US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

I actually thought that ALPA merger policy made sense in theory. Unless you have a one-size-fits-all policy like the AFA and DOH, you have to have guidelines. ALPA's policy seemed to be setup to remove (try) the politics of the union itself and let the parties decide, and if not, a supposedly neutral third party. I figured that was so that a big airline like UA couldn't buys a little one like AWA and have the national union come down and let the bigger dues payer run roughshod over the little. In doing so the union had some protection from DFR.

My biggest issue with ALPA merger policy was the one man arbitrator. That just never made sense to have the future of so many pilots in the hand of one person and his/her biases. Seems they agreed, after the horse was out of the barn.

I think ours went the way it did for a couple of reasons. The biggest was the disparity in seniority vs DOH on the east. I can't remember another airline that survived that had furloughed pilots with 16-17 years LOS. We had such a big bottle neck in the 80s that everyone was waiting on seats. Nic only looked at where we were in 2007, and not how fast the east had the potential to finally start moving up, a situation that I don't think would have been as big with a merger of AWA and anyone else. Add to that the fact that the side that felt they "lost" was the bigger group with big ALPA issues, and the time was perfect for what happened.

All IMHO, of course.

A reasonable and well thought out post.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I actually thought that ALPA merger policy made sense in theory.

And in practice except for one merger - this one.

ALPA's policy seemed to be setup to remove (try) the politics of the union itself and let the parties decide, and if not, a supposedly neutral third party. I figured that was so that a big airline like UA couldn't buys a little one like AWA and have the national union come down and let the bigger dues payer run roughshod over the little. In doing so the union had some protection from DFR.

Immunity from successful DFR is the key - the union doesn't pick the winners and losers so can't be sued for DFR. That is exactly the problem USAPA gave itself and why it will fail in any DFR suit. USAPA took by force of majority vote the role of picking winners and losers and in so doing painted a big target on it's back.

My biggest issue with ALPA merger policy was the one man arbitrator. That just never made sense to have the future of so many pilots in the hand of one person and his/her biases. Seems they agreed, after the horse was out of the barn.

The same can happen with 3 arbitrators - a 2 to 1 decision means that really only one person ultimately decided which way it was to go. Just look at the appeal to the 9th - one "not ripe" vote changed to a "ripe" vote would have made the difference. Besides, how many seniority arbitrations have been handled by a single arbitrator without the problems here. That should tell you that the problem isn't having only one arbitrator, the merger policy, the result, or anything but one side both disliking the result and having the votes to attempt to force their desired outcome on the other side.

Nic only looked at where we were in 2007, and not how fast the east had the potential to finally start moving up, a situation that I don't think would have been as big with a merger of AWA and anyone else.

You need to get over the fantasy of everything being based on 2007 because it's not true. Nic looked at the financial health of the two carriers as of May 2005. Anything after that is like an egg - you can't separate the yolk from the white after you've scrambled an egg and you can't separate the fate of two individual carriers after they merge. So nothing post merger you want to bring up says a word about US' fate without the merger. You just need to accept that US would have liquidated without the merger - Parker has said it, Nic said it, I've said it. The only people who think otherwise are the easties who cling to the "attrition train" to justify what they've done the last 4 years. No US means no upward movement - it's that simple. I don't recall a single analyst who said in 2005 that the two carriers were in the same precarious position financially. I do remember a lot of analysts saying that US was doomed before the merger announcement was made.

Sure, AWH may have ended up in BK, sure AWH may have ultimately liquidated, but may isn't a certainty and no one, even you as hard as you try, can say with certainty what would have happened to AWH as a stand-alone carrier. US, on the other hand, had gone through about $1 Billion in cash (yes, with a B), was still burning cash, and the cash remaining wouldn't have lasted 4 months even if the creditors would have let US spend it.

So stop lying to yourself. US was burning cash twice as fast as it could be raised, had tapped all the available sources of cash, and was in a death spiral - the only other possibility they had was burning the furniture to stay warm a little longer, and they had done that with all the furniture, the doors, the floor, the window frames, etc and were starting to dismantle the house to keep the fire going. What happens when all that can be burned has been burned? The fire goes out.

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

Between 9/2004 and 9/2005 USA had, at the longest, 42 days of operating cash and that was in 10/2004. By 9/2005 it was down to 16 days and dropping.

 

[Pi brat]

Between 9/2004 and 9/2005 USA had, at the longest, 42 days of operating cash and that was in 10/2004. By 9/2005 it was down to 16 days and dropping.

If so, that backs up your theory that AWA had "double digit" consecutive profitable quarters how? Waiting......

What was the date that US Airways liquidated? It didn't, just like AWA didn't file Chp 11, 7, merge with 7 Eleven or anything else. The day the merger happened all might haves went away.

 

[Pi brat]

And in practice except for one merger - this one.


Immunity from successful DFR is the key - the union doesn't pick the winners and losers so can't be sued for DFR. That is exactly the problem USAPA gave itself and why it will fail in any DFR suit. USAPA took by force of majority vote the role of picking winners and losers and in so doing painted a big target on it's back.



The same can happen with 3 arbitrators - a 2 to 1 decision means that really only one person ultimately decided which way it was to go. Just look at the appeal to the 9th - one "not ripe" vote changed to a "ripe" vote would have made the difference. Besides, how many seniority arbitrations have been handled by a single arbitrator without the problems here. That should tell you that the problem isn't having only one arbitrator, the merger policy, the result, or anything but one side both disliking the result and having the votes to attempt to force their desired outcome on the other side.



You need to get over the fantasy of everything being based on 2007 because it's not true. Nic looked at the financial health of the two carriers as of May 2005. Anything after that is like an egg - you can't separate the yolk from the white after you've scrambled an egg and you can't separate the fate of two individual carriers after they merge. So nothing post merger you want to bring up says a word about US' fate without the merger. You just need to accept that US would have liquidated without the merger - Parker has said it, Nic said it, I've said it. The only people who think otherwise are the easties who cling to the "attrition train" to justify what they've done the last 4 years. No US means no upward movement - it's that simple. I don't recall a single analyst who said in 2005 that the two carriers were in the same precarious position financially. I do remember a lot of analysts saying that US was doomed before the merger announcement was made.

Sure, AWH may have ended up in BK, sure AWH may have ultimately liquidated, but may isn't a certainty and no one, even you as hard as you try, can say with certainty what would have happened to AWH as a stand-alone carrier. US, on the other hand, had gone through about $1 Billion in cash (yes, with a B), was still burning cash, and the cash remaining wouldn't have lasted 4 months even if the creditors would have let US spend it.

So stop lying to yourself. US was burning cash twice as fast as it could be raised, had tapped all the available sources of cash, and was in a death spiral - the only other possibility they had was burning the furniture to stay warm a little longer, and they had done that with all the furniture, the doors, the floor, the window frames, etc and were starting to dismantle the house to keep the fire going. What happens when all that can be burned has been burned? The fire goes out.

Jim

Give me the date they would have liquidated.

 

[apollo]

If so, that backs up your theory that AWA had "double digit" consecutive profitable quarters how? Waiting......

What was the date that US Airways liquidated? It didn't, just like AWA didn't file Chp 11, 7, merge with 7 Eleven or anything else. The day the merger happened all might haves went away.

Bloch's view

 

[BoeingBoy]

Nice try but you didn't really answer the question. Merely appearing to not have a license in no way means you are impersonating a rich airline pilot, but showing pictures of oneself wearing a USAir uniform definitely means one is impersonating a rich airline pilot.

Sorry, I wasn't and didn't mean to appear that I was answering the question about impersonating a pilot. Just pointing out another reason why one might not show up on that site. I assume it explains why I don't show up since I presume the site uses the data the FAA makes publicly available.

Jim

 

[fodase]

Give me the date they would have liquidated.

Just look up the latest clt fa crew news where Doug Parker addresses that.

 

[apollo]

You did not need to spend 2M plus in donations just to find out when your DFR case would be ripe. All you really needed was an honest law firm to tell you to wait for a ratified contract, and not milk you for 2 years only to find out the "truth." Most assuredly ripe then, yes indeed. That is a fact!

The company is not being honest, they know exactly what their responsibilities are. They only have to negotiate in good faith. I think Rocky and Bullwinkle were correct. You are forgetting that a true seniority list, and not just a proposal, must be ratified in a contract first. Only then is it a "list."

But we have all been over this stuff for years here. Who saved who? Who should have done what years ago? Blah Blah. No meaning now. We are where we are.

Are they still in the party mode on the Ninth floor over LOA 93? (nope.)

RR

Quintessential post.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Give me the date they would have liquidated.

A very small straw to grasp. Nobody but the creditors know when they would have forced liquidation if there were not the plan to merge. In fact, each creditor could have had a different point when they would have pushed for liquidation and a consensus would have had to been arrived at by the creditor group. Without the merger plan, it may have happened in the summer of 2005 or the winter of 2005/2006. Or anywhere in between. One thing is for sure, when the money ran out US couldn't have continued operating. So you tell me how much cash a stand-alone US would have burned each month including Sept 2005 and I'll tell you when the cash would have run out. That would be the absolute latest that US would have shut down.

Everybody but the easties realize the shape US was in back then - Lakefield, Parker, Nic, analysts, etc. You and others just can't give up the fantasy that US was a big powerhouse bringing in profits hand over fist and just killing time in BK.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

A very small straw to grasp. Nobody but the creditors know when they would have forced liquidation if there were not the plan to merge. Without the merger plan, it may have happened in the summer of 2005 or the winter of 2005/2006. Or anywhere in between. One thing is for sure, when the money ran out US couldn't have continued operating.

Everybody but the easties realize the shape US was in back then - Lakefield, Parker, Nic, analysts, etc. You and others just can't give up the fantasy that US was a big powerhouse bringing in profits hand over fist and just killing time in BK.

Jim

No, you are just full of #### and don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

You do not know everything that was going on in the world in 2005, so you cannot say that something else would not have happened. Period. Bill Gates might have cleaned out his sock drawer and been thinking about saving an airline instead of the world. An Arab Sheikh might have felt bad about the effects of high oil prices and thought he would throw US a life line. Probable? No, I've said that. But is it impossible that there were other options out there that would have prevented liquidation? Also NO.

When the money runs out at any company, they shut down. No real big news there Jimbo.

You can give your opinions, you can lay odds, that's it BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Same for AWA. I assume that Doug Parker has a better view than you or I will go with his assumption that US would have liquidated and AWA would have filed Ch11 with an uncertain future, thus BOTH companies benefited from the merger.

I had an uncle that was in a coma for 6 months. Everyone thought he wouldn't make it. He did. Is his life worthless because he was supposed to die in that hospital?

Again you LIE. I have never said US was "a big powerhouse bringing in profits hand over fist and just killing time in BK". I've said nothing to even indicate I think that way. I just don't think that AWA was any powerhouse and using that as a reason to take away from the US side is BS!

 

[cleardirect]

Bloch's view

Moreover, simply by virtue of the merger and the fact that they are to come under the coverage of the U.S. Air/Local 545 collective bargaining agreement, the AWA Dispatchers will reap substantial increases in wages, benefits and working conditions. A seniority “bonus” on top of that would be an unfair and inequitable windfall at the expense of the U.S. Air Dispatchers.

Yep this was Block's view. That a group that is going to get a substantial raise and working conditions should not also get a windfall of seniority.

The east pilots are going to get about 90% of the benefit of this next contract just to get to parity with the west. So using Bloch's logic that you seem to find OK, Nicolau was not also going to give east pilots a windfall of DOH. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Pi brat]

Yep this was Block's view. That a group that is going to get a substantial raise and working conditions should not also get a windfall of seniority.

The east pilots are going to get about 90% of the benefit of this next contract just to get to parity with the west. So using Bloch's logic that you seem to find OK, Nicolau was not also going to give east pilots a windfall of DOH. Thanks for pointing this out.

Thanks for the compliment on the other post.

On this one, just like with Jim above, how does anyone know the east will get raises? If so, how long will they last since we are the generally thought to be the weakest major airline? If the more crap hits the fan we might all be on LOA 93.

 

[Pi brat]

Just look up the latest clt fa crew news where Doug Parker addresses that.

I did watch it, but he gave no date that they would have shutdown, but he did estimate AWA would have filed ch11 by the end of '05, and that it would not have been pretty. He says we BOTH benefited from the merger. Did you catch that?

 

[BoeingBoy]

No, you are just full of #### and don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

You do not know everything that was going on in the world in 2005, so you cannot say that something else would not have happened. Period.

You're right, but I know the shape US was in and can say that nothing else did happen. During the period where anyone could file a POR with the court - any creditor, any other potential merger partner, any potential white knight - nobody did. That should tell you something, like maybe no one else was interested...Bill Gates and all the Arabs remained quiet.

You can give your opinions, you can lay odds, that's it BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Same for AWA.

It did not happen because the merger happened, bringing in all that outside investment. Yet you constantly point how how poor AWH was doing, that they were in as bad a shape as US, that they would have followed US' lead in BK/liquidation, etc. You claim no one else can say for sure, but you claim to know for sure what would have happened to AWH. If anyone dares question your view, they're attacked and told they're wrong. So who's claiming to know "everything that was going on in the world in 2005."

I assume that Doug Parker has a better view than you or I will go with his assumption that US would have liquidated and AWA would have filed Ch11 with an uncertain future, thus BOTH companies benefited from the merger.

I've never denied that both benefited. You just refuse to accept the condition that US was in.

Is his life worthless because he was supposed to die in that hospital?

Should he be thankful for beating the odds, or suing the doctors for malpractice?

Jim