US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Pi brat]

Looks like another calculated move by Cleary and gang.

All the originals have bailed and Cleary is walking away because he doesn't want to be the one in office when the Nic makes it onto the property.

He's left the next president with no leverage, no options, no chance, and a highly polarized east constituency.

Next eastie the gets in there is going to take the fall for Nic because it'll be on his watch.

The westies are going to sweep it, haven't you been paying attention?

The original pres is running for VP.

 

[Move2CLT]

Bradford thinks he's going be swept into office and then save the day for the east.

He's going to be as successful as he was with his 90 days to a contract promise.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yeah, I forgot that. The first time someone explained to me how US Air's bid closing worked I said "You've got to be kidding me". They weren't and as you've explained it can have implications when we have joint bids, if we keep our process. Having first right of refusal might benefit both sides.

It did get slightly better in the late 90's. Before that a base/equip/seat (like PHL 330 FO) could be overstaffed going into a bid (the bid has fewer positions than before) and all it took was one vacancy created by a pilot voluntarily bidding out, retiring, going out on medical, whatever to create a vacancy for someone else to bid into even though there were going to be displacements to start with. So staffing could be cut by 2 positions but 4 pilots could be displaced.

As part of the agreement to eliminate the reserve/blockholder split it was agreed that if a base/equip/seat roster was overstaffed going into the bid no vacancies would exist as people bid out until that base/equip/seat got down to the correct staffing. After that if one more person left someone could bid in but anyone displacing in would still cause a displacement from the bottom instead of going back and not awarding the vacancy. So staffing could be cut by 2 positions and 2 pilots displaced but 2 other pilots grabbed a vacancy instead of those 2 vacancies negating the need to displace.

Under the PI system of separate displacement and vacancy bids, neither situation could happen.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Oh, and since these positions, and the CPs and fleet manage

rs etc, are not subject to the pilots seniority roster, I would say if the company ignores West applications, it is just more fuel to collusion with the scab union fire. So, expect to see a West pilot doing your next AQP, and I am pretty certain s/he would have a different take on how the movement will go.

PS. The West would welcome any east pilots to the PHX training department with open arms.

I wondered if the new ACPs in CLT could be west guys but someone reminded me that CPs and check airmen remain current and the TA calls for only pilots on that side of the fence flying the A/C from that side of the fence.

 

[nic4us]

I wondered if the new ACPs in CLT could be west guys but someone reminded me that CPs and check airmen remain current and the TA calls for only pilots on that side of the fence flying the A/C from that side of the fence.

No requirement to be current by N number, just type. For CPs just one type operated by the company.

When we got the 190s, the fleet manager position was posted for all pilots. It could have been a West pilot, or at least the West pilots were made aware of the position becoming available and could have sought the position.

I really do not know how it works for LCC, but at AWA even the VP of Flight Ops remained current (barely, but legally current). So, if the same applies to LCC are you saying that Hogg and Bular have no authority in their positions as they apply to West pilots, because they have never flown West metal?

I think the answere is that technically a West pilot could be a PHL or CLT CP, but the company is not going to let it happen. I think they should, and their reluctance to allow such is evidence that they are helping force seperate ops, and playing the pilot groups against each other.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Can someone here who happens to know the candidates speculate on how well certain combinations would work together. I'm all for checks and balances. but am ready to see a leadership team that works in unison.

For example, I don't think Bill McKee would work well with Steve Bradford, but perhaps Steve Sevier would, although I'm not sure.

Any other combinations that would produce a strong, unified team.......as an alternative to the AOL slate?

 

[Pi brat]

No requirement to be current by N number, just type. For CPs just one type operated by the company.

When we got the 190s, the fleet manager position was posted for all pilots. It could have been a West pilot, or at least the West pilots were made aware of the position becoming available and could have sought the position.

I really do not know how it works for LCC, but at AWA even the VP of Flight Ops remained current (barely, but legally current). So, if the same applies to LCC are you saying that Hogg and Bular have no authority in their positions as they apply to West pilots, because they have never flown West metal?

I think the answere is that technically a West pilot could be a PHL or CLT CP, but the company is not going to let it happen. I think they should, and their reluctance to allow such is evidence that they are helping force seperate ops, and playing the pilot groups against each other.

I don't feel like pulling the TA, but I thought it was N# specific and check airmen fly the line. Cp's maybe not and I wouldn't care. Heck, send old Jeff out here, I'd take him any day.

 

[Pi brat]

Can someone here who happens to know the candidates speculate on how well certain combinations would work together. I'm all for checks and balances. but am ready to see a leadership team that works in unison.

For example, I don't think Bill McKee would work well with Steve Bradford, but perhaps Steve Sevier would, although I'm not sure.

Any other combinations that would produce a strong, unified team.......as an alternative to the AOL slate?

Hummel/Bradford, McKee/Javurek. Steve Sevier is a great guy, I don't know his position on things. Don't know anything about the rest. And guessing for west you would have to match with west.

 

[Move2CLT]

Hummel/Bradford, McKee/Javurek. Steve Sevier is a great guy, I don't know his position on things. Don't know anything about the rest. And guessing for west you would have to match with west.

Hummel/Javurek or McKee/Bradford.

Can't go wrong with either. The entertainment value alone is worth it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't feel like pulling the TA, but I thought it was N# specific and check airmen fly the line. Cp's maybe not and I wouldn't care. Heck, send old Jeff out here, I'd take him any day.

It is for any pilot on either seniority list but there's a wrinkle. Remember the renumbering of aircraft after the merger to eliminate duplication? For example, both sides had N656xx so one was renumbered and thus may not be on either list of tail numbers. Also, deliveries since the TA was signed may not be on the lists of tail numbers. So there are almost certainly airplanes that were on the property when the TA was signed that may not be on either list by tail number (meaning they're "neutral" and either side can fly them).

Even without that, a west CP for CLT could just do their currency flying from PHX and vice versa. If there is still the line check airman position, that would be a problem since they "fly" when they give IOE's. A west line check airman could only give IOE to west pilots and vice versa since the "neutral" airplanes would be hard to schedule for a whole trip and don't exist in all fleet types.

One would have to go through the airplanes considered east and west now, comparing the tail numbers to the lists in the TA, to see if any problems would (or do) exist - i.e. when they renumbered an east or west airplane is the new number on either list or is it a "neutral" airplane now. Likewise with the deliveries since the TA was signed - were they given tail numbers not on either list (hence they're "neutral") or did they reuse tail numbers from returned planes of the same type that are on the list (thus making them east or west planes).

Jim

 

[nic4us]

I don't feel like pulling the TA, but I thought it was N# specific and check airmen fly the line. Cp's maybe not and I wouldn't care. Heck, send old Jeff out here, I'd take him any day.

The TA is N number specific but the FOM is not.

You are correct though, I was thinking AQP, sim etc..as training, and checkairmen could do that, but, they would also have to fly the line to do IOE etc. So, you are right.

CPs though different story. But, there is a requirement that they are familiar with the respective pilot contracts, so probably not feasible.

Jeff is a good guy, but has kids in highschool out here in PHX. Don't think he would be interested.

 

[Pi brat]

It is for any pilot on either seniority list but there's a wrinkle. Remember the renumbering of aircraft after the merger to eliminate duplication? For example, both sides had N656xx so one was renumbered and thus may not be on either list of tail numbers. Also, deliveries since the TA was signed may not be on the lists of tail numbers. So there are almost certainly airplanes that were on the property when the TA was signed that may not be on either list by tail number (meaning they're "neutral" and either side can fly them).

Even without that, a west CP for CLT could just do their currency flying from PHX and vice versa. If there is still the line check airman position, that would be a problem since they "fly" when they give IOE's. A west line check airman could only give IOE to west pilots and vice versa since the "neutral" airplanes would be hard to schedule for a whole trip and don't exist in all fleet types.

One would have to go through the airplanes considered east and west now, comparing the tail numbers to the lists in the TA, to see if any problems would (or do) exist - i.e. when they renumbered an east or west airplane is the new number on either list or is it a "neutral" airplane now. Likewise with the deliveries since the TA was signed - were they given tail numbers not on either list (hence they're "neutral") or did they reuse tail numbers from returned planes of the same type that are on the list (thus making them east or west planes).

Jim

East check airmen still do a lot of OE. But, if the company wanted to do it, it would and tell USAPA that if they didn't like it they could grieve it. For some reason, at least so far, they haven't wanted to.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Personally, I don't think management wants to throw gas on the fire. Playing "games" because the tail number on a plane was changed or it was delivered after the TA was signed would be just that. There's too much emotion over the seniority issue already so they don't want to add more. I know that that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on both sides that says that the company wants this fight to go on as long as possible but I actually believe Parker when he says he wants a combined contract - it's just a question of how much he'll pay and how long he'll wait to get it. If I were running USAPA I'd be worried about that "how long he'll wait" since he has the ability to exert a lot of pressure any time he wants.

Jim

 

[PullUp]

Personally, I don't think management wants to throw gas on the fire. Playing "games" because the tail number on a plane was changed or it was delivered after the TA was signed would be just that. There's too much emotion over the seniority issue already so they don't want to add more. I know that that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on both sides that says that the company wants this fight to go on as long as possible but I actually believe Parker when he says he wants a combined contract - it's just a question of how much he'll pay and how long he'll wait to get it. If I were running USAPA I'd be worried about that "how long he'll wait" since he has the ability to exert a lot of pressure any time he wants.

Jim

ANOTHER resounding ALPA victory coming back to haunt us. Using N numbers (which can be changed) instead of Serial Numbers, which cannot. The pack of dullards at ALPA national legal really impress me - not.
You just have to shake your head at the utter lack of competence that we collectively paid for with ALPA dues.
Geez!
Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You could have mentioned that idea to the negotiators back in 2005....or did you only realize this when I pointed it out...20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it...

Jim