brakechatter

It's official: Niccolau blew it.

R57 relay

Interesting. You come to a thread that is obviously just about the thing you are complaining about, then complain about it.

Cacti told me a long time ago that his objective is to "educate" guys. I KNOW we aren't really educating anyone. By this time everyone's mind is pretty much made up. But, I'm just not one to let half-truths and outright lies pass. If we keep it here, guys like you that don't like it can stay away. What's wrong with that?

Interesting thing about those threads so many complain about. You see how many views they get even after it is evident that people know what they are about? It's like Jerry Springer or Maury. People love a food fight.

Now, tomorrow on this thread I will be taking a polygraph to show I really wasn't a former Nazi and Maury will be here to do a paternity test to see if cacti really is WD's love child.

R57 relay

If this merger fails I don't believe we will get an industry standard contract.

Not sure how long you have been here, but are you familiar with the "Crew News" sessions Parker used to do? He would meet with crews in the training centers once a month to talk about things and they were video recorded and put on wings. I always thought they were a way to spread the company line. A consistent theme was that we couldn't generate the same revenue as the bigger carriers so we couldn't pay the same. (that ignored smaller carriers that pay more and profit margin) He said that is how AWA survived and that when US paid industry standard and times got tough it was in trouble, and that we would not go back to that.

So that is the company stance. They follow it too with the grievance process and the Gerry Glass/Al Hemingway school of labor relations. To get an industry standard contract we would have to force them, and what power do we have to do that? With this fractured group-none, IMHO.

Now the good news is that we have room to get a lot better than what we have. Here's what I think will have to happen and what we need to do.

-Let the Nic fight out to a final victory for one side or the other. It's too late for settlement and it isn't fought to the final answer the other side will fight on every front. Unfortunately I think that is 1-3 years. But, while we are doing that we could stop fighting each other on everything else. Agree to let it play out and put section 22 aside. Then tell Parker we are working together on every other section. We now have west guys on the NAC so we should be able to work together on the rest.
-When the fight is over we need to lay down our swords and we need a great leader to help us do that. To that end I agree with cactusmike that USAPA needs to go, at the least in name. I'd like to keep and independent union and not return to ALPA, but the name is tainted for west pilots(and many east). At the very least change the name and overhaul the C&BL.
-Accepted Parker's premise that we can't have the same as the big 3(in theory), and get a contract that closes the gap, but with a very short term, maybe 3 years. That way we can recover our sanity and prepare for a better one.
-Take the Kirby rates and increase them for the time that has passed and add a few %. Insist they apply to the E190. Then try to retain the best of east and west contracts like east scope and LTD, most of the rest of the west.
-Instead of back pay, insist on annual raises so the company will have an incentive to really negotiate the next contract.

Just one man's opinion.

R57 relay

You might be surprised, but I kind of agree, see post above.

FixTheMess

Great idea . . . good luck.

cactusmike

And I agree with your post, Relay. Very well stated.

Hugs all around.

Now for some contention. How did Nicolau get it wrong if the arbitrators in the latest SLI used his methodology? Remember, the top slots went east and longevity was not an integral part of ALPA merger policy.

Remember the quote from Nicolau that was cited in the United SLI, "each case turns on its own facts". Since I really doubt the east/west issue will get a do over, the next arbitration we are looking at is US/AA. Look to the last two for a reasonable approximation of what we will see, relative seniority with some concessions to LOS. There should be no furloughs on either side at time of POR so it will be a little simpler to craft a SLI, I believe.

brakechatter

Part of ALPA merger policy was, however, that nobody gets a windfall at another's expense. I believe that rewarding the top 517 to USAir was a windfall at the AWA expense. Longevity matters, and how convenient that this is actually documented after the debacle of USAir/AWA. Nic blew it by not considering longevity, and would have likely prevented a travesty at the combined airline. To seat a 4 month pilot next to 17 year pilots is begging for trouble, and to consider furloughed pilots staple fodder is begging for more. Contracts were similar enough for financial condition not to be a factor and both companies were either viable or both companies were in trouble, depending on who you ask. Perhaps even more destructive was the lack of fences, meaningful fences. To quote from a recent result "Nor is it a myth that for many years mainline pilots, in general, have considered so-called “jumbo” jet aircraft flying as the pinnacle of career expectations. AWA pilots had NO such expectations. This should have made more of a difference in both the arbitrated list and with regard to fences, which amounted to 2 months.

A few AWA pilots attest that this was not a windfall for them, yet they fight so hard to keep it, because it's the right thing to do. .

In the meantime, the majority of the group ousts ALPA, just because they are [content deleted].

Pilots eating pilots, and we march on. Watch what happens with the American merger, and how fast PHX is shut down, thus reflecting the value of it in the system. Then tell us again how much the AWA pilots deserved. It's already basically happened. Of course, that doesn't matter now. Does it?

Wiskey Driver

Well the reason we have M&B today is because of American so I wouldnt think too much about that. Mergers and SLI are going just as NIC did ours.

WD at AWA

brakechatter

Yep, and that was incorrect as seen by a more rational list of integration. You are getting closer by including relevant information. You are just interpreting it incorrectly. While DOH may be a thing of the past, longevity matters and should be factored into an integration, and I suspect that you would agree should the merger had been with a Virgin America.

The problem exists because pilots are by nature myopic and immediate problem solvers and selfish. Combine that with the fact that your seniority is not transportable and you get the uniqueness of our profession and an inherent problem which could be solved a number of ways other than the current solution.

..and here you go again, using a unique failure of integration when my point was that NIC blew it. The proof is in the fact that the next arbitration did not stick with the thought that one companies financials on a given day does not rule the roost, and that furloughed pilots indeed have a place in this world and are not pure staple fodder. "Days from liquidating," even if it were true--which it is not--equals VIABLE; meaning no relevancy. The context is that USAir decided to go through another BK, to effectively hammer creditors and labor which they failed to do the first time. For one pilot group to profit from this, when they themselves finally get pulled off of the compensation bottom rung, is ludicrous. For a federal mediator to get sucked into the same argument is borderline criminal. Again, the point is not to rehash the same arguments, but to point out that the original premise was wrong, the list integration was blown, and that ALPA realized it by changing policy, and the mediators realize it by changing their precedent to a new standard.

Fine, DOH is the kiss of death and relative seniority is the antithesis kiss of death. The mediator's job is to come up with a fair list. He blew it and gave one side a windfall at the other's expense--in several examples going both ways. If I were senior AWA, I would feel vindication that the top 517 spots should not have gone to East pilots--although this is probably the single least harmful provision given age differential. Were I the East, I would be taking this information to future hearings as validation that they are indeed serving a LUP, as "a federal mediator's ruling is powerful evidence......."

Admit you are wrong and move on. You've got the benefit of the award. Occupancy is 99% of the law. You've also gotten saved from a losing proposition in the desert. Deny it all you want, but AWA was going down to SWA--not USAir. SWA is getting pushed from PHL. To top it off, you get the benefit of the NIC--at least in theory--you get access to Europe and SA, you get somebody else to finally pull you out of the basement of compensation in contracts, and now you get access to a global airline with global reach airplanes, pay, and benefits. "Nor is it a myth that for many years mainline pilots, in general, have considered so-called “jumbo” jet aircraft flying as the pinnacle of career expectations." Quite a boon for the low rung carrier in the desert "hiring 30 per month". Yeah right.

It's no secret that yours is the majority of the opinion on these and other anonymous boards. Indeed, binding arbitration should mean binding. However, in the specific arena of the piloting profession, where skills are not transportable across airlines and seniority the same, integrations have to be gotten right. This instance is unique, and the proof is that the fight has been ongoing for a record time, ALPA has been ousted, and the legal bills have been staggering. To explain that away as "binding is binding" is pure arrogance and gloating on the part of AWA, a matter of survival for USAir, and convenient "look the other way" for the rest of the industry.

A few rhetorical questions:

How long will PHX stick around post merger?

Why do you think that ALPA has had a change of heart regarding USAPA and APA, and actually supports the merger?

How will this integration departure from the precedent set by USAIR/AWA affect a ripe DFR case and LUP for the east west going forward?

R57 relay

Thank you. I think brakechatter sums it up pretty well. I will leave you with another arbitrators thoughts since you really don't agree with mine.

"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).
13
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). He indicated a willingness, had the parties (or the "JANUS" group, representing the furloughees) submitted a proposal estimating the likely dates of recall of the furloughees and the likely length of service of the active pilots at those dates, to integrate the furloughees on that basis. However, no such proposal was forthcoming "[p]erhaps because of the difficulties in fashioning projections of that nature." Id. at 41. While noting that his solution to the furloughee problem might seem novel, Gill observed that
14
"the problem itself is novel--there has not been any previous merger case called to my attention where such massive numbers of furloughees, with such long periods of being off the property, were pitted against active airmen from the other airline who brought current jobs to the merger."

You are correct that longevity was (foolishly IMHO) taken out of the ALPA merger policy. But, no windfalls at the expense at others was in there. I agree with you about the windfall for the top east pilots, but leave out the one for the bottom half of the west. It's obvious.

The UAL/CAL SLI places furloughed pilots in with active pilots. I truly believe that had Nicolau done just what Brucia suggested that we wouldn't be here today.