USAPA Board Approves MOU
01-13-2013, 01:09 PM
#252
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by flybywire44
It mast have been painful for West pilots to learn of the unanimous MOU vote. 
And what is wrong with with self interest? Ayn Rand called it a virtue when she wrote Atlas Shrugged.
And what is wrong with with self interest? Ayn Rand called it a virtue when she wrote Atlas Shrugged.
If you want to build a shrine to self centered people then I guess Ayn Rand would be the statue on top.
01-13-2013, 01:32 PM
#253
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 98
I have reread Nicolau's award in hindsight and agree that the AWA inital proposal did pad the furlough protection, but the numbers are not clear since there are at least 3 separate groups within the furloughee list that should or should not be included and the changing numbers over the course of 2 years it took to come up with the list makes the final number difficult to determine. Whether this was tactical positioning based on the intransigence of the east or simply allowing for the eventual reduction-from-proposal that comes with any award, is neither here nor there. Nicolau spoke.
But the perspective of time and how this has played out makes Nicolau's decision seem even more wise and even-handed than when it first came out. He acknowledged that conditions had improved and that attrition would accrue to the east as it has and that the true conditions of the pilots are not at all correspondent to the position on the list.
Now USAPA has enjoyed 6 years of ill-gotten gains (permanent due to No Bump No Flush) in addition to the 2 years during which the list was determined
and they still have the gall to claim that Nicolau was a windfall for the west. They evade the award though a fake union that has no problem with the suffering of 33% of it's membership in addition to the 60% on the east who labor under an unnecessarily onerous contract so that 7% or so can take an upgrade a little quicker than they could under the Nicolau Award.
So read Nicolau's Award and see if it isn't the voice of reason that should have been heeded in 2007.
This, however, does not justify ratios beginning at the top of the list as America West proposes, for there are compensating factors such a methodology ignores. Though Date of Hire, whether adjusted for Length of Service or not, is no longer listed as a determinant or even stated as a integration criterion, there are occasions when
consideration should be given to that factor. Here, US Airways is far older than America West, a fact reflected in the average age difference between the two groups. Consideration must also be given to the different career expectations based on equipment flown. US Airways pilots fly wide-body international aircraft, while America West pilots do not. Those elements weigh in US Airways favor both in placement and interim restriction and thus argue against the America West proposal, as do the benefits US Airways pilots will achieve through their agreed upon receipt of stock options, increasing sums not factored into simple hourly rate comparisons.
Equally worthy of consideration as an offsetting benefit to America West pilots is the US Airways attrition, whether swift or slower, that will accrue to the America West pilots in a measure that did not previously exist. Though America West pilots can therefore expect some gain from factors US Airways brought to the merger, this by no means
justifies the proposal on which US Airways insists. As previously stated, giving sole consideration to date of hire and length of service would put the senior America West pilot some 900 to 1100 numbers down the combined list. US Airways proposed restrictions, both as to aircraft and length, would unduly deprive too many senior America
West pilots of upgrade opportunities for too long a time, and would also put a number of active America West pilots below long-furloughed US Airways pilots who, until the merger, had little prospect of an early return.
In our view, these competing considerations result in a list that has the effect of reserving a certain number of positions in present wide-body international aircraft to US Airways pilots, thus giving consideration to both their longer service and the fact that America West pilots did not have an immediate expectation of such flying. However, the placement of a number of US Airways pilots on the top of
the list as a means of accomplishing that is not the 900 to 1100 they seek, but 423, which is equal to number of Captains and First Officers flying the A330 and B767 International. This would give those senior US Airways pilots the opportunity to bid into such vacant positions if
they so chose for an additional period of four years, making a total of six years since the merger unless, as we said before, Age 65 legislation or rule-making were to change the retirement age. On balance, it is our judgment that this allocation is equitable and, since such protection has already existed for more than two years, that it is for a sufficient length so as to then allow the list to operate independently for such aircraft. Except for this restriction, all
other present flying, as defined in the Conditions and Restrictions that follow, is to operate by the list. As set forth in those Conditions and Restrictions, new flying, as defined therein is to be equitably shared in the formula set forth.
A majority of the Board has also decided that the totality of premerger career expectations weighs in favor of active pilots as of the date of the announcement. When one considers the number and length of furloughs on the US Airways side and the dim prospects the airline faced and compares it to the lack of furloughs on the America
West side, which furloughs ceased to exist long before the merger took place, merging active pilots with furloughees, despite the length of service of some of the latter, is not at all fair or equitable under any of the stated criteria.
The America West pilots insist that the Board should go further than the merger of active pilots with active pilots; that instead of placing America West's most junior pilot (Odell) just above Colello, the senior pre-merger US Airways' furloughee, that Odell should be placed some 750 numbers above Colello. Otherwise, Odell, who was
not at risk of furlough because of the stability of America West as of May 19, 2005, would be placed at risk of furlough before some 750 active US Airways pilots, who, because of their airline's continuing instability, were at constant risk of that fate.
That approach simply reaches too far. Today, Colello, who was US Airways most senior furloughee on May 19, 2005, is now a B757 First Officer with some 300 active US Airways pilots beneath him. If Odell is placed on the list above Colello next to and just below Monda, who was the junior US Airways active pilot, that will insure that active
pilots are integrated with active pilots and also give Odell a measure of protection the America West pilots justifiably seek. In making this judgment, we agree with America West's argument that in this case active pilots should be merged with active pilots, but do not agree that the equities are so persuasive as to disadvantage US Airways pilots such as Monda and those above him, who, like Odell, brought jobs to the merger. Hence, our adherence to the merger date as the point at which the pairing should be made. We also understand that our choices will place pilots with disparate lengths of service next to each other. That, however, is a result of the balancing of the equities
inherent in ALPAmerger policy, a balance that neither a top to bottom active pilot ratio as advanced by America West or a top to bottom length of service integration as proposed by US Airways achieves. We further understand that those pilots on furlough are not there through choice or fault and that, as a result of their placement, they will not advance as quickly as they would like. But when one looks at the length of many of those furloughs as well as the end of new hirings occasioned by the continuing difficulties US Airways had in resolving its structural problems and finding its way out of bankruptcy, their expectations of advancement could not have been intense, the opposite had to be true.
But the perspective of time and how this has played out makes Nicolau's decision seem even more wise and even-handed than when it first came out. He acknowledged that conditions had improved and that attrition would accrue to the east as it has and that the true conditions of the pilots are not at all correspondent to the position on the list.
Now USAPA has enjoyed 6 years of ill-gotten gains (permanent due to No Bump No Flush) in addition to the 2 years during which the list was determined
and they still have the gall to claim that Nicolau was a windfall for the west. They evade the award though a fake union that has no problem with the suffering of 33% of it's membership in addition to the 60% on the east who labor under an unnecessarily onerous contract so that 7% or so can take an upgrade a little quicker than they could under the Nicolau Award.
So read Nicolau's Award and see if it isn't the voice of reason that should have been heeded in 2007.
This, however, does not justify ratios beginning at the top of the list as America West proposes, for there are compensating factors such a methodology ignores. Though Date of Hire, whether adjusted for Length of Service or not, is no longer listed as a determinant or even stated as a integration criterion, there are occasions when
consideration should be given to that factor. Here, US Airways is far older than America West, a fact reflected in the average age difference between the two groups. Consideration must also be given to the different career expectations based on equipment flown. US Airways pilots fly wide-body international aircraft, while America West pilots do not. Those elements weigh in US Airways favor both in placement and interim restriction and thus argue against the America West proposal, as do the benefits US Airways pilots will achieve through their agreed upon receipt of stock options, increasing sums not factored into simple hourly rate comparisons.
Equally worthy of consideration as an offsetting benefit to America West pilots is the US Airways attrition, whether swift or slower, that will accrue to the America West pilots in a measure that did not previously exist. Though America West pilots can therefore expect some gain from factors US Airways brought to the merger, this by no means
justifies the proposal on which US Airways insists. As previously stated, giving sole consideration to date of hire and length of service would put the senior America West pilot some 900 to 1100 numbers down the combined list. US Airways proposed restrictions, both as to aircraft and length, would unduly deprive too many senior America
West pilots of upgrade opportunities for too long a time, and would also put a number of active America West pilots below long-furloughed US Airways pilots who, until the merger, had little prospect of an early return.
In our view, these competing considerations result in a list that has the effect of reserving a certain number of positions in present wide-body international aircraft to US Airways pilots, thus giving consideration to both their longer service and the fact that America West pilots did not have an immediate expectation of such flying. However, the placement of a number of US Airways pilots on the top of
the list as a means of accomplishing that is not the 900 to 1100 they seek, but 423, which is equal to number of Captains and First Officers flying the A330 and B767 International. This would give those senior US Airways pilots the opportunity to bid into such vacant positions if
they so chose for an additional period of four years, making a total of six years since the merger unless, as we said before, Age 65 legislation or rule-making were to change the retirement age. On balance, it is our judgment that this allocation is equitable and, since such protection has already existed for more than two years, that it is for a sufficient length so as to then allow the list to operate independently for such aircraft. Except for this restriction, all
other present flying, as defined in the Conditions and Restrictions that follow, is to operate by the list. As set forth in those Conditions and Restrictions, new flying, as defined therein is to be equitably shared in the formula set forth.
A majority of the Board has also decided that the totality of premerger career expectations weighs in favor of active pilots as of the date of the announcement. When one considers the number and length of furloughs on the US Airways side and the dim prospects the airline faced and compares it to the lack of furloughs on the America
West side, which furloughs ceased to exist long before the merger took place, merging active pilots with furloughees, despite the length of service of some of the latter, is not at all fair or equitable under any of the stated criteria.
The America West pilots insist that the Board should go further than the merger of active pilots with active pilots; that instead of placing America West's most junior pilot (Odell) just above Colello, the senior pre-merger US Airways' furloughee, that Odell should be placed some 750 numbers above Colello. Otherwise, Odell, who was
not at risk of furlough because of the stability of America West as of May 19, 2005, would be placed at risk of furlough before some 750 active US Airways pilots, who, because of their airline's continuing instability, were at constant risk of that fate.
That approach simply reaches too far. Today, Colello, who was US Airways most senior furloughee on May 19, 2005, is now a B757 First Officer with some 300 active US Airways pilots beneath him. If Odell is placed on the list above Colello next to and just below Monda, who was the junior US Airways active pilot, that will insure that active
pilots are integrated with active pilots and also give Odell a measure of protection the America West pilots justifiably seek. In making this judgment, we agree with America West's argument that in this case active pilots should be merged with active pilots, but do not agree that the equities are so persuasive as to disadvantage US Airways pilots such as Monda and those above him, who, like Odell, brought jobs to the merger. Hence, our adherence to the merger date as the point at which the pairing should be made. We also understand that our choices will place pilots with disparate lengths of service next to each other. That, however, is a result of the balancing of the equities
inherent in ALPAmerger policy, a balance that neither a top to bottom active pilot ratio as advanced by America West or a top to bottom length of service integration as proposed by US Airways achieves. We further understand that those pilots on furlough are not there through choice or fault and that, as a result of their placement, they will not advance as quickly as they would like. But when one looks at the length of many of those furloughs as well as the end of new hirings occasioned by the continuing difficulties US Airways had in resolving its structural problems and finding its way out of bankruptcy, their expectations of advancement could not have been intense, the opposite had to be true.
01-13-2013, 02:17 PM
#254
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Why would the west find that painful? We want a MOU that advances our interests.
If you want to build a shrine to self centered people then I guess Ayn Rand would be the statue on top.
If you want to build a shrine to self centered people then I guess Ayn Rand would be the statue on top.
Because, here you again have a case of USAPA representing the West group quite well.
You may be confusing altruism with benevolence:
Last edited by flybywire44; 01-13-2013 at 02:47 PM.
01-13-2013, 02:57 PM
#255
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by Bringupthebird
I have reread Nicolau's award in hindsight and agree that the AWA inital proposal did pad the furlough protection, but the numbers are not clear since there are at least 3 separate groups within the furloughee list that should or should not be included and the changing numbers over the course of 2 years it took to come up with the list makes the final number difficult to determine. Whether this was tactical positioning based on the intransigence of the east or simply allowing for the eventual reduction-from-proposal that comes with any award, is neither here nor there. Nicolau spoke.
But the perspective of time and how this has played out makes Nicolau's decision seem even more wise and even-handed than when it first came out. He acknowledged that conditions had improved and that attrition would accrue to the east as it has and that the true conditions of the pilots are not at all correspondent to the position on the list.
Now USAPA has enjoyed 6 years of ill-gotten gains (permanent due to No Bump No Flush) in addition to the 2 years during which the list was determined
and they still have the gall to claim that Nicolau was a windfall for the west. They evade the award though a fake union that has no problem with the suffering of 33% of it's membership in addition to the 60% on the east who labor under an unnecessarily onerous contract so that 7% or so can take an upgrade a little quicker than they could under the Nicolau Award.
So read Nicolau's Award and see if it isn't the voice of reason that should have been heeded in 2007.
But the perspective of time and how this has played out makes Nicolau's decision seem even more wise and even-handed than when it first came out. He acknowledged that conditions had improved and that attrition would accrue to the east as it has and that the true conditions of the pilots are not at all correspondent to the position on the list.
Now USAPA has enjoyed 6 years of ill-gotten gains (permanent due to No Bump No Flush) in addition to the 2 years during which the list was determined
and they still have the gall to claim that Nicolau was a windfall for the west. They evade the award though a fake union that has no problem with the suffering of 33% of it's membership in addition to the 60% on the east who labor under an unnecessarily onerous contract so that 7% or so can take an upgrade a little quicker than they could under the Nicolau Award.
So read Nicolau's Award and see if it isn't the voice of reason that should have been heeded in 2007.
I find it hilarious that you speak of the east pilots intransigence. How about the west's? Your line in the sand was that no pilot that was furloughed on May 19th 2005 would go ahead of Odell, even though 300 had returned by the time the award was produced. There was no way that the US merger committee could forward a seniority proposal that put a 17 year LOS guy and a 2 month LOS guy together. You know that. You guys wouldn't come off that so they did what you did, send your best case to the arbitrator with the minimum of C&Rs to start with.
I actually agree with a lot of what Nicolau said, it's just that when you get to the actual list you wonder if he listened to himself.
Time has shown the absurdity of parts of the Nicolau. Forced separate ops have shown that his assumptions were wrong. If not for forced ops we wouldn't have benefited from our attrition, the west would have. I think that is pretty clear since every single west pilot in the captain range if you include the E190, and about 85% of you are if you just go with 737 and larger. Not to mention A330 F/O or 767 F/O.
It's not ill gotten gain, the T/A calls for separate ops, no matter what the reason, until we have a joint contract. Even without USAPA we could still be in the same situation.
It's not a fake union just because you don't like it. I have a lot of issues with it, but it was legally elected and IS our legal CBA.
The Nicolau is not just about upgrade. It's about the overall move up the list and what that brings for guys that have waited for a quarter of a century. It shifts relative % from east to west moving forward. PERIOD.
01-13-2013, 03:17 PM
#257
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by flybywire44
Because, here you again have a case of USAPA representing the West group quite well. :
[/INDENT]
[/INDENT]
You also have members of the BPR under attack by the diehards. They have accused the CLT and PHL reps of selling out. Hummel is getting hammered by the disciples of Cleary for running a secret vote and twisting arms. So while the unanimous vote appears to be a one happy family thing, the reality is this is a truly dysfunctional society that is about to be rendered impotent.
Once the mother ship lands there will be a lot of pilots running around going "where did this come from?" And that will be because there has been little or no information coming from USAPA world headquarters on how USAPA's constitutional mandates will be carried out going forward, how they will get date of hire, how they will achieve a legitimate union purpose, or even how the M-B process may affect them in a SLI.
01-13-2013, 04:35 PM
#258
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
Originally Posted by R57 relay
Ditto. So let's just drop it.
Transparency is a wonderful thing my friend, you should try it one day, it will undoubtedly make you feel better.
WD at AWA
01-13-2013, 04:36 PM
#259
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by R57 relay
. Even without USAPA we could still be in the same situation.
And all pilots on the US list would see a far improved quality of life and we would be able to face the onslaught of APA from a position of strength instead of hoping for benevolence.
If you think USAPA is a legitimate union, then list the accomplishments in real dollars that all US pilots can point to. Otherwise they are a rat hole unworthy of one more dollar.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
