US Pilot Labor Thread

[cleardirect]

Clear... would you kindly post the exact quote where USAPA said they could obtain a "quick contract"... I've never seen USAPA say that!... Are you making this stuff up???????

Oh they ran on a platform of long negotiations? They came out and told everyone vote for USAPA we will get you a contract in 24 to 36 months?

Not making it up. Do your own research.

 

[LSS]

Oh they ran on a platform of long negotiations? They came out and told everyone vote for USAPA we will get you a contract in 24 to 36 months?

Not making it up. Do your own research.

I have done my own research... and nothing I've seen indicates that USAPA said they'd have a "quick contract." Prove me wrong... in which case I will apologize.

 

[Megasnoop]

Well, well, well I guess that these discussions are having an effect. USAPA has in their C&BL DOH. No compromise no "as close as the company allows". Finally someone is beginning to understand what negotiations involve. Two parties working towards a solution.

Yep, the list is still negotiable. Just ask your Jeff Freund. We've understood that for a long time, even before Freund said it in court.

USAPA can not dictate a seniority list to the company. For the record it was Lee Seham that said the seniority list section 22 was negotiable.

For the record, and in court, Jeff Freund also said the seniority list was negotiable. Oh, I'm repeating myself. At least you're finally understanding the reality: the list IS negotiable.

Wow! Now there is a change in attitude. Are you now saying that it could be at least 20 months before USAPA brings a contract to vote? Remember what else USAPA ran on besides DOH? Getting a quick contract and a pay raise. Guess that is all gone now. Sure is different actually running an association than bitching about one?

No change in attitude on my part, nimrod, despite your spin and distortion. I'm not saying it could take 20 months. I'd bet they have it done before the end of the year. Not a bad timetable, 8 months after being elected. BTW, how long did it take you to negotiate your current contract? USAPA's got 20 months to prove itself before they can be challenged. That's all I'm saying. If they fail to represent us, the tyranny of the majority could unseat them, just like the tyranny of the majority showed ALPO the door. Honestly, I don't think they will fail. They aren't controlled by a large national union handcuffed with built-in conflicts of interests.

The rest of your jibberish doesn't make enough sense to comment on. Snoop

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

A contract done by the end of the year? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, thats a good one. You guys will still be plugging up traffic at airports all over the US while you're stopped figuring out who you are and where you're going, due to that complicated callsign. I doubt negotiations will go any better for awhile yet.

 

[EastUS]

A contract done by the end of the year? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, thats a good one. You guys will still be plugging up traffic at airports all over the US while you're stopped figuring out who you are and where you're going, due to that complicated callsign. I doubt negotiations will go any better for awhile yet.

I don't personally expect any quick contract under the present conditions, but I've been wrong before. Hmm..."plugging up traffic, figuring out who you are and where you're going" might unintentionally be good for added time. There's always an upside to anything. As for "complicated callsign"..I think you must mean comical callsign, but that's already covered in another thread.

 

[ableoneable]

I don't personally expect any quick contract under the present conditions, but I've been wrong before. Hmm..."plugging up traffic, figuring out who you are and where you're going" might unintentionally be good for added time. There's always an upside to anything. As for "complicated callsign"..I think you must mean comical callsign, but that's already covered in another thread.

USAPA does not agree with your assessment. They seem to think the call sign change is a very complicated maneuver requiring simulator training. Can't wait for the next USAToday add.

USAPA Safety Committee Update

Item 1 - As you are aware our call sign is changing to “Cactusâ€￾ on September 1st. The USAPA Safety Committee was not consulted nor given prior information regarding the change and found out about it via the CBS message just as you did. We immediately contacted the FAA protesting the move as a detriment to safety and requested their help in stopping the change. That request was respectfully denied and the change will move forward. Neither the Company nor the FAA considers this to be a serious safety issue. Of course, it is a serious safety issue and it has been placed squarely in our laps. While our West brothers are used to using “Cactusâ€￾ the East pilots will need to use extreme caution and care as we transition to the new call sign. Please be extra vigilant during taxi and ground operations since the paint and call sign difference may be confusing to ATC controllers, the folks who work around the gates, and our pushback crews. If there is even the slightest doubt or perception of a misunderstanding regarding your call sign you must stop the operation until everything is crystal clear to all concerned.

 

[ClueByFour]

Based on SEC filings, the east should have stapled the HP pilots but they relented with DOH, countered with LOS, both with conditions and restrictions.

Paging a drug test to the courtesy phone.

Both the BK Court filings and the subsequent SEC filings indicate that it was a merger funded by external money with the HP folks surviving at the top. What do you possibly have to indicate otherwise?

Parker is an idiot, but the money put him there. Not the East management. Now, we can all question the wisdom of that, but if you dig up the BK and SEC filings, they'd paint a picture where in the real world (rather than Unionville), the East employees would have all been stapled.

 

[electricjet98]

OK

Based on what I've read here is my proposed settlement. It requires compromise as most negotiations do.

The 2 lists are compared and integrated as follows.

And a counter...

Dynamic Seniority List

A seniority list that is merged based on a straight ratio basis and then adjusted annually to reflect the attrition that has occured on each pilot's original list.

Airline "A" has a much older group of 200 pilots. Airline "B" has 100 pilots.

Dynamic ratio list lasting one year (for the top 15 pilots; ordering convention would be uniform thru-out the list)

1) Jim

2) John

3) Bill*

4) Mike

5) Phil

6) Mary*

7) Mark

8) Sue

9) Chuck*

10) Archi

11) Jon

12) Pete*

13) Lynn

14) Doug

15) Craig*

In a "Static Seniority List", everyone would move up as a group as people ahead of them retires, alway maintaining their relative position as compared to the people ahead and behind them on the merged list. In a "Dynamic Seniority List", Pilots move up to replace only those positions that were originally occupied by pilots that were from their original airline.

During year 1, Jim, John, Mike, Mark, Jon & Doug (all from the older "A" pilot group) retire. Only Bill* & Pete* retire from the "B" pilot group.

The annually adjusted "Dynamic Seniority List" now looks like this.

1) Phil

2) Sue

3) Mary*

4) Archi

5) Lynn

6) Chuck*

7) Jerry

8) Joseph

9) Craig*

10) Lonnie

11) Betty

12) Gwen*

13) Jeff

14) Blake

15) Kevin*

Notice that everyone has moved up; no pilot was stagnant or penalized. Lynn, the most junior "A" pilot of the first years top 15, has moved from #13 to #5. Craig*, the most junior "B" pilot of the first years top 15, has moved from #15 to # 9. "Airline "A" pilots moved up the merged list faster than airline "B" pilots simply as a function of their original seniority list's greater attrition. Certainly, other questions, such as how to do the next merger, would need to be answered. A movement toward this by USAPA would at least help open communication and move us away from this "Hatfield & McCoy" strategy.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I don't personally expect any quick contract under the present conditions, but I've been wrong before. Hmm..."plugging up traffic, figuring out who you are and where you're going" might unintentionally be good for added time. There's always an upside to anything. As for "complicated callsign"..I think you must mean comical callsign, but that's already covered in another thread.

The only thing comical is your own safety committee update. Actually I don't truly believe you guys will have any trouble with it, other than accepting it without making a 'statement.'

 

[ableoneable]

The only thing comical is your own safety committee update. Actually I don't truly believe you guys will have any trouble with it, other than accepting it without making a 'statement.'

Wait till an east crew gets one of these from ATC.

"Northwest 363, give way to the America West airbus disguised as USAir."

I think a few of them will blow a blood vessel.

 

[EastUS]

The only thing comical is your own safety committee update. Actually I don't truly believe you guys will have any trouble with it, other than accepting it without making a 'statement.'

Personally, as far as safety goes? = I don't see it as a huge issue. The controllers will also have to get used to seeing an old "name" and yet saying something else as well though. That'll just take some time for re-tuning "ears" for. I can't say that I'll initially have much ease with saying it without attendant chuckling, but that's no safety concern, and I've seen even more ridiculous call signs myself. I'm sure some will be truly irritated by it though. Perhaps not to the extent needed to become entirely "unsafe"..like when some west "captains" find themselves unable to even fly with a jumpseater for example. My honest guess is that the whole BS's just over management elements deciding to push back against the Union a bit, and this is the best they can manage to do thus far....pretty sorry gamesmanship in a few sectors it seems.

 

[EastUS]

I think a few of them will blow a blood vessel.

Sure thing sweetie... Anyone in this industry that can't "take a joke" needs to learn how, and this certainly qualifies as a joke.

 

[ableoneable]

Personally, as far as safety goes? = I don't see it as a huge issue. The controllers will also have to get used to seeing an old "name" and yet saying something else as well though. That'll just take some time for re-tuning "ears" for. I can't say that I'll initially have much ease with saying it without attendant chuckling, but that's no safety concern, and I've seen even more ridiculous call signs myself. I'm sure some will be truly irritated by it though. Perhaps not to the extent needed to become entirely "unsafe"..like when some west "captains" find themselves unable to even fly with a jumpseater for example. My honest guess is that the whole BS's just over management elements deciding to push back against the Union a bit, and this is the best they can manage to do thus far....pretty sorry gamesmanship in a few sectors it seems.

I think a new callsign would have been a good idea, but I also think they should have junked the USAir name.

I suspect that it boiled down to the fact that they had announced cactus was going to be the radio call almost two years ago and to change it now would give the definite impression that they were incapable of making a decision, no matter how small.

 

[EastUS]

I think a new callsign would have been a good idea, but I also think they should have junked the USAir name.

I suspect that it boiled down to the fact that they had announced cactus was going to be the radio call almost two years ago and to change it now would give the definite impression that they were incapable of making a decision, no matter how small.

I agree that an entirely new call would have been best for all concerned. I disagree with the second portion, and can only see this as nonsensical "Nyaah Nyaahs" from above, directed towards the east/Union. That observation won't be missed by most out here.

 

[ableoneable]

I agree that an entirely new call would have been best for all concerned. I disagree with the second portion, and can only see this as nonsensical "Nyaah Nyaahs" from above, directed towards the east/Union. That last won't be missed by most out here.

Everyone on the west was very aware that the America West name was not going to survive.

The USAir name had, and has, what can only be described as a toxic quality. There are even factions within the east side who have issues with the USAir name.

From a marketing point of view there are plenty of people who intensely dislike(ed) USAir. If you have any doubts go to the Flyertalk forums and poke around.

It would not have been expensive to go with a new name as the original plan was to repaint the fleet as soon as was feasible anyway.

I know it would have been impossible but I would have been pretty happy to finally get a chance to fly for PSA. 🙂