nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
E
EastUS
Guest
All of which merged by date of hire. Do you even have any supposed point to make here?.
East pilot, with expectation of left seat wide body well before retirement, now, under the "nic", will never see a wide body left seat so that some "bicycle ride" can now take that seat.
Not just a windfall, but a windfall at the expense of quite a few others.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #379
How many of these East F/O's have had their expectation change since before the merger because of the airplanes that have arrived or will arrive because of the merger and the change in retirement age giving them an additional 5 years to work? When I retired in late 2006, about 20% of the FO's I flew with were retiring from the right seat and a significant number of pilots were retiring while furloughed - not exactly the rosy picture presented now yet that was over a year after the merger...
Jim
He did not. Why would he try to walk in the very same minefield he created by "second-guessing" himself?
See above, not to mention the gross conflict of interest in the two.
Why ever would they publicly opine on something they were not asked to rule on? Why did ALPA, after the "nic", then decide that three arbitrators were needed instead of just one?
Color me wrong but was not the fence for the most senior east pilots, some sort of "credit"?
I am sorry you lost your cushy union job. Perhaps there is a similar job for you in the welfare state of Tempe. B)
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #381
Myoptic reply - Nic said you're wrong in his award.
See above - they didn't disagree with the award. Like fairness, "gross conflict" is in the eye of the beholder.
See above - by not giving a DOH solution they said you're wrong.
Ah...the monolithic "ALPA". The two sides decided to use 3 arbitrators and all 3 said that relative seniority was the fairest way. I guess they were guilty of "gross conflict" or "senile old men" too...
"Some sort" of credit - yes, for the 19 widebodies that East brought to the merger. It had nothing to do with East attrition, which is what was stated.
Jim
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #382
This really is getting sad and a little pathetic. Even faced with the facts you guys can not or will not accept the reality of the situation. Nicolau a neutral arbitrator who had no dog in this fight decided that what the east argued then and what you continue to argue now is wrong.
By their very definition “pilot neutrals†They do not have a conflict of interest. You got to chose yours, we picked our from a list. Again in the words of Sully the hero. No dog in this fight. Both neutrals agreed that this award was done correctly and treated everyone fairly. Following the five tenets of the merger policy.
Could it be because the east whined about a single senile old man. And two pilots with a conflict of interest? They did not want another group of self important pilots storming Herndon because they did not get what they wanted.
Yes, are you complaining about that too?
If usapa loses this case this week it is not going to have anything to do with ALPA. This is all usapa babe. The usapa leadership set up the structure, they wrote the c&BL. The interpreted the C&BL, they manufactured a false DOH list and phony C&R. This was all Bradford, Cleary, Mowrey et al.
If usapa loses this what is going to be the excuse? Home advantage? Rigged jury? Better lawyers? Could it be that you the east pilots and the leadership of this union were and are wrong. Everyone in the world is telling you that you are wrong. Another couple hundred thousand dollars, two years and another court room is not going to change that.
Let me help you rephrase that.
80% of the FO's you flew with (not necessarily a cross-section applicable to all) expected to retire from the left seat. Nearly all of those will now have (some, drastically) reduced expectations due to the application of the "nic". To my knowledge, none will have increased expectations.
and, how would you ever know "how many aircraft arrived because of the merger"? You don't. Propping up the west operation has reduced expectations overall, therefore, without the west, there might have been increased chances for a CEO to fritter away more money than has happened, Shares changeover, "investing" in dubious securities, etc. :huh:
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,036
- 1,529
By the same logic, 80% of the West F/O's expected fly Captain in less than 10 years prior to the merger with USAirways. If the "Nic" is overturned, their expectations will be drastically reduced and none will have increased expectations.
I think, just has Parker has always maintained, East and West are propping each other up. You can't have one without the other.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #385
If you're going to "rephrase" it, at least keep it accurate. Those were FO's retiring from the right seat. Not a cross-section of the FO ranks, certainly, but since it was on the 737 - the junior plane in the fleet at the time although CLT wasn't the junior base - they were generally relatively junior active FO's or just wanted QOL by being based closer to home than more junior bases.
Take even the latest bid. Despite all these proclaimed "expections", where were the only retirements? FO's. The bid before that - 33% of retirements were FO's. Still want to claim that "every East FO will be a widebody captain well before retirement"?
Jim
Of course he is going to say he is right. Why would he invite lawsuits by even implying otherwise.
Talk about myopia.
One was UAL, a merger target, round 4 or 5 coming up soon. I never asked for a "fair" rendering. I did ask for one that has some logical congruence with the former CBA's merger policy.
No, they said that the "solution" they came up with was correct for the NWA/DAL merger, in their opinion. Extrapolating that to other environments reveals your lack of situational awareness.
See above. Trying to apply methodology from one situation to an entirely different one is simplistic to an extreme, i.e. both had widebodies, I imagine both groups were closer in age/"seniority" than even the Shuttle/US merger.
I don't know and certainly you do not know. If it was all about the "widebodies", then, why were there not protected FOs/IROs also? Should not all positions be protected?
You east folks need to pull your head out of the sand. The West operation(i.e. America West) now runs the whole operation. The east operation is the West's operation, and east expectations are far greater than they would have been sans merger.
I did not say that. You implied that 80% of all FOs you flew with expected to retire from the left seat. That is what I said. Nice try at redirection, though.
Of those you flew with, I imagine that some smaller percentage than 80% expected to retire from a wide-body left seat.
Now, with the "nic", many of those will not. I would also imagine that, with the "nic", nearly every one of those 80% will not retire from the seat/aircraft that they expected to before the "nic", as opposed to the west FO.
Due to the "nic", now, the east has almost universal reduced expectations, the west, enhanced expectations. Sounds sorta windfallish to me.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #389
So you're seriously saying that Nic produced a list that even he considered unfair but was then so afraid of lawsuits that he couldn't say anything. After producing the same type of relative list in the Shuttle merger (although that was the US position then). We've gone from myopia to tin foil hats there.
And that's what ALPA said you got - a solution that met ALPA merger policy. But they're also just players in your conspiracy, right? Although ALPA has the legal right to interpret their own C&B/L (and that's been tested in the courts), your judgment supercedes their's?
So you're admitting that relative seniority solutions can be fair? Nic said that the solution he came up with was correct for the HP/US merger, in his opinion. It seems that relative positon can be fair till you're affected, then it becomes unfair. That's gone beyond myopia to target fixation.
Oh, you imagine much more than that but that's gist for a thread all it's own.
You see, the closer the groups are in what you call age/"seniority" (really DOH) and airplane sizes in the respective fleets, the closer DOH and relative position are to being the same and equally fair. In the extreme case of two groups with identical makeup of age/"seniority" (DOH) and identical fleets there'd be no difference between merging by DOH or relative position.
The further the two groups are apart in age/"seniority" (DOH), the more the balance swings to relative position being more fair. In the DL/NW case, as close as they were, the arbitrators said that DOH wasn't as fair as relative seniority - even the relative small differences had swung the balance of fairness. In the Shuttle case, with the difference in fleets and age (the Shuttle group was generally older/more "senior", but their fleet had no widebodies), Nic said that relative position was more fair than DOH.
Perhaps you should actually read the award, then you'd know also. All widebody positions were protected - that's where the number 517 came from. What Nic didn't do, and what I've said was one of the things I'd do differently if I were the arbitrator, was protect the WB FO positions for FO's - meaning that only WB Captain positions would be protected for East Captains. NIC gave the protection for all the WB positions to East Captains (or those definitely senior enough to be Captains), meaning protection for more East Captains but no FO's.
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #390
No, what you said was
I didn't imply anything, I said that not every East pilot could expect the "left seat wide body well before retirement", then or even now.
I will apologize for one thing. I went back to your post that nic4us was responding to (I responded your post responding to his/her post responding to that post of yours). I had thought that you had said that every East pilot expected to fly left seat in the wide bodies well before retirement in that post, but you said "East pilot" (that's the post I quoted part of above). I haven't looked back to see if you ever said that about every East pilot, but I was wrong about the post I was thinking of, so I do apologize.
Jim
- Status
Similar threads
