Chip, A Question

[curious]

Chip,

What does the ALPA Merger & Fragmentation policy say? Would the furloughees for both lists be included? I noticed you posted current seniority list numbers for both u/ual.

Thanks,

Curious

 

[USA320Pilot]

Curious:

ALPA Merger & Fragamentation Policy covers all pilots, both active and furloughed. There is a specific protocol and timeline(s) for negotiation, mediation, and if necessary binding arbitration.

In my opinion, considering the United pilots multiple attempts (four to be exact) to obtain a pre-nuptial seniority integration designed to give the United pilots "super seniority", the integration would go to Arbitration and the furloughees from both companies would be included.

Regards,

Chip

 

[Busdrvr]

Chip, don't mischaracterize the UAL pilots. We as a group, didn't want this deal, you guys did. That alone suggests that you had a higher expectation of "largesse" from the deal. But just so we all understand your point of view (I'd hate to mischaracterize it....) Did you advocate "date of Hire"? "Fences"? Do you still advocate "date of hire"? What is the Date of hire for your most junior guy? At UAL?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Busdrvr:

This is an emotionally charged argument, but I would like to hear your comments too, to the questions you asked.

I believe that every employee brings value to the combined company and there needs to be credit for TOS.

But, with United in bankruptcy and if the UCT proceeds, should the US Airways employees demand a "pre-nuptial" seniority arrangement to put the United employees on the bottom of the seniority list, since our chairman of the board has said he is interested in buying United assets?

In my opinion, date of hire with fences, so nobody loses their position, is appropriate because there is no difference in the value that you, I, or anybody else brings to the combined business entity.

What makes a United pilot or US Airways pilot any more valuable than the other? In my opinion, nothing.

Just as stacking the United employees on the bottom of a UCT list is unfair, so are United ALPA's ideas on a "pre-nuptial" list desiged to obtain seniority integration. Furthermore, it appears United ALPA is concerned about their past precedent or they would have not changed their Consolidation Protection language to a mirror image of US Airways ALPA.

Sort of what goes around, comes around.

I do not want to get into a debate on this subject and this will be my last post in this thread, but I would like to hear your thoughts on your questions. Finally, US Airways and United executives continue to publicly discuss M&A activity and there are multiple reports members of the board(s) and executive suites are meeting, therefore, we could no more in the not-so-distant future.

Regards,

Chip

 

[michael707767]

Busdrvr:

In my opinion, date of hire with fences, so nobody loses their position, is appropriate because there is no difference in the value that you, I, or anybody else brings to the combined business entity.

Chip, I know you say you don't want to discuss this further, but I can't help but ask if you think DOH would be fair if USAirways was going to merge with Mesa? I agree, there may be no difference in the value you bring, but there can be a big difference in the value of the job you bring.

 

[Busdrvr]

"In my opinion, date of hire with fences, so nobody loses their position, is appropriate because there is no difference in the value that you, I, or anybody else brings to the combined business entity."

Then your opinion is in complete opposition of ALPA policy. What does "career expectations" mean to you? Did you "expect" to ever fly a 400 when you went to U? Did you expect a 777? When can a U guy (hired in 1990) "expect" to come back? A UAL 1990 hire is a CAPTAIN. I imagine "DOH with fences" would result in, once recalls started, the U 1990 hire getting recalled straight to the left seat, senior to the UAL CAPTAIN. If you brought all your vast experience to the table at a DAL interview 3 years from now, what position would they offer you? Straight to the left seat of a 777 right? You probably have more "experience" than many DAL capts (how many were FE's on TWO big navy jets at once?).

Chip, the irrationality of the U pilot group was THE primary reason the merger didn't happen. Had you come to the table, and come to an agreement PRIOR to the deal, it would probably have happened.

If you buy pieces of UAL at a fire sale, then you can set the terms. UAL's pilot group was negotiating with UAL. It's their RIGHT. If they demand that they (and the company) are protected from power and seniority grab lawsuits prior to THEIR company making you an offer, that's their RIGHT. In truth, a FAIR solution would have been to set the list, both groups vote on ratification, and if the vote failed, no merger. Then BOTH sides could have decided "am I better off with or without the merger". THAT is career expectations. It's comical that the UAL list would likely have put many U furloughees ABOVE currently ACTIVE UAL pilots

 

[UseYourHead]

Busdrvr,

Just another point of view from a US Airways pilot. IF seniority integration were to occur due to some kind of corporate action, chances are that both sides would draw “want listsâ€￾ that would result in arbitration. My guess is that what Chip advocates would not occur as a product of that process, and further, I doubt the UAL “wish listâ€￾ would either. I bet the award would be a compromise, and in fact would address the issues and be fair.

Speaking for myself, I do not want your seniority, or your rightful position in the scheme of things, and at the same time I deserve mine. I think the majority of US Airways pilots feel the same...an event like this would not be the end of the world for any of us.

We will all do ourselves a favor the realize here and now that it will not be decided by us, here on this forum, no sense in getting worked up over it.

Nuff said!

 

[Fly]

Chip Munn Posted on Nov 19 2003, 12:18 PM

US Airways and United executives continue to publicly discuss M&A activity

I haven't seen them publicly discuss M&A activity. Let's see a link.

 

[Busdrvr]

UYH,
If you want to know (IMHO,) why Chips morbid facination with the U/UAL thing, seniority integration for the former 570 is it. While I don't doubt your sincerity concerning FAIR integration, the real issue is the 20-30 percent (conservatively) who don't feel that way. We have them to. the only solution would have been a pre-nup agreed to by both sides. Without that, there would have been (maybe even will be) lawsuit after after lawsuit and the labor unrest that would come with it.

 

[A320 Driver]

Personally, I'd like DOH for vacation accrural etc. But for aircraft position bidding I'd favor a ratio integration based on what we bring to the table. I don't move up, I don't move back, I'm basically in the same place I was when to whole process started. Then, I couldn't care less if the dude one number senior to me was hired after I was...big deal. I got what I brought to the table and didn't try to swipe your seat. IMO, all fences do is say "I can't give you a fair seniority integration, so I'll prop you up for such and such time". You can keep fences. Just give me what I came with and I'll prosper if the company prospers and suffer like the rest if it doesn't. I'll take that deal with anyone.

Just one U pilots opinion.

A320 Driver

 

[Busdrvr]

"Personally, I'd like DOH for vacation accrural etc."

How about vacation bidding, monthly schedule preferencing, travel?