June - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[EastUS1]

Be careful with the movie references.

Perfect Jake. Points properly given sir 😉

 

[fodase]

I didn't know the flight attendants flew together or had a single contract.

A Follow Up on Yesterday's Announcement of the Seniority Exploratory Committee

Yesterday’s eCommunication announcing the formation of the Seniority Exploratory Committee has caused concern, especially for our co-workers based in CLT, DCA and PHL.  To be clear, the seniority lists of pre-merger US Airways and America West have already been merged according to the AFA Constitution and Bylaws.  There will be no attempt to revisit that process.  AFA Council 66 supports the language in our Constitution addressing seniority when merging two AFA carriers.  However, there is a concern among some our PHX Flight Attendants on how seniority would be addressed if a merger occurs between two carriers who are not represented by the same union. 

The AFA Constitution and Bylaws indicates that AFA will attempt to negotiate a “Date of Hire” or full bidding seniority integration with APFA as specified in AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws.  Should AFA not be able to reach agreement on a “fair and equitable” seniority integration with the AA Flight Attendants, the issue could then be taken to arbitration for a “fair and equitable” integration as spelled out in the McCaskill-Bond legislation.  AFA was instrumental in ensuring that McCaskill-Bond was enacted following the stapling of the TWA Flight Attendants to the bottom of the AA list. 

At that point, both sides would make their argument to an arbitrator of what should be considered “fair and equitable”.  The arbitrator would then make a binding decision on how the list would be merged.   It is important to remember though that there are no guarantees in an arbitration process.  “Fair and equitable” really speaks to the process, not the outcome. One of the items the SEC will research is how “fair and equitable” has been applied in past mergers. 

In Solidarity,

MEC President, Deborah Volpe mecpresident66@aol.com
MEC Secretary-Treasurer, Brian Clark brian@afa66.org

 

[traderjake]

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't have crew meals?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't have crew meals?

I get crew meals.

Besides, the reason most of the east pilots don't get crew meals is because of a contractual negotiation. The reason some on the east do still do get crew meals is also the result of contractual negotiations.

Thank you for pointing that out for us, i.e. that seniority is indeed like crew meals....open for negotiation.

 

[EastUS1]

I didn't know the flight attendants flew together or had a single contract.

Most amusing indeed...you would compare a union's proceedings that rationally used DOH and thusly; completely avoided the internecine insanity produced by good old alpa and St. Nic. Are you being at all serious here? 😉

You're obviously clinging onto this portion: "To be clear, the seniority lists of pre-merger US Airways and America West have already been merged according to the AFA Constitution and Bylaws. There will be no attempt to revisit that process." Of course they're not seeking to revisit that process, since it was done in complete accordance with the AFA's constitution. Now...substitute the USAPA constitution here when discussing pilot issues....and you get what difference in circumstances and concerns....? Are you seriously suggesting that the nic is at all in accordance with USAPA's constitution?

You "might" wish to consider other salient points within that post: "AFA Council 66 supports the language in our Constitution addressing seniority when merging two AFA carriers.

The AFA Constitution and Bylaws indicates that AFA will attempt to negotiate a “Date of Hire” or full bidding seniority integration with APFA as specified in AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws."

Look around for alpa....it's long gone. Substitute USAPA for AFA in that last line and you get what result?...A ready acceptance of Nic?...Guess again.

 

[EastUS1]

Every single one.

Fair enough; let's start with any argument you can possibly advance against just the first point being entirely accurate then: "The truth" is that you're seeking artificially enhanced, and entirely undeserved personal advancement over others that have done far more than yourself for this cluster of an airline entity, and have only the utmost contempt for them in the selfish process.....period."

If you feel up to it afterwards; we can proceed from there.

 

[Phoenix]

Most amusing indeed...you would compare a union's proceedings that rationally used DOH and thusly; completely avoided the internecine insanity produced by good old alpa and St. Nic. Are you being at all serious here? 😉

You're obviously clinging onto this portion: "To be clear, the seniority lists of pre-merger US Airways and America West have already been merged according to the AFA Constitution and Bylaws. There will be no attempt to revisit that process." Of course they're not seeking to revisit that process, since it was done in complete accordance with the AFA's constitution. Now...substitute the USAPA constitution here when discussing pilot issues....and you get what difference in circumstances and concerns....? Are you seriously suggesting that the nic is at all in accordance with USAPA's constitution?

You "might" wish to consider other salient points within that post: "AFA Council 66 supports the language in our Constitution addressing seniority when merging two AFA carriers.

The AFA Constitution and Bylaws indicates that AFA will attempt to negotiate a “Date of Hire” or full bidding seniority integration with APFA as specified in AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws."

Look around for alpa....it's long gone. Substitute USAPA for AFA in that last line and you get what result?...A ready acceptance of Nic?...Guess again.

The Clown Spotter has conflicting premises. On the one hand a union does not have a single seniority list because negotiations of a contract are not complete, but on the other hand a union has no authority to negotiate a single list. Quite amuzing.

 

[EastUS1]

The Clown Spotter has conflicting premises. On the one hand a union does not have a single seniority list because negotiations of a contract are not complete, but on the other hand a union has no authority to negotiate a single list. Quite amuzing.

Amusing indeed...but it does fit well within the "Whatever it takes (regardless of logic, sense or reason) to get me what I want!" ...umm..."philosophy" we've all come to know and "love" 😉

 

[luvthe9]

Why have you got to be so rude to our guests? Here is a guy AAviator that come to our board and tells you information that does not comply with your believes in the world and disparage him.

Do you treat jumps seaters from other careers that don't agree with you views the same way?

It never fails anytime someone visits this board that expresses a different opinion than yours you guys chase them off, tell them to leave. How about some of that southern hospitality and charm for our guests?

If you went to the AA board would you expect to be treated poorly?

Be nice dude.

Because your other "guest" from UAL is a furloughed LCC who poses as a UAL dude, and actually has an AWA number. Maybe he has two numbers. And how is that possible?

 

[luvthe9]

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't have crew meals?

Exactly, Negotiated. Touche!

 

[CallawayGolf]

Fair enough; let's start with any argument you can possibly advance against just the first point being entirely accurate then: "The truth" is that you're seeking artificially enhanced, and entirely undeserved personal advancement over others that have done far more than yourself for this cluster of an airline entity, and have only the utmost contempt for them in the selfish process.....period."

If you feel up to it afterwards; we can proceed from there.

Artificial - please explain what is artificial about the NIC?

Enhanced - since every west pilot dropped in relative seniority using the NIC vs. his pre-merger AWA relative seniority position, so how is that an enhancement?

Entirely undeserved - hmm, a ruling by a mutually-agreed upon arbitrator which was called for in a contract voluntarily singed by the representatives of the collective parties and which followed the pre-defined process CBA at the time doesn't sound like the definition of entirely undeserved to me. If that's not entirely deserved I don't know what is.

Personal advancement over others - how do you advance over others when you drop in relative seniority versus where you started from? How does someone who is actively employed at the date of the SLI advance over someone who was not actively employed at the same time?

Facts, I don't think you fully understand the difference between facts and opinion.

 

[nic4us]

Fair enough; let's start with any argument you can possibly advance against just the first point being entirely accurate then: "The truth" is that you're seeking artificially enhanced, and entirely undeserved personal advancement over others that have done far more than yourself for this cluster of an airline entity, and have only the utmost contempt for them in the selfish process.....period."

If you feel up to it afterwards; we can proceed from there.

That entire statement is not "the truth" as you claim in the first two words, but merely your own opinion, and a misguided self serving one at that.

How many times have you claimed one cannot assume to know the motivations of others, yet, in your statement you seem to know the mindset of others and pawn it off as factual or "the truth".

Second, only the east pilots at the top of the list recieved "personal advancement over others", gaining relative position.

Third, you also assume a contempt, which may or may not be real, but is again obviously your opinion.

Fourth, you also assume some east pilot has done "far more for this cluster of an airline".......ummm...would that be the east pilot who spent his career furloughed and now wishes to leapfrog position and steal a West job?

Finally, you entire premise is that the east deserves something the West already has, your rationale for legitimizing the theft of West seniority is nothing more than your opinion that it is "undeserved" when it belongs to a West pilot.

 

[EastUS1]

Entirely undeserved - hmm, a ruling by a mutually-agreed upon arbitrator which was called for in a contract voluntarily singed by the representatives of the collective parties and which followed the pre-defined process CBA at the time doesn't sound like the definition of entirely undeserved to me. If that's not entirely deserved I don't know what is.

"If that's not entirely deserved I don't know what is." Therein lies the problem. How is it even possible that any, supposedly rational people, can fail to understand that no personal effort or achievment is, in ANY way, shape or form, involved with "a ruling by a mutually-agreed upon arbitrator"?

 

[EastUS1]

Fourth, you also assume some east pilot has done "far more for this cluster of an airline".......ummm...would that be the east pilot who spent his career furloughed and now wishes to leapfrog position and steal a West job?

Must exit for real life shortly. No disrespect for your or Call's posts, but precious little time is available at present. I've long ago said no east pilot should be able to displace a west counterpart via DOH...that's what restrictions/fences/etc are for. Your position would allow a west frikkin' then new hire to bid over an east person with over a decade and half of continuous service..and even fantasize said position to be replete with "Integrity" = BS!...no kinder term is serviceable.

 

[CallawayGolf]

"If that's not entirely deserved I don't know what is." Therein lies the problem. How is it even possible that any, supposedly rational people, can fail to understand that no personal effort or achievment is, in ANY way, shape or form, involved with "a ruling by a mutually-agreed upon arbitrator"?

If this process had been governed by the McCaskill-Bond provision (legally binding arbitration as called for by federal statute) and the exact same result was attained, would you have a different viewpoint on the degree of what was or was not deserved? If you enter into a process of your own volition and are bound by the outcome regardless of your opinion of what it should be, how can the outcome of that process be undeserved if it comes out better or worse than what you hoped for going in? If the award would have stapled either group to the bottom of the other, would that have been deserved or undeserved and who would determine the "fact" that it was or was not "deserved"?