US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/23- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[nic4us]

Fuzzy math

Well before the reports of the chewing out usapa is going to get in Wake's courtroom today flood the board, anybody got any specifics on the fuzzy math usapa is exploring in the redistribution of future profit sharing?

I hear the BPR has formed an all east ad hoc committe to explore the feasibility of stealing from the West under the guise of, get this, deserved pay parity.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[No Land Green]

Pick any pilot, east or west, at random and then calculate his/her seniority position (position # / total population) and then calculate his/her seniority position using the NIC (new position # / new integrated population). What is the delta between the two numbers? Unless you happen to pick a very senior AWA pilot, who lost more than most, chances are there is very little percentage difference between the old seniority position and the new seniority position - just as it should be. Using this unbiased metric I think you'll find that the average AAA pilot gained a smalll amount of seniority and the average AWA pilot lost a bit more seniority because of the top 517 WB protected positions.

Give it a shot and let us know the result of your efforts.

What was entirely missed in this arbitration by NIC and ALPA National was the historically and continuing cyclical nature of the airline industry. The seniority "snapshot" taken in 2005 is not an accurate reflection of what either airline was, is or will be doing. Both airlines have seen their ups and downs through furloughs, fleet expansion and retraction.

As pilots we don't buy or sell airplanes, open or close crew bases, hire or furlough pilots, that is a function of Management.


At the end of the day all of us have one thing in common, the day we were hired by our respective airlines. So when I look to the right side of my cockpit, in most cases, that person was hired after me.

If both airlines were identical in demographics, your post would hold water, but that is not the case and was totally ignored by Nic and ALPA National.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Fuzzy math

Nothing fuzzy about it. The east group may have fuzzy ethics, morality, and logical reasoning capacities, but math is the most objective measure for dealing with such a dispute. No rational person of sound mind would argue that 900/1800, 1600/3200 or 2500/5000 all equal up to 50%.If you are pilot who had roughly 50% of the population more senior to you and 50% less senior than you before the combined list, then that is where the new integrated seniority list approximately places you, with only a slight variance because of the top 517 protected WB positions and because there was not an exact 1:2 ratio between the sizes of the two groups. Otherwise, the NIC is mathematically perfect in terms of ensuring that each pilot retains the relative seniority position held prior to the integration (ie what each pilot brought to the merger).

 

[CallawayGolf]

What was entirely missed in this arbitration by NIC and ALPA National was the historically and continuing cyclical nature of the airline industry. The seniority "snapshot" taken in 2005 is not an accurate reflection of what either airline was, is or will be doing. Both airlines have seen their ups and downs through furloughs, fleet expansion and retraction.

As pilots we don't buy or sell airplanes, open or close crew bases, hire or furlough pilots, that is a function of Management.


At the end of the day all of us have one thing in common, the day we were hired by our respective airlines. So when I look to the right side of my cockpit, in most cases, that person was hired after me.

If both airlines were identical in demographics, your post would hold water, but that is not the case and was totally ignored by Nic and ALPA National.

So close. If you substitute seniority number for DOH as the one thing each pilot has in common or brought to the merger, then much of your post would be spot on.

What ALPA and Nicolau didn't miss, but you seem to have, is that using DOH would greatly disadvantage the west pilots who were holding their respective seats before the merger and who would subsequently lose their seats to a east pilot who was furloughed at the time of the merger. As much as the east pressed for this outcome it was never, ever going to happen because of a very important document called the Transition Agreement. That legal and enforceable agreement between the pilots of both former companies clearly defined a process for resolving the seniority integration issues. The process was followed to its full, final and binding conclusion. The resulting NIC award has been accepted and it will be in the next CBA unless another set of liberal, pro-union justices decides to pick winners based on political ideology rather than the objective rule of law.

 

[nic4us]

What was entirely missed in this arbitration by NIC and ALPA National was the historically and continuing cyclical nature of the airline industry. The seniority "snapshot" taken in 2005 is not an accurate reflection of what either airline was, is or will be doing. Both airlines have seen their ups and downs through furloughs, fleet expansion and retraction.

As pilots we don't buy or sell airplanes, open or close crew bases, hire or furlough pilots, that is a function of Management.


At the end of the day all of us have one thing in common, the day we were hired by our respective airlines. So when I look to the right side of my cockpit, in most cases, that person was hired after me.

If both airlines were identical in demographics, your post would hold water, but that is not the case and was totally ignored by Nic and ALPA National.

You got it backwards.

If both airlines were identical in demographics, it would be your post and position regarding a seniority integration that would hold water. As the two sides differed substantially, that is why DOH will not fly.

Further, we have much more in common than when we were hired by our respective airlines. For the purpose of a seniority integration between our companies, the date you were hired at your former employer is about as meaningful as when you got your first FAA medical.

 

[No Land Green]

Nothing fuzzy about it. The east group may have fuzzy ethics, morality, and logical reasoning capacities, but math is the most objective measure for dealing with such a dispute. No rational person of sound mind would argue that 900/1800, 1600/3200 or 2500/5000 all equal up to 50%.If you are pilot who had roughly 50% of the population more senior to you and 50% less senior than you before the combined list, then that is where the new integrated seniority list approximately places you, with only a slight variance because of the top 517 protected WB positions and because there was not an exact 1:2 ratio between the sizes of the two groups. Otherwise, the NIC is mathematically perfect in terms of ensuring that each pilot retains the relative seniority position held prior to the integration (ie what each pilot brought to the merger).

The East Pilots "brought" attrition, the Golden Egg, "to the merger". Just a small oversight by the West, Nic and ALPA. This "Golden Egg" is very important to the East and the West. If it were not, there would be no seniority argument going on right now. East attrition is the only reason why any furloughed pilot I have talked to has returned to US Airways. One guy told me he moved up 385 numbers between 2007 and 2008 after his return from furlough. The East, with the Age 60 Rule was going to lose at least one pilot a day from now on. Now we are 2 years and 2 months away from the Age 65 Rule, so the attrition will pick up again.

Since Kirby and Parker say that there will be no domestic growth at the combined airline and little International expansion over the next five years, it appears as if the East Attrition is very important to the West, even more so with the Nic Award.


Your math ratios are all numerically correct above only when you compare apples to apples, that is not the case in this merger.

 

[No Land Green]

So close. If you substitute seniority number for DOH as the one thing each pilot has in common or brought to the merger, then much of your post would be spot on.

What ALPA and Nicolau didn't miss, but you seem to have, is that using DOH would greatly disadvantage the west pilots who were holding their respective seats before the merger and who would subsequently lose their seats to a east pilot who was furloughed at the time of the merger. As much as the east pressed for this outcome it was never, ever going to happen because of a very important document called the Transition Agreement. That legal and enforceable agreement between the pilots of both former companies clearly defined a process for resolving the seniority integration issues. The process was followed to its full, final and binding conclusion. The resulting NIC award has been accepted and it will be in the next CBA unless another set of liberal, pro-union justices decides to pick winners based on political ideology rather than the objective rule of law.

Doesn't your AWA ALPA Working Agreement Section 22 say the words "date of hire" in determining seniority? There is no disadvantaging a West Pilot, it's called Conditions and Restrictions. The West's Final offer to Nic was to staple nearly 2500 (700+ active and 1600+ furloughed),East Pilots below your most junior pilot hired in April of 2005, putting him above an East Pilot hired in 1986? Who is getting greatly disadvantaged now?

Obviously "windfall" is in the eye of the beholder, no matter what side you are on.

 

[CallawayGolf]

The East Pilots "brought" attrition, the Golden Egg, "to the merger". Just a small oversight by the West, Nic and ALPA. This "Golden Egg" is very important to the East and the West. If it were not, there would be no seniority argument going on right now. East attrition is the only reason why any furloughed pilot I have talked to has returned to US Airways. One guy told me he moved up 385 numbers between 2007 and 2008 after his return from furlough. The East, with the Age 60 Rule was going to lose at least one pilot a day from now on. Now we are 2 years and 2 months away from the Age 65 Rule, so the attrition will pick up again.

Since Kirby and Parker say that there will be no domestic growth at the combined airline and little International expansion over the next five years, it appears as if the East Attrition is very important to the West, even more so with the Nic Award.


Your math ratios are all numerically correct above only when you compare apples to apples, that is not the case in this merger.

I'm not sure how a pilot brings someone else’s attrition to a merger, but for the sake of argument let's say that this "Golden Egg" was something that the East pilots could legitimately offer or protect during the integration process. If that was the case why didn't the East NC make a claim to that "asset" in the Transition Agreement? The answer is rather simple, it wasn’t an asset that the East pilots could negotiate with or for as it was only a future potentiality that was directly tied to the seniority integration process.

As we all know the East pilots went all in on DOH and having lost that pursuit they forfeited any other option that may have been proffered to take advantage of that Golden Egg. In the end, the arbitration was settled and awarded and no amount of reasoning or just plain whining will alter it now.

The irony is that even though the East went all in and lost DOH they still retained a very good seniority position with the NIC (exceedingly fair) and they will be afforded the benefit of two out of every three attrition vacancies to be filled by an east pilot (also exceedingly fair). The fact that so many east pilots are blinded to this is almost comical or perhaps pathetic is a better word for it.

 

[hp_fa]

Court Proceedings – 10/12/10 – before Judge Wake

Judge Wake heard two motions today. The first was the Addington plaintiffs Rule 60 ( b ) motion, which essentially asks the Court to find that the circumstances that led the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to find the case was not ripe are now significantly different due to the Declaratory Relief action filed by US Airways.

Andy Jacob, speaking for the Addington plaintiffs in this motion, argued that the circumstances had significantly changed and that the Court should entertain preserving the rulings and evidence of the prior trial in the name of judicial efficiency and as a way to save significant sums of money that would need to be spent if the Declaratory Relief action must move forward without existing evidence and rulings in place. Judge Wake expressed skepticism at this line of thinking and Jacob also said that the Court might consider holding the motion in abeyance until the Motion to Dismiss, filed by USAPA, is heard in the Declaratory Relief action. Judge Wake appeared to consider that point a little more than the previous point.

Nick Granath represented the USAPA defendants and argued that the plaintiffs motion failed to procedurally comply with the terms of rule 60 ( b ) and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion. It was discussed that the plaintiffs have the right to re-appeal Judge Wake’s decision if he rules against the Rule 60 (b ) motion because of the change in circumstances on the issue of ripeness now that the company has filed the Declaratory Relief action.

This was taken under advisement.

The Addington Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer the Declaratory Relief action from Judge Silver to Judge Wake was argued by Marty Harper. Basically he argued that Judge Wake had extensive knowledge of this somewhat complex case and having him hear it would further judicial economy since the Judge was already aware on many of the intricacies of the facts.
USAPA attorney Nick Granath stepped right into a minefield when he repeatedly suggested that a new case required a new, randomly assigned, judge in order to be fair to USAPA. He claimed that USAPA felt it could not get a fair trial from Judge Wake in light of his prior rulings in the Addington trial. That started fireworks.

Judge Wake repeatedly informed Mr. Granath that it is an obligation of a judge to decide whether he/she has a bias or animus toward any party and, if so, must recuse himself. He again asked Mr. Grannath if he felt USAPA could not get a fair trial in front of him and Granath repeated the same lines, at which point Judge Wake demanded particulars on how or why USAPA felt he was biased and/or could not conduct a fair trial in the Declaratory Relief action. Granath sputtered a bit and then Judge Wake started reading particular items that had been in the written briefs and asking Granath if those individual rulings against USAPA rose to the level of a prejudice against USAPA.

Continuing this argument Judge Wake asked Granath if a judge receives a case back from an appellate court and is ordered to hold a new trial does that judge have to recuse himself? The answer is clearly no, that the judge simply has to consider some other things when ruling during the new trial. Judge Wake then went on and discussed many of his significant rulings in favor of USAPA and asked where was there any prejudice to USAPA when that many rulings went in USAPA’s favor. He made it a point to say that judges make rulings all the time and that doesn not cause them to be biased or prejudiced simply by ruling against a party.

Judge Wake was clearly annoyed at the insinuations and was clearly making a record of this proceeding to substantiate any ruling he might make in connection with the Motion to Transfer so that if he decides to leave the issue with Judge Silver she will have the opportunity to review the transcript of the Motion to Transfer and see what it was that USAPA’s attorney was advocating.

This matter was taken under advisement.

BTW, USAPA had three attorneys in court today.

 

[No Land Green]

I'm not sure how a pilot brings someone else’s attrition to a merger, but for the sake of argument let's say that this "Golden Egg" was something that the East pilots could legitimately offer or protect during the integration process. If that was the case why didn't the East NC make a claim to that "asset" in the Transition Agreement? The answer is rather simple, it wasn’t an asset that the East pilots could negotiate with or for as it was only a future potentiality that was directly tied to the seniority integration process.

As we all know the East pilots went all in on DOH and having lost that pursuit they forfeited any other option that may have been proffered to take advantage of that Golden Egg. In the end, the arbitration was settled and awarded and no amount of reasoning or just plain whining will alter it now.

The irony is that even though the East went all in and lost DOH they still retained a very good seniority position with the NIC (exceedingly fair) and they will be afforded the benefit of two out of every three attrition vacancies to be filled by an east pilot (also exceedingly fair). The fact that so many east pilots are blinded to this is almost comical or perhaps pathetic is a better word for it.

If you are "not sure how a pilot brings someone else's attrition to a merger" just agree to a 10 year fence with the East and you will figure it out.

Don't for get the West went "all in on stapling" nearly 2500 East Pilots. Nic is fair is comparing apples to apples, again not the case here.

 

[CallawayGolf]

If you are "not sure how a pilot brings someone else's attrition to a merger" just agree to a 10 year fence with the East and you will figure it out.

Don't for get the West went "all in on stapling" nearly 2500 East Pilots. Nic is fair is comparing apples to apples, again not the case here.

You and I cannot negotiate a new seniority system. No one can. The reality is that USAPA and the east pilots either accept the NIC and negotiate in good faith for a JCBA or the NIC and whatever the NMB determines you will be paid will be forced upon all pilots. I guess that is the East MO - wait for someone else to force their will on you rather than taking steps to ensure that you have some say in what happens to your career and paycheck.

In bringing up the West's position you are simply reinforcing the fact that Nicolau issued a well-reasoned, fair and balanced approach to the seniority integration. The way you guys act you would think he gave the West everyhting they asked for and even more just to make the East miserable. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[No Land Green]

You and I cannot negotiate a new seniority system. No one can. The reality is that USAPA and the east pilots either accept the NIC and negotiate in good faith for a JCBA or the NIC and whatever the NMB determines you will be paid will be forced upon all pilots. I guess that is the East MO - wait for someone else to force their will on you rather than taking steps to ensure that you have some say in what happens to your career and paycheck.

In bringing up the West's position you are simply reinforcing the fact that Nicolau issued a well-reasoned, fair and balanced approach to the seniority integration. The way you guys act you would think he gave the West everyhting they asked for and even more just to make the East miserable. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth.

Calloway, let's just agree to disagree.

You do raise another issue above, regarding CBA negotiations. Let's just leave Section 22 out of this for now. Do you really believe that Parker wants a Joint CBA with the Pilot Group ASAP?

I watch both the West and East Crew News Videos. Frankly, I don't believe the Company is in any hurry to get a joint agreement unless the West wants to come down to LOA 93. Both Kirby and Parker talk out of both sides of their mouths. At the end of the day, I think they are being applauded by their MBA Peers for taking full advantage of this situation. At any rate, we will soon find out where the Company really stands when the declatory issue is resolved.

Me really thinks with a UNIFIED East and West Pilot Group, the party will be over on the ninth floor in Tempe........Is that the right floor or the roof??

 

[CallawayGolf]

Calloway, let's just agree to disagree.

You do raise another issue above, regarding CBA negotiations. Let's just leave Section 22 out of this for now. Do you really believe that Parker wants a Joint CBA with the Pilot Group ASAP?

I watch both the West and East Crew News Videos. Frankly, I don't believe the Company is in any hurry to get a joint agreement unless the West wants to come down to LOA 93. Both Kirby and Parker talk out of both sides of their mouths. At the end of the day, I think they are being applauded by their MBA Peers for taking full advantage of this situation. At any rate, we will soon find out where the Company really stands when the declatory issue is resolved.

Me really thinks with a UNIFIED East and West Pilot Group, the party will be over on the ninth floor in Tempe........Is that the right floor or the roof??

Agreeing to disagree is how most issues get resolved on this board so I'm good with that.

I do think Parker and the rest want a JCBA but they aren't going to give it away for free. USAPA has to provide fresh motivation for them to accept more than the Kirby proposal. I don't believe USAPA is capable of or willing to negotiate in good faith lest their house of cards come crashing down. I would estimate the probability of this being resolved by the NMB to be about 95%. If it does, the pilots will not get what they have waited the better part of a decade to achieve because USAPA will get eaten alive in that forum. No matter how you slice it Parker wins unless USAPA creates true unity and negotiating leverage which cannot happen if they are only interested in a "delay forever" strategy.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One guy told me he moved up 385 numbers between 2007 and 2008 after his return from furlough.

That may be, but how much of that gain was due to his fellow furloughees not returning, retiring while on furlough, retirement from medical leave, etc? All of which didn't get him any closer to a captain or widebody job. It's no wonder why East pilots love to throw out numbers for total attrition, ignoring the smaller amount of attrition that will create upward movement.

Jim

 

[PullUp]

Agreeing to disagree is how most issues get resolved on this board so I'm good with that.

I do think Parker and the rest want a JCBA but they aren't going to give it away for free. USAPA has to provide fresh motivation for them to accept more than the Kirby proposal. I don't believe USAPA is capable of or willing to negotiate in good faith lest their house of cards come crashing down. I would estimate the probability of this being resolved by the NMB to be about 95%. If it does, the pilots will not get what they have waited the better part of a decade to achieve because USAPA will get eaten alive in that forum. No matter how you slice it Parker wins unless USAPA creates true unity and negotiating leverage which cannot happen if they are only interested in a "delay forever" strategy.

Someone has their 'reverso-look' goggles on. Really - Douggie and Scooter are saving $200 million/year by dragging this thing out. Their 'just say no' negotiating style tells the tale. Why would they want a new contract? Right, there is no plausible reason. OTOH, USAPA members want a new and improved contract - and if Cleary et al weren't meeting negotiating expectations, they would be tossed out. The only party interested in 'delay forever' is the company.