US Pilot Labor Thread 9/7-14

[EastUS]

Alert Seeham!!!!!! Your narcissism has been offended!!!!!! The streets shall run red with the blood of the West!!!

Umm..Is there an available psychiatrist anywhere in the house?

 

[Tiger 1050]

...Patience, patience, etc...

I'm afraid I have little of such concerning the healing process. I'm falling farther behind...! S :censored: t!!!! 😉

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I've no time for your .......

Ha ha ha, good one. No time for....ha ha ha.

 

[Low&away]

Which, of course, some East posters use to justify the "Give us what we want now and sometime in the future the world will be yours."

Amazing how some from the East can play the expectations game when it suits (right after the Nic came out and still for some) only to have others from the East proclaim "Where do you come off..." when anyone from the West mentions expectations.

Jim

I did not play an expectation game after Nic. I have consistently held the opinion that career expectation is a faulty concept. This was my fourth merger. My point is the expectation game is based on a moving target that some how is allowed to stand still for the sake of arbitrary career advancement. I had the same problem with Piedmonts position on expectations regarding the USAir merger. You have accused me of playing the expectation game when it suits me. You are wrong. It may surprise you that some people actually have supported DOH or length of service even when doing so was not in there best short term interest. I was hired at Piedmont and yes the Empire merger was a disgrace.

 

[tazz]

Or the actual staple, had AWA gotten their way. (Thanks, tazz)

Read my post again, please. I stated that we agreed NOT to discuss staple. Our MC chairman was adamant about being reasonable as he knew that we were all auditioning for the arbitrator. The ONLY time staple was mentioned was when we agreed with your MC not to discuss it as long as they did not discuss DOH.

Even though your guys violated that agreement our MC maintained its integrity.

You guys are absolutely amazing at making things up as you go along, putting words into people's mouths and, most importantly, deceiving yourselves.

 

[tazz]

I've no time for your snide quiblling, evasive BS, and wholesale tap dancing "genius". Either answer TF question or get lost with your utter BS. What WAS the west's best offer at any compromise? If you're insufficiently honest and forthright to simply state what that actually was.....well...I guess that I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest, given your immersive alpa background and all...much less the fact that your best offer at any compromise was almost certainly an entirely selfish "joke", that you're just too embarrassed by to even trot out here. 😉

I'll speak s l o w l y.....

O u r side would have discussed LOS but your side would only talk DOH.

DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! Selective hearing, limited vocabulary. East.





Me, I'm just tired of peeing into the wind...

Buh, bye

 

[BoeingBoy]

I did not play an expectation game after Nic.

Nor did I say that you did - I said some East posters had and that some still do. Without looking, which I haven't bothered to do, I don't even know if you posted on this forum until well after the Nic award came out when most East pilots posting here had moved away from the "Our expectations were..." argument.

You have accused me of playing the expectation game when it suits me. You are wrong.

Read my response above very slowly - I hear that it improves comprehension. You are the one that's wrong. I accused you of nothing, but did include you among those who gladly take a swipe at anyone on the west who mentions "expectations" while sitting idly by while other East pilots gladly tell West pilots all about their rosy "expectations" in a few years under a DOH/LOS integration.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I would think it would be rather dangerous, and uncharacteristic, for CEO types to opine how union led integrations would occur. They can speak all they want about non-union integrations, but, I would think that a public statement about the process, inevitably favoring one side or another, would be taboo.

Perhaps you recall, wrong?

Although your question wasn't addressed to me were you asking "Perhaps you recall" of someone named "wrong" or rhetorically asking "Perhaps you recall wrong?"

At any rate, I'll say one thing - you never cease to amaze me with your facade of vast knowledge yet lack of almost any actual knowledge about the industry as a whole or US and it's pilot's issues in particular. Your obvious lack of any knowledge about the market share game the legacies have played since deregulation, inferences that US was raking in the profits during BK 2 without a shred of supporting evidence but plenty of evidence to the contrary, being oblivious of the Choice Seats program that US put into effect last May, and now not knowing anything about the statement of labor principles (not to mention the specific criteria required for any seniority integration contained in the transition agreement).

Are you sure you're not a 16 year old wannabe pretending to be an East pilot?

Jim

 

[Elevation]

Jim you are well informed and some what impartial,if you were in charge of this mess what would you do if you were Doug Parker or USAPA?

 

[prechilill]

Jim you are well informed and some what impartial,if you were in charge of this mess what would you do if you were Doug Parker or USAPA?

And this question above is exactly why the west has to take this issue to the courts. For some strange reason you guys out east do not believe arbitration means anything and that contracts are made to be ignored. How about this, Parker and USAPA just follow the transition agreement they are a part of. How about that idea? The fact you even ask the question speaks volumes of your provincial, centric thinking.

What lies ahead, you all brought on yourselves.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Elevation,

You'll probably dislike my answer, but as far as my non-lawyer logic can tell the seniority integration is a done deal - that process was complete the moment Parker accepted the Nic list. I presume that somewhere down the line a judge will say just that.

Is seniority negotiable - it seems so, but USAPA has two problems in that respect:

1 - they can theoretically do whatever they want concerning future seniority integrations, but can't change what's already happened and

2 - if USAPA tries to undo the Nic list via contract language the West pilots can block it since the trtansition agreement calls for separate ratification votes by East and West.

All that leaves is a negotiated combined list - something the two sides could ratify (that pesky transition agreement...). While I've never heard of a negotiated agreement replacing an arbitrator's ruling on seniority integration, I haven't seen anything that says it can't happen (with the aforementioned caveat that I'm certainly no lawyer). But it probably won't happen as long as East keeps insisting on DOH/LOS as the basis of a combined list. As I've said before, over a relatively short time pilots will migrate to whatever position they can hold with their seniority on the combined list - fences will only affect how long that relatively short period is.

IMHO, the starting point for negotiations would be the Nic list - it was relatively fair as far as I'm concerned. The first change I'd recommend would be to put the widebody protection for East back in place with one change because Nic effectively only gave East protection to the captain jobs by virtue of only giving dibs on those jobs to the 500+ East pilots at the top of his list. He effectively effectively gave no consideration to the F/O or IRO widebody jobs, allowing them to be bid by anyone based on their combined seniority (unless one or more of those top 500+ East pilots bid them).

Instead, I would stipulate that only East pilots could bid the widebody jobs East brought to the merger and bring back the 5 year term of the protection. Using Nic's methodology - combining the jobs on equip/seat (below those top 500+) by a ratio equal to the jobs each side brought to the merger then putting names in those jobs in seniority order on individual seniority lists - Nic's list would now only have 175-200 East pilots at the top with the remaining 300-325+ at the top of the "F/O" list. So where Nic had the relatively big block of East pilots at the top and everyone else ratioed in till the furloughees were reached, this change would have a smaller block of East pilots at the top, followed by a ratioed list of pilots, with a block of only East pilots representing the widebody F/O and IRO jobs, then ratioed again till you reached the furloughees.

The second change I'd offer automatically is for the MDA pilots, only because of the way they were treated by both the company and the East MEC. Nic stopped ratioing the list with those left after all jobs through Group II matched with a name. I'd add an E-170 category to the ratioed part of the list to reflect the E-170 jobs East brought to the table. This would add a block of only East pilots somewhere below the Group II captain jobs/names. Exactly where below Group II captains is something of a quandary because of the pay at MDA - above Group II F/O but below A330/Group I F/O IIRC. So do you put all captain jobs in order ahead of all F/O josb (which would put the E170 captain right below Group II captain) or do you put the E170 captain where it falls on pay (below Group I F/O and ahead of Group II F/O). At any rate, that would leave the E-170 F/O jobs below all other jobs but ahead of furloughees.

Then there's the problem of the CEL pilots. When the MDA pilots were finally changed to active from furloughed on the mainline seniority list (only to be furloughed again as the E-170's were transferred to Republic), the CEL pilots were tacked on to the bottom of the mainline list. IIRC, there has been some discussion about whether their wholly-owned longevity would also transfer over to mainline or not. I have no idea if that's been resolved, but it could affect their position on not just a combined list but also on the East list.

A couple of notes...

Since I'm sure that someone will jump in and say "What are you talking about - there's no East furloughees other than the newhires" (an assumption on my part since I don't have anything showing who is being furloughed). Nic was charged with combining the seniority lists as they existed in May 2005 and I've stayed with that. In May 2005 there were indeed furloughees on the East side. Besides, May 2005 makes a convenient dividing line for separating pre-merger fleet/job changes from those that would be considered post-merger. In other words, May 2005 is a good demarcation line for determining what jobs East and West brought to the table as opposed to changes that happened as a result of the merger.

I've also talked about Group I and II jobs, whereas Nic separated 757 jobs from Group I because both sides brought 757's to the merger but only East brought 767's. It was just easier to type Group I or II but my intent was a separation of equipment like Nic used.

Jim

 

[machtuck]

The MDA debacle materially affects the NIC already, as it was summarily ignored in the process. This alone creates a flaw in the NIC as it stands. The ongoing and open lawsuit will ultimately change the NIC, so the wholesale and as-is implementation of it will have to be revisited.

More importantly, why isn't anyone discussing the blatant scope violation of 110 "large SJ's" ..?

There is Parkers "capacity reduction"...right there. 17 X 86 seats is roughly 10 73's worth of seats.

Result: NO FURLOUGHS.

Make Parker park the 17 RJ's....NOW.

(I'm concerned that the company thought it was OK to deploy the 94th RJ...much less quietly deploy 17 more.)

 

[BottomFeeder]

While it may be entertaining to banter back and forth, we should realize that the plan has been set in motion and there is nothing you can say or do to stop it. The courts will hear our argument and your rebuttal. A decision will rendered and that will be that.

Is this where you twist the knife into your "friend's" back?

You started this little debate topic with some flame bait. Then you banter to stir the pot. Followed by telling all to basically shut up. Exactly when did you realize that there was nothing we could do except for listen to the court? Was it before your first post or just now?

Stop calling/using "freind" when you don't mean it

 

[TBONEJ4J]

More importantly, why isn't anyone discussing the blatant scope violation of 110 "large SJ's" ..?

There is Parkers "capacity reduction"...right there. 17 X 86 seats is roughly 10 73's worth of seats.

Result: NO FURLOUGHS.

Make Parker park the 17 RJ's....NOW.

(I'm concerned that the company thought it was OK to deploy the 94th RJ...much less quietly deploy 17 more.)

Excellent point. While the integration issue is beaten again and again, the company takes advantage of the distraction to commit major violations of Section 1 scope, while the company furloughs both east and west pilots.

If the company succeeds in stepping all over Section 1, effectively gutting it, then in time any argument about seniority integration may be irrelevant - because the entire airline will be outsourced.

😛h34r:

 

[jimntx]

If the company succeeds in stepping all over Section 1, effectively gutting it, then in time any argument about seniority integration may be irrelevant - because the entire airline will be outsourced.
😛h34r:

Even more important...there is a precedent in Labor law commonly referred to as Shop Practice. If some action/policy/whatever occurs frequently enough on the part of the company or the union--even though it is a violation of the CBA, one or the other side can legally force a ruling of Shop Practice and it nullifies that part of the CBA. If either side allows an illegal practice to continue for a period of time and takes no action, the legal assumption is that the "injured" party has agreed to the practice and it becomes legal to do it from then on.

But, as I observed before, the company appears to have all of you exactly where they want you--fighting among yourselves rather than paying attention to what the company is doing or the fact that you do not have a combined contract yet. I hope all of you can afford those "principles" that you are all standing on. Don't have a dog in this hunt, but I'm just saying...