US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Phoenix]

You have no idea of what your talking about, ....

One of Dale Carnegie's most effective openers. I don't know about everyone else, but now I'm convinced.

 

[sumadarson]

Incorrect - ALPA was bound by the NIC. What the Rice commission and Wye River sought to accomplish was to find some middle ground that the two sides - East and West - could agree to. No matter what Nic ruled, the two sides (while they existed) could agree to an alternative.

Like I've said before, USAPA eliminated the two sides necessary to reach any agreement to modify the Nic. Once the company accepted Nic and said it met the requirements of the TA, it was no longer a "bargaining position" and by eliminating the separate West representation USAPA made it impossible to alter the Nic as it was the accepted seniority list (no longer a "bargaining position") per the TA.

Now, if the ALPA seniority integration process hadn't been completed and the result accepted before USAPA was elected CBA, all the talk about crossing out ALPA and inserting USAPA in the TA language concerning seniority integration might have some merit. Since that wasn't the case, such rationalizations to justify re-doing the seniority integration are moot because now you're not talking about only negotiations but contract law.

Jim

Paul Rice, UAL pilot and VP of ALPA is guilty of a conflict of interest. UAL was in active talks with USAirways at the time of the Rice commission. The so called pilot neutrals, . Captain Stephen Gillen Pilot Neutral United Airlines pilot and Captain James P. Brucia, Continental Airlines, are also guilty of conflict of interest. Continental was talking to USAirways at that time about a merger. Brucia was a very good friend of John Prater, lame duck president of ALPA and former officer of The Interdependent Continental Pilots Association when they forced their pilots, many of them strike breakers, to re join ALPA using questionable means.

Nice try shills.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I sorta agree with you on this. However, I will emphasize the "in good faith" wording you used, and add subject to the DFR and any court orders.

Anyway. Let me ask you this. Suppose Mr. A sues Mr. B for something-or-other. They settle. B agrees to pay A $X to make the lawsuit go away. They and their lawyers sign off on the settlement agreement.

Later, when it is time for B to pay A the settlement amount, B decides he does not like the terms of the agreement. He does not want to pay so much. So he has a brilliant idea: He fires the lawyer who represented him, and tells A that since he fired that lawyer, any agreement that lawyer signed on his behalf is now worth nothing. Poof, the settlement agreement goes away as if it never really happened. It lives only in the private settlement agreement between them instead of in a statute or court decision or whatever. B can therefore renegotiate anything he wants to since he now has a different representative and the previous agreement was never really "official."

Is this a winning position?

To answer your question here, the answer is no. But it's not a good analogy. A better one would be that BEFORE any agreement was signed, Mr. B found out that his original lawyer was not representing his best interests, so he fires him. He hires a new attorney. Is his new attorney bound to continue to pursue the same positions as his old one? Certainly not. He can start at the beginning, he can accept portions that were already agreed to, or any variation in between.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

One of Dale Carnegie's most effective openers. I don't know about everyone else, but now I'm convinced.

He does say something about starting off with a joke, doesn't he?

 

[Hate2fly]

Subject: Fw: PlaneDeal051905_Q. How is this different from the America West bid for ATA? A: The proposed bid for ATA was an acquisition.......In this instance America West and US Airways would merge to form a stronger and larger airline.




Q. How is this different from the America West bid for ATA?

A: The proposed bid for ATA was an acquisition; meaning America West would have taken possession of certain ATA assets and employees. In this instance America West and US Airways would merge to form a stronger and larger airline.



Hate

 

[exB717Flyer]

What I have a problem with is the thinking that because of that, some west pilots feel that they deserve more of the pie going forward and they want it NOW.

All the West feels it deserves is the result of the arbitration. As is so happens, the East deserves it as well. We're both entitled to the same thing!

I think AWA was not sustainable in it's 2005 form, so what would have been should not have been an issue.

You might be right about the former and you're definitely right about the latter. Mr. Nicolau knew that as well and he clearly elucidated that his decision wasn't based on the financial condition of either company. What's a fact is that on the day the merger was closed AWA had expansion aircraft scheduled for delivery and US Airways was still losing aircraft. Our pay and most work rules are also superior. Therefore, as Mr. Nicolau stated succinctly, the East had more to gain from the merger than the West. You act like you don't know it but we both know the truth. Men of integrity accept the truth even if it's inconvenient.

The West may or may not achieve justice in this dispute but at least I can raise my son leading by example. I abide by my agreements even when they don't go the way I wish. Too bad you can't say the same thing -- without lying.

 

[Hate2fly]

The merger was consummated September 27, 2005, making the 1st and 2nd 2006 quarters the first two full financial reporting quarters.




US Airways
America West

Q1 2006
65m
58m

Q2
305m
68m

Q3
(-78)m
(-100)m

Q4
12m
(-63)m

Q1 2007
66m
56m

Q2
263m
(-8)m

Q3
Consolidated
consolidated






Total income for the first full year of the combined airline (2006):

US Airways-----------304m

America West---------(-37)m





2Q07 States:



(B) Shared operating expenses

The operating expenses of AWA reflect expenses for certain services shared with US Airways. During the first six months of 2007, in anticipation of merging to a single operating certificate, operations of AWA and US Airways continued to be integrated, including the migration to a single reservation system in early March. During the second quarter and first six months of 2007, shared services included reservations, technology and data processing services and corporate functions such as tax, legal, compliance,



22














Table of Contents



finance, operations and sales and marketing, including the costs of the combined Dividend Miles frequent traveler program. These shared costs have been allocated based on AWA’s and US Airways’ respective operational statistics, including revenue passenger miles (“RPMs”) and passenger sales revenues. The operating expenses of AWA also reflect shared expenses incurred at more than 30 overlap airports where the operations of AWA and US Airways have been consolidated. These shared costs have been allocated based on AWA’s and US Airways’ respective departures at those airports. Management believes that the methodologies underlying the allocation of these shared costs are reasonable. The following details the total shared expenses and airport shared expenses allocated to AWA and US Airways that are included in operating expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 (in millions):


Hate

 

[Reed Richards]

Once the company accepted Nic and said it met the requirements of the TA, it was no longer a "bargaining position" and by eliminating the separate West representation USAPA made it impossible to alter the Nic as it was the accepted seniority list (no longer a "bargaining position") per the TA.

Jim

And there you have it..."the Aristocrats!"

Honestly, push down that lever on the side of your chair, lean back, and return to Mattlock. Are you not aware of what has transpired over the last year?

It is as if this entire forum has entered into some sort of Wayback machine. We have Prechill, the stock clerk, Jim the ALPA guy, and even the Goat man all now back presenting arguments that have long been answered and dead. It’s a madhouse, I tell you..a madhouse.

Jim, the second highest court in the land did not "rule" that the NIC was only a bargaining position, but they saw fit to say just that in their PUBLISHED ruling as commentary. They said ALPA and USAPA both could have abandoned that hideous bargaining position. They also acknowledged the NIC would never pass a vote. None of those "comments" were rulings..but guess what....All roads lead to the Ninth, eventually. Go figure.

Don't even get me started on your horribly biased view of USAPA's conditions and restrictions. You obviously have not read them. I am actually opposed to them because they almost entirely favor protecting West interests. As to that poor JUNIOR pilot (East or West) not getting to bid into his or her base of choice..Boo Hoo. That's not "the Aristocrats"...that's Seniority!

RR

 

[Pi brat]

All the West feels it deserves is the result of the arbitration. As is so happens, the East deserves it as well. We're both entitled to the same thing!



You might be right about the former and you're definitely right about the latter. Mr. Nicolau knew that as well and he clearly elucidated that his decision wasn't based on the financial condition of either company. What's a fact is that on the day the merger was closed AWA had expansion aircraft scheduled for delivery and US Airways was still losing aircraft. Our pay and most work rules are also superior. Therefore, as Mr. Nicolau stated succinctly, the East had more to gain from the merger than the West. You act like you don't know it but we both know the truth. Men of integrity accept the truth even if it's inconvenient.

The West may or may not achieve justice in this dispute but at least I can raise my son leading by example. I abide by my agreements even when they don't go the way I wish. Too bad you can't say the same thing -- without lying.

Show him this post and thread. See if he can read and comprehend better than his old man and if so what he thinks of you then. Don't tell me what I think or that I'm lying, ever!

 

[Pi brat]

Well, you either look at the expectations based on the picture of 2005 or you disregard expectations completely. Neither ALPA nor USAPA disregard expectations so let's call that a given. That leaves pre-merger expectations or expectations at some other post-merger time pulled out of the air. Needless to say that USAPA picked the latter - expectations at a post-merger point where West was nearing it's minimum block hours while East was benefiting from post-merger aircraft additions. Then USAPA fashions it's C&R's to trap West pilots in PHX while allowing East pilots to bid into PHX, further enhancing East expectations.

Jim

How about taking the fleet and pilot group on hand that day, run it out to retirement age without guessing for grow or shrinkage and see what happens?

 

[jetjok1]

We all know that AWA was one of the premier flying establishments. They had some of the best pay and benefits in the industry. The AWA pilots retirement was unbelievable! They had power house hubs in PHX and LAS! How about those wide body airplanes? Every pilot I have ever met wanted to fly for them. I think it was that professional call sign. Cactus

All of us in the east pinch our selves on a daily basis............we feel like we hit the lottery working for team tempe.

Yep, that about sums it up........nothing but the best!

Hate

Sorry, Not this ex "catcus pilot"

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Show him this post and thread. See if he can read and comprehend better than his old man and if so what he thinks of you then. Don't tell me what I think or that I'm lying, ever!

In their view, stealing is not an integrity issue. It's okay to call someone a liar as well, even if you never lied and did everything within the American legal system.

 

[sumadarson]

The West less than able legal team days, for filing frivolous lawsuits, are over.

Rule 11

 

[BoeingBoy]

There's no contract without an agreement, that's basic contract law.

The TA was agreed to by the union representatives of each side (the MEC's) and the company (originally "the airline parties") so became a ratified agreement in 2005. Two of the three required steps to full integration were completed prior to USAPA becoming the CBA - single certification and seniority. Only one required step is still to be completed - the remainder of the contract. USAPA has a DFR and a contract responsibility to fulfill and so far haven't fulfilled either.

ALPA plainly was open to modifying the Nic in some form, and it was even noted in the opinion of the Ninth Circuit.

ALPA was open to the two MEC's agreeing to modify the Nic while still meeting the company's requirements as stipulated in the TA. ALPA couldn't unilaterally modify the Nic per their C&B/L's.

BY the way, the West's own lawyer at the time, Mr. Freund, said that the Nic was only a bargaining position. I didn't make that up.

I'm aware that he said it, but what everyone on the East omits is that it was a bargaining position when Freund said that - the Nic had neither been submitted to the company nor been accepted by the company. However, once accepted the Nic was no longer a bargaining position.

Jim

 

[767jetz]

Everything changed on May 19 2005. What was or was not before that really doesn't matter and what MIGHT have happened is conjecture.

So we come full circle in the argument once again. Right back where it all started. Based on the above quote, the only thing that matters is what actually was on 5/19/05. USAirways glorious days of past doesn't matter. Who was a captain in the past doesn't matter. Who was employed in the past doesn't mattter. What may have happened doesn't matter.

By your own admission, on that day the only thing that mattered was what existed that day. And I agree. Which means on that day you had 17 year furloughs and 18 year guys as the junior reserve f/o's on the 320. That's as junior as you can get, no matter how you spin it. Your junior pilot had the same seniority as the junior pilot on the west, regardless of the date they were hired. Remember, "what was or was not before really doesn't matter." If USAirway's bankruptcy and precarious financial situation didn't matter, neither does the date you were hired. On that day HP had aircraft deliveries and money in the bank. On that day, both companies ceased to exist and a new one was formed. Hence the premise for the Nic award. Relative seniority. Junior is junior. Senior is senior.

You guys can stomp, and grunt, and argue 'till the cows come home, but you can't have it both ways. It never fails to provide entertainment when I see guys like oldie cursing Parker as a useless drunk when someone mentions he accepted the Nic, but quotes him as Gospel when he speculates (after the fact) that HP was inevitably doomed. Or Black Swan who claims Parker is the second coming because he basically says 'you guys figure it out for yourselves.'

And here we are again, over 200 pages with not one new piece of actual information that changes anything. The only thing keeping the DOH dream alive seems to be the endless banter on this forum. Why all the arguing? You guys claim to be OK with it, so until the courts work this out, there will be nothing but LOA 93 pay rates and work rules 'till retirement. Just be sure to put some aside for the damages.

PS. You can all save yourself some time and spare me the flame bait PM's. And I'm sure oldie or nostradamus will post some childish or inaccurate link about ALPA or the UA/CO merger falling apart. So predictable (and pathetic) as usual. 🙄 Go ahead and have the last word.

You're wrong!... No. YOU"RE wrong!... No. YOU are!... No. YOU!... No. YOU!... etc.