June - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Pi brat]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, you call having two fully staffed comittees, spending millions, hiring experts and lawyers, holding arbitration hearings and following a well defined indepedant process agreed to by both parties as "fairy dust and fantasies"? You don't deserve to breathe the same air we do let alone fly an airplane you idiotic simple minded unic.

I can't even quote that. You really, really need to go see EAP.

 

[fatherabraham]

I can't even quote that. You really, really need to go see EAP.

AMEN!

If he's only 1% as angry as his words, then EAP is needed NOW!
Can only hope & pray that some form of intervention happens before any innocent are harmed.

FA

 

[Pi brat]

Ok clear, here is what I could find. I have tried to find the entire Gill opinion and award, but have been unable. This is from a lawsuit filed after. Back in 2005 Aquagreen called our merger. He said that it many similarities to Pan Am/National and would probably go that way. He was right to a degree, but Nicolau went much farther than Gill. Based on his review of that merger, here is where Aqua thought he would end up:

"My guess on the ultimate integration will be to integrate using a weighted longevity formula. Somebody with fifteen years at U that's now on the street is likely to integrate somewhere around senior AWA f/o or perhaps very junior captain. But that's just a guess.

Given my place, it won't make much of a difference whether there is a dovetail or longevity based integration. I suspect I'd end up right around the 90-91 hires. I'm a somewhat senior f/o by the way." We know he ended up much, much better than that on the Nic list, slotted just junior to me a 1986 hire. World of difference.

I truly believe that had our merger gone more along the lines of Pan Am/National we wouldn't be here today.

Here's the link and the highlighted section where Gill addresses age and longevity going forward, which many west pilots say should have no bearing:

http://www.leagle.co...2006&SizeDisp=7

Gill Opinion at 12. The Arbitrator concluded that "there are some `substantial practical inequities' in unrestricted operation of straight length of service which ... could not feasibly be cured in workable and readily administrable fashion by special protective provisions." The ratio that the Arbitrator adopted covers a much smaller portion of the list than the National pilots advocated. In rejecting the National pilots' contention that the ratio should extend farther down the list, the Arbitrator explained that the degree of disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots increased farther down the list and thus, extending the ratio as the National pilots sought would, on balance, result in too great a disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots who would be ratioed together at that point in the list. The Arbitrator also noted that even though those National pilots below the ratio portion would not reach their promotion expectancies until long after the Pan Am airmen on the list near them reached theirs, this inequity was offset by the fact that these National pilots were, on average, younger and thus had more time to reach their expectancies.
In addition to his use of the ratio, the Arbitrator imposed several conditions and restrictions designed to prevent either group of airmen from achieving a "windfall" at the expense of the other, including provisions for cross-over bidding in the event of sale of certain equipment, furlough ratios, and the reservation of 747 slots on a 9 to 1 basis for Pan Am pilots after January 1986.

 

[Pi brat]

Jim and Trader are the only easties to display backbone and no one on the east respects anything they have to say because no one on the east respects the truth.

Wrong again AF/O. Plenty of backbone over here and I do respect some of what Jim and Trader have to say, mostly Trader. I respect that they have remained loyal to their beliefs about SLI. What I don't always respect is their sometime damning of their co-workers, and that applies mostly to Jim. Trader stands up for what he believes, Jim picks and choices what to jump in and it is usually just to stir the XXXX. He LOVES that.

 

[traderjake]

Breeze, your wasting your time this this POS "Traitor" It's only him and Munn and a few others.

Such harsh words from such a lovable character, now I'm hurt.

 

[cleardirect]

Ok clear, here is what I could find. I have tried to find the entire Gill opinion and award, but have been unable. This is from a lawsuit filed after. Back in 2005 Aquagreen called our merger. He said that it many similarities to Pan Am/National and would probably go that way. He was right to a degree, but Nicolau went much farther than Gill. Based on his review of that merger, here is where Aqua thought he would end up:

"My guess on the ultimate integration will be to integrate using a weighted longevity formula. Somebody with fifteen years at U that's now on the street is likely to integrate somewhere around senior AWA f/o or perhaps very junior captain. But that's just a guess.

Given my place, it won't make much of a difference whether there is a dovetail or longevity based integration. I suspect I'd end up right around the 90-91 hires. I'm a somewhat senior f/o by the way." We know he ended up much, much better than that on the Nic list, slotted just junior to me a 1986 hire. World of difference.

I truly believe that had our merger gone more along the lines of Pan Am/National we wouldn't be here today.

Here's the link and the highlighted section where Gill addresses age and longevity going forward, which many west pilots say should have no bearing:

http://www.leagle.co...2006&SizeDisp=7

Gill Opinion at 12. The Arbitrator concluded that "there are some `substantial practical inequities' in unrestricted operation of straight length of service which ... could not feasibly be cured in workable and readily administrable fashion by special protective provisions." The ratio that the Arbitrator adopted covers a much smaller portion of the list than the National pilots advocated. In rejecting the National pilots' contention that the ratio should extend farther down the list, the Arbitrator explained that the degree of disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots increased farther down the list and thus, extending the ratio as the National pilots sought would, on balance, result in too great a disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots who would be ratioed together at that point in the list. The Arbitrator also noted that even though those National pilots below the ratio portion would not reach their promotion expectancies until long after the Pan Am airmen on the list near them reached theirs, this inequity was offset by the fact that these National pilots were, on average, younger and thus had more time to reach their expectancies.
In addition to his use of the ratio, the Arbitrator imposed several conditions and restrictions designed to prevent either group of airmen from achieving a "windfall" at the expense of the other, including provisions for cross-over bidding in the event of sale of certain equipment, furlough ratios, and the reservation of 747 slots on a 9 to 1 basis for Pan Am pilots after January 1986.

Details of the award.

As the Arbitrator explained in his opinion, the complete DOH/LOS list advocated by the Pan Am airmen would have imposed substantial inequities on many National pilots. Specifically, National airmen hired after 1964 would be denied the prospects for advancement to larger aircraft that they could have expected absent the merger. Noting that Pan Am pilots would be subject to no comparable inequity as a result of the ratio, the Arbitrator concluded that a ratio was necessary to insure that the lists were merged in a fair and equitable manner, i.e., that "the airmen on each airline be in a position to fill vacancies in positions for which they had reasonable expectations absent the merger, or positions reasonably comparable thereto or, at least, to achieve a fair balance in the extent to which they may fall short of those expectations." Moreover, since the necessary conditions and restrictions on a straight DOH/LOS list would be very complex and unworkable, a ratio was preferable.

Does any of this sound at all [font="Calibri""]familiar[/font]?

 

[cleardirect]

In addition, the Arbitrator noted the record evidence that Pan Am, at the time of the merger, was experiencing financial difficulties with more than 400 pilots on furlough, many of whom had been on furlough for more than five years. National, on the other hand, was a young domestic carrier with no furloughed pilots. Under these circumstances, he concluded that:
[A] straight DOH list would place a large number of the furloughees who have not worked as Pan Am airmen for five years, and a substantial number with even longer periods since they flew as Pan Am airmen, ahead of large numbers of National airmen who brought active jobs to the merger, including many who had been flying for National for upwards of five years. I regard that as an inequitable result.
(Gill Opinion, at 14).

Imagine that another neutral arbitrator that came up with the same idea as Nicolau. Is he also a senile old lazy arbitrator?

 

[cleardirect]

For those of you that said Nicolau was lazy and should have been X.
Do you think Nicolau might have looked at a couple other intigrations to see how others had done complicated mergers?

I think it is fair to summarize by saying that these provisions call for giving consideration first to a DOH list, then (if "acceptable accommodation" of the equities is not accomplished by such a list) to look at an LOS list, then (if "satisfactory accommodation" of the equities is still not accomplished) to attempt to accommodate the remaining inequities through temporary restrictions or conditions, and finally (if a "satisfactory accommodation" of the inequities is still not accomplished)

[ 647 F.Supp. 821 ]​

to try "deviation" from the DOH and LOS manner of constructing the list in order to reach a "fair and equitable solution." This "deviation" has often taken the form of ratio arrangement for all or part of the merged list.

Gill Opinion at 12. The Arbitrator concluded that "there are some `substantial practical inequities' in unrestricted operation of straight length of service which ... could not feasibly be cured in workable and readily administrable fashion by special protective provisions."

Sometimes there just are no C&R that can make DOH/LOS fair and equitable.

Although the Arbitrator altered a straight LOS integration, he did so in order to preserve pre-merger expectations of the pilots for each airline. The integration by the Arbitrator of two bona fide seniority lists in a way reasonably designed to preserve pre-merger expectations is itself a bona fide seniority system.

So a federal judge says that preserving career expectations and not using LOS is a bona fide seniority system. Kills the idea that DOH is the "gold standard" for integration. That a ratio method can be a fair and equitable method.

 

[Pi brat]

Details of the award.




Does any of this sound at all [font=Calibri"]familiar[/font]?

Why yes clear it does, but what does that have to do with this that you said:

"Can you point to any integration that took age into account? "

I take the time to go find it, I show you the whole thing, and yet the last two posts are what you take away from it. Not that you were wrong, not that someone besides east pilots thought that age and movement up the list in the future should have some bearing. Sums you and some of your buddies up pretty well. Integrity in action, again.

 

[EastUS1]

Do you think Nicolau might have looked at a couple other intigrations to see how others had done complicated mergers?

Who cares if he spent his time examining every integration ever recorded, or was just howling at the moon? The product of his efforts hasn't proven to be acceptable or at all workable. The five years and change of internecine employee group conflict should give any rational person at least a moment's pause before attempting any accolades for his production of this sorry mess.

 

[cleardirect]

PI thanks for posting this case. It plays right into the west arguments.

Id. The Second Circuit similarly interprets this section to require discriminatory or evasive intent. Absent evidence that Pan Am or the Unions acted "in bad faith or with an age-discriminatory motive," the "mere fact that plaintiffs would have fared better under a different scheme" is insufficient to show that the system is a "subterfuge" under the ADEA.

Just because the east does not like the outcome does not mean you get a do over.

 

[EastUS1]

I take the time to go find it, I show you the whole thing, and yet the last two posts are what you take away from it. Not that you were wrong, not that someone besides east pilots thought that age and movement up the list in the future should have some bearing. Sums you and some of your buddies up pretty well. Integrity in action, again.

Pretty much......"Not that you were wrong.." Being wrong just results in an immediate change in the subject material subsequently offered by these kids. It's truly amazing to see how much dodging, twisting, turning and spinning some of them are willing to perform.

 

[cleardirect]

Why yes clear it does, but what does that have to do with this that you said:

"Can you point to any integration that took age into account? "

I take the time to go find it, I show you the whole thing, and yet the last two posts are what you take away from it. Not that you were wrong, not that someone besides east pilots thought that age and movement up the list in the future should have some bearing. Sums you and some of your buddies up pretty well. Integrity in action, again.

While I appreciate you finding this case. You did not find the award.

This was an age discrimination case. What it shows is that the company did not take age into account.

The fact that the system is not facially discriminatory[sup]6[/sup] and was a result of an arbitration whose main objective was to preserve pre-merger expectations in the equitable merger of two seniority lists evidences Pan Am's good faith in adopting the Award. The desire to "get on with its business" is a legitimate business reason for adopting the Award. While Pan Am could have refused to adopt the Award and submitted the issue to another arbitration, binding this time, there was no guaranty that the outcome would not similarly result in older pilots being lower on the list than younger pilots with equal seniority. While Cook alleges that the time actually needed to re-arbitrate the dispute with Pan Am as a party was much less than the time it took for Pan Am to implement the Award, no affirmative evidence has been presented to refute the deposition testimony that Pan Am in good faith made a management decision that adoption of the award would lead more quickly to an integrated system. See Gray, supra, 792 F.2d at 255 ("It is not enough ... to show that the employer made an unwise business decision, or ... acted arbitrarily or with ill will. These facts ... do not necessarily show that age was a motivating factor").
While the burden of proof is on Pan Am and the Unions to show that the system is not a "subterfuge," see Cipriano, 785 F.2d at 58,[sup]7[/sup] there is sufficient unrefuted evidence to take that question away from the jury. While it is, of course, difficult to prove lack of discriminatory intent, the fact that such intent is the issue here does not automatically preclude summary judgment. Although Pan Am was aware that Pan Am airmen as a group were older than National airmen and that the new system was not based solely on seniority, there is no direct evidence that Pan Am adopted the system in order to disadvantage older pilots for the benefit of younger pilots. The Arbitrator's lack of discriminatory intent is unquestioned. The eleven depositions taken by Cook support no inference that Pan Am based its decision on the age of the pilots involved.
The evidence on which Cook relies to support the claim of discriminatory intent consists of (1) an affidavit of Dr. Ira S. Chorush, a statistical consultant, which states that the system's impact on older pilots is great and that the probability that the decline in seniority for older pilots occurred by chance is less than one in a million,[sup]8[/sup] (2) testimony that Pan Am knew that the Award would diminish the seniority rights of the older Pan Am pilots, and (3) the undisputed statement that Pan Am is a defendant in a separate age discrimination action in which Pan Am is charged with discriminating against pilots over 60 years old and in which a proposed settlement was overruled by the district court, given the likelihood of success on the merits. See EEOC v. Pan American World Airways,

 

[nic4us]

.............. you call having two fully staffed comittees, spending millions, hiring experts and lawyers, holding arbitration hearings and following a well defined indepedant process agreed to by both parties as "fairy dust and fantasies"? You don't deserve to breathe the same air we do let alone fly an airplane you idiotic simple minded unic.

He can call it whatever he likes......

The rest of the world calls it "final and binding arbitration".

On to the next "fairy dust" definition....collusion of a union's failure of its DFR.

The scabs are gonna love the "fairy dust" that settles out of that one.

 

[EastUS1]

The rest of the world calls it.....

Sigh!...Again with the astounding delusions of being qualified to speak for "the rest of the world".....?

Less ingestion of the "fairy dust" is strongly suggested.