August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cactusboy53]

Walmartgreeter, on 05 June 2013 - 02:25 PM, said: To my knowledge, you have never answered my question: If in the next merger process you (with 17 years) are put behind a new hire, would you simply accept the result or fight it? This is a simple yes or no question.



Incedible! Absolutely amazing! 😉 Seriously; I must ask through what malfunctioning mental mechanism you completely missed this part,"This is a simple yes or no question", and were instead, actually able to offer up that entire barnyard full of complete BS? 🙂

Can't read East? The first word was YES. I simply offered my ideology behind my "simple YES". Read it and then spin the ground for all I care.

 

[Phoenix]

Walmartgreeter, on 05 June 2013 - 02:25 PM, said: To my knowledge, you have never answered my question: If in the next merger process you (with 17 years) are put behind a new hire, would you simply accept the result or fight it? This is a simple yes or no question.



Incedible! Absolutely amazing! 😉 Seriously; I must ask through what malfunctioning mental mechanism you completely missed this part,"This is a simple yes or no question", and were instead, actually able to offer up that entire barnyard full of complete BS? 🙂

You no-integrity, majority, democratically minded meanie you!

 

[cleardirect]

So snap, since your are here would you answer my question? Can't get a straight answer from anyone else.

If in 2007 Nicolau stapled your guys, would you have voted yes for the Kirby, or voted no and just used the psuedo veto power of the TA?

First off why would an arbitrator staple the west? Would that have been fair and equitable?

DOH is essentially a staple for the west.

But to answer your question final and binding is final and binding. While the west would not have liked it we would have had to accept it and moved on. Voting no would have done what? Left us on low wages and separate ops. Was continuing to vote no going to change that?

No. Accept the seniority list, get to a contract and move forward.

Unlike you eastie go back on your word try and change the rules because you don't like them and delay any benefit for as long s you can.

Certainly glad the APA is smarter than you easties.

 

[cleardirect]

As was the liquidation of the east. The dispatchers arbitration came up with a completely different conclusion than Nicolau.

Incorrect.

In the dispatchers case the west dispatchers were going to get a big raise and better contract. That is the reason the east dispatchers got DOH.

In the case of the pilots the east pilots got a big raise and better contract. Thus not DOH.

 

[cleardirect]

You would have to ask each individual east pilot why they voted they way the did. One big reason I was given for voting for USAPA was that they had no faith that ALPA would let the TA play out, that they would put the east MEC in trusteeship and ram something down our throats. When they did that to PHL it pretty much sealed the deal.

I have no idea what the east would have done if the situation was reversed. They may have been as stupid as the west.

Why did ALPA put PHL into trusteeship?

Because they were violating the rules. You do understand there are consequence to violating the rules right?

Why would ALPA look to put the east MEC into trusteeship? Same reason. Unlike you eastie people don't just do things to punish people.

 

[cleardirect]

To my knowledge, you have never answered my question: If in the next merger process you (with 17 years) are put behind a new hire, would you simply accept the result or fight it? This is a simple yes or no question. And again, would you just turn to your family and say too bad, we just have to suck it up?

And why is your opinion protected by a "right" and mine (according to some) only due to a lack of integrity?

Must be a slow meeting, since you have time to post here and do the business of the BPR. Unless you gave a proxy.

Greeter

And if a rouge union tries to dictate that a furloughed pilot is placed senior to a captain. I assume you would also. Find it acceptable to fight that unjust situation correct?

 

[crazystnic]

Under the NIC every east pilot would be able to retain the same position and status held at the time of the merger and in order to achieve pay parity the east would gain wage improvements in a JCBA at a significant advantage compared to any wage improvements for the west. The west also would be able to retain the same position held prior to the merger. However the west position on the combined list was generally at a lower percentile than what they held prior to the SLI, and the west would see only a small percentage of the total wage increases in a JCBA when the east had sizable gains by comparison. Where can you find a windfall for the west in that?

the problem has been three things.

1 The guys with 17 year of uninterupted service going behind a new Hire west guy.
2. The guy who was going to retire in the top 100 now retiring between 500-600.
3. The attrition that that was over 2/3 EAST is now going to the west first under NIC. (so the east gets punished)

 

[Pi brat]

First off why would an arbitrator staple the west? Would that have been fair and equitable?

DOH is essentially a staple for the west.

But to answer your question final and binding is final and binding. While the west would not have liked it we would have had to accept it and moved on. Voting no would have done what? Left us on low wages and separate ops. Was continuing to vote no going to change that?

No. Accept the seniority list, get to a contract and move forward.

Unlike you eastie go back on your word try and change the rules because you don't like them and delay any benefit for as long s you can.

Certainly glad the APA is smarter than you easties.

So you would have taken whatever Scott and Doug gave you, even if it was a small raise and gutted your upward progress. Okay. I don't think most would have. Thanks for answering.

 

[Pi brat]

No it doesn't.

What was our most likely career opportunity without the merger?

I say it was liquidation.

What was the west's? You think they would have continued their 7 year upgrades, acquired A330s and start a trans-Atlantic division?

This doesn't seem to indicate that:

http://www.getfilings.com/o0000950153-05-000517.html

 

[EastUS1]

Are you suggesting AWA was still in the start up phase of its business life cycle?

Sure I've not only heard of them, I see evidence of them on each pay check. They go by the names of Social Security, Medicare, FUTA, SUTA and the like.

Neg. Just sayin' that the 7 year upgrade era was just that = an era, a cycle, and inherently not sustainable, thus; nothing to base any lifetime premise of universal seniority on. Per: "Social Security, Medicare,", et al being Ponzi schemes? We couldn't possibly be in more complete agreement!

 

[EastUS1]

Can't read East?...... I simply offered my ideology behind my "simple YES".

Oh, I made it through the entire bowl of tripe, I assure you. Perhaps, by your assuming otherwise; you missed the portion wherein that literally unbelievable "ideology" was addressed? = " that entire barnyard full of complete BS"...? 🙂

 

[Pi brat]

The west stand alone was seeing upgrades in seven years according to other posters on the forum. When, by your calculations would the junior west pilots have upgraded had the NIC been implemented in mid-2007? Was it 1,3 or 5 years? That doesn't meet the definition of a windfall which requires the gain to be sudden and unexpected. Now if you want to talk about east fuloughees being senior to west captains overnight, then you certainly would be talking about a classic definition of a windfall.

Past performance is not an accurate predictor of future returns. When I was hired the F-28 captain was running 2 1/2 years, Boeing 3. It took me 5 to F-28(while Captain Gay was in the right seat of a B1900) and 12 to a Boeing(Where I was when those ahead of me on the Nic were hired at AWA). SWA never had more than 5 years to captain....for a long time, but not now. Read that 10-k I posted for trader and see if that bodes well for continued 7 year upgrades. Parker directly told one of your whiners that absent this merger his career would be much worse.

The fact that every single west pilot that was employed on 5/18/2005 is now in the seniority range(on the Nic) that can hold group 2 captain is powerful evidence of a windfall.

 

[CallawayGolf]

the problem has been three things.

1 The guys with 17 year of uninterupted service going behind a new Hire west guy.
2. The guy who was going to retire in the top 100 now retiring between 500-600.
3. The attrition that that was over 2/3 EAST is now going to the west first under NIC. (so the east gets punished)

1. It was a seniority integration not a DOH/LOS integration. If a guy with 17 years from DOH is junior on a seprarate list then he would rightfully be just as junior on the combined list. Actually with the top 517 slots going the vast majority of east pilots in the middle and the top of the lists gain in relative position compared to their original relative position and in comparison to a west pilot in a similar quartile on his own separate list.

2. Perhaps and perhaps not. The future is very hard to predict if your not God existing outside of time. Lots of circumstances could come in and mess with that paradigm, like say liquidation or a further contraction of operations just as the east had been doing for years before 2005.

3. Attrition was never guaranteed. Again liquidation would change that expectation just like the merger changed the west pilots' expectations about their futures. Just like a merger with American will change expectations again. When you get to a certain status you can claim you have attained something. If you never attain that status then wishing and hoping for different circumstances doesn't change status one iota.

The arbitration panel looked at all this and produced a fair and binding award that did what the pilots refused to do without assistance, namely work out the disparities and competing demands from the groups and produce a single and enforceable list that met the conditions of the TA and ALPA merger policy. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Past performance is not an accurate predictor of future returns. When I was hired the F-28 captain was running 2 1/2 years, Boeing 3. It took me 5 to F-28(while Captain Gay was in the right seat of a B1900) and 12 to a Boeing(Where I was when those ahead of me on the Nic were hired at AWA). SWA never had more than 5 years to captain....for a long time, but not now. Read that 10-k I posted for trader and see if that bodes well for continued 7 year upgrades. Parker directly told one of your whiners that absent this merger his career would be much worse.

The fact that every single west pilot that was employed on 5/18/2005 is now in the seniority range(on the Nic) that can hold group 2 captain is powerful evidence of a windfall.

Exactly. You can't accurately predict the future and the past is mostly irrelevant to current events which is why Nicolau discounted most of the arguments advanced by both the east and west pilot groups that hung on events of the past or predictions of the future. He took two separate lists as the existed when the dispute began and combined them in a very comprehensible fashion based on equipment and the relative populations sizes of each group. That produced a protected 517 east positions and a 2:1 sloting of the NB positions leaving those who were not working for the ML at the time behind anyone who was for was employed by the either of the separate entities. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Pi brat]

I forgot to add this CG. Neither US ALPA's proposal nor USAPA's proposal was to have furloughed pilots immediately step into others seats.