Ok so I am listening to both sides of the argument and I understand the thought process behind the "you keep what is yours and I'll keep what is mine" mentality.
My question is what does your group do with new flying? Beijing and Tel Aviv (when and if they start flying) are routes that exist with the help of the synergy of a merged national network. What is the fair way to staff such growth? Especially since not one side "owned" that flying before the merger.
Also from reading the complaint filed I don't understand why USAPA, who is such a big proponent of trade unionism and seniority, has not made any issue with the fact that senior pilots are furloughed before new hires. So which is it in the unions view? Two separate pilot groups or common carrier status as the NMB has declared? I know that you all still operate off of two seniority lists but the principle of letting some of the "5200 mainline US Airways pilots" that USAPA represents hit the streets out of seniority order without so much as a fight seems like a failure.
Good observations, "Lurk-A-Lot"
It appears from your post that you are neither a west or an east pilot, so here it is in a nutshell. You ask very approriate questions, which have complex answers. I will try and keep it short and to the point.
Prior to the USAPA effort to thwart the binding seniority arbitration, there was (and still is) the understanding the pilots of both airlines would be integrated. A Transition Agreement was reached, between the pilot groups and company to address your first question. It was to prevent a whipsaw of pilot groups against each other, and protect established flying as the groups worked towards a single seniority list and contract. Additionally, it provided for the ability to discuss and agree upon "new" flying. If no agreement could be reached, then the process went to arbitration.
This became an issue shortly after the "deal" closed. In February of 2006, the company announced the aquisition of 3 B757 aircraft, for new service to Europe, to begin in the spring. In good faith, the West pilots signed a letter of agreement, to lay claim to 7 Captain positions and 7 First officer positions, once the seniority list was in place. An IOU, so to speak.
Shortly thereafter, the company announced the aquisition of E190 aircraft, for growth flying. No agreement could be reached in that matter, so the decision was left to an arbitraitor. Not wanting to put a "footprint" on the main Seniority Arbitration, the E190 arbitrator again, issued an IOU for seats (current delivery aircraft) and a percentage of seats (future aircraft), once the final seniority list was in place.
No former America West pilot has had the opportunity to gain from this growth, due to the East pilot's actions to not honor the Nicolau decision or obtain a new contract. (The integration of the East and West pilots).
As for your second observation, that is a great question as well. After all, wasn't the big issue with the east pilots - seniority and length of service?? Doesn't appear consistent within the new union or the east pilot group, does it?
Now it appears the courts will decide this. This profession has hit a all-time low. Pilots are their own worst enemies. Meanwhile, the company is laughing all the way to the bank at the daily savings in wage and benefit outlay it would otherwise be responsible for.
Hope this helps, Cheers. :down:
