US Pilots Labor Discussion

[toganoflex]

After today, I wouldn't really call anyone else dumb.

No, you're right there too.

 

[toganoflex]

Really!? From page 14 of the Nic award:


The America West Proposal
America West's initial proposal differed dramatically from that of
US Airways. As previously indicated, its position, when first presented
in detail, was a series of ratios accompanied with a two year condition
and restriction reserving to US Airways pilots all Captain positions on
the 9 A330 aircraft flying international routes as of May 19, 2005. The
firat proposed ratio was not Captain to Captain. Instead, America West
added to its 855 Captains an additional 114 First Officers, who,
America West claimed, expected captaincies based on the 19 A320s on
firm order as of May 2005. That combined figure (969) was to be

integrated on a straight ratio basis with 1121 US Airways Captains, a
number derived from staffing assumptions based on what 'were 221 US
Airways aircraft as of February 2006. This ratio would be followed by an
integration of the remaining America West First Officers (925) with
1051 US Airways First Officers, also on a straight ratio basis. After the
reinsertion of those on extended medical leaves and those in nonflying
positions, this would put 2431 US Airways pilots on the bottom of
the list, 959 of whom were active pilots as of May 19, 2005 with the
remaining 1472 furloughees.

It's all right there in the Nicolau award, maybe you should read it sometime! B)

Are we talking proposals or the award?

 

[Pi brat]

You forgot to highlight this:

America West's initial proposal

Unlike you guys, we moved off our position.

Again, from the Nicolau opinion and award:

"Like that of US Airways, America West's position was not
substantially modified during the proceedings."

Yes, from the award, just like my previous quote. Could I forward the award to you or something?

 

[Pi brat]

No, you're right there too.

Oops, let off "If I were you". Thanks, will correct.

 

[toganoflex]

Again, from the Nicolau award:

"Like that of US Airways, America West's position was not
substantially modified during the proceedings."

Yes, from the award, just like my previous quote. Could I forward the award to you or something?

I say again, were we talking about the award or proposals?

I thought we were talking about the award and the east's attempt to work around it.

 

[Pi brat]

I say again, were we talking about the award or proposals?

I thought we were talking about the award and the east's attempt to work around it.

Geez man. Here is my original quote:

"I can't believe the east turned down you generous offer of stapling 900 or so active pilot behind Dave............" An offer from the west would not be an award.

That was the AWA proposal to Nicolau, as stated in his opinion and award. You said that they were not active, I proved you wrong. You said that was the original proposal and you modified it and I showed you were Nic said not really.

I should have said opinion and award, but I guess I thought it would be obvious and "award" has been used to describe opinion and award. Clear?

 

[Pi brat]

Let's be accurate here. Brucia did not disagree over the placement of all of the furloughed pilots. He disagreed with the placement of the furloughed pilots that had been recalled AFTER the PID.

Clear,

I found the Brucia dissent. I wouldn't phrase it as you did. Here it is:

"CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

Having been chosen to serve in the capacity of a Pilot Neutral under the
provisions of ALPA Merger Policy in the above referenced matter, I have elected to
confirm my concurrence with most matters decided upon by the Arbitration Board while
dissenting from the decision of my fellow members of the Board on one important
aspect of the Award.

The two pilot groups involved in this merger had marked similarities but they also
had wildly disparate issues separating-them. The similarities were manifested in the areas
of compensation for the narrow body aircraft that·both airliJies utilized, route structure
and work rules and other lesser items. However, there were some glaring
dissimilarities. The US Airways pjJp,tsbrought with them long haul International flying
and routes and the associated wide body aircraft to perform that flying. America West
had no similar flying, routes or aircraft. The Chairman's wisdom and experience dealt
with these and many other issues in a fair and equitable manner. The one aspect of the
Award where I differ with my fellow members of the Board is in the area of credit that
should be given to a pilot based on date of hire and the pilot's resulting length of service.
As noted in "The Background" section of the Award, US Airways had a
significant number of pilots on furlough at the time the merger was announced while
America West had none. The most senior furloughed US Airways pilot (Colello) was
hired in 1988 and had accrued 16.4 years of service as of the date of announcement of the
merger. He was furloughed in 2003. Below Colello, there were over 440 pilots on
furlough with at least 15 Y2years of tenure and well over 12 years of credited length of
service. The remaining furloughees (not including the CEL pilots) had at between 5
years and 15 years of tenure and from 1 Y2to 6 years of service.
The junior 305 pilots on the America West seniority list all had less than 2 years
of service when the merger was announced on May 19,2005. In fact, the bottom 150
pilots on the America West list were hired less than 1 year before the announcement. I
do not agree with the Board's decision, in the particular circumstances of this case, to
integrate only working pilots as of the date announcement, leaving all those on furlough
at that date on the bottom of the combined seniority list. As a consequence of the Boards
decision, America West pilot Odell, who was hired less than 2 months before merger
was announced, has been placed immediately senior to US Airways pilot Colello who
was hired more than 16 years earlier and who had over 16 years of credited length of
service. I disagree with this placement, which disregards Colello's substantial service
time.
There is no dispute in this case that the US Airways pilots as a group are
considerably older than the pilots on the America West list. The record is replete with
discussion by both committees relating to age-related attrition, with both groups claiming
entitlement to advance in seniority as a result of age-based attrition. The Board did not
adequately take into account the realities of the "new" airline, the return of furloughees
that has already taken place and the much greater rate of age-based attrition at US
Airways as compared to the rate at America West. The vast amount of age-related
attrition that has occurred within the US Airways pilot group caused the recall of over
300 US Airways pilots between March 2006 and the first week of January ofthis year.
The pace of recalls is brisk and has continued. During the hearings we learned that
additional recalls were taking place and there was testimony that stated at the current
pace it was possible that all US Airways pilots would receive recall notices before the
end of 2007.
At a minimum, it is my opinion that the US Airways pilots, who had already
received notice of their opportunity to return to work from furlough, should have received
some consideration for the substantial time they have already invested in their airline. In
the event that the "new" company again decided to furlough pilots in the near future,

conditions and restrictions could have been used to insure a measure of protection for the
junior America West pilots to protect them from furlough for some period of time. In
fact such a restriction was part of the US Airways Pilot's integration proposal in this case.
I believe that this approach would have better balanced the equities that each pilot group
brought to this merger.
Finally I would like to a reaffirm my opinion that the Chairman Nicolau
demonstrated exceptional judgment and wisdom working through many very difficult and
challenging issues including the disparate aircraft types, routes, compensation systems,
and pilot staffing formulas to mention just a few. It has been a privilege to work together
with Chairman Nicolau and Captain Gillen on this Opinion and Award.
Dated: May 1, 2007
Captain James P Brucia
Pilot Neutral


Sorry for the hacked up words and lines, it was cut an paste from the opinion and award.

 

[Pi brat]

No more comments toganoflex? How about that captain thing?
No answers cleardirect?

 

[toganoflex]

"Finally I would like to a reaffirm my opinion that the Chairman Nicolau
demonstrated exceptional judgment and wisdom working through many very difficult and
challenging issues including the disparate aircraft types, routes, compensation systems,
and pilot staffing formulas to mention just a few. It has been a privilege to work together
with Chairman Nicolau and Captain Gillen on this Opinion and Award."

 

[toganoflex]

No more comments toganoflex? How about that captain thing?
No answers cleardirect?

Closest guy to me that is Captain is senior and on the EMB.

Thanks, but I'll pass on the commuter jet.

 

[toganoflex]

"...the return of furloughees that has already taken place"

A PID is a PID.

The snapshot was taken and that's it. Doesn't matter that these guys came back down the road.

And the only opinion that matters is Nicolau's.

End of story.

 

[cleardirect]

Str8 DOH? maybe not, but what I understand is that the latest Federal law dictates now, which it the Allagehny/Mohawk agreement......DOH with conditions and restrictions.....no more stapling to the bottom when the different pilot groups come from different unions.

What's your point?

Where do you get the idea that M/B using A/M is DOH? What is your source? What legal document do you have that makes you think DOH with C&R is the way it would go?

I suggest that you read the Frontier/ Republic arbitration award. The first one done using M/B. Then tell us if it was DOH with C&R.


It actually could be a staple. IF that is what the arbitrator decides. But the law was designed to prevent a larger group from stapling the minority. Sound familar?

 

[toganoflex]

What? No more comments Pi?

You run off?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Nice job of picking the two years that make your point while ignoring the little fact that all the airline's passenger counts were down in 2009 due to the recession.

Why not look at 2007 vs 2010 - the years during which the legacies initiated and raised baggage fees? Perhaps because WN's revenues grew almost 29% ($2.7B) and thus make a mockery of your theory? BTW, net income responded to higher fuel prices which even WN didn't totally escape.

Jim

Might want to check your facts again BB. The ancillary fees for bags were instituted in 2008 not 2007. So I included the year before the fees were instituted and all of the full year results following the fees. 2007 and 2008 were the most relevant to the discussion since those were the years before and after the fees were announced. Also US had comparable results in 2010 vs 2009 in terms of revenue and net income improvements.

Still, assuming you and Gary Kelly are correct, how much does $2.7B in passenger revenue bring to the bottom line at even 5 or 7% net income? Is it anywhere near $1.5B in baggage fees?

 

[Pi brat]

What? No more comments Pi?

You run off?

No my friend, I went to bed.

If the closest east guy to you on the Nic can only hold EMB captain, then you lied(or couldn't figure out) about your position on the west list. The bottom east 737 captain sits beside a west guy that is in about the bottom 15%(whole list, not just active) of the west list. I don't think anyone in the bottom 15% of the west list is holding captain on anything.

If the PID is what matters, why did Nicolau use our fleet from 2007 instead of 2005?

I will be look forward to you finally answering a question.