August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Pi brat]

If we would have asked for an award like that instead of saying "We're comfortabe with our position" we might have gotten an award like that.

We told Nicolau: You do it with no input from us.

Do you disagree?

We might have, I really don't know. But, if you look at how arbitration go it seems that both parties go into it with their best case figuring the arbitrator will split the baby. The west did, they proposed stapling around 900 active pilots to the bottom and Nicolau said they didn't really change their proposal much either. We'd already shown we couldn't agree and after that it was up to Nic. I think he missed the mark.

 

[Pi brat]

But you will die on LOA93. Just so you understand the consequences...

I've always understood the consequences. The 10 year west F/O that I had on my jumpseat a while back that is still on reserve at about $90 an hour may not have.

We never know when the reaper comes, so I may die on LOA 93. But, if I make to to the average US male life expectancy I don't imagine that I will. We aren't all over 60 you know.

 

[traderjake]

But, if you look at how arbitration go it seems that both parties go into it with their best case figuring the arbitrator will split the baby.

Not true, our MC was forced to adopt a DOH position under threat of being removed by the MEC.

Two of the three member admitted to me that this was not a good strategy.

 

[Pi brat]

Okay PI, I read through the East MEC presentation. Despite the numerous claims that the NIC constitutes a windfall to the west, their argument is self-defeating. As I have pointed out multiple times, the definition of a windfall is a sudden and unexpected financial gain that comes without merit. Now the definition of sudden is:

sud·den
[suhd-n]

adjective
1.
happening, coming, made, or done quickly, without warning, or unexpectedly: a sudden attack.
2.
occurring without transition from the previous form, state, etc.; abrupt: a sudden turn.

So, lets begin with the charts presented before the argument even begins. First off, in my opinion, these charts should have been presented with four colors to represent the four distinct groups identified in the award itself. Of course those four groups are:
1. Active east pilots at the time of the merger
2. Active west pilots at the time of the merger
3. Furloughed east pilots at the time of the merger
4. LCC pilots hired after the merger and SLI list award

There is an obvious east, anti-NIC bias presence in the charts when all four groups are not represented separately. Any attempting to evaluate the east MEC's claim with an independent and unbiased vantage point would need to know how many of the blue data points were active east, furloughed east and new hire in order to evaluate the effect of the NIC integration with the orange data points. Also, it would be very useful to see the same data presented on a date-of-hire basis or whatever the east MEC was advocating as a "fair" resolution to the NIC.

Still using the graphs as they were presented, there is nothing to indicate a windfall (sudden, unexpected). Look again at the first graph with this definition in mind. Notice how the blue dominates the 2 2/3 rows and then the orange data points are shown in a well spread pattern intermixed with the blue data points for the next 20+ rows which we can only presume represents the total of the active pilots at the time of the merger. So the merger occurred in 2005 and by 2007 there is no sudden and unexpected windfall two years after the triggering event.

The next chart shows 2011 data which we can presume should be 2016 data now based on the age 65 rule change, which is between four and nine years after the merger and there is still no strong concentration of orange data points that indicate anything significant happened between 2007 and 2011 (2016) other than the top rows which were originally all blue are disappearing. The nicely patterned data spread that was shown in rows 3-22 (or so) of the 2007 chart is effectively identical six to eleven years later even with anticipated movement off the list of blue data points at the top. The spread seems to tighten a bit by the 2015/2020 mark, but without all four groups of pilots represented the analysis is no longer valid just by looking a two colors of data points. So, how does data which shows a fairly even spread of active east and west pilots holding their positions equally for 6, 10, or 20 years AFTER the merger in any way show a windfall that is sudden and unexpected? The "windfall", if it were a reality at all, would not begin until 2019/2024 some thirteen to nineteen years after the triggering event? Sudden? Unexpected? Not even close.



The MEC is admitting right here that the NIC did not create a sudden or unexpected windfall.



Didn't this issue go to arbitration which proved these MDA pilots were not active which renders much of the east MEC argument moot?

The rest of the presentation seems to be dealing with which junior pilots might be eligible for premium flying upgrades some five to twenty years into the future. No displacements/downgrades as a result of the NIC, just what the MEC projects as an injustice that someone at the bottom of the east would not be able to take upgrades because their own very low seniority status would not afford them that opportunity.

Conclusion: no windfall and a well-designed and fair INTEGRATION of active pilots into a single seniority system.

Here is Webster's definition:

Definition of WINDFALL


1
: something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind

2
: an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage


It says OR sudden. You define it differently. Go by that definition and try again.

Let me start you out. On what date did Dave Odell expect to fly an A330, when he was hired? It's now 2013 and about 90% of the west list in the range that now holds A320 Captain on the east(on the Nic). From bottom A320 F/O to A320 Captain. No windfall? Right.

You start YOUR assumptions with the bias that formerly furloughed pilots should be handled differently. The Gill and recent UA/CO SLIs disagree, at least somewhat.

 

[Pi brat]

Not true, our MC was forced th adopt a DOH position under threat of being removed by the MEC.

Two of the three member admitted to me that this was not a good strategy.

Well actually it was LOS. Either way, that was our strongest position. Do you think that the west position was more reasonable?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Here is Webster's definition:

Definition of WINDFALL


1
: something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind

2
: an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage


It says OR sudden. You define it differently. Go by that definition and try again.

Let me start you out. On what date did Dave Odell expect to fly an A330, when he was hired? It's now 2013 and about 90% of the west list in the range that now holds A320 Captain on the east(on the Nic). From bottom A320 F/O to A320 Captain. No windfall? Right.

If you take the sudden and unexpected aspects out of the definition then all you have is unearned. If that was the intention then they would just use the word "unearned" in the merger policy instead of "windfall". Besides, what does any pilot "do" to "earn" an upgrade? Upgrades are based on circumstances well beyond any pilot's ability to control or earn on his performance or merits. All any pilot can do is hope to stay active on a list and wait for the company to expand operations or for more senior pilots to depart from the seniority list. There is nothing based on merit or earning when talking about upgrades. It is always beyond the pilots' direct control unless they don't accept the opportuny when presented to them.

 

[traderjake]

Do you think that the west position was more reasonable?

No, which is why Nicolau based his award on neither position.

 

[Pi brat]

If you take the sudden and unexpected aspects out of the definition then all you have is unearned. If that was the intention then they would just use the word "unearned" in the merger policy instead of "windfall". Besides, what does any pilot "do" to "earn" and upgrade? Upgrades are based on circumstances well beyond any pilot's ability to control or earn on his performance or merits. All any pilot can do is hope to stay active on a list and wait for the company to expand operations or for more senior pilots to depart from the seniority list. There is nothing based on merit or earning when talking about upgrades. It is always beyond the pilots' direct control unless they don't accept the opportuny when presented to them.

Exactly, merit is not a part of our upward progress. It's based on the seniority system. The Nicolau award slows the upward progress of the bottom of the east list(that had already been waiting) in order to speed up the west's. It's clear, it's a fact. It's a windfall at the expense of others.

 

[Pi brat]

No, which is why Nicolau based his sard on neither position.

So why is his award our fault?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Here is Webster's definition:

Definition of WINDFALL


1
: something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind

2
: an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage


It says OR sudden. You define it differently. Go by that definition and try again.

Let me start you out. On what date did Dave Odell expect to fly an A330, when he was hired? It's now 2013 and about 90% of the west list in the range that now holds A320 Captain on the east(on the Nic). From bottom A320 F/O to A320 Captain. No windfall? Right.

You start YOUR assumptions with the bias that formerly furloughed pilots should be handled differently. The Gill and recent UA/CO SLIs disagree, at least somewhat.

Wasn't that very issue addressed in the joint statement on labor principles that no furloughed employee would be able to displace an active, job holding employee? There was never going to be a SLI where a furloughed pilot would hold a higher seniority status than an active one. If I have a starting assumption it is drawn from that pre-merger principle announced prior to the TA.

 

[Pi brat]

My best friend was hired in 1987. If you ran our SL out until he retired at 65 he would end up at .1%. With the Nic he ends up at 8%. A similar west guy would retire at 13.7% on a west list, but would make it up to 4.7% on the Nic. A 9% point improvement, at a bigger airline with more opportunities. And that trend started when the Nic came out.

 

[Pi brat]

Wasn't that very issue addressed in the joint statement on labor principles that no furloughed employee would be able to displace an active, job holding employee? There was never going to be a SLI where a furloughed pilot would hold a higher seniority status than an active one. If I have a starting assumption it is drawn from that pre-merger principle announced prior to the TA.

Yes, they won't displace them. That is pretty much an essential tenant, that you don't bump flush, but it doesn't mean forever. You don't come in and say "Okay Bob, hit the road, we are replacing you with this guy that was furloughed." Again, look at Gill and UA/CO. You are reading too much into those principles and Parker has explained this to you guys. He never said a formerly furloughed guy wouldn't be place ahead of a formerly active one, just that they wouldn't come in, take someones job and give it to a furloughed guy, then furlough them.

Besides, we are not talking about just furloughed employees. My friend in the above example was never furloughed. His upward progress would be slowed in order to accelerate the west's under the Nic.

 

[Reed Richards]

If we would have asked for an award like that instead of saying "We're comfortabe with our position" we might have gotten an award like that.

We told Nicolau: You do it with no input from us.

Do you disagree?

Yeah, you were the one not holding an elected position on the MEC, but would have thrown our furloughed guys under the bus, I would say "you first." What a jackwagan. You are a dues deadbeat who has all the answers about what "should" have been done. I will simplify if for you. What should have been done was an emotionless and professional job by the old man, instead of his vindictive, burning bag of s...t thrown on our doorstep. He did NONE of us any favors. He failed professionally, so much so he will be written about for years. You trying to use your Solomon like logic 6 years past on a failed process with an incompetent arbitrator is laughable. RR

 

[CallawayGolf]

Yes, they won't displace them. That is pretty much an essential tenant, that you don't bump flush, but it doesn't mean forever. You don't come in and say "Okay Bob, hit the road, we are replacing you with this guy that was furloughed." Again, look at Gill and UA/CO. You are reading too much into those principles and Parker has explained this to you guys. He never said a formerly furloughed guy wouldn't be place ahead of a formerly active one, just that they wouldn't come in, take someones job and give it to a furloughed guy, then furlough them.

Besides, we are not talking about just furloughed employees. My friend in the above example was never furloughed. His upward progress would be slowed in order to accelerate the west's under the Nic.

And that takes us back the the costs and benefits that come with a merger and also giving control over your career progression first to a union and then to a neutral arbitrator. This is the wrong career to be in if you want a sense of having control over your career. Something's go better than expected and some things go worse. Pretty much like life, wouldn't you say? There are far worse things in life than being a career-long first officer because the airline you hired in at went through two bankruptcies in five years and was down to two choices of merging with AWA or going chapter 7.

 

[Pi brat]

And that takes us back the the costs and benefits that come with a merger and also giving control over your career progression first to a union and then to a neutral arbitrator. This is the wrong career to be in if you want a sense of having control over your career. Something's go better than expected and some things go worse. Pretty much like life, wouldn't you say? There are far worse things in life than being a career-long first officer because the airline you hired in at went through two bankruptcies in five years and was down to two choices of merging with AWA or going chapter 7.

There are far worse things than remaining a F/O for an additional year or two because you merged with an airline that kept you out of Chp 11 and over the course of your career will over you much more opportunity. You want to benefit from our sacrifices and trials. Nice. At least you admit it.