US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

Dates and the sequence of events becomes important. US agreed to sell the 170's to Republic in early 2005 (January or February). That's what triggered the change of control grievance - no separate MDA no change of control so the MEC kept the pretense going.

The PID was May 2005, which was the seniority list certified by the East MC. Prior to completion of the change of control grievance and the one-off seniority list showing the MDA pilots as recalled to mainline.

The change of control grievance arbitrator issued his ruling in favor of the company in late 2005 after Jerry Glass testified that there was no separate MDA backed up with the merger of MDA and US Inc that happened in 2004.

Only then did the MEC drop the pretense that MDA wasn't a separate carrier and got the one-off seniority list showing the MDA pilots as mainline. By then the East MC had already certified the other list showing the MDA pilots as furloughed.

So it's not like everything happened at the same time. It was spread out over a year or so with the PID being in the middle of it all. If the "they" in your question refers to the MC, who certified the list, not National, because it was the only list that existed on the PID. It would have been hard to certify a list that didn't exist and with the East MEC insisting that the MDA pilots were furloughed. If you meant ALPA, neither the MEC nor National certify the list - that's the duty of the MC's.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Before discussing the aforesaid approaches in greater detail, some uncontroverted facts and then some recent history. US Airways is the product of a series of mergers stretching back to 1968. At the time of the US Air/America West merger, US Airways had a grand total of 5098 pilots on its seniority list, 1691 of which (33%) were on furlough.'

lThe 1691 include 105 so-called CEL (Combined Eligibility List) pilots who never flew on the mainline, to be discussed below, and 212 other Mid-Atlantic Division (MDA) pilots. Though listed as active in a US Airways summary sheet, they are carried as furloughed on the US Airways Certified 5/ 1/05 List

From the Nicolau award. He knew about the two lists. The panel made a decision how to handle the MDA CEl pilots.

 

[Freighterguynow]

I think the fact numerous pilots about to be furloughed not going to MDA but rather to corporate jobs, charter carriers, active duty with reserve and guard is testimony to the fact even they did not know the machinations that took place. If they knew they were going to be flying on the USAirways certificate, to protect their longevity, seniority, etc for a merger or whatever reason they would have selected MDA.

This is true.

 

[Phoenix]

We can keep going round and round explaining the timing of MDA and all the events, and explaining whether it was ALPA national, AAA ALPA, or the company that was hiding the pig in the poke, or about who certified what for who's benefit... but the reality does not change... 1) MDA was mainline, 2) pilots were tricked into being furloughed out of seniority order, and 3) ALPA's internal union process of establishing an integrated seniority list was corrupted (among other things) by the shenanigans surrounding MDA.

 

[LSS]

Why did they certify this list if they knew the East MEC acted improperly? One of two possibilities. They did know beforehand but didn't want the correct list used because it would prejudice the MDA pilots DFR lawsuit which was already ongoing, or they found out after the arbitrator published his findings but intentionally ignored it as they still feared admission of that would prejudice their legal standing in the DFR suit with the MDA pilots.

Bingo!...

and also... ALPA didn't say anything to the line pilots about how they'd just screwed over the MDA guys... in fact the only way I found out was after the NIC was released and I was talking to a MDA guy and he told me ALPA had thrown them under the bus... using a list showing they were all furloughed when in fact they weren't... (as NY stated... how can a furloughed MDA pilot serve as Secy/Treas of the PHL base?) so for those who like to cast stones at the east line pilot for not backing up the MDA guys... if ALPA didn't tell the MDA guys... what in the hell makes you think they'd tell anyone else! As is typical of ALPA... they were too damn busy trying to cover their own ASSES!

 

[jetjok1]

This was done to buy off the super junior East pilots to assist in the USAPA scam. This is going to be attempted again on the 7th when the "ad hoc" profit sharing committee has discovered that it's really in everybodies best interest to STEAL the profit sharing of the West to be redistributed to junior East pilots. This is an attempt to keep power consolidated. It sends the message: "see, we're all buddies now. Just keep pulling the USAPA line and we'll use our majority to all make up for our horrible career choices upon the backs of the West Pilots".

Personally I can't wait to watch the profit sharing debocle. Of course, none of my money is going to be stolen so I look on this with more amusement and wonder at the sheer, abject stupidity that is running this Fake Narrcasistic union.

Regardless of our differences, EVERY active pilot on this property, East or West, is entitled to that profit sharing.

 

[usabusdriver]

...

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’s a madhouse, I tell you..a madhouse.

... 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.

Reed,

Yes the madhouse is in full swing, nurse Ratchet is going to start giving out medicine to calm everyone.

You are correct in your statements but just a little off in your interpretation.

The Nic is the product of the process set forth in the Transition Agreement to develop an integrated system seniority list for the merged company. That list was the “bargaining position”, as described by J. Freund in responding to the law suit by the east MEC, until accepted by the company. The arbitration result could have been modified by consensus of the two pilot groups prior to presenting the list to the company. Once the list was presented to the company and accepted, moneys for the defrayal of the cost of the merger committees dispersed as per the TA, the Nic was no longer a bargaining proposal but the new system seniority list for LCC.

I am quite aware of the arguments used to get around this fact, the list was not ratified so it is not binding, the union has a right to negotiate the full contents of the contract, DOH is the gold standard so is not in bad faith…

The system seniority list is really not an item that is “bargained” or “negotiated” with the company. The company either accepts or rejects the list as presented by the union, they do not offer counters saying “we want pilot xxxx higher on the seniority list and pilots yyyy and zzzz lower". If there is a failed membership ratification vote on a TA there will NOT be a reshuffling of the integrated system seniority list in an attempt to garner additional votes for passage.

This proclamation by the Ninth Circuit concerning the probability of success of any ratification vote is rather mystifying to me as it is a very speculative statement. A speculative statement that follows a determination that any conclusion about the integrated system seniority list before a TA is produced and ratified is too speculative and is therefore determinative of the ripeness of the DFR case against the union. No one knows what the rest of the contract will contain and how individual pilots will vote concerning their economic interests. I guess we do not need to have votes on anything, we just have to ask the Ninth Circuit and we can save a lot of money instead of having all of these votes.

Let me add one further comment on the speculative nature of trying to interpret a membership ratification vote especially if it attempts an inference on seniority. If a ratification vote on a TA containing the Nic were to fail, was it because of the inclusion of the Nic or other contract particulars? Would the union say that they need to modify section 22 to get passage of the TA? To continue along those lines, if a ratification vote on a TA containing the union’s preferred position of DOH with C&R’s and were to fail, was it because of the inclusion of the C&R’s or other contract particulars? Would the union say that they need to modify section 22 and eliminate the C&R’s to get passage of the TA?

Just food for thought. I am sure the food fight will continue unabated until a court imposed solution is garnered.

Happy Hollidays

 

[Captain Underpants]

Dates and the sequence of events becomes important. US agreed to sell the 170's to Republic in early 2005 (January or February). That's what triggered the change of control grievance - no separate MDA no change of control so the MEC kept the pretense going.

The PID was May 2005, which was the seniority list certified by the East MC. Prior to completion of the change of control grievance and the one-off seniority list showing the MDA pilots as recalled to mainline.

The change of control grievance arbitrator issued his ruling in favor of the company in late 2005 after Jerry Glass testified that there was no separate MDA backed up with the merger of MDA and US Inc that happened in 2004.

Only then did the MEC drop the pretense that MDA wasn't a separate carrier and got the one-off seniority list showing the MDA pilots as mainline. By then the East MC had already certified the other list showing the MDA pilots as furloughed.

So it's not like everything happened at the same time. It was spread out over a year or so with the PID being in the middle of it all. If the "they" in your question refers to the MC, who certified the list, not National, because it was the only list that existed on the PID. It would have been hard to certify a list that didn't exist and with the East MEC insisting that the MDA pilots were furloughed. If you meant ALPA, neither the MEC nor National certify the list - that's the duty of the MC's.

Jim

Jim,

You are mostly correct but some blanks need to be filled in. There was only one "certified" East list which listed the MDA pilots as mainline. The other East list was an internal company list that was generated by and used by crew planning. This list showed the MDA pilots as furloughed to indicate these pilots were not available to crew planning for staffing some aircraft. This list also had some errors and other minor differences from the "certified" East list such as MED status and other attrition.

The West merger committee obtained this list from the company and realized it would help their case if the MDA pilots were considered furloughed instead of working for mainline. The West merger committee submitted this 'uncertified" East list to Nicolau and the East merger counsel did not object.

Nicolau wanted to use a ratio method for working pilots and to place place all furloughed East pilots at the bottom. His problem was that the MDA pilots were recalled to mainline out of seniority order so using a ratio method for working pilots would place some MDA pilots ahead of more senior still furloughed pilots so he used the "uncertified" East list to construct the Nicolau list.

It is a fact that the West merger committee submitted the "uncertified" East list to Nicolau because it is in the arbitration record. It is also a fact that Nicolau used the "uncertified" East list because applying the ratios to the company list produces the exact Nicolau list including the errors and differences from the "certified" East list. Applying Nicolau's ratios and methods to the certified East list would have produced a significantly different Nicolau list.

ALPA East MEC sued ALPA West MEC to overturn the Nicolau award and was confident that fraud and mathematical errors constructing the Nicolau list could be proven. When USAPA was elected this case dissolved since there was no longer an East or West MEC. USAPA was prepared to argue the fraud and mathematical error evidence in the Addington case except Wake prevented the evidence from being presented.

underpants

 

[cleardirect]

My original question was after 5 months where is the summary judgment? What is going on with that suit?

But after reading all of this once again we see that the east MEC ALPA was a disaster. How is it that supposedly professional pilots that have been doing this union stuff for so long could have mess this up so bad. What I have gotten out of this was that 1700 pilots were furloughed. The intent and understanding was a furloughed pilot was offered a job at MDA. It was going to be a separate operation. What happened after that does not really matter. You all made a decision based on that information.

The grievance is another thing that is between you and the company. What bothers me is that some east pilots are using this as something that it is not. A way to change the Nicolau. Again it is a matter of education or misunderstanding by east pilots. You MDA guys better explain that your suit will not change the Nicolau for a couple of reason.

First question. If you have 6 pilots A,B,C,D,E,F,G. If pilot A went to MDA pilot B did not and was furloughed. How could pilot C,D,E,F,G not be furloughed. You guys are all about straight seniority right. Anyone junior to B would be furloughed. If pilot F went to MDA but pilot C,D,E did not how or why should those pilots get anything or be moved senior to O’Dell? They can’t.

Next! Nicolau used the logic that wide body pilot had some premium entitlement. So he gave east pilots the top 517 because they made more. He then ratioed the rest of us together. He then placed the furloughed pilot that did not bring a job at the bottom. Like a lot of mergers have done. But you guys say that 300 of you were not furloughed. So using the same logic that the WB deserve to be senior. Than a small 170 jet that payed less than the NB mainline should go to the bottom. Furloughed or not it does not matter. The logic still holds.

Last question. The ninth circuit has stated that without a contract there is no harm so it is not ripe. We do not have a contract. There is no harm to the MDA pilots. How is this case ripe?

$175,000,000.00 for damages because you got a furloughed letter and went to fly for a commuter. Then were placed at the bottom of an integrated list. Really $583,000.00 each is what you think you are entitled to. Sure good luck with that.

 

[cleardirect]

Jim,

You are mostly correct but some blanks need to be filled in. There was only one "certified" East list which listed the MDA pilots as mainline. The other East list was an internal company list that was generated by and used by crew planning. This list showed the MDA pilots as furloughed to indicate these pilots were not available to crew planning for staffing some aircraft. This list also had some errors and other minor differences from the "certified" East list such as MED status and other attrition.

The West merger committee obtained this list from the company and realized it would help their case if the MDA pilots were considered furloughed instead of working for mainline. The West merger committee submitted this 'uncertified" East list to Nicolau and the East merger counsel did not object.

Nicolau wanted to use a ratio method for working pilots and to place place all furloughed East pilots at the bottom. His problem was that the MDA pilots were recalled to mainline out of seniority order so using a ratio method for working pilots would place some MDA pilots ahead of more senior still furloughed pilots so he used the "uncertified" East list to construct the Nicolau list.

It is a fact that the West merger committee submitted the "uncertified" East list to Nicolau because it is in the arbitration record. It is also a fact that Nicolau used the "uncertified" East list because applying the ratios to the company list produces the exact Nicolau list including the errors and differences from the "certified" East list. Applying Nicolau's ratios and methods to the certified East list would have produced a significantly different Nicolau list.

ALPA East MEC sued ALPA West MEC to overturn the Nicolau award and was confident that fraud and mathematical errors constructing the Nicolau list could be proven. When USAPA was elected this case dissolved since there was no longer an East or West MEC. USAPA was prepared to argue the fraud and mathematical error evidence in the Addington case except Wake prevented the evidence from being presented.

underpants

As usual 180 degrees from reality.

lThe 1691 include 105 so-called CEL (Combined Eligibility List) pilots who never flew on the mainline, to be discussed below, and 212
other Mid-Atlantic Division (MDA) pilots. Though listed as active in a US Airways summary sheet, they are carried as furloughed on the US Airways Certified 5/ 1/05 List.

From the Nicolau award.

The CERTIFIED list showed them as furloughed. The company summary list showed them as active.

Do all of you have a reading problem?

"It is a fact that the West merger committee submitted the "uncertified" East list to Nicolau because it is in the arbitration record."

I tell you what. How about you pull the transcripts or whatever record you say it is in to prove that it was the west the submitted the east list. You said you prove it.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Regardless of our differences, EVERY active pilot on this property, East or West, is entitled to that profit sharing.

Well...yes and no.

The profit sharing is in the east contract only, and the company is not offering a share of the profits to the west pilots out of the goodness of their hearts. The west pilots don't have profit sharing in their contract, yet they will receive it. Why? Because the east ALPA MEC voted to divide up the money among all the pilots (not just the east.)

I agree that profits should be shared equally. I also think that pilots doing the same job should be paid equally.

But that is not occurring here at US Airways. Why? Because the pay rates in the east contract are, for the majority, less than the pay rates in the west contract. Somehow, in this case contractual restraints are the controlling factor, but not in the case of profit sharing.

So, yes, I agree in theory that profits should be shared equally. But not in this case. Parker has told us we get what we negotiate in the contract. Okay. Let's do exactly that.

 

[Ames]

Jim,

You are mostly correct but some blanks need to be filled in. There was only one "certified" East list which listed the MDA pilots as mainline. The other East list was an internal company list that was generated by and used by crew planning. This list showed the MDA pilots as furloughed to indicate these pilots were not available to crew planning for staffing some aircraft. This list also had some errors and other minor differences from the "certified" East list such as MED status and other attrition.

The West merger committee obtained this list from the company and realized it would help their case if the MDA pilots were considered furloughed instead of working for mainline. The West merger committee submitted this 'uncertified" East list to Nicolau and the East merger counsel did not object.

Nicolau wanted to use a ratio method for working pilots and to place place all furloughed East pilots at the bottom. His problem was that the MDA pilots were recalled to mainline out of seniority order so using a ratio method for working pilots would place some MDA pilots ahead of more senior still furloughed pilots so he used the "uncertified" East list to construct the Nicolau list.

It is a fact that the West merger committee submitted the "uncertified" East list to Nicolau because it is in the arbitration record. It is also a fact that Nicolau used the "uncertified" East list because applying the ratios to the company list produces the exact Nicolau list including the errors and differences from the "certified" East list. Applying Nicolau's ratios and methods to the certified East list would have produced a significantly different Nicolau list.

ALPA East MEC sued ALPA West MEC to overturn the Nicolau award and was confident that fraud and mathematical errors constructing the Nicolau list could be proven. When USAPA was elected this case dissolved since there was no longer an East or West MEC. USAPA was prepared to argue the fraud and mathematical error evidence in the Addington case except Wake prevented the evidence from being presented.

underpants

This entire post is an absolute and unmitigated LIE.

 

[luvthe9]

MEC voted to divide up the money among all the pilots (not just the east.)

I agree that profits should be shared equally. I also think that pilots doing the same job should be paid equally.

The West does not think that way, remember, they should not get a dime!!!

 

[767jetz]

Just food for thought. I am sure the food fight will continue unabated until a court imposed solution is garnered.

Finally some rational conversation. I know many will either agree or disagree with your conclusions. And some will attack or deflect for effect. But at least you address both sides of the argument. Your last assertion rings particularly true. The solution rests with the courts.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So, yes, I agree in theory that profits should be shared equally. But not in this case.

There is one fly in your ointment. In the East contract the LOA 93 language provides profit sharing for the pilots of US Airways - not East pilots, pilots on the US Airways seniority list as of some date, whatever, but rather US pilots. Consequently, the East contract gives profit sharing to a new hire who wasn't on the property at the time LOA 93 was ratified as long as that new hire was on the property during the year the profit was made. Likewise, the language also now applies to West US Airways pilots even though they weren't US Airways pilots when LOA 93 was ratified. The only real effect of the TA profit sharing language is to include West pilots immediately instead of having to have a single certificate first (at an unknown point in the future when the TA was negotiated).

Of course, the TA does give the union more latitude to determine how the profit sharing is distributed than LOA 93. But trying to eliminate it for West pilots could certainly be fodder for another DFR suit.

Jim