<snip>
I think that if both sides don't acknowledge what the Nicolau award does, and the two west candidates are not acknowledging that, that we will not get ANYWHERE. That's why I do it. <snip>
What exactly do you want "both sides" to acknowledge and how do you envision a final resolution that is acceptable to enough east and west pilots for it to see a JCBA become ratified? Let's try it just between you and me and see how far we get...
CG is willing to admit that:
1. The east pilots who were furloughed or held a position at MDA at the time of the merger/integration date would be at the bottom of the combined seniority list and will have a difficult if not impossible time seeing the left seat or WB opportunities depending on how much time they have left before mandatory retirement. Of course that assumes that US will not grow substantially in international flying over the course of time and create many more upgrade opportunities than what may exist today. Conversely if US shrinks substantially then even those guys you predict to make WB in their careers would not in fact get where you project them to go. Predicting the future is a two-way street; you can be just as wrong one way as you are the other which make future assumptions or "career expectations" to some, about a reliable as Punxsutawney Phil.
2. The right seat and smaller AC generally translate to lower earning power than the left seat or larger AC by comparison. Those that can only hold the right seat on smaller AC throughout their active flying careers will earn far less than those who can hold and bid for flying that pays substantially more. Again, those who held a lower percentile seniority position or who were furloughed at the integration date are likely effected the most by this reality.
3. The lower a person's seniority number the less chance that pilot has to pick the best work schedule that meets their personal preferences. And once again, those who held a lower percentile seniority position or who were furloughed at the integration date are likely effected the most by this reality.
4. The pilot Transition Agreement called for the use of ALPA merger and integration policy which included a binding arbitration provision. That TA was signed by all parties required and is legally a Collective Bargaining Agreement as defined and covered by the RLA and it is just as enforceable at LOA93 or C2004 on the Company, the pilots employed by US Airways, and any successor bargaining agent which may be certified to represent the pilots.
5. Other than agreeing to and signing off on the TA, the west pilots are not responsible for any of the above-listed statements of fact. The west pilots did not cause east pilots to be furloughed or to have a very junior seniority position despite the fact that these east pilots may have been hired or been in the service of US Airways (or a predecessor airline) for 16-20 years ago jut st to be able to retain a very junior status. Furthermore, the west pilots did not create or unduly influence the arbitration process and had no more control over the outcome of the Nicolau award than did any or all east pilots. The west pilots were and are just as bound by the results of the award as are the east pilots. Likewise, the west pilots did not create the industry practice of having payscales and work rules that favor those with more seniority at the expense of those who have little to no seniority status.
Okay, now it's your turn. I'll start you off with the first item that I think you need to admit so that a two-way, solution can be achieved. Feel free to fill in other statements of fact that you know or believe those on the east must admit as part acknowledging the west's viewpoint and thus gain "bipartisan" support to move forward together with:
1. The Nicolau Award for the SLI is the only list that USAPA and Management can legally adopt as the S22 seniority system. If any other list is used, just one of the 5,000 or so east and west pilots could files for a DRF, and has been shown in the district court under Addington I, the chances are good for both USAPA and the Company to lose if such a claim is made. In this instance the minority (even if only one) rules as opposed to the majority which is the exact intent of the DFR provision in the first place. Thus, whatever solution or proposal is devised must include the NIC as a starting point for moving forward.
2.
3.
4.
