US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Hate2fly]

I have visions of someone in a double wide with antennas all over the roof................listening to ATC with the Dave Clark headset on. Uniform is at the dry cleaners. Nice!

Hate

 

[exB717Flyer]

Don't tell me what I think or that I'm lying, ever!

Ooh, looks like I struck a nerve. Good. Perhaps it triggered a moment of self-reflection. You need to stop lying to yourself before you can stop lying to others.
This whole East-West dispute all boils down to but one issue:

The East doesn't like the arbitrated list and thinks it's okay to impose one it does like onto the West.

Everything else is subterfuge, deception, deflection, non sequitur, or ad-hominem insults.

All the West is entitled to is the result of the arbitration. Whether ultimately found legal or not your position is immoral and lacks integrity. You have no defense and to say otherwise is a lie and I shall repeat this accusation as many times as I must.

 

[john john]

We all know that AWA was one of the premier flying establishments. They had some of the best pay and benefits in the industry. The AWA pilots retirement was unbelievable! They had power house hubs in PHX and LAS! How about those wide body airplanes? Every pilot I have ever met wanted to fly for them. I think it was that professional call sign. Cactus

All of us in the east pinch our selves on a daily basis............we feel like we hit the lottery working for team tempe.

Yep, that about sums it up........nothing but the best!

Hate

The passenger service group at HP had the worst pay and benefits in the industry
Now that same employee group is at industry standard
The east operation allow this

 

[Bear96]

To answer your question here, the answer is no. But it's not a good analogy. A better one would be that BEFORE any agreement was signed, Mr. B found out that his original lawyer was not representing his best interests, so he fires him. He hires a new attorney. Is his new attorney bound to continue to pursue the same positions as his old one? Certainly not. He can start at the beginning, he can accept portions that were already agreed to, or any variation in between.

You are missing some basics about arbitration.

Parties who choose to go to binding arbitration do not get to wait to see if they like the outcome before agreeing to follow it. Rather, they agree to follow it, and thus be bound by it, at the time they choose to arbitrate. Otherwise the whole concept of binding arbitration would be quite pointless.

So your analogy about changing representation "before any agreement was signed" does not fit. In effect the agreement was "signed" when the arbitration panel announced its decision. East did not decide to dump its legal representative until after that.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You are missing some basics about arbitration.

Parties who choose to go to binding arbitration do not get to wait to see if they like the outcome before agreeing to follow it. Rather, they agree to follow it, and thus be bound by it, at the time they choose to arbitrate. Otherwise the whole concept of binding arbitration would be quite pointless.

So your analogy about changing representation "before any agreement was signed" does not fit. In effect the agreement was "signed" when the arbitration panel announced its decision. East did not decide to dump its legal representative until after that.

Not correct. It was an "internal process" used to arrive at a "bargaining position", nothing more. The West's own lawyers said as much.

Rather than argue about it, go read the Baptiste and Wilder RLA Blog. It has an excellent synopsis. Plus, B&W are probably the foremost lawyers in RLA matters, often representing ALPA itself.

Here's the link:
http://bapwild.com/blog/?p=454

 

[700UW]

It is part of your CBA the seniority procedures were established by the TA and the union and the company signed off on it.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You are missing some basics about arbitration.

Parties who choose to go to binding arbitration do not get to wait to see if they like the outcome before agreeing to follow it. Rather, they agree to follow it, and thus be bound by it, at the time they choose to arbitrate. Otherwise the whole concept of binding arbitration would be quite pointless.

So your analogy about changing representation "before any agreement was signed" does not fit. In effect the agreement was "signed" when the arbitration panel announced its decision. East did not decide to dump its legal representative until after that.

BEAR, U/A wants ya back, either sling'n cokes or their AFA, along with a certain JET need all your free quasi legal law advice, us we'll take our advice from SEHAM, he's at least always made a living practicing law! Even won alot of cases!MM!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

It is part of your CBA the seniority procedures were established by the TA and the union and the company signed off on it.

Doesn't matter. I know it has a lot of BIG words in it, but go try reading the B&W blog anyway. Then, maybe you'll get it. Na, I doubt it. Some skulls are awfully thick around here.

 

[767jetz]

I didn't take that you were calling me pathetic, but I don't want anyone calling my sister names either, so you can understand.

I understand you are looking out for your "sisters" on the east.
(couldn't resist that one. You set me up too well.)

How many of those west airplanes on order were deferred? How many do you think would have been returned after LAS had to be shuttered? You think there was any chance that those east airplanes were scheduled to be returned in order to get the merger done? You weren't around to see how fast the HoJo's painted Mesa RJ showed up in CLT to replace them. US was in CH 11, so those were the easiest to get rid of.

Look, things changed for the company post merger. What made sense from a business point before, was better served with a new strategy after. It is all conjecture. The business model changed. Take UA & CO for example. CLE was viable for CO before the merger. Now it is redundant due to its proximity to ORD. Perhaps assets at LAS were now more valuable elsewhere for the NEW company. It doesn't mean they were valuable to US before the merger, or that those assets did not come from the west. Sure there is a chance that AC were returned to pretty up for a merger. Or it may have been for survival before US had a merger partner. UA parked the entire 737 fleet and furloughed 1000 active pilots. Was this in order to make the merger possible, or maybe to shore up the balance sheet? It is a weak argument for East and the UA pilots to make in seniority integrations. (And that comes straight from the mouth of one of our 3 merger committee reps.) It is pure speculation.

How about the placement of formerly furloughed pilots junior to all west pilots, even though they had returned to work before the Nic award came out? Using a date in time was really "convenient" for the west pilots, huh?

Using the date of the merger is not a matter of convenience. While that date is not set in stone, and can be argued in arbitration, using that date is historically accepted practice as the best point in time, and is precedent in almost every merger. Moving it always favors one side at the expense of the other.

I didn't come up with my feeling after the merger in order to favor myself, as you seem to indicate.

Maybe no to favor yourself, but it certainly favors many of your "sisters."

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I understand you are looking out for your "sisters" on the east.
(couldn't resist that one. You set me up too well.)...

...Maybe no to favor yourself, but it certainly favors many of your "sisters."

Sure didn't take long for you to come back from your self-imposed exile. What happened? Did the UAL guys run you off their board?

Any merger policy relying arbitration as the main method of integration is NOT a merger policy. It's a cop-out.

ALPA SUX!

USAPA- the best money EVER spent!

SSM&P- the BEST lawyers we could have chosen!

Go Mike Cleary! You're a hero!

 

[Bear96]

Not correct. It was an "internal process" used to arrive at a "bargaining position", nothing more.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Pi brat]

Without the breakdown that means little - all references to US Air Group refer to LCC and not the old US. You undoubtedly recall that in conjunction with the merger LCC amended the Airbus purchase agreement (amendment 8 as I recall) which set delivery dates for the old US orders and amended then current HP delivery dates. How much in deposits/progress payments was that worth? Minus $35 million, meaning that old US had zero, nada, zip in prepayments to Airbus.

If you look at the individual fleet breakdowns, you'll see that at the end of 2005 HP had 141 mainline aircraft while East had 232. After that West went down to about min fleet (approx 120 planes or a 14% reduction) while East stayed at least 15 over min fleet due to the E190's (or about the same size mainline fleet as at the end of 2005 although the actual number varied up and down).

As you can see, the West has suffered more loss as a percentage than East since the merger. And as I mentioned in passing earlier in this thread, it's either a 1 in 1,000,000 coincidence or a transfer of hours that make the additional post-merger airplanes that East has gotten require about the same number of pilots recalled to the East as were furloughed from the west.

As for lease expiration's at HP, it's worth noting that they renewed leases on 6 airplanes in 2005. No guarantee that the same would have happened in later years, but just because a lease is expiring doesn't mean the airplane automatically leaves the fleet.

Jim

PS - exaggeration doesn't make your point any more valid. I don't think anyone has said anything about a "mighty AWA fleet". Besides, it makes you sound like Hate.

"In 2006, AWA is expected to take deliveries of two more A319 aircraft and
return eight 737-300s, two A320s and one 757. As of December 31, 2005, 48 aircraft have lease
expirations prior to the end of 2008.
AWA is a participant in the Civil Reserve"

Have you ever noticed you argue both sides? You said that you weren't aware of them returning airplanes, but then you say they suffered a bigger % of reductions. That was in conjunction with the merger, but if the west was such a power house and profitable, why reduce? The theory is that the west "carried' the east, but they suffered the most cuts. Some of that is probably because of the lower pay on the east, but as you have said, the overall costs are about the same, so that leads me to believe the company put it's assets where they could produce the best.

You are correct that a lease expiration doesn't automatically mean the airplane will leave the fleet, but it might, right? You never hear that from west pilots. They only point to how many they had ordered, not any that might leave. That is the point I was trying to make. Both sides of this have tried to make their case look the strongest and ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Both AWA and US were weak airlines that needed the merger. To say one needed it more than the other is like one terminal cancer patient telling the other "At least I will live longer and I'm sure they will find a new drug!"

I wouldn't talk about how others come across if I were you.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Doesn't matter. I know it has a lot of BIG words in it, but go try reading the B&W blog anyway. Then, maybe you'll get it. Na, I doubt it. Some skulls are awfully thick around here.

Did the B&W blog mention the Transition Agreement or that the Company accepted the binding arbitration award and paid both MECs for consideration upon completing the contractually agreed upon process? I'm sure such unbiased and esteemed labor law experts wouldn't have failed to comment on the most salient issue of this legal matter. How exactly did the B&W blog review handle the thorny matter of a multi-party agreement that transcends the traditional “internal union dispute” definitions?

 

[Pi brat]

Ooh, looks like I struck a nerve. Good. Perhaps it triggered a moment of self-reflection. You need to stop lying to yourself before you can stop lying to others.
This whole East-West dispute all boils down to but one issue:

The East doesn't like the arbitrated list and thinks it's okay to impose one it does like onto the West.

Everything else is subterfuge, deception, deflection, non sequitur, or ad-hominem insults.

All the West is entitled to is the result of the arbitration. Whether ultimately found legal or not your position is immoral and lacks integrity. You have no defense and to say otherwise is a lie and I shall repeat this accusation as many times as I must.

If you had kept track you would know how stupid you sound. Better stay out of the pulpit.

You go it wrong. The majority of the east thinks that the process failed and produced a morally flawed list that improperly takes form one group and gives to another. That's what it boils down to. Believe it or not there has been quite a bit of discussion over here about what is the right thing to do about it, if anything.

If you had paid attention, most of what I post is to answer what I see as absurd assumptions from west pilots.

 

[Pi brat]

Look, things changed for the company post merger.

NO! REALLY!? Thanks for making that clear, could you get some west pilots to understand that? They seem to think that they are entitled to continue on the trajectory of May 19, 2005.