you mean 1100 of the over 1800 pilots go in front of an 86 hire. Of that top 60% of the West the majority was hired in or before 1990.

Losing all wide body attrition to westies? you got that wrong too. At most you would lose 1/3 of east attrition to westies, while capturing 2/3 of West attrition and 2/3 any future growth.

What am I smokin? Only the finest!

Actually, anyone who thinks your numbers are correct, would be wrong.
 
That's because the Nicolau abomination was a windfall for the west, a clear violation of ALPA's own merger policy.

The arbitrator says you're wrong.

The two pilot neutrals say you're wrong.

The Delta Northwest arbitration panel says you're wrong.

Not knowing when you're wrong is the reason we got no credit for our retirement attrition.
 
If the bicycle ride is placed next to an 86 hire who will never see widebody, then the bicyle rider will also not see it while the 86 hire is around.

So..within the "Righteous Position" claimed by the west...It's perfectly OK to deny the person who's airline brought the larger aircraft to this "merger", to ever actually have access to captaining them...just so long as the west youth's only going to get them for say, twenty years of his/her career then? Thanks. I see it all clearly now. That certainly "makes sense" and is unquestionably "fair" and "reasonable" in the process :blink:
 
1) Your seniority was entirely and only based upon AWA flying out of PHX and LAS? It had NOTHING to do with ANY flying brought into this from the east. True or false?

USAir and PSA brought no wide body flying to the Piedmont merger.

Should they have been fenced off of those airplanes forever?

Things change with a merger, they have to.
 
27 September 2005. Do not bother telling me yours, I already know it.

Well, Whew! That ends any issues I previously had with stated feelings of entitlement towards eternal captaincy over east "fellow pilots" with only, say, a quarter of a century flown "here"...I mean...well...that IS almost a whole four years after all.....

What could possibly be more reasonable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top