US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

Oh you mean the PID where the east had 270 A/C but 2 years later Nicolau only gave us credit for 226?

You need to do some research instead of parroting the AOL bs.

Well lets see....270-226=44 or approx 16% (you also said the east lost 60+ hulls in a prior post)

Meanwhile the West went from 144-120=22 or approx 15%

Did Nic use the smaller West number also? Unless he used a West 2005 fleet count and an east 2007 fleet count, I fail to see why this bothers you.

 

[767one]

Didn't realize we flew under congressional air regulations, thought they were Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 😛

Prechill,

Off subject but the FAA has issued the new flight duty period /rest regulations. 314 pages and as usual it looks like an almost total cave in to the ATA. Not to mention that they won't even begin for 2 years.


Bob

 

[nic4us]

Prechill,

Off subject but the FAA has issued the new flight duty period /rest regulations. 314 pages and as usual it looks like an almost total cave in to the ATA. Not to mention that they won't even begin for 2 years.


Bob

314 pages????

It should be in 314 words or less...

 

[Pi brat]

We all know how good USAPA is at winning grievences and court cases. As for PI, he just thinks he's found a smoking gun and won't let it go even if it's not.

Nic could just as easily have used the May 2005 East fleet but in conjunction with the May 2005 East list. The Nic list would look the same except it'd have lots of retired pilots on it (like me). Then Pi could complain about Nic putting all those retired pilots on the list...

Instead, Nic updated the fleet and list to 2007, removing airplanes and pilots that weren't there on 1/1/2007. Same end result, just two different ways of getting there.

Jim

No Jim I don't think so. I can be almost as stubborn as you, but if you can show me the numbers I will let it go. You are a numbers guy, so run them out, not just your words because they carry nothing with me.

From the Nicolau Opinion and Award:

"A January 1, 2007 list also is a closer
reflection of reality on the merged airline.
As to staffing, we have, for a variety of reasons, used the jobs
each group brought to the merger as amended by the shifts that
occurred as of January 1, 2007."

Hmmm..."As amended by the shifts that occurred as of January 1,2007". So he amended the fleets, where they east dropped much more than the west, THEN slotted, but he didn't amend the status of formerly furloughed pilots.

Here are those numbers:

May 2005---------------Jan 2007----------------------------------%change
East hulls-270---------224(226-2EMBs that don't count--------------down 17%
West hulls-144---------133-----------------------------------------down 7.65%

So, the east had a greater % decrease in hulls than the west. Despite that, through attrition we had upgraded and recalled pilots. But, Nicolau held the previously furloughed pilots in their May 2005 status. Now had the fleets had not shrunk, or had evenly I could agree with your premise that the list would have been the same 2005 vs. 2007, but that was not the case. There was some slight gain in IROs and management pilots, but not nearly enough to offset the 10 percentage point difference in the changes.

No smoking gun. I have always agreed that under ALPA merger policy Nicolau was allowed a wide range of reasonableness and he decided what was fair. I think he got it wrong, but my opinion doesn't matter. I just use it to counter guys on here that try to justify things.

 

[Pi brat]

Well lets see....270-226=44 or approx 16% (you also said the east lost 60+ hulls in a prior post)

Meanwhile the West went from 144-120=22 or approx 15%

Did Nic use the smaller West number also? Unless he used a West 2005 fleet count and an east 2007 fleet count, I fail to see why this bothers you.

Nic aren't you guys always telling us to get the facts. Go read the Nicolau opinion and award, available to all on cactuspilot.com. As in showed in my post to Jim, your numbers are wrong. The east fleet dropped 17% in that time, the west 7.65%.

The 60+ hull loss is as of today, those numbers were from 2007.

 

[Pi brat]

Damn. FACTS are a pesky thing aren't they?

Aren't they? Especially when you don't know them or use them. Go to our friends at cactuspilot.com and get the ones they don't spoon feed you.

 

[Pi brat]

So simple even a silver-spooned cave man should be able to understand. Perhaps not?

I guess not, I've been trying to get through to you for years and you just can't grasp it.

 

[RSVP767]

Didn't realize we flew under congressional air regulations, thought they were Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 😛

Congress mandated the change to the FAR regarding the age 60 rule.

So easy a Caveman can understand it......but apparently, not a Cavewoman! 😛

 

[Pi brat]

This from an interview this week. Parker has also said it several times in crew news. US Airways was going to go OUT OF BUSINESS. Find anywhere that Parker has said AWA was going out of business. He never said that. So you can stop trying to drag the west down with you drowning man.

Death Knell..............

 

[prechilill]

Congress mandated the change to the FAR regarding the age 60 rule.

So easy a Caveman can understand it......but apparently, not a Cavewoman! 😛

Hmmm. Part 121 is listed as Federal Aviation Regulations. Guess you never knew where to look, did ya?
Typical uninformed east pilot.

 

[Pi brat]

Typical uninformed east pilot.

HA! This from one of the most uninformed west pilots. Thanks for the holiday cheer!

 

[cleardirect]

Hmmm. Part 121 is listed as Federal Aviation Regulations. Guess you never knew where to look, did ya?
Typical uninformed east pilot.

I suppose congress changed the rest requirements too.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 117, 119, and 121
Docket No.: FAA-2009-1093; Amdt. Nos. 117-1, 119-16, 121-357
RIN 2120–AJ58
Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the FAA’s existing flight, duty and rest regulations
applicable to certificate holders and their flightcrew members operating under 14 CFR
Part 121.

And ALPA merger policy only applies to the merger committee members.

 

[GuntherA320]

Wow prechill......you really are making an ass of yourself....again. The age 65 rule was a law passed by congress. It is not an FAA rule. Dig through your FARs and let me know where you find the age 65 rule. Because it is not an FAR(its a law passed by congress), the FAA can't grant extensions/grace periods to the 6 month line check that age 65 pilots must have. Therefore the compamy is giving them every 4 months instead of every 6 to comply with the law.

 

[prechilill]

Wow prechill......you really are making an ass of yourself....again. The age 65 rule was a law passed by congress. It is not an FAA rule. Dig through your FARs and let me know where you find the age 65 rule. Because it is not an FAR(its a law passed by congress), the FAA can't grant extensions/grace periods to the 6 month line check that age 65 pilots must have. Therefore the compamy is giving them every 4 months instead of every 6 to comply with the law.

See the post right above yours you moron. Congress attached the age 65 change to a spending bill. The day the spending bill was passed by congress and the senate the age 65 change didn't go in effect, did it? Look it up.
Some of you easties around here are so stupid, there's no other way to sugar coat it

 

[fodase]

well let's see what the east clowns are up to:

Dec. 13, 2011
Gentlemen,
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The NAC has been in negotiations and mediation attempting to obtain a contract with very limited success. Our Company does not want or need to negotiate. Our latest attempt last week in Tempe, once again, reinforced our belief in that statement. The Company’s behavior has left no doubt that there will be progress only by inordinate movement by us to the Company’s positions. That also was reinforced in Tempe; we were appalled when members of this committee were willing to sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions in Section 10 solely to prevent being “parked” by the National Mediation Board (NMB). Despite our strong and vocal objections, we were overruled and they were in the process of making these concessions when the mediator intervened.
Our brief tenure on the NAC has been tumultuous from the beginning. We were not wanted or utilized effectively by the Chairman. This committee is truly a one man show managed for the convenience of the Chairman with little communication with its members, the BPR, or the Officers. Despite the Chairman’s opposition, we were able to bring about USAPA’s comprehensive proposal and have the first union financial analysis of the Company conducted by our own analyst. The Chairman, with the BPR’s tacit approval, has manipulated the staffing of this committee to further empower himself.
We offer the following recommendations:
 Recess all negotiations pending analysis of new proposals based on the loss in the LOA 93 arbitration. (Request that
the NMB reschedule the January mediation date.)
 Ensure that the Chairman possesses leadership skills.
 Staff the committee with enough members to ensure proper representation of the pilot group. The best committee
members are those that do not “need” the position.
 Actively monitor the committee’s activities and solicit input from all committee members, not just the Chairman.
 Ensure that the pilots are adequately educated on the provisions of the RLA that give the Company the ability to
postpone any successful negotiations indefinitely.
 Charge the committee with preparing for the negotiations that will occur prior to a merger.
 Realize that Section 1 and its Scope protection is the most valuable portion of our contract in uncertain times.
If you wish to discuss any of these recommendations, please contact us. It is our desire to help and we are available should we be needed in the future.
We appreciate being given the opportunity to serve and thank you for your confidence; however, we cannot serve on this committee in its present form, as it no longer represents our fellow pilots. Please accept our resignations effective 1/1/2012.
Captain Patrick A. Day Captain Manuel J. Lopez