Originally Posted by R57 relay

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?

Yes, except for the top 500 slots reserved for US widebodies, he apparently integrated by status and category, going to the bottom of each list. And no, I didn't put any qualifications on that because it is implicit that former AWA pilots are now, in fact, USAir pilots, and any USAir new hires should be placed at the bottom of any list(s) composed of USAir pilots. (I think we can put that one to bed, it was a poor analogy at best, certainly not worth all the vitriol spit over it...an ill-considered "lesson" that is about as divisive as they come...it is not likely to be argued for and even less likely to be implemented, and as a practical matter, you don't accord with it yourself, it is a textbook case of comparing apples to oranges, whereby the common feature between the two is that they are both fruit...and that is being generous).

Note to purple turtle: Sorry to have deflated your modus operandi, you'll now have to find some other divisive contrivance with which you can display your irrelevance.

Now, prior to the merger AWA pilots were not USAir pilots, there were two separate groups of pilots, and each had their own completely separate set of expectations and equities to be accounted for in a fair manner for the purposes of effecting a fair merger. It is not clear at all that LOS or DOH should carry any special consideration. Equities are equities and they are matched. Equities are jobs and money. Dates of hire and resulting lengths of service are only relevant within the individual pilot groups that they apply to, but the equities of jobs and money can be directly and easily compared as relevant criteria between and among pilot groups. Even you, R, have abandoned the concept of pure DOH or LOS as being the sole relevant criteria for constructing seniority lists. What concept motivates that view, R? Whenever there is a huge disparity in hiring demographics between pilot groups, (as was the case) DOH and LOS should be abandoned, as there is no correlation between that demographic (DOH) and the corresponding equities that they carry into the merger...ie. -for argument's sake, the possibility exists that a junior, low paid pilot at the bottom of one list might have a DOH or LOS equivalent to senior, highly paid pilot at the top of another list. To put them next to each other in the middle of a combined list by DOH would be to windfall increase one's seniority and equities at the expense of the other.

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.

Ok, I want to get back to you on this, I really do, there's a lot there and it will take some time to wade through it all. With that idea in mind, I think this might be a good time to get the obligatory insults out of the way:

This is a rather long diatribe for you R, and now I can see why you persist in your bit by bit, Socratic questioning/stump the dummy routine...it seems that you may have a little trouble piecing together several ideas within a general theme and giving them a coherent context. One doesn't know where one idea ends and another begins...keeping track of an idea in this thing is like chasing a cat through a house of mirrors.

Perhaps you should submit this to your daughter and see if she wouldn't agree that it has all the clarity of cup of ink, and it combines all the conciseness of a Tolstoy novel with the brevity of an Oxford dictionary...-it has the intelligibility of Chinese metaphysical treatise and the artful coherence of Jackson Pollack finger-painting...I mean really, R, this thing has all the style points of a Casio Calculator wrist watch instruction booklet...This isn't exactly scintillating prose here R...but if you can produce more of it, don't be surprised if the makers of Ambien come knocking on your door when their patent runs out...And if you think my use of the dot-dot-dot ellipsis (...) grates on your nerves, this thing makes me want to throw myself under a steam-roller....

Ok, had enough? Me too.

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.

I have to say, I didn't know this, but I would suggest to you that they did so because "every merger turns on its own merits". And I would further suggest to you that the ALPA merger policy guidelines in effect at the time of the above mergers was not the same policy as was in effect at the time of the US/AWA merger....specifically, there was no mention made of "you know what" in the policy at the time of your merger.

"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.

Naw, I didn't know the details, just that there were a lot of old blue ball guys b!tching about the orange ball guys...and I can relate on the zoning out on rambling, although I wouldn't have the insolent temerity to tell you so. (With exception of the above, of course)

So wiggy, you know Nic screwed it up. You like to argue and see your words in print, but you know the truth.