OCT/NOV 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nycbusdriver]

As a result of this disparate treatment of East pilots we now have what we have always argued we have...accelerated growth on the East and a minority group getting eventually what the company has to give them...stagnant growth in PHX, vulnerable positions in the future and an extremely bleak future. I didn't back then wish it on them, I don't now and I don't know of many pilots who do wish a future that for ALL of us both East and West was a very high certainty of TWO airline extinction.

That's a good point. I am sure the west figured that their lawsuits would be a slam dunk, and that this would have been resolved long before the age 65 retirements kicked in. Or, maybe they never even considered it. We argued all along that the enormous east attrition was a huge value to which our group is entitled, and which Nicolau totally ignored.

Now, through the lightning speed of the federal courts system, reality is proving our point. Addington et al. started it; now they can watch as the east pilots take full advantage of what we said was ours to begin with.

From your outline of the Eischen award, I can see why you had to reread it many times. It appears quite convoluted, by he likely took the time to actually study the problem and try to solve it, rather than One-Trick-Pony Nicolau coming in with a predetermined outcome.

Aside from that, I doubt that many arbitrators really fully understand our working environment as regards seniority. This is one of the few professions where, unless you get to live it, you will likely never get it. Even some who live it really never quite get it, either. I would wager that there is a large percentage of cabin crew with decades on the job who couldn't calculate or explain duty rigs to save their lives. There are likely a lesser percentage of cockpit crew who are in the same boat.

I know, the job of the neutrals is to explain this stuff, but how successful have any of us been in explaining our work rules to anyone who is not flight crew? It's impossible, and I meticulously try to avoid the conversation when people ask things like, "Why do you only work half the month?" (85 hours)

We need more experienced airline pilots undertaking arbitration school and certification.

 

[EastUS1]

Touchy about your record I can understand that but it is your record. Excuses are not very adult.

Assinine, infantile arrogance and the overall, just-plain-cluelessness you routinely exhibit can NOT be excused. If (as seems the case here) what laughably passes for a "mind" with you is focused only on just how "waay-too-cool-dude" you are to ever die from the sky's tender "mercy", and foregoes ongoing consideration of what to do if/when things go horribly wrong...well...you're in the wrong job punk. In any contest between oblivious arrogance and physics....well...physics always wins.

I'd offer some encouragment for you to GROW UP...but why waste my time in what would prove an entirely futile effort here?

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I've never served a day in my life, but I have had a family member and more than one friend die in aviation accidents. They don't discriminate and can happen to any pilot any time. While we all strive to be our best, that might not always matter. I figure there is nothing that has happened to any other pilot that could not have just as easily been me. I wish they'd never come up again in web board tit for tat.

While I think the west pilots are as good as anyone out there, plain old good fortune goes a long way too.

 

[EastUS1]

I've never served a day in my life, but I have had a family member and more than one friend die in aviation accidents. They don't discriminate and can happen to any pilot any time. While we all strive to be our best, that might not always matter. I figure there is nothing that has happened to any other pilot that could not have just as easily been me. I wish they'd never come up again in web board tit for tat.

While I think the west pilots are as good as anyone out there, plain old good fortune goes a long way too.

A very reasonable notion LS. I feel it's appropriate to apologize for rising to such childish bait and throwing out little more than: "Oh yeah!?...well..just look at your guys!". None of this type of nonsense amounts to anything approaching respectable behavior from any of us. To the west and all concerned; I'm sorry for feeding into such infantile BS with my ill-considered responses. ALL of us mere humans, can and do make grand mistakes at times. The sky, like the ocean, is often VERY unforgiving of such....Period! Sometimes...even if mechanical issues...it just ain't anyone's day.

It behooves all of us to maintain some reasonable perspective...and NEVER, never EVER, let ourselves feel complacent and "bulletproof".

 

[cleardirect]

It's interesting you should bring this up.

I just got done "re-reading" (again and again) Eischens arbitration for Republic/Frontier/Midwest/Lynx. This is the first pilot integration post McCaskill/Bond. I wonder whether we would have been going through these lawsuits had we had him than Nicolau. After contrasting the pictorial visual graph of his integration and the US Airways MEC graphics it really shows not only the differences of the to men's approach to integration it also shows how close the years of service the two main pilots groups...Republic and Frontier, fell.

Here is the kicker: IT ACTUALLY PLACED FURLOUGHED FRONTIER AND MIDWEST PILOTS IN FRONT OF ACTIVE REPUBLIC PILOTS. Yes, it did!

I have a copy of this decision. The Eischen decision has a graphical pattern that actually makes sense. The problem I see with "arbitration" awards is that you have no consistent patterns of understandings with "arbitrations". The Nicolau award was so disparate and historically inaccurate that its no wonder we're at odds.

As a result of this disparate treatment of East pilots we now have what we have always argued we have...accelerated growth on the East and a minority group getting eventually what the company has to give them...stagnant growth in PHX, vulnerable positions in the future and an extremely bleak future. I didn't back then wish it on them, I don't now and I don't know of many pilots who do wish a future that for ALL of us both East and West was a very high certainty of TWO airline extinction.

I wouldn't be sure that Eischen would be one of the arbitrators on the next merger if it happens but if I were the pilots at, say, APA several factors come into play that could give them serious disadvantages in any future merger in this industry.

Note to all: Eischen did NOT group pilots by position and/ or equipment. His tiered structure was broken up into four groups based on the economic positions of the respective carriers before and after and broke them up accordingly.


This is a model that could work disparate treatment issues but I won't elaborate on the factors I would argue if US Airways/American were to merge. But I do know one thing:

THE USAPA LEADERSHIP IS UNEQUVOCALLY UNPREPARED TO HANDLE IT.

In fact my NEW understanding is that both Roland and Dean have asked Gary to bring DiOreo back because of his extensive East contract knowledge (not to mention that Paul is also an attorney, but maybe I shouldn't mention that since we know how they normally get paid...billable hours). However, Gary has said NO because it may politically OFFEND West pilots.

Just curious, but done the West pilots on here feel offended anyway?

Happy Holidays All!

It had been a long time since I have read that award. I does not really help your case at all. In fact it reinforces the Nicolau award and how wrong you guys are. There are a lot of great comments that apply to our situation.

BTW maybe you missed WHY there are midwest pilots in the active ranks. They were not considered furloughed. So not furloughed pilots were not senior to active pilots.

For purposes of this seniority list integration proceedings, as decreed by the Bloch II SBA
award, the constructive status of Midwest pilots flying on June 23, 2009 is “active". The 255
Midwest pilots furloughed prior to that date remain in furlough status. Some few of the Midwest
pilots have received, in the order of their Midwest seniority, offers of employment as new hires
to fill RAH pilot position vacancies.

As far as Paul D'Orio goes. I am not offended even though he has thrown the west under the bus several times. I object to him because he is incompetent. He had 4 years to get a contract and failed miserably. He does not have the skills. Being a lawyer does not make you a good negotiator.

 

[end_of_alpa]

It had been a long time since I have read that award. I does not really help your case at all. In fact it reinforces the Nicolau award and how wrong you guys are. There are a lot of great comments that apply to our situation.

BTW maybe you missed WHY there are midwest pilots in the active ranks. They were not considered furloughed. So not furloughed pilots were not senior to active pilots.



As far as Paul D'Orio goes. I am not offended even though he has thrown the west under the bus several times. I object to him because he is incompetent. He had 4 years to get a contract and failed miserably. He does not have the skills. Being a lawyer does not make you a good negotiator.

I was not highlighting it to help or hurt my case. I was pointing out how his decision seemed a whole lot different than Nicolau. That how i thought had Eischen made the same integration it that case here we probably wouldn't be in court.

That doesn't change the legal situation we're in now. We're on LOA 93 for the foreseeable future and we're good with that.

We get our attrition which we paid for. You're stuck in PHX with over staffing, no growth and limited future possibilities. I'm not trying to rub your nose in it, I'm simply stating a fact. The next many bids to come will be on the East only and who benefits from lawsuits?

Secondly you like to play on perspective. Furloughed means furloughed. Like it or not. He had his reasoning why he integrated but furloughed is furloughed. West pilots are furloughed and recalled East. East pilots were furloughed and recalled West. East furloughed, recalled West then exercised their recall rights on East contract was THEIR contractual rights...just like the Frontier/Midwest Express had furloughs and that arbitrator made his justification.

"With Arbitrator Bloch again as Chairman, the SBA decreed that all Midwest pilots active as of that date should be deemed constructively “active”, pending the outcome of this DRA seniority integration proceeding, i.e., as if they continued to occupy the positions they had held on June 23, 2009, even if subsequently furloughed, but without any right to pay or benefits. Midwest/ALPA, Scope II (Arbitrator

Richard I. Bloch, 2009)."

Anybody East has always thrown West under the bus according to you. I get it. But getting a contract wasn't his fault....he was tasked by the BPR and he worked with the company on several issues. But the company has IT's perspective as well. Kirby proposal or maybe a LITTLE more. But that was it....so far.

Have YOU ever actually talked to Paul? I'll agree with you that being a lawyer doesn't make a good negotiator but a good negotiator needs a sound understanding of the contract you have AND the contract language you use.

Just food for thought.

 

[cleardirect]

If Jamie wants to point to the Republic, F9 seniority award I think we should look at the important parts of that award. Which BTW was relative.

There is general agreement among those who have dealt with pilot seniority questions following airline mergers that, in the words of the late David A. Cole in the Easter-Mackey case, “The essential object of our exercise is to prevent impairment, so far as possible, of the job security and the earning and promotional opportunities which each of the pilot groups had on its own airline prior to the merger.” Much earlier, in connection with the Braniff-Mid-Continent merger, the principle was stated by the arbitrators in the following words: “It is our purpose to see that each [pilot] on the two lists would retain all they had prior to the merger, would accrue those things which they would have had without the merger, and at the same time be in a position on the integrated lists to permit them to share equitably in any promotional opportunities which will arise as a result of the merged operation. . . . Seniority is, of course, highly relevant in the achievement of the objective stated, in various forms, by almost everyone who has dealt with this question". Seniority, however, is a relative factor. As Professor Benjamin Aaron has said, quoting David Cole in the Pan-American case, “A seniority list (is) not determined solely by time, ... it reflects the priority of job rights and opportunities of employees as among themselves which the employer agrees to respect.”

It would appear that the “gold standard” view of DOH is not shared by everyone.

"In constructing this list, we have inquired as to where the respective groups have been . . .made reasoned judgments as to where they were going. . . attempted, at all times, to recognize reasonable expectations of both parties while, in all instances, rejecting proposals that, however facially logical, resulted in untenable windfalls". Perhaps the most succinct statement of the consensus standard was by Arbitrator Richard Kasher in Chautauqua/Shuttle America, at 12 (Kasher 2005): "At bottom, the objective is to preserve, to the extent possible . . . the pilots' career expectations at the time they learned of the transaction and to share equitably the growth opportunities created by the transaction, based on the groups' contributions to that growth". An arbitrator asked to intervene in such matters is well advised to remember that integration of seniority lists through arbitration is necessary because extremely knowledgeable and experienced negotiators were unable to achieve consensus on an integrated list construction methodology and related conditions. Such negotiations often deadlock and parties routinely must resort to interest arbitration because "[t]he merged list cannot be a copy of any list that previously [applied]; other names now appear. Moreover, no matter the effort in minimizing unfavorable changes to career expectations, merged lists do change career expectations; it is in their nature that they do". See US Airway, Inc./America West at 19 (Nicolau, 2007).

In this case the arbitrator looked a history and future. Just like Nicolau. You see where it says AT THE TIME? At the time US Airways was going out of business. Next it says to share in the growth oppotunities. It does not say one side gets to keep everything.
So much for the east logic of just placing west names on an east list. It is a new list.
Quoting Nicolau in our case. Could it be that other arbitrators think that Nicolau got it right?

In Federal Express/Flying Tiger (1990) at 23-24, Arbitrator George Nicolau captured the essence of a pilot seniority list integration process in four trenchant verities that ring as true today as when they were first written twenty years ago: "There are four basic lessons to be learned . . . that each case turns on its own facts; that the objective is to make the integration fair and equitable; that the proposals advanced by those in contest rarely meet that standard; and that the end result, no matter how crafted, never commands universal acceptance".

Quoting Nicolau again.

CONCLUSIONS
In terms of financial strength, business models, aircraft flown, experience, length of service, career progression, collective bargaining status, pay and benefits, and contributions to the future of the merged enterprise, it would be a challenge to conjure four pre-merger commercial pilot groups and seniority lists exhibiting fewer common attributes than those involved in this case. With regard to all of those factors, the four airlines and pilots involved in this integration proceeding were so disparate and disproportionate at the time of the transactions that traditional methods of list integration fail to produce a fair and equitable list. All agree that a stratified totem pole produced by unqualified date-of-hire dovetailing does not suffice. But none of the respective final proposals and associated conditions and restrictions advanced by the contending Parties would alone produce a fair and equitable result.

Another rejection of DOH. Status, pay and benefit is a factor in determining seniority. But in this case DOH does not work. Where have we seen that logic before? Roland Wilder has stated that poor contracts (LOA 93) are used by the arbitrator to determine seniority and use the increase in contract benefits to offset seniority. A crappy contract will cost you at the arbitration. Just like Nicolau said. Just like the arbitrator in the dispatchers arbitration said.

 

[cleardirect]

I was not highlighting it to help or hurt my case. I was pointing out how his decision seemed a whole lot different than Nicolau. That how i thought had Eischen made the same integration it that case here we probably wouldn't be in court


Secondly you like to play on perspective. Furloughed means furloughed. Like it or not. He had his reasoning why he integrated but furloughed is furloughed. West pilots are furloughed and recalled East. East pilots were furloughed and recalled West. East furloughed, recalled West then exercised their recall rights on East contract was THEIR contractual rights...just like the Frontier/Midwest Express had furloughs and that arbitrator made his justification.

You say that if Nicolau had done the same as Eishen we would not be in this position. He did do what Nicolau did. Relative seniority. This is what he has to say about the east pilots and your action regarding final and binding arbitration.

Each of the Parties to the DRA poured significant expenditures of resources, time, energy and good faith resources into the creation of the IMSL through this arbitration award. To indefinitely delay the effectiveness and applicability of the awarded IMSL, for an open-ended post-Award negotiating period, would invite tactical procrastination calculated to vitiate the cardinal requirement of DRA §V(g) that "the award of the arbitrator . . .shall be final and binding on the Parties to this Agreement and on the pilots employed by RAH and its affiliates".

Recent experience demonstrates that concerns over such a disastrously destructive epilogue are neither alarmist nor simply academic. See, Addington v. US Airline Pilots Association, 606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). Delaying implementation of the IMSL for an undefined open-ended period of time would be more than intolerably corrosive of labor management relations. Finally, it would be manifestly unfair and inequitable for the Award to require furloughed pilots, with integrated but indefinitely tolled seniority numbers on the awarded IMSL, to remain mired in unemployment as RAH hires new pilots off the street

A strong warning from the arbitrator not to do what east pilots did. Interesting how an arbitrator quoted the Addington case. A case you guys said never happened. If you east pilots don't think that every arbitrator does not know what you are doing here you would be wrong. BTW it would appear that they disagree with your actions and are warning other groups not to do what you are doing.

 

[luvthe9]

He had 4 years to get a contract and failed miserably. He does not have the skills. Being a lawyer does not make you a good negotiator.

None of you westies could have done better in that 4 year period, sure anyone could have gotten a contract but it would have been far worse that LOA93. I won't settle for another POS contract.

 

[EastUS1]

If you east pilots don't think that every arbitrator does not know what you are doing here you would be wrong. BTW it would appear that they disagree with your actions and are warning other groups not to do what you are doing.

Sigh! I've no doubt that they, and of course "the rest of the world", are desperately conspiring to ensure that the chosen ones out west get your hyper-insanely-inflated "seniority". 😉 After all; It's axiomatic that each and every one of the 7+ billion people on this earth all awake every day, to first and foremost, wonder what they can do to make you happy. 🙂

"clear" and "direct" (as if): "But in this case DOH does not work." So...How's that wonderful little nic fantasy treating you out in the PHX compound of true believers lately?

 

[cleardirect]

None of you westies could have done better in that 4 year period, sure anyone could have gotten a contract but it would have been far worse that LOA93. I won't settle for another POS contract.

Yes you would. You settled for LOA 93.

Yes the west could have gotten a contract. You go tell the company the Nicolau award is it not more excuses, time to get a contract.

 

[EastUS1]

Yes the west could have gotten a contract.

That's a solid lock for The joke of the Day. Thanks for the chuckles. 🙂 "could have"? Is that anything at all like your "career expectations"? 😉

 

[cleardirect]

Sigh! I've no doubt that they, and of course "the rest of the world", are desperately conniving to ensure that the chosen ones out west get your hyper-insanely-inflated "seniority". 😉 After all; It's axiomatic that each and every one of the 7+ billion people on this earth all awake every day, to first and foremost, wonder what they can do to make you happy. 🙂

"clear" and "direct" (as if): "But in this case DOH does not work." So...How's that wonderful little nic fantasy treating you out in the PHX compound of true believers lately?

There is general agreement among those who have dealt with pilot seniority questions following airline mergers that, in the words of the late David A. Cole in the Easter-Mackey case, “The essential object of our exercise is to prevent impairment, so far as possible, of the job security and the earning and promotional opportunities which each of the pilot groups had on its own airline prior to the merger.” Much earlier, in connection with the Braniff-Mid-Continent merger, the principle was stated by the arbitrators in the following words: “It is our purpose to see that each [pilot] on the two lists would retain all they had prior to the merger, would accrue those things which they would have had without the merger, and at the same time be in a position on the integrated lists to permit them to share equitably in any promotional opportunities which will arise as a result of the merged operation. . . . Seniority is, of course, highly relevant in the achievement of the objective stated, in various forms, by almost everyone who has dealt with this question". Seniority, however, is a relative factor. As Professor Benjamin Aaron has said, quoting David Cole in the Pan-American case, “A seniority list (is) not determined solely by time, ... it reflects the priority of job rights and opportunities of employees as among themselves which the employer agrees to respect.”

DOH does not work in many cases.

CONCLUSIONS
In terms of financial strength, business models, aircraft flown, experience, length of service, career progression, collective bargaining status, pay and benefits, and contributions to the future of the merged enterprise, it would be a challenge to conjure four pre-merger commercial pilot groups and seniority lists exhibiting fewer common attributes than those involved in this case. With regard to all of those factors, the four airlines and pilots involved in this integration proceeding were so disparate and disproportionate at the time of the transactions that traditional methods of list integration fail to produce a fair and equitable list. All agree that a stratified totem pole produced by unqualified date-of-hire dovetailing does not suffice. But none of the respective final proposals and associated conditions and restrictions advanced by the contending Parties would alone produce a fair and equitable result.

You need to let go of the idea that DOH is the only method to seniority integration.

 

[cleardirect]

Sigh! I've no doubt that they, and of course "the rest of the world", are desperately conniving to ensure that the chosen ones out west get your hyper-insanely-inflated "seniority". 😉 After all; It's axiomatic that each and every one of the 7+ billion people on this earth all awake every day, to first and foremost, wonder what they can do to make you happy. 🙂

"clear" and "direct" (as if): "But in this case DOH does not work." So...How's that wonderful little nic fantasy treating you out in the PHX compound of true believers lately?

Why do you think the Eishen put this little paragraph in his FINAL AND BINDING award?

However, nothing in this Opinion, or in the Award, should be read or construed to imply that the designated pilot and management representatives may agree to change the Award, to abrogate its final and binding effect, or to postpone the awarded effectiveness and application date.

There is no negotiating around the award. No matter how upset one group may be. Eishen know clearly about the bad acts of the east pilots.


And this.

Each of the Parties to the DRA poured significant expenditures of resources, time, energy and good faith resources into the creation of the IMSL through this arbitration award. To indefinitely delay the effectiveness and applicability of the awarded IMSL, for an open-ended post-Award negotiating period, would invite tactical procrastination calculated to vitiate the cardinal requirement of DRA §V(g) that "the award of the arbitrator . . .shall be final and binding on the Parties to this Agreement and on the pilots employed by RAH and its affiliates".

Recent experience demonstrates that concerns over such a disastrously destructive epilogue are neither alarmist nor simply academic. See, Addington v. US Airline Pilots Association, 606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). Delaying implementation of the IMSL for an undefined open-ended period of time would be more than intolerably corrosive of labor management relations. Finally, it would be manifestly unfair and inequitable for the Award to require furloughed pilots, with integrated but indefinitely tolled seniority numbers on the awarded IMSL, to remain mired in unemployment as RAH hires new pilots off the street

A strong warning from the arbitrator not to do what east pilots did. Interesting how an arbitrator quoted the Addington case. A case you guys said never happened.

 

[EastUS1]

DOH does not work in many cases.

Nic doesn't work in this one...or..haven't you noticed yet? 🙂

"There is no negotiating around the award." Suits me. Who said anything about "negotiating"? Per "the award"? = I couldn't care any less that such incredible nonsense even exists as a cherished fantasy of yours. Make your sacred nic fantasy happen, if you can EVER find ANY way to even possibly do so.

Have fun pouting and ranting away in PHX.