APA comments on USAPA's lack of Integrity!!
02-26-2014, 07:41 AM
#221
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by eaglefly
.........there are perhaps 600 or so Eagle flows. The first 150 with OCC dates in the 1998-1999 range completed their 18-month lock-ins and flowed before 9/11. Some of the are now making narrow body captain. Those with OCC dates in the 2000-2001 range had 24-month lock-in's that were interrupted by 9/11. During those years many AA furloughees flowed back to Eagle and many TWA as well (at 18-year pay). A grievance award considered the TWA furloughees "new-hires" at AA and as such, the arbitrator awarded a similar number of Eagle pilots flow-thru positions at AA, although stapled to the very bottom. He also ruled that Eagle pilots were to transfer over as "recalls" in seniority order and thus they were mixed-in in the recall stream beginning in 2010 when their AA seniority was reached and ending in 2012. This was about 250 pilots. (That's me). Then another 50-100 who were part of the agreement, but not the 150 staplees, filtered over starting in early 2013 and finishing late in the year with the staplees. End of that process.
As for the question above, I have no idea how AA pilots will be "slotted" among US Airways pilots. That's for the arbitrators to decide. The position of many of us, is that yes our OCC date should be used as it is the only date associated with our seniority for bidding purposes. The agreement has specific language that these pilots would be treated NO DIFFERENTLY then those pilots who actually attended the new-hire class referenced (the originally withheld class). In fact, many of those pilots (AA street hires at the time) were only IN those classes because spots were vacant for them to hold by withholding the AE flows. The point is that to alter that by diluting the AE flows due to a longevity argument that isn't applicable in this situation (like it MAY have been in the UAL/CAL SLI as their flow-thru may have different language), is that it has the potential to "rearrange" the present AA lists relative seniority after the lists have been slotted together, thus making AE flows junior to pilots they are presently senior to on the AA list.
If they are going to slot me behind X pilot at US Airways using whatever methodology, then they'll have to slot all those presently junior to me on the AA list as well, not cherry pick AE flows (or native furloughees, for that matter) out of their present relative seniority positions. Speaking of AA furloughees, let's suppose they docked them longevity as well ?
Well, various furloughees would have different longevity deduction formulas applied due to different lengths of time out on furlough (voluntary or not). Considering they are all over the seniority list, it would have the potential to completely jumble how the present AA list is "slotted" in with US Airways pilots on that aspect as well. Thus, if LOS is applied to the AA list for either flows, furloughs or both, AA pilots, especially those from about year 2000 and junior could end up slotted in different places and now junior to AA pilots they were previously senior to. Likewise for US Airways pilots both East and West, but this has FAR more devastating potential for AA pilots due to numbers.
There's a HUGE problem with all this and that is if you do all that rearranging due to longevity adjustments, how do you also maintain pre-merger career expectations for all these affected pilots when their relative seniority is now rearranged all over the place ?
McCaskill-Bond and the MOU specifically talk about pre-merger career expectations and thus that litmus would seem to have to be maintained and I can't see how if one or more of the parties advocates a complete slice and dice of the various seniority lists due to LOS/longevity that could be mintained. There are other supporting aspects of our position on the AE flow contractual situation that I will not discuss here for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that regardless of how the arbitrators slot the 2 or 3 lists together, each list should maintain its relative seniority after the slotting as it did before so as to uphold pre-merger career expectations and there's no way I can see that happening with the complexity of LOS/longevity being introduced to mangle that concept.
As for the question above, I have no idea how AA pilots will be "slotted" among US Airways pilots. That's for the arbitrators to decide. The position of many of us, is that yes our OCC date should be used as it is the only date associated with our seniority for bidding purposes. The agreement has specific language that these pilots would be treated NO DIFFERENTLY then those pilots who actually attended the new-hire class referenced (the originally withheld class). In fact, many of those pilots (AA street hires at the time) were only IN those classes because spots were vacant for them to hold by withholding the AE flows. The point is that to alter that by diluting the AE flows due to a longevity argument that isn't applicable in this situation (like it MAY have been in the UAL/CAL SLI as their flow-thru may have different language), is that it has the potential to "rearrange" the present AA lists relative seniority after the lists have been slotted together, thus making AE flows junior to pilots they are presently senior to on the AA list.
If they are going to slot me behind X pilot at US Airways using whatever methodology, then they'll have to slot all those presently junior to me on the AA list as well, not cherry pick AE flows (or native furloughees, for that matter) out of their present relative seniority positions. Speaking of AA furloughees, let's suppose they docked them longevity as well ?
Well, various furloughees would have different longevity deduction formulas applied due to different lengths of time out on furlough (voluntary or not). Considering they are all over the seniority list, it would have the potential to completely jumble how the present AA list is "slotted" in with US Airways pilots on that aspect as well. Thus, if LOS is applied to the AA list for either flows, furloughs or both, AA pilots, especially those from about year 2000 and junior could end up slotted in different places and now junior to AA pilots they were previously senior to. Likewise for US Airways pilots both East and West, but this has FAR more devastating potential for AA pilots due to numbers.
There's a HUGE problem with all this and that is if you do all that rearranging due to longevity adjustments, how do you also maintain pre-merger career expectations for all these affected pilots when their relative seniority is now rearranged all over the place ?
McCaskill-Bond and the MOU specifically talk about pre-merger career expectations and thus that litmus would seem to have to be maintained and I can't see how if one or more of the parties advocates a complete slice and dice of the various seniority lists due to LOS/longevity that could be mintained. There are other supporting aspects of our position on the AE flow contractual situation that I will not discuss here for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that regardless of how the arbitrators slot the 2 or 3 lists together, each list should maintain its relative seniority after the slotting as it did before so as to uphold pre-merger career expectations and there's no way I can see that happening with the complexity of LOS/longevity being introduced to mangle that concept.
02-26-2014, 08:27 AM
#222
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Saabs
Eagle, thank you very much for explaining the eagle flow situation. I don't think anyone in their right mind (except Texaspilot) wants any reordering of anyone's list. That's a horrible precedent. I also think that when one uses the term eagle flow, they automatically assume they are talking about someone still currently at eagle with flow rights, and not someone as yourself who has already flowed. That seems to create a ton of confusion.
The current flows that I speak of have average ages pretty close to the AA average which means the young pups are still in their later 40's, with most between 50 and 60 and a noteworthy percentage over 60. I would guess most of the East 3rd listers and almost all those hired recently would be under 40, with many in their early to mid 30's. Over the next 12-15 years most of the flows will be gone just like the rest of the list and it will be these pilots that have a far more lucrative career at higher points on the future seniority list for longer then any of the old gas bags like myself. You could be the most junior guy on the list today and if you're 35 or under, you're going to be the one who makes out the best of all the pilots. All the older pre-merger guys be it from AA or U all had their pensions stripped to little or nothing and the East pilots especially have made essentially regional airline pay for almost the last decade, so although no pensions will likely ever come back, being a 45-year old 787 captain with 20 years to go ain't so bad. I wish I could see that, but likely I'll never even hold wide body captain expect perhaps in my last couple of years (maybe) and that would be junior reserve which is a tough way for a guy in his early to mid-60's to live.
02-26-2014, 07:21 PM
#223
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by eaglefly
.........there are perhaps 600 or so Eagle flows. The first 150 with OCC dates in the 1998-1999 range completed their 18-month lock-ins and flowed before 9/11. Some of the are now making narrow body captain. Those with OCC dates in the 2000-2001 range had 24-month lock-in's that were interrupted by 9/11. During those years many AA furloughees flowed back to Eagle and many TWA as well (at 18-year pay). A grievance award considered the TWA furloughees "new-hires" at AA and as such, the arbitrator awarded a similar number of Eagle pilots flow-thru positions at AA, although stapled to the very bottom. He also ruled that Eagle pilots were to transfer over as "recalls" in seniority order and thus they were mixed-in in the recall stream beginning in 2010 when their AA seniority was reached and ending in 2012. This was about 250 pilots. (That's me). Then another 50-100 who were part of the agreement, but not the 150 staplees, filtered over starting in early 2013 and finishing late in the year with the staplees. End of that process.
As for the question above, I have no idea how AA pilots will be "slotted" among US Airways pilots. That's for the arbitrators to decide. The position of many of us, is that yes our OCC date should be used as it is the only date associated with our seniority for bidding purposes. The agreement has specific language that these pilots would be treated NO DIFFERENTLY then those pilots who actually attended the new-hire class referenced (the originally withheld class). In fact, many of those pilots (AA street hires at the time) were only IN those classes because spots were vacant for them to hold by withholding the AE flows. The point is that to alter that by diluting the AE flows due to a longevity argument that isn't applicable in this situation (like it MAY have been in the UAL/CAL SLI as their flow-thru may have different language), is that it has the potential to "rearrange" the present AA lists relative seniority after the lists have been slotted together, thus making AE flows junior to pilots they are presently senior to on the AA list.
If they are going to slot me behind X pilot at US Airways using whatever methodology, then they'll have to slot all those presently junior to me on the AA list as well, not cherry pick AE flows (or native furloughees, for that matter) out of their present relative seniority positions. Speaking of AA furloughees, let's suppose they docked them longevity as well ?
Well, various furloughees would have different longevity deduction formulas applied due to different lengths of time out on furlough (voluntary or not). Considering they are all over the seniority list, it would have the potential to completely jumble how the present AA list is "slotted" in with US Airways pilots on that aspect as well. Thus, if LOS is applied to the AA list for either flows, furloughs or both, AA pilots, especially those from about year 2000 and junior could end up slotted in different places and now junior to AA pilots they were previously senior to. Likewise for US Airways pilots both East and West, but this has FAR more devastating potential for AA pilots due to numbers.
There's a HUGE problem with all this and that is if you do all that rearranging due to longevity adjustments, how do you also maintain pre-merger career expectations for all these affected pilots when their relative seniority is now rearranged all over the place ?
McCaskill-Bond and the MOU specifically talk about pre-merger career expectations and thus that litmus would seem to have to be maintained and I can't see how if one or more of the parties advocates a complete slice and dice of the various seniority lists due to LOS/longevity that could be mintained. There are other supporting aspects of our position on the AE flow contractual situation that I will not discuss here for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that regardless of how the arbitrators slot the 2 or 3 lists together, each list should maintain its relative seniority after the slotting as it did before so as to uphold pre-merger career expectations and there's no way I can see that happening with the complexity of LOS/longevity being introduced to mangle that concept.
As for the question above, I have no idea how AA pilots will be "slotted" among US Airways pilots. That's for the arbitrators to decide. The position of many of us, is that yes our OCC date should be used as it is the only date associated with our seniority for bidding purposes. The agreement has specific language that these pilots would be treated NO DIFFERENTLY then those pilots who actually attended the new-hire class referenced (the originally withheld class). In fact, many of those pilots (AA street hires at the time) were only IN those classes because spots were vacant for them to hold by withholding the AE flows. The point is that to alter that by diluting the AE flows due to a longevity argument that isn't applicable in this situation (like it MAY have been in the UAL/CAL SLI as their flow-thru may have different language), is that it has the potential to "rearrange" the present AA lists relative seniority after the lists have been slotted together, thus making AE flows junior to pilots they are presently senior to on the AA list.
If they are going to slot me behind X pilot at US Airways using whatever methodology, then they'll have to slot all those presently junior to me on the AA list as well, not cherry pick AE flows (or native furloughees, for that matter) out of their present relative seniority positions. Speaking of AA furloughees, let's suppose they docked them longevity as well ?
Well, various furloughees would have different longevity deduction formulas applied due to different lengths of time out on furlough (voluntary or not). Considering they are all over the seniority list, it would have the potential to completely jumble how the present AA list is "slotted" in with US Airways pilots on that aspect as well. Thus, if LOS is applied to the AA list for either flows, furloughs or both, AA pilots, especially those from about year 2000 and junior could end up slotted in different places and now junior to AA pilots they were previously senior to. Likewise for US Airways pilots both East and West, but this has FAR more devastating potential for AA pilots due to numbers.
There's a HUGE problem with all this and that is if you do all that rearranging due to longevity adjustments, how do you also maintain pre-merger career expectations for all these affected pilots when their relative seniority is now rearranged all over the place ?
McCaskill-Bond and the MOU specifically talk about pre-merger career expectations and thus that litmus would seem to have to be maintained and I can't see how if one or more of the parties advocates a complete slice and dice of the various seniority lists due to LOS/longevity that could be mintained. There are other supporting aspects of our position on the AE flow contractual situation that I will not discuss here for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that regardless of how the arbitrators slot the 2 or 3 lists together, each list should maintain its relative seniority after the slotting as it did before so as to uphold pre-merger career expectations and there's no way I can see that happening with the complexity of LOS/longevity being introduced to mangle that concept.
If the APA and USAPA can't agree on a method then who knows what the arbitration panel will come up with. The sky is the limit. It is entirely possible that different portions of the integrated list could be treated differently or have different ratios across the three lists to make partial account for longevity... and still keep the original order among the respective lists. Who really knows, but arbitrators don't have any issue about making things really complicated to show how brilliant they are.
02-27-2014, 05:03 AM
#224
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Quote:
Originally Posted by flybywire44
Less is more.
But, sometimes less is just less.
A. For someone who now uses a shield for objectivity that he has nothing to do with USAPA's past, you sure spend MORE time defending it then you should. Why is that ?
B. If the MOU guarantees the SLI will occur in accordance M-B and neutral arbitrators (who are wise to APA shenanigans to boot) again, what is there to worry about ?
C. Those who run out of arguments then usually either attack spelling, grammar or length of content for there is no where else to go.
I tried to condense my points to minimum length for you, so I guess it's onward to spelling and/or grammar.
Originally Posted by flybywire44
Less is more.
But, sometimes less is just less.
A. For someone who now uses a shield for objectivity that he has nothing to do with USAPA's past, you sure spend MORE time defending it then you should. Why is that ?
B. If the MOU guarantees the SLI will occur in accordance M-B and neutral arbitrators (who are wise to APA shenanigans to boot) again, what is there to worry about ?
C. Those who run out of arguments then usually either attack spelling, grammar or length of content for there is no where else to go.
I tried to condense my points to minimum length for you, so I guess it's onward to spelling and/or grammar.
Originally Posted by cactiboss
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglefly
But, sometimes less is just less.
A. For someone who now uses a shield for objectivity that he has nothing to do with USAPA's past, you sure spend MORE time defending it then you should. Why is that ?
B. If the MOU guarantees the SLI will occur in accordance M-B and neutral arbitrators (who are wise to APA shenanigans to boot) again, what is there to worry about ?
C. Those who run out of arguments then usually either attack spelling, grammar or length of content for there is no where else to go.
I tried to condense my points to minimum length for you, so I guess it's onward to spelling and/or grammar.
Told you he was a beastie, scum morals and situational ethics are always easy to spot.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
But, sometimes less is just less.
A. For someone who now uses a shield for objectivity that he has nothing to do with USAPA's past, you sure spend MORE time defending it then you should. Why is that ?
B. If the MOU guarantees the SLI will occur in accordance M-B and neutral arbitrators (who are wise to APA shenanigans to boot) again, what is there to worry about ?
C. Those who run out of arguments then usually either attack spelling, grammar or length of content for there is no where else to go.
I tried to condense my points to minimum length for you, so I guess it's onward to spelling and/or grammar.
Told you he was a beastie, scum morals and situational ethics are always easy to spot.
02-27-2014, 07:18 AM
#225
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by flybywire44
I have never attacked you or pointed out any typo you may or may it have made.
02-27-2014, 08:06 AM
#226
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 596
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Speaking of credibility, could I ask why you chose to deliberately misrepresent yourself as not being an East pilot only to finally admit you are, in fact a 3rd lister ?
02-27-2014, 08:54 AM
#227
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by The Drizzle
I don't know a single 3rd list pilot that identifies as an "East" pilot in the world where "East" and "West" are opposing sides of a conflict. Our own union doesn't see us as a meaningful part of the conversation or worth much representation. I may work under the "East" contract and bases but I am as much an "East" pilot as I am a "West" pilot.
02-27-2014, 08:59 AM
#228
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 596
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Jesus, that's sounds like an argument USAPA would make.....never acknowledging anything and mudding up a simple question without an answer. I'm sorry, but when arguing your objectivity on this forum and specifically stating you aren't an East pilot, i.e. a member of USAPA and then subsequently admitting your are an East pilot (no matter how you may see yourself), that won't fly. If you are a US Airways East pilot on this forum debating an issue with a West pilot and claiming not to be an East pilot, you are MISREPRESETING yourself, period.
02-27-2014, 09:05 AM
#229
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 220
Why are people still getting worked up about the Eagle flows? They are on the AA list and the list will not be reordered. Who cares. If you want something to argue about, why not make suggestions for the JCBA that we'll all be living under.
02-27-2014, 09:36 AM
#230
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by flybywire44
You should not collectively judge third-list pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
