Ackattacker,

No your # is your #. Many don't come back initially acid they'd like to be able to hold a line in their base of choice. Eventually they can and will return.

On May 1st, 2012 there were 1665 AA furloughs:
Trogdor, all the answers you seek and more are here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...1DIIxmEE#t=150

Okay, but on a more serious note... The most senior involuntary furlough on January 8th, 2013 had less than 8 months of LOS. This is because Eagle pilots sued to have all TWA LCC pilots stripped of their LOS and legally regarded as new hires.

I'd like to know how many AA pilots were on involuntary furlough, but later deferred recall and never completed a cumulative year LOS probationary period? Can anyone answer this?

Whether or not a pilot is on involuntary or voluntary furloughed status at the time of the merger will be a noteworthy issue.

The AA list will not be reordered. All voluntary furloughed and bypassed recall pilots will be regarded as being on property. R57 Relay is correct insinuating that involuntary furloughed pilots not on property at the time of the merger announcement may be regarded as if they would continue to be involuntarily furloughed had all voluntary furloughs/bypass pilots actually returned. In other words, involuntary furloughed and flow-thru pilots may not be granted a status holding position equal to voluntary furloughed/bypass pilots.

It is also worth mentioning that pilots who voluntarily took a furlough (I think APA calls these "Stand in Stead" pilots) may not be the same as pilots who were once involuntarily furloughed and later deferred recall. Cumulative LOS should be a consideration in measuring a pilots cumulative periods of employment before involuntary furlough and after obtaining recall/deferral status.


I don't believe an AA bypass pilot position would be frozen, but it would remain relatively constant to that of the next pilot senior to him and so on.


Third list pilots need to do a two things if they care about their seniority in this integration:

1. Read the arbitrations of LCC/AWA, DAL/NWA and UAL/CAL and study how these arbitrations affected the bottom 15% of each respective list.
2. Ask the USAPA Merger Committee to pursue a bargaining stratagem rooted in the precedence of these industry standard arbitrations. Ie. Merger announcement as constructive notice date for seniority snapshot reflective of accurate carrier pre-merger expectations, LOS for AA furloughs, some blend of LOS & Relative Category/Status...

****Citation for off-property flow through pilots having no recall right:

March 13, 2008, Arbitrator LaRocco ruled in FLO0106 that Supplement W/Letter 3 status rights did "not contain a right of recall to AE flowthrough
pilots who hold AA seniority numbers, but were not furloughed from AA." (Arbitrator George Nicolau, (2009, October 18) Opinion and Award Grv. FLO0208)

Does anyone know the DOH of the last AA pilot hired? I'm not talking about the Eagle flow throughs that never flew mainline, just the last guy to set foot on the property at AA, furloughed or not. I was just trying to remember when AA stopped hiring and couldn't remember if they were hiring right up to 9/11 or not. Thanks in advance.

+ there are about 40 that hold seniority numbers on both list, with a combined total service to the new AA of 15 or so years.

So with the TWA being considered "new hires", that's already reflected on the current seniority list if I remember correctly, right? And that term was only used for where the TWA pilots were to be put on the list? Also, as far as pay, tthey will return to AA at their last pay status (ie 3rd year f/o)? Also, could this finding also affect where they will be put on the giant AA/US airways combined list? Just a thought

Are you trying to infer that some of the "new hire" TWA pilots will be moved on the existing list? Sorry, that is NOT going to happen. Keep in mind that following the stapled TWA group is a fairly large number of "native" pilots along with a few AE flow-through mixed in. After that, there is a group of straight AE flow-through pilots. At the bottom of the list, we now have new-hires (off the street along with more flow-throughs) with the two new classes this month. If you are hoping that the union will screw a particular group like the TWA pilots by altering their position within the APA seniority list, you will be very disappointed. And yes, I AM a former TWA pilot.:)

Not saying that. What I'm asking is, "what does it mean that TWA pilots were considered new hires anyway?" I'm taking the same position as you on this. The current list is reflecting this , my guess is Eagle pilots got ahead of some TWA guys after the suit? And it won't affect their position on any new list in the future, right? So Airways, and whatever other companies AA merges with down the road, etc. Also, TWA pilots won't be paid as new hires, but get paid what they were getting paid 20 years ago, or however long these guys were on the street for...

This is all too complex and convoluted to explain on a message board. In short, the ridiculous "new-hire" term for some of the TWA pilots came about from a law-suit between Eagle ALPA and the APA. For some reason, the judge, in his ruling, used the term "new-hire" for any TWA pilot that had not gone through AA training prior to being furloughed.

As for pay, I was on third year pay when furloughed and came back at third year pay. There is a real push going on right now for the furloughed pilots to get LOS for time while furloughed, but it seems that union leadership (being mostly senior guys) has little interest in pursuing it at this time.

Eagle flow-through pilots did not get any advantage on the seniority list as a result of the law-suit. The ruling simply allowed them to flow-up ahead of more junior furloughed guys. Yes, it was a raw deal for the furloughed guys as it delayed our recall for several months.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Reading this whole post, it sounds like you are advocating the Usapian position that DOH (or a methodology that supports that) must be used in the SLI, otherwise why would you seek with seeming urgency this information ?

Of course, some Usapains claim here, "oh no, we aren't clinging to that........not us". :cool:

Not surprising and expected, even by APA by the way. For the record, Eagle pilots DID NOT "strip" anyone of anything, it was Eagle ALPA that disputed the TWA flowback situation. I get kicked around pretty good for sticking my nose in East/West Nic squabbles and am frequently told to mind my own business, yet when it occurs in reverse, that's apparently fair ground for a Usapian or their sympathizers. What essentially occurred with the Nicolau FLO-0108 situation was Eagle ALPA's disputing that former TWA pilots had flow back rights to Eagle when they weren't part of that agreement and AMR and APA unilaterally decided they were. That was a FOUR party agreement and four parties didn't agree to that interpretation and when it was forced anyway they cried foul. Nicolau opined that if they were, then Eagle pilots had were entitled to an equal number of new-hire positions at AA and that's how the bottom "chunk" of Eagle flows were awarded their AA seniority (all at the very bottom of the AA list). Many of TWA pilots who DID flow back to Eagle BTW, did so with FULL LOS for pay and were at 18-year pay as opposed to many of the AA native flow backs who were only at 1-2 year captains pay rates.

Yes, but only with USAPA.

APA is expecting USAPA to most likely argue DOH or a supporting methodology should be a factor in the SLI. USAPA is virtually certain to attempt to argue for an integration that WILL try to dilute the seniority of both AA furloughees due to what they believe is a loss of longevity for time on furlough and to Eagle flows for what they believe to be a loss of longevity due to delay in beginning their training at AA. That doesn't mean the APA will agree or that arbitration will result in that, it will simply be their assertion. If USAPA were successful though in arguing for longevity adjustments for AA furloughees and/or flows, it WOULD result in a "reordering" of the AA list. What WILL be in play is the concept of "career expectation" and once you start reordering a seniority list, then you muddy up the pre-merger career expectation snapshot of any given pilot, so it then gets complicated as to meet one party's belief of longevity adjustment negatively impacting a pilot on the post merger list (misguided IMO), you violate another party's belief of career expectations on their pre-merger list.

Yes, the above will likely be the belief of USAPA (just as it yours), but APA will almost certainly argue the opposite. Who knows, perhaps APA will make arguments on why certain East pilots (or even West pilots depending on what USAPA throws down on the table as their "list") should also have "adjustments" made to their positions on whatever list USAPA presents ?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Maintaining pre-merger career expectations will be the ultimate goal. Exactly HOW that occurs is the "art" (as an APA rep put it). The DL/NW SLI was fairly quiet because it was a merger od two essential equals and the UAL/CO SLI had it's OWN issues, many aspects of which may not apply to this merger. The LCC/AWA SLI never occurred, so I can't see how that factors in, other than the bad taste in the NMB's mouth from past dealings with USAPA. There is no "precedent" when it comes to SLI's and so one could try to argue what occurred in SLI X or Y should apply, but history shows that if you look at the last 10 SLI's over the last decades, they all had differences in argument and outcome. The only two concepts that M-B will promote is a result that is "fair and equitable" and one that preserves the "career expectations" of as many pilots as possible. of course, both sides will have THEIR idea of what those two should be and hopefully the arbitrator will disregard the bulls%&t.

Actually, USAPA will almost certainly try to argue for longevity adjustments (to the negative) for certain classes of AA pilots. I suppose you can do that without physically moving them to more junior positions on the combined list (as opposed to where they originally would have been) and simply use some type of limitation or fence, but it's essentially the same thing. The APA has said they anticipate that considering USAPA's belief in DOH or a methodology equivalent. After all, the East is a VERY senior pilot group in longevity and that position is the best out there in any merger between them and anyone, so it's not surprising.

They're going to go for the jugular.