Pilot seniority arbitration award is out
- Thread starter aquagreen73s
- Start date
SegmentKing
Veteran
hum.. why couldn't the East guys just be slotted in based on actual service at USAirways... (and include MDA time!).. so lets say you have a pilot hired in 1994, laid of in 2002, sent to MDA in 2003, laid off from MDA in 2005, so he'd have 10 years of seniority...
or does ALPA like to complicate things???
or does ALPA like to complicate things???
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Well, that's a pretty darn good idea. At least give a furloughed guy credit for his/her time on the property. They deserve it all, but anything would have been better than treating them like a complete new-hire.
A320 Driver B)
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
Your question isn't really coherent, but you seem to be asking who brought what to the table. I'll explain it this way: (1) AAA brought 2600 cockpit positions; (2) AWA brought 1850; (3) Most, if not all AWA pilots moved backwards in their respective percentile based on 4450 cockpit jobs; (4) all international flying was cordoned off until 2011. So, AWA pilots moved backwards and AAA pilots moved forwards in percentile. AWA lost and AAA won.
Same kind of reasoning used by the folks who deny what happened in Germany near the Polish border during WWII.
Very bright fellow we have here. Very bright indeed.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Huh???
The arbitrator did not protect all international flying. I am not in the "517". I can hold an A330 bid. Dozens of West pilots can bid for international flying as soon as operations are merged. The arbitrator only protected enough pilot positions to fly the international schedule...NOT those who actually do the flying. And when the age 60 rule falls, so does the one lousy fence that the arbitrator erected.
A320 Driver B)
Art at ISP
Veteran
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute.
Without being an expert, or even informed on this issue except for what I am reading here, let me pose the following questions:
1. Is there ANY WAY to overturn, modify or get around this ruling? For example can a new contract set seniority rules contrary to this? Can they be negotiated?
2. Am I correct in assuming like many said that the company and west pilots really had nothing to do with this ruling? Is it in fact the judgement of an "impartial" third party?
3. If this was due to negligence on the part of ALPA or other negotiating parties, then wouldn't there be legal recourse?
4. If the above is true, then what good does it do to call in sick, hurt the operation and drive what few high value customers are left after the meltdowns away? We already have good enough reasons to leave...what can driving the company out of business achieve?
It looks like no matter which way this went someone would be unhappy. To take it out on innocent customers, however, is somewhat unfair. Instead of spending all the energy being spent on complaining and protesting, how about finding a way to fix it? (This may be naive but had to be asked).
And don't blame us for driving fares down.....those of us who fly for business are subsidizing the Kettle family BIG time.
My best to you all....
Without being an expert, or even informed on this issue except for what I am reading here, let me pose the following questions:
1. Is there ANY WAY to overturn, modify or get around this ruling? For example can a new contract set seniority rules contrary to this? Can they be negotiated?
2. Am I correct in assuming like many said that the company and west pilots really had nothing to do with this ruling? Is it in fact the judgement of an "impartial" third party?
3. If this was due to negligence on the part of ALPA or other negotiating parties, then wouldn't there be legal recourse?
4. If the above is true, then what good does it do to call in sick, hurt the operation and drive what few high value customers are left after the meltdowns away? We already have good enough reasons to leave...what can driving the company out of business achieve?
It looks like no matter which way this went someone would be unhappy. To take it out on innocent customers, however, is somewhat unfair. Instead of spending all the energy being spent on complaining and protesting, how about finding a way to fix it? (This may be naive but had to be asked).
And don't blame us for driving fares down.....those of us who fly for business are subsidizing the Kettle family BIG time.
My best to you all....
CactusFlyr
Senior
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
KINDA REMINDS ME OF.....Animal House
But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
The short answer, no. See my posts elsewhere but it basically comes down to the fact that both parties voluntarily submitted to a binding arbitration process. Neither one can appeal simply because they don't like the result.
[/quote]
2. Am I correct in assuming like many said that the company and west pilots really had nothing to do with this ruling? Is it in fact the judgement of an "impartial" third party? [/quote]
Totally impartial. AWA and AAA both selected the arbitrator.
[/quote]
3. If this was due to negligence on the part of ALPA or other negotiating parties, then wouldn't there be legal recourse?[/quote]
ALPA's policy is to send this stuff to the NMB because of the exact danger you cite. The last thing ALPA national wants is suit based on a conflict of interest. They get it out of the house right from the beginning.
[/quote]
4. If the above is true, then what good does it do to call in sick, hurt the operation and drive what few high value customers are left after the meltdowns away? We already have good enough reasons to leave...what can driving the company out of business achieve?[/quote]
Nothing.
[/quote]
It looks like no matter which way this went someone would be unhappy. To take it out on innocent customers, however, is somewhat unfair. Instead of spending all the energy being spent on complaining and protesting, how about finding a way to fix it? (This may be naive but had to be asked).[/quote]
It's totally unfair and unfortunately it is this kind of behavior which has given labor a bad name in the minds of Americans.
[/quote]
And don't blame us for driving fares down.....those of us who fly for business are subsidizing the Kettle family BIG time.
My best to you all....
[/quote]
Thanks and best wishes to you.
1. Is there ANY WAY to overturn, modify or get around this ruling? For example can a new contract set seniority rules contrary to this? Can they be negotiated?
In a nutshell, yes.
But it will require the operation to remain separate, as it is now. Without completed negotiations, there is no merged operation, and without a merged operation, there is no ability/need to use the Arbitrator's award.
2. Am I correct in assuming like many said that the company and west pilots really had nothing to do with this ruling? Is it in fact the judgement of an "impartial" third party?
No, the America west pilots entered the initial negotaitions, and later fought for (in the arbitration) for the very same items that they were awarded. This is what they wanted, and fought for.
3. If this was due to negligence on the part of ALPA or other negotiating parties, then wouldn't there be legal recourse?
They are already being sued. There is an ongoing lawsuit brought by the US pilots that flew the E-170 at US Airways Mainline. This flying was not recognized as "active service" by ALPA (in terms of those pilots being recalled or newhired onto the property).
This is key, because US pilots from the top to the bottom of the furlough list returned to E-170 flying as active pilots at the time of the merger. For the Arbitrator to say the bottom 150 04/05 newhires should be included on the merged list (meaning he agrees it WAS US Airways flying), but not credit that active flying for anyone else that was operating the E-170 makes no sense.
(and before one of you AWA pilots spouts off about the E-170 not being "mainline-ish", remember many of your sneior piltos counted their time in AWA's Dash 8's)
4. If the above is true, then what good does it do to call in sick, hurt the operation and drive what few high value customers are left after the meltdowns away? We already have good enough reasons to leave...what can driving the company out of business achieve?
Good point, seems tome the company would rather keep us separate, and happy, than merged and angry.
It looks like no matter which way this went someone would be unhappy. To take it out on innocent customers, however, is somewhat unfair. Instead of spending all the energy being spent on complaining and protesting, how about finding a way to fix it? (This may be naive but had to be asked).
Trust me, we are tring to find a way to fix it, it is the AWA piltos that are looking for a way to make it stick, and to reap their windfall. They even have a gall to comlain they did not get enough from the award, imagine that...
In a nutshell, yes.
But it will require the operation to remain separate, as it is now. Without completed negotiations, there is no merged operation, and without a merged operation, there is no ability/need to use the Arbitrator's award.
2. Am I correct in assuming like many said that the company and west pilots really had nothing to do with this ruling? Is it in fact the judgement of an "impartial" third party?
No, the America west pilots entered the initial negotaitions, and later fought for (in the arbitration) for the very same items that they were awarded. This is what they wanted, and fought for.
3. If this was due to negligence on the part of ALPA or other negotiating parties, then wouldn't there be legal recourse?
They are already being sued. There is an ongoing lawsuit brought by the US pilots that flew the E-170 at US Airways Mainline. This flying was not recognized as "active service" by ALPA (in terms of those pilots being recalled or newhired onto the property).
This is key, because US pilots from the top to the bottom of the furlough list returned to E-170 flying as active pilots at the time of the merger. For the Arbitrator to say the bottom 150 04/05 newhires should be included on the merged list (meaning he agrees it WAS US Airways flying), but not credit that active flying for anyone else that was operating the E-170 makes no sense.
(and before one of you AWA pilots spouts off about the E-170 not being "mainline-ish", remember many of your sneior piltos counted their time in AWA's Dash 8's)
4. If the above is true, then what good does it do to call in sick, hurt the operation and drive what few high value customers are left after the meltdowns away? We already have good enough reasons to leave...what can driving the company out of business achieve?
Good point, seems tome the company would rather keep us separate, and happy, than merged and angry.
It looks like no matter which way this went someone would be unhappy. To take it out on innocent customers, however, is somewhat unfair. Instead of spending all the energy being spent on complaining and protesting, how about finding a way to fix it? (This may be naive but had to be asked).
Trust me, we are tring to find a way to fix it, it is the AWA piltos that are looking for a way to make it stick, and to reap their windfall. They even have a gall to comlain they did not get enough from the award, imagine that...
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
Fanciful thinking Rico. "Gee, if I just run away to Mexico, they'll never find me there and I'll never have to serve my time..." Trust me, your desperate search for a way out of this won't be fruitful. It's over. It would be a lot better for the AAA MEC to fess up what their lawyers have already told them by now: it's done.
Benz M-100
Advanced
Never say "never"
What exactly is fanciful about it...?
Our lawyer only said that arbitration is done, not the merger process.
Show me where it says that we HAVE to merge.
C'mon. Go for it.
Show me where you can force the East pilots to sign onto anything that completes the merger process, at which time the arbitrators award takes effect.
Feel free to try and convince me, and the thousands of other East pilots that there is any real advantage in our going forward with the merger process now...
No merger, no windfall, simple as that.
I would like to hear from a west pilot how they think the following is fair. I will not use names, but if you look at the award, you can see them. To identify the pilots, I will use the "new" seniority number.
Pilot #4768 was the junior active pilot from the East. He was hired 7/18/1988. The pilot right below him is the only West pilot junior to him (Save Dave). And of course all the pilots that were furloughed are below both of them.
Pilot #4768 has almost 19 years of active service. He was NEVER furloughed. Flew the line the entire time. Now lets look at the first West pilot now senior to him. That would be pilot #4765, with a hire date of 4/4/2005. When the merger was announced, this pilot had 2 MONTHS of service. Why shoud he go above a 19 YEAR pilot that was never furloughed?
Pilot #4768 was the junior active pilot from the East. He was hired 7/18/1988. The pilot right below him is the only West pilot junior to him (Save Dave). And of course all the pilots that were furloughed are below both of them.
Pilot #4768 has almost 19 years of active service. He was NEVER furloughed. Flew the line the entire time. Now lets look at the first West pilot now senior to him. That would be pilot #4765, with a hire date of 4/4/2005. When the merger was announced, this pilot had 2 MONTHS of service. Why shoud he go above a 19 YEAR pilot that was never furloughed?
Similar threads
