I heard the opposite from someone who flew with him. Bought a house in DC and very happy east.
August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
I heard the opposite from someone who flew with him. Bought a house in DC and very happy east.
But we didn't liquidate and Pan Am did! Parker saw the value in us and took chp 7 off the table for us and chp 11 off the table for AWA. From there on out we should have been judged for what we brought to the table.
Would it interest you to know that the guy that I am 99.99% sure authors those posts in 2005 told me on the phone that he didn't think US would have liquidated? That another carrier would have come out of the woodwork to keep others from getting the valuable parts?
Do you consider yourself a charity case? Do you think Parker merged with US out of charity? Do you not see any value in the company you worked for?
I really don't get you, but you are entitled to your opinion.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
So you admit that Chapter 7 was on the table for us?
The company we worked for had very little value without the merger.
We were judged on our career expectations the day before the merger.
I'm not a charity case, I don't think it's right to renege on a mutually agreed upon arbitration process just because you don't think you got enough from the arbitrator.
That's lying and stealing in my book.
Taken from the arbitrators' award in UAL/CAL:
"Regrettably but inevitably, there will be perceived disparities and mismatches by individuals on both sides under the merged list. George Nicolau's four basic verities of ISL arbitration are as apt and vital today as they were nearly a quarter of a century ago: each case turns on its own facts; the objective is to make the integration fair and equitable; the proposals advanced by those in contest rarely meet that standard; and the end result, no matter how crafted, never commands universal acceptance."
Also taken from the ual cal award.
They wrote in fork pen.
"V. ANALYSIS
A. THE APRIL 2009 REVISED ALPA MERGER POLICY
The “legal” frame work in which the Board must carry out its responsibility is, of course, the April 2009ALPA Merger Policy which, like its predecessors, requires the Board to construct a “fair and equitable” ISL. The evolution of ALPA Merger Policy including, most importantly, the modifications following George Nicolau’s Award in the America West-US Airway case, is central to the resolution of this case. "
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
George Nicolau's four basic verities of ISL arbitration are as apt and vital today as they were nearly a quarter of a century ago: each case turns on its own facts...
After the nicolau award, the case turns on its own facts in court now.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
As it should.
Guess what? I completely, 100% agree with you on the premise of one of you points, but it didn't work out that way. We SHOULD have been judged on our career expectation the day before the merger was announced. We were not in Chp 7 on that date and it is unknown whether we ever would have been. Good chance? Yes, but in this business you never know. 6 months out is long term planning. This AA merger doesn't go through, we might be looking at it again one day. It does go through and the Middle East explodes and we may be looking at it sooner. You just never know what will happen so you have to take you have at the moment and at the moment we were an operating airline. Nicolau should have said "Okay, the merger saved both companies so that is off the table. Now what did they bring and how would their careers progress with what they had as an operating airline........"
The fact that Parker merged with us shows the value of US to AWA. We lived it, we know what it did! Didn't it pay off AWA's ATSB loan? Didn't it put Parker in the position to run the largest airline in the world? Hasn't it produced profits multiple times what AWA ever produced?
There is difference in believing Nicolau got the award wrong and the actions afterward, but no one seems to separate the two.
It did. Selective facts are not working so well with you or the west.
"Pursuant to the Court’s resolution of the motions for summary judgment,
IT IS ORDERED Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is
entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline
Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose. This judgment is binding on the following class: “All pilots employed by US Airways in September 2008 who were on the America West seniority list on September 20, 2005.”
DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.
Judge Silver
Can you only imagine the AMR HR folks reading things like this fully realizing they successfully weeded this applicant out years ago, and maybe he is coming back through the back door by way of a merger?
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
From CAL's MEC Chairman, September 6th:
FROM THE CHAIRMAN
There is really not much sense in talking about much this week except the integrated seniority list. I realize that the easy thing for me to do would be to write a few hundred words denigrating the list that came out and stating how unfair it is to our pilots. As most of you know, it is not my style to take the easy road. So, what I am about to say may not be popular in some circles. It is, however, my truthful opinion, and you can give it as much weight as you think that warrants.
I want to start by addressing the criticisms from pilots who felt I should not have written a joint letter with Capt. Heppner to our pilots Tuesday evening, and that I specifically should not have said that all parties agreed that the process used to come to an ISL was “fair and equitable.” Well, the truth is that both MECs did agree on a process that was considered to be fair and equitable, and that process was followed. To take that a step further, throughout the preparation of our SLI case and the presentations at the arbitration hearings, after all the transcripts and evidence were made available for everyone to review (up to and including the moment before the ISL was received), not once did I receive a single email, phone call or have any in-person conversations with anyone who felt the process was flawed. Only after the product of the process was received (the ISL) did some want to question the process. To blame the process now only looks like sour grapes. The fact is that even a good process can produce a bad result.
That brings us to the real issue. For those that want my opinion, I think that the arbitrators got this one wrong. For whatever reason, they issued an ISL that I do not think is either fair or equitable to a large number of legacy Continental (L-CAL) pilots. I believe the award is overly aggressive in defending their decision to accept the UAL proposal and is in many instances, poorly written, factually inaccurate and contradictory. I think the panel clearly ignored any reasonable middle ground. The problem is that while I personally consider it to be a bad outcome, and many of my fellow L-CAL pilots might think the ISL is unfair and inequitable, that does not mean that it is. Fair and equitable are relative and subjective standards that each of us defines differently. So, while a good many L-CAL pilots may view the resulting ISL negatively or very negatively, there are most likely a greater number of L-UAL pilots who are just fine with the outcome. There are also likely L-UAL pilots who are unhappy with the ISL for entirely different reasons. The fact is that we ceded the right to determine what is fair and what is equitable to a panel of arbitrators and now we must live with it.
That brings us to the question of what comes next. The Award and integrated seniority list were accepted by the ALPA President and sent to the Company. ALPA has accepted the list and is required to defend it. The Company accepted the Award and list and has said they will implement it as quickly as possible. For those of you who have asked if there is anything that can be done to delay or stop its acceptance or implementation, the answer is flatly – no. It is our seniority list now. That being said, there are still questions being raised and issues to resolve. Apparently, even the emboldened UAL Merger Committee seems to agree that the award is factually challenged (at least in part), in that yesterday they filed a request that the arbitrators reconsider the fence provision for the B-787 based on what they claim are factual issues relied upon by the arbitrators. They are suggesting that the panel take back one of the few things in the award that we feel they actually got right — the B-787 fence. Of course, in the coming days, our Merger Committee will supply the arbitrators with all of the factual inaccuracies we have discovered and we will see where all this goes. In the meantime, however, we will have to abide by it.
Even though there is widespread disappointment among the L-CAL pilot group in the Award and list, we must, just as ALPA and the Company have, accept that the ISL is now our seniority list. It is my belief that the sooner we all come to this recognition, the better. We are now a single pilot group and nothing good will come from lamenting the outcome or placing blame on other pilots. I have talked to literally hundreds of pilots over the last few days that are angry to varying degrees at some or all of the following: me, ALPA, the CAL MEC, the UAL MEC and/or the arbitration panel. While I understand these feelings, I ask that you do whatever you must to begin to move on. Please remain professional, keep your personal feelings out of the cockpit and do not bring your anger to work.
Looking to the near term, your MEC will soon be concluding its business and a new single MEC will be formed to represent all United Airlines pilots. Until that occurs, we are still working a number of open issues and addressing new ones. We are pressing for release of the final tranche of the lump sum payment for our pilots. I expect to have more information about this topic in the coming days. Final briefs were submitted in the grievance related to the B-757 crew rest seat and the issue is now awaiting resolution from the arbitrator. The newest issue being addressed is an attempt by the UAL MEC to change the priority for jumpseating from a seniority-based system to one based on date of hire. They have also suggested that the Company maintain the cross metal restrictions that limit access to aircraft based on which legacy carrier a pilot is from. We believe that, now that we have a single seniority list, such restrictions serve no purpose and access to the every UAL jumpseat should be based on seniority and the captain’s approval. Prior to the UAL MEC’s efforts, the Company committed to maintaining our longstanding prioritizing access to the jumpseat based on seniority and to remove the cross metal restrictions in place. We have advised them that we expect them to honor their commitment to do just that. Until that occurs, we are still using the same system that has been in place for determining jumpseating priority. If any question arises, the captain is the final authority regarding who rides in the jumpseat.
In the next few weeks, we will hold our last MEC meeting as the CAL MEC. I ask that you not look at the CAL MEC through eyes clouded by the results of the new seniority list. I have been the chairman of the MEC since 2008 and have had the pleasure to serve with more than 35 elected representatives and hundreds of volunteers over the years. While I have not always agreed with every rep on every issue, I can without reservation say that we all have tried to be good advocates for our pilots. Some battles we have won, some we have lost and a good number fall somewhere in between. Up to and including the last minute that we serve our fellow pilots as the CAL MEC, officers and committee volunteers, we will continue to do our best on your behalf.
One Union, One Voice
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
FROM THE CHAIRMAN
There is really not much sense in talking about much this week except the integrated seniority list. I realize that the easy thing for me to do would be to write a few hundred words denigrating the list that came out and stating how unfair it is to our pilots. As most of you know, it is not my style to take the easy road. So, what I am about to say may not be popular in some circles. It is, however, my truthful opinion, and you can give it as much weight as you think that warrants.
I want to start by addressing the criticisms from pilots who felt I should not have written a joint letter with Capt. Heppner to our pilots Tuesday evening, and that I specifically should not have said that all parties agreed that the process used to come to an ISL was “fair and equitable.” Well, the truth is that both MECs did agree on a process that was considered to be fair and equitable, and that process was followed. To take that a step further, throughout the preparation of our SLI case and the presentations at the arbitration hearings, after all the transcripts and evidence were made available for everyone to review (up to and including the moment before the ISL was received), not once did I receive a single email, phone call or have any in-person conversations with anyone who felt the process was flawed. Only after the product of the process was received (the ISL) did some want to question the process. To blame the process now only looks like sour grapes. The fact is that even a good process can produce a bad result.
That brings us to the real issue. For those that want my opinion, I think that the arbitrators got this one wrong. For whatever reason, they issued an ISL that I do not think is either fair or equitable to a large number of legacy Continental (L-CAL) pilots. I believe the award is overly aggressive in defending their decision to accept the UAL proposal and is in many instances, poorly written, factually inaccurate and contradictory. I think the panel clearly ignored any reasonable middle ground. The problem is that while I personally consider it to be a bad outcome, and many of my fellow L-CAL pilots might think the ISL is unfair and inequitable, that does not mean that it is. Fair and equitable are relative and subjective standards that each of us defines differently. So, while a good many L-CAL pilots may view the resulting ISL negatively or very negatively, there are most likely a greater number of L-UAL pilots who are just fine with the outcome. There are also likely L-UAL pilots who are unhappy with the ISL for entirely different reasons. The fact is that we ceded the right to determine what is fair and what is equitable to a panel of arbitrators and now we must live with it.
That brings us to the question of what comes next. The Award and integrated seniority list were accepted by the ALPA President and sent to the Company. ALPA has accepted the list and is required to defend it. The Company accepted the Award and list and has said they will implement it as quickly as possible. For those of you who have asked if there is anything that can be done to delay or stop its acceptance or implementation, the answer is flatly – no. It is our seniority list now. That being said, there are still questions being raised and issues to resolve. Apparently, even the emboldened UAL Merger Committee seems to agree that the award is factually challenged (at least in part), in that yesterday they filed a request that the arbitrators reconsider the fence provision for the B-787 based on what they claim are factual issues relied upon by the arbitrators. They are suggesting that the panel take back one of the few things in the award that we feel they actually got right — the B-787 fence. Of course, in the coming days, our Merger Committee will supply the arbitrators with all of the factual inaccuracies we have discovered and we will see where all this goes. In the meantime, however, we will have to abide by it.
Even though there is widespread disappointment among the L-CAL pilot group in the Award and list, we must, just as ALPA and the Company have, accept that the ISL is now our seniority list. It is my belief that the sooner we all come to this recognition, the better. We are now a single pilot group and nothing good will come from lamenting the outcome or placing blame on other pilots. I have talked to literally hundreds of pilots over the last few days that are angry to varying degrees at some or all of the following: me, ALPA, the CAL MEC, the UAL MEC and/or the arbitration panel. While I understand these feelings, I ask that you do whatever you must to begin to move on. Please remain professional, keep your personal feelings out of the cockpit and do not bring your anger to work.
Looking to the near term, your MEC will soon be concluding its business and a new single MEC will be formed to represent all United Airlines pilots. Until that occurs, we are still working a number of open issues and addressing new ones. We are pressing for release of the final tranche of the lump sum payment for our pilots. I expect to have more information about this topic in the coming days. Final briefs were submitted in the grievance related to the B-757 crew rest seat and the issue is now awaiting resolution from the arbitrator. The newest issue being addressed is an attempt by the UAL MEC to change the priority for jumpseating from a seniority-based system to one based on date of hire. They have also suggested that the Company maintain the cross metal restrictions that limit access to aircraft based on which legacy carrier a pilot is from. We believe that, now that we have a single seniority list, such restrictions serve no purpose and access to the every UAL jumpseat should be based on seniority and the captain’s approval. Prior to the UAL MEC’s efforts, the Company committed to maintaining our longstanding prioritizing access to the jumpseat based on seniority and to remove the cross metal restrictions in place. We have advised them that we expect them to honor their commitment to do just that. Until that occurs, we are still using the same system that has been in place for determining jumpseating priority. If any question arises, the captain is the final authority regarding who rides in the jumpseat.
In the next few weeks, we will hold our last MEC meeting as the CAL MEC. I ask that you not look at the CAL MEC through eyes clouded by the results of the new seniority list. I have been the chairman of the MEC since 2008 and have had the pleasure to serve with more than 35 elected representatives and hundreds of volunteers over the years. While I have not always agreed with every rep on every issue, I can without reservation say that we all have tried to be good advocates for our pilots. Some battles we have won, some we have lost and a good number fall somewhere in between. Up to and including the last minute that we serve our fellow pilots as the CAL MEC, officers and committee volunteers, we will continue to do our best on your behalf.
One Union, One Voice
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
Harper must be skeeved out, but still pockets their monies.
I've never begun to even imagine amassing the arrogance required to ever presume on God's Will, but now must realize that we're facing the true, Chosen People of The Lord...? Wow! "spartans", "knights", "dire wolves" and even "Larry Potta" were bad enough in the way of delusional issues...but truly; words just fail me here. I guess, for the sake of my very soul now; I'd better start daily prayers to St. Nic, who, in your estimation, must clearly be God's Messenger on earth...? Whew!
PS: "by a partial and neutral professional."...? I must assume you meant "impartial", rather than "partial", but were hampered in expression by the blinding, divine light that was bathing and surrounding you as you typed? 😉
He's right, they do have to live with it. Under our TA we didn't, whether you agree with the method or not, that's a fact.
- Status
