3 way seniority integration-Fire Away
12-08-2014, 01:39 PM
#141
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Originally Posted by Sunvox
A few minor nit-noids . . .
1) Although true the Mccaskill-Bond Statute uses the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions which do not include specifics like the ALPA policy, it does use the same words "fair and equitable" and given Arbitrator Eischen's long history I am confident that Category and Class will carry the day.
2) I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the UAL SLI with regards to longevity. The list was created using a mathematical sorting algorithm provided by UAL-ALPA. In the original UAL proposed ISL I was 500 numbers higher than I ended up. The reason this happened was because the original list was created with a 50/50 weight wherein Category and Class was equal to longevity, but in the final award the arbitrators used the tool to make the ratio 65/35 where longevity accounted for only 35% of the final result. This resulted in my losing over 500 numbers and instead of being mixed with '96 hires I was mixed with '98 hires.
But, like I said, really just nit-noid stuff.
It's a shame most folks have such a pessimistic outlook 'cuz I think this could be good for everybody if you can just somehow get it behind you.
And, you're welcome! It's all just entertainment on the inter-webs anyways and doesn't mean a thing in real life
1) Although true the Mccaskill-Bond Statute uses the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions which do not include specifics like the ALPA policy, it does use the same words "fair and equitable" and given Arbitrator Eischen's long history I am confident that Category and Class will carry the day.
2) I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the UAL SLI with regards to longevity. The list was created using a mathematical sorting algorithm provided by UAL-ALPA. In the original UAL proposed ISL I was 500 numbers higher than I ended up. The reason this happened was because the original list was created with a 50/50 weight wherein Category and Class was equal to longevity, but in the final award the arbitrators used the tool to make the ratio 65/35 where longevity accounted for only 35% of the final result. This resulted in my losing over 500 numbers and instead of being mixed with '96 hires I was mixed with '98 hires.
But, like I said, really just nit-noid stuff.
It's a shame most folks have such a pessimistic outlook 'cuz I think this could be good for everybody if you can just somehow get it behind you.
And, you're welcome! It's all just entertainment on the inter-webs anyways and doesn't mean a thing in real life
If you read the Republic-Frontier ISL arbitration, also by Eischen, I believe that approach is similar to our situation except that equipment differences are less disparate than they were at Republic-Frontier. The only equipment not common to both sides in respect of groups are Group I (E-190) aircraft.
12-08-2014, 01:40 PM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Originally Posted by flyinawa
Just so I understand it correctly....the WEST is to blame for USAPA not adequately analyzing the MOU? Good lord, man...is there anything East pilots WON'T blame on the West?
12-08-2014, 02:27 PM
#143
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by flyinawa
Just so I understand it correctly....the WEST is to blame for USAPA not adequately analyzing the MOU? Good lord, man...is there anything East pilots WON'T blame on the West?
All the rest is on you.
12-09-2014, 05:03 PM
#147
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by flyinawa
Just so I understand it correctly....the WEST is to blame for USAPA not adequately analyzing the MOU? Good lord, man...is there anything East pilots WON'T blame on the West?
I'm not saying it is anyone's fault, but the degraded MOU is most certainly a by product of the East vs West spy vs spy mess.
West should have settled long ago.
Originally Posted by Route66
I know it didn't "affect" their attention plan. As you can see, a Protocol agreement has been reached and from what I have read so far the West Pilots have NO CASE for participant status. NONE.
As far as JCBA (as per MOU II) USAPA wasn't the ONLY one dancing to the tune. So was APA whose BOD voted for it (the MOU) and USAPA rank and file. They GOT what they wanted and the JCBA WILL be fully available either through the current negotiations OR through arbitration.
The JCBA didn't come BEFORE the MOU, it is a result OF the MOU and it is being negotiated assuredly. But make no mistake, we'll get a JCBA either through negotiations OR through arbitration.
Back to the seniority integration here is MY prediction:
The West do not have legal standing to participant status and
The US Airways pilots can PROVE that their contribution to the survival of American Airlines and the merger with US Airways thereof was significant and consequently the US Airways pilots as of the CN date will have significant positional recognition in relation to the APA pilots in the merged seniority list.
As far as JCBA (as per MOU II) USAPA wasn't the ONLY one dancing to the tune. So was APA whose BOD voted for it (the MOU) and USAPA rank and file. They GOT what they wanted and the JCBA WILL be fully available either through the current negotiations OR through arbitration.
The JCBA didn't come BEFORE the MOU, it is a result OF the MOU and it is being negotiated assuredly. But make no mistake, we'll get a JCBA either through negotiations OR through arbitration.
Back to the seniority integration here is MY prediction:
The West do not have legal standing to participant status and
The US Airways pilots can PROVE that their contribution to the survival of American Airlines and the merger with US Airways thereof was significant and consequently the US Airways pilots as of the CN date will have significant positional recognition in relation to the APA pilots in the merged seniority list.
Your post is likely accurate, but I meant MOU not JCBA.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
