Originally Posted by
wiggy
Why R you wily puppet-master, you got me again...Well worth it though, apparently, as I don't see you scrambling to refute any of the specifics of what I've merely deductively, and speculatively reconstructed...what happened to all that hand-wringing about the 2007 list being used? Or timelines and dates of constructive notice with the Nic? Don't tell me that reconstruction of the process and principles involved had some modicum of accuracy, such that it would cause you to go zip-lip on me...In the absence of any objections on your part we must assume its so.
The thought of your latest treat, while not exactly inducing a Pavlovian salivation in anticipation of the ease with which it will be dispensed...nevertheless, will be dispensed with, with such ease. One need only direct you to previous constructs, ie.
"Self-evident rule #1: Only those pilots with flying jobs at their airlines are actual employees of their airlines.
Self-evident rule #2: In the event of a merger, the actual employees of one company are merged with the actual employees of their merger partner."
-To which I'll add a further, actually unrelated self-evident rule, yet one that will hopefully have some probative value for you:
"Pilots employed at the same airline and belonging to the same union will have new members to their ranks added in descending sequential temporal order, with the earliest hired going above the latest...all such newly hired pilots will be placed below in seniority order to such pilots as are already employed with the airline."
Now R, a combination of these three irrefutable principles, all of which were in place at the time of your merger, should suffice to answer your question of me:
"Just to be sure, your original premise was that pilots with decades experience shouldn't be placed below new hires. Did I get that right?"
-Yes, you got that right, by reason of the third rule cited above. And any further, though thus far unstated "implications" you'd like to make are referred to the first two rules above.
I wanted to make you beg. Good boy. You are getting addicted to this interaction, aren't you.
Nicolau busted your premise. He integrated never furloughed US pilots, with decades of LOS(at the time of the merger) with AW pilots that had less than a year LOS(at the time of the merger). You put no qualifications on that when you stated it about the 3rd listers, did you?
You said:
"Indisputable fact #1) A date of constructive notice, freezing status and expectations was established."
But that didn't happen with us-only some pilots were frozen in their status. Nicolau used the seniority list from 2007. Not that in itself is not an issue, right? I mean if you are just cleaning up, no big deal. Funny thing though, he said he used the 2007 list because it "better reflected the merged airline." Hmmm, the merged airline parked four times the number of aircraft on the east as the west did. Big advantage-West. Despite that, we recalled pilots prior to 2007. How do you think that happened wiggy? Let me tell you. Go to the award and compare the staffing between AW and US. AW carried more pilots per aircraft. How could that be you say? Because US was massively understaffed at the time of the merger. After the merger we finally were staffed correctly while our attrition was kicking in. So by 2007 we had 300 formerly furloughed pilots recalled-the "reflection of the merged airline", but they were the only group held to their 2005 status. Brucia dissented with Nicolau on this, maybe you read it. So Nicolau didn't account for staffing differences, didn't balance the aircraft as they were at the time of the merger and slotted as if the US guy 300 from the bottom, was the bottom. He didn't give US the credit for what we brought to the merger, but held formerly furloughed pilots to their 2005 status.
You jumped on the formerly furloughed pilots, I was originally talking about pilots with decades of LOS being slotted below new hires, as you said was wrong. But since you brought it up, you said:
"Self-evident rule #1: Only those pilots with flying jobs at their airlines are actual employees of their airlines."
So how did furloughed pilots of Hughes Airwest, Mohawk and in current times, UA get slotted above active pilots? Or one of my favorites, PA Am/National.
"A second issue, labelled "explosive" by Gill, concerned the manner in which approximately 400 Pan Am pilots on furlough at the time of the merger were to be integrated. This large number of furloughees resulted from Pan Am's switch from smaller planes to B747s, the largest wide-bodied aircraft, and Pan Am's poor financial health in the preceding few years. Gill stated that this furlough situation created"a head-on clash over the relative equities as between large numbers of National airmen hired between 1968 and 1978 and actively employed at the time of the merger, and large numbers of these Pan Am furloughees with earlier dates of hire who still have recall rights but who brought no active jobs to the merger." (Gill Op. at 8).
Gill's solution was to calculate the Pan Am furloughees' length of service at the time of their recall, and to slot them into the list by comparing their length of service with that of the active airmen at that time. (An exception was made for about 34 furloughed Pan Am pilots who had received notice of recall before January 19, 1980)."
I seem to remember that you brought up Gill, but when I responded to you with what I knew about it, I never heard from you again. Is that right, because sometimes I just zone out on your rambling.
So wiggy, you know Nic screwed it up. You like to argue and see your words in print, but you know the truth.