US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/14-10/22

[Pacemaker]

No sir. And you haved missed my point. It indeed affects all US Airways pilots.

RR

Clarification: The remedy specifically pertains to a deficiency in west block hours Sept.-Dec. 2008 and concurrent west furloughs. Separate ops., separate furloughs, separate remedy. Going forward, yes, it could potentially benefit both sides. But I see already by the replies here that some on the east have their hand in the cookie jar again. I would expect nothing less.

 

[Megasnoop]

My point is, if we both pull the same direction, good things can happen. Also, the West has far greater knowledge of the West contract, far greater knowledge of the current management, and many pilot advocates who will advance our standing far greater than is possible with the usapa discrimination machine.

No telling what your point was, but that's not what you said, not last post or the one before. You tried linkage between Vasin and the #10 win. Sorry, not so. Correct me if I'm wrong, according to the list, he was still on probation when the TA was negotiated, so no insight to gain there. I know we did get some very reluctant help out of your old scheduling gurus. But they wanted to keep their names out of it to protect from being trashed by fellow Wests. Someday all the players will come out, but until then, let's just savor this combined win and have a group hug.

Anyway, since time has passed, I doubt any more TA disputes involving jobs. There's not much left the company can do that ALPA didn't already let them have. Remarks like usapa discrimination machine. That bodes well for pullling in the same direction? Your kidding, right?

 

[nic4us]

Your not making sense. We are still separate ops. Until we merge, east gets the good and the bad of the E190s. How can you argue that west should share in the furloughs and then say "The actual employees furloughed [/b], if more are required, will come from the east?" I am with Hawk on this. They're our planes, we're separate ops, so any hit should be us. 300 #s senior to Colello? By what list? Last I checked, still 2 lists.

Still seperate ops, unless you happen to be an east furlough, recalled West, then furloughed and recalled east, while those senior to you were being furloughed.

They are not your planes, they are LCC planes, currently being flow by east pilots, out of seniority order. Last I checked there are 3 lists. West, east and Nic. Also, last I checked there was an injunction against usapa. My point about the 300 senior to Coello, is there just to illustrate how lopsided the last round of furloughs was, and that it should not have gone that deep on the West because the company violated the West min block in order to furlough more from the West when we should have been dividing the furloughs more equally.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No logic involved, ALPA-friend. It wasn't the language that lost the grievance.

How wrong (or blinded) - as I said the TA scope language for the CRJ900's or equivalent was lifted directly from the West contract. In that context, the CRJ700 (and equivalent) has separate numerical limits (which still exist). Attempting to include the CRJ700's based on the East LOA 93 scope language covering "Larger than current large small jets" and earlier agreement language covering "Large small jets is what made the grievance a long shot all along. Read in the context of the West contract, it's clear that the TA was modifying scope on both sides to allow a total of 93 CRJ900 or equivalent airplanes, not placing a new limit on combined "Large small jets" and "Larger than current large small jets". The TA scope modification, read in the correct context, says exactly what the arbitor ruled - the intended goal was to negotiate expanded options applicable to a discrete range of 93 aircraft, not to cut back on existing prerogatives. Since the language, read in the correct context, clearly states the intent it was the language, no matter who negotiated it, that determined the outcome.

Jim

 

[BLT]

Dear Megasnoop,

It is quite clear your mission on the forum is to defend USAPA at every turn. Wouldn't it be wise to use language and a tone that would foster a means of east and west working together. Your current act of lashing out at both east and west pilot commentary is not winning any hearts or minds, but just reinforcing everyones view of USAPA as the worst (so-called) union to ever exist.

BLT

union |ˈyoÅ￾nyÉ™n|
noun
• a state of harmony or agreement

 

[Tiger 1050]

This issue was solely a west problem. As Mega and other easties point out separate ops etc. Well then the remedy should only pertain to the west pilots. Fact is the west block hours were down because of transfer of flying to the east. It is my understanding that the east was never below their min block hours. If this is twisted and manipulated then I smell DFR #2. 'Course this may be more of a moot point than some want to acknowledge. Honestly what are the possible remedies? Cash to the furloughed guys? Nice but I'd rather have them back to work.


Having said that I am glad USAPA won....

 

[fr8tmastr]

The flying was not transferred East.. For crying out loud
The East did not start a base in Vegas to take your flying!

#10 was heard and we won, please try and put some of your braincells in the direction of a remedy and contact your reps with your ideas. This remedy will not help the East only the West, does that make it any easier?

 

[cleardirect]

Credit for losing #8 was placed where it belonged, ALPA lawyers negotiating directly with the company. USAPA didn’t even know about that until the company presented at the hearing. Age-old ALPA mainline/RJ conflict of interest, negotiated behind closed doors.

USAPA didn’t even know what ALPA RJ Scope Doctors were up to, negotiating by phone, until the hearing. Nor did the 2 MECs.

No logic involved, ALPA-friend. It wasn't the language that lost the grievance. It was the ALPA intent and hidden RJ agenda that USAPA and our former ALPA-types who testified for us didn't even know. We'll see the entire record soon enough. And you'l be wrong. Hold on to your "apparentlys" until then.

According to Block: The Company’s testimony is unrebutted in that no result of this nature was mentioned and that, indeed, the ALPA lead negotiators were well aware the intended goal was to negotiate expanded options applicable to a discrete range of 93 aircraft, not to cut back on existing prerogatives. The arbs language will speak for itself, not anything you or me post. Hard for USAPA to rebut what we didn't even know was being negotiated behind your your back by the CBA. But still, it was MECs that let ALPA CBA run away with the negotiations. Not much USAPA had to do with it.

How many times do you need to tell us that usapa was clueless about the grievance that they pushed forward? Telling me that usapa did not know the facts of this case sounds irresponsible to me. Don't you think that it was usapa's duty to know what they were getting into? The T/A was signed what 4 years ago. USAPA has been the CBA for 18 months now. To blame ALPA is just silly. Usapa has all of the time in the world to learn what was done. Even if a deal was made during the T/A negotiations, what is on paper determines the outcome not how it got there. If it was something that usapa did not know, perhaps the grievance granny was knitting and was distracted during that portion of the review. She might want to pay closer attention in the future.

It is usapa’s responsibility to understand what they are spending tremendous amounts of money fighting, before going into a grievance half cocked and blame someone else. ALPA did not tell them to pursue this grievance.

It is time for usapa to take the blame on decisions that this leadership is making. So 10 years from now if usapa is still around are we going to have to hear how it is still ALPA’s fault? At what point does it become usapa fault when they fail?

As Jim pointed out. Usapa blames ALPA for losing T/A 8 because of language but take credit for winning T/A 10 because of language by guess who, ALPA. Is it also going to be ALPA’s fault when the snap back grievance is lost because there was not clear language in there? It was decided by usapa that they understand what the contract says. When usapa loses the snap back grievance I would conclude that usapa did not understand the language, but it is their duty to know and not pursue tilting a windmills.

I didn't know is not a valid excuse. Try that with the FAA next time or a cop pulling you over.

 

[HPDriver]

Usapa blames ALPA for losing T/A 8 because of language but take credit for winning T/A 10 because of language by guess who, ALPA.

Gee, what a surprise.

USAPA doesn't know if its coming or going...again.

 

[Hawkhunter]

This issue was solely a west problem. As Mega and other easties point out separate ops etc. Well then the remedy should only pertain to the west pilots. Fact is the west block hours were down because of transfer of flying to the east. It is my understanding that the east was never below their min block hours. If this is twisted and manipulated then I smell DFR #2. 'Course this may be more of a moot point than some want to acknowledge. Honestly what are the possible remedies? Cash to the furloughed guys? Nice but I'd rather have them back to work.


Having said that I am glad USAPA won....

Show me what flying was tranfered to the East?

 

[Tiger 1050]

Show me what flying was tranfered to the East?

Next time you're in PHX count the number of black-top/original AAA airplanes! The number of flights you guys make out of PHX now as compared to say 2005 or 2006 or 2007 even... I don't blame you. I blame the company. You guys are the cheaper labor cost and they pushed the envelope and got caught. All I want is the flying back so I can come back to work.

 

[luvn737s]

Show me what flying was tranfered to the East?

Pull up all the flights with flight numbers above 700 that transit PHX or LAS and take about 70% of that number and you'll be pretty close. Did US east fly PHX/SAN, PHX/LAX, PHX/SJD or PHX/MCO, just to name a few, prior to the merger?

 

[nic4us]

Show me what flying was tranfered to the East?

Two companies mergered. There will be new utilization of the aircraft as new opportunities arise. Likewise reductions should effect both sides equally, as routes that would have been associated with one group are now flown by the other. The fact of the matter is a system wide pull down, most evident in the LAS reduction, cuased the need for furloughs and displacements. Rather than an equall distibution, the company elected to place the burden on the West at a rate three times higher than that on the east, and in doing so violated the West min block hours.

So the flying that was transfered east is the amount over east TA fleet min and block hour min that you were allowed to keep at the West expense. Not who will fly PHX-SAN etc.

 

[cleardirect]

Show me what flying was tranfered to the East?

Where did the block hours for the 25 190's come from? Are there now 6 flights a day to BUF?

New airplanes need places to go. Pull an east airplane off a route. Replace it with a 190. Now you have a free airbus. Send it to PHX to do MCO, CUN, SAN whatever.

If LAS took such a hit. Why are there still several east airplanes flying from there. If it is west flying then the east airplanes should have been pulled back and the west continue to fly the stuff we were flying.

Do you think maybe management knew they were going to lose T/A 10. Selling the 190's and getting those block hours back to the west could mitigate some damage.

Look Mr. arbitrator we have already shifted flying back west from the east. So no fines or penalties required.

That is where the shift in flying was.

 

[john john]

To blame ALPA is just silly. ALPA did not tell them to pursue this grievance.

Bottom line east/west/north/south ALPA negotiated weak language that negatively effects every front line employee