US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Phoenix]

314 pages????

It should be in 314 words or less...

Less than 31 words!

Domestic, 10 hours behind the door every 24.

 

[BoeingBoy]

but my opinion doesn't matter.

At least we agree on something. Just keep chewing on that bone, but don't try to convince anyone that it's a t-bone steak...

Just remember - Nic updated the lists and fleet, he didn't revise them. But if you're rather me and those like me (active flying pilots in May 2005) hold a large chunk of those top 517 slots instead of the people that actually got them I think they'd disagree.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

At least we agree on something. Just keep chewing on that bone, but don't try to convince anyone that it's a t-bone steak...

Just remember - Nic updated the lists and fleet, he didn't revise them. But if you're rather me and those like me (active flying pilots in May 2005) hold a large chunk of those top 517 slots instead of the people that actually got them I think they'd disagree.

Jim

What? I thought you didn't drink alcohol. Want to try that again?

Updating the numbers in essence does revise them. If we lost more hull than the west between 2005 and 2007, THEN he did the ratios, doesn't that favor the west?

Numbers please. Since you accused me of being a child molester you words mean nothing.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Updating the numbers in essence does revise them. If we lost more hull than the west between 2005 and 2007, THEN he did the ratios, doesn't that favor the west?

No. He updated both lists. Take a math class and get back to me...

Oh, and don't forget the games the company played either. Another TP grievance loss due to lack of interest...

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

No. He updated both lists. Take a math class and get back to me...

Oh, and don't forget the games the company played either. Another TP grievance loss due to lack of interest...

Jim

Just as I thought. The great Jim doesn't have to show anything. He is so smart we should just be glad to have his wisdom and not as for PROOF.

What does your second line have to do with the discussion? Have you taken up drinking because your posts don't make any sense.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If you'd look at the big picture instead of parsing every word looking for a smoking gun you'd see that it worked out the way it should - maybe slightly better for the East. I can't open your eyes for you or teach you common sense so you're on your own. Bark up this tree all you want, but the squirrel you think you're barking at moved on quite a while back...

Jim

 

[CallawayGolf]

What? I thought you didn't drink alcohol. Want to try that again?

Updating the numbers in essence does revise them. If we lost more hull than the west between 2005 and 2007, THEN he did the ratios, doesn't that favor the west?

Numbers please. Since you accused me of being a child molester you words mean nothing.

Of course the east lost more hulls than the west. The east was in bankruptcy and was operating a fleet and route structure that guaranteed financial ruin unless hulls were eliminated and route structures were realigned so that the operation could begin to produce a profit. This would have very likely happened in a stand-alone reorganization plan just as it did with the barbell acquisition plan. The east was bleeding cash and nearing extinction; thus surgical amputation of the acutely damaged appendages was absolutely required.

There is no logical way for Management to have shared or matched the east hull reductions on the west. AWA was not in bankruptcy and leases for hulls could not just be discarded. Outside of bankruptcy the west hulls had to stay until the end of their lease terms unless paying the penalty for early termination was still an economic advantage.

So in order for the merger to make financial sense to Management and the investors was to lop off the unprofitable assets on the east and then blend in the assets from the west so that the new merged entity could return a profit and survive. Making equal cuts east/west was never going to be considered because there was no legal means of accomplishing such with the only benefit being to the east workers who were facing chapter 7 anyway.

You keep searching for things that don't meet your definition of "fair" so that you can justify your stance against the NIC. Life isn't fair and there was never a promise that life would be fair by anyone to anyone. Management and the investors didn't agree to make things fair as a condition of their merger proposal. George Nicolau was never held to a standard to make things fair for either the east or the west pilots. If Management attempted to insert fairness into the transaction it was because they felt it was in the best interest of the newly combined company going forward, but they weren't required to do so. If Nicolau made attempts to be fair it wasn't because he was required to do so but because he felt the integration needed to be done in a manner fully consistent with the ALPA merger policy and because he is/was a dispassionate neutral who gained nothing be intentionally harming one group more than another when other more equitable options were available to him. I've already explained multiple times that I believe Nicolau was exceedingly fair and in fact objectively favored the east slightly more than the west in terms of positioning on the relative integration of the seniority lists.

Of course none of this will change how judge Silver reviews the legal basis upon which USAPA and Management can move forward with negotiating a JCBA. Fairness is not an aspect of the law she needs to consider in this matter.

 

[Pi brat]

If you'd look at the big picture instead of parsing every word looking for a smoking gun you'd see that it worked out the way it should - maybe slightly better for the East. I can't open your eyes for you or teach you common sense so you're on your own. Bark up this tree all you want, but the squirrel you think you're barking at moved on quite a while back...

Jim

Back to the shed and rejoin your kind.

 

[Barrister]

timestamp='1324581113' post='856511']
If you'd look at the big picture instead of parsing every word looking for a smoking gun you'd see that it worked out the way it should - maybe slightly better for the East. I can't open your eyes for you or teach you common sense so you're on your own. Bark up this tree all you want, but the squirrel you think you're barking at moved on quite a while back...

Jim
[/quote

WOW....the pearls of wisdom just flow from your lips like a mountain brook after winter!!

Your nurse just called. She said you didn't finish your medsl!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[BoeingBoy]

WOW....the pearls of wisdom just flow from your lips like a mountain brook after winter!!

Whether you choose to listen is strictly up to you. Follow your buddy (or is it the other way around) and make up all kinds of reasons why Nic was wrong. Carry your bitterness to your grave for all I care. It won't change a thing...

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Maybe this will settle the eastie misunderstanding of the age 65 rule...but maybe not...

FAR 121.383
121.383 Airman: Limitations on use of services.

[omitted sections]

(d) No certificate holder may:

(1) Use the services of any person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under this part if that person has reached his or her 65th birthday.

(2) Use the services of any person as a pilot in command in operations under this part between the United States and another country, or in operations between other countries, if that person has reached his or her 60th birthday unless there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

(e) No pilot may:

(1) Serve as a pilot in operations under this part if that person has reached his or her 65th birthday.

(2) Serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part between the United States and another country, or in operations between other countries, if that person has reached his or her 60th birthday unless there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

Ok, easties - any questions? Pi, how about you? Barrister? Any other eastie have any questions or doubts?

 

[Phoenix]

For the age 65 law, it was passed by congress and signed by the Pres. Throught government various administrative agencies, such as the FAA, write additional regulation that effect (not affect) the laws as written by Congress. The FAA did not pass the age 65 law.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The FAA did not pass the age 65 law.

Absolutely correct. However, the FAA changed the FAR's in response to the new law. So much for Gunther's "It is not an FAA rule. Dig through your FARs and let me know where you find the age 65 rule." It most certainly IS an FAA regulation - which I quoted.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

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?

The Senate passed the bill one day, the House the next day (or vice versa) and the President signed it the day after. Age 65 went into effect the day the President signed it into law. There was no waiting around for the FAA to change the FARs, although they eventually had to do so to conform to the law. The FAA had no control over the process, merely the task to respond to it in accordance with the law.

If you turned 60 the day after the President signed the bill into law, you get to go fly your airliner. The FAR on THAT day said nothing of Age 65; they still read as if one had to stop flying airlines at 60. Meant nothing, though, because a law trumps a regulation every time.

Look it up.

 

[nevergiveup]

Now boys, if I have to stop this car......