APA SLI Proposed List
06-20-2015, 03:23 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by R57 relay
And ignored the MOU, protocol agreement and MB.
Are you the east guy that quit and went to AWA late in the game? It would explain a lot.
Are you the east guy that quit and went to AWA late in the game? It would explain a lot.
(This, after you felt it was perfectly justified and "fair" to staple the Empire pilots -- all 150 of them -- to the bottom of your list in 1986.)
And were you among the first ones on the old ALPA forum to then decree that DOH was the only fair way to integrate seniority lists, at the first hint of a possible merger with United in 1995?
It would explain a lot.
06-20-2015, 03:25 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by teddyballgame
Are you one of those Piedmont pilots who wore his ALPA pin upside down, and "squealed like a stuck pig" (to use a popular Southern expression), when you were forced to accept a DOH integration with USAir in 1988, against which you fought vehemently, and which you thought was grossly unfair?
(This, after you felt it was perfectly justified and "fair" to staple the Empire pilots -- all 150 of them -- to the bottom of your list in 1986.)
And were you among the first ones on the old ALPA forum to then decree that DOH was the only fair way to integrate seniority lists, at the first hint of a possible merger with United in 1995?
It would explain a lot.
(This, after you felt it was perfectly justified and "fair" to staple the Empire pilots -- all 150 of them -- to the bottom of your list in 1986.)
And were you among the first ones on the old ALPA forum to then decree that DOH was the only fair way to integrate seniority lists, at the first hint of a possible merger with United in 1995?
It would explain a lot.
Thanks for the answer.
06-20-2015, 04:42 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
Originally Posted by eaglefly
If you read and understand the UAL/CAL integration award, you can see that there is risk in asking for the moon or reaching for the sun. Arbitrators seem to frown on proposals that demonstrate the desire for a windfall in their opinions. The CAL committee overplayed their hand and were called on it. I have yet to read the details of any of the three committee's, but some snippets from the West's proposal are on C & R. Among extremely questionable positions is their belief that pilots who flew for regionals deserve no credit on longevity at those carriers as they don't consider that acceptable "sweat equity".
In regard to their attack on Eagle/AA flows, the apparent belief that West pilots have sweat equity in legacy AA with 18 months service contributing directly to AA's pre-merger condition better then those flow-throughs from Eagle whose efforts contributing directly there as a wholly-owned carrier for 20-25 years that helped make AA what it is, is absurd. Unfortunately, on that issue the West Committee failed to do due dilligance on the specifics of that particular agreement and relationship erronously equating it as equal to the CAL/Continental Express "flow-through" which were two totally different agreements in scope and value. Clearly, the West is aiming high and arguing for the Nic is understandable, but I get the initial impression that some of the positions I'm going to read will be considered blatant attempts at obtaining a windfall for West pilots.
In doing so, that may just muddy up the effectiveness of any argument regarding the Nic and result in it being a casualty of a group that reached for the Sun and got burned. I'll reserve judgement on all three sides positions and arguments until I've read their proposals in detail though.
In regard to their attack on Eagle/AA flows, the apparent belief that West pilots have sweat equity in legacy AA with 18 months service contributing directly to AA's pre-merger condition better then those flow-throughs from Eagle whose efforts contributing directly there as a wholly-owned carrier for 20-25 years that helped make AA what it is, is absurd. Unfortunately, on that issue the West Committee failed to do due dilligance on the specifics of that particular agreement and relationship erronously equating it as equal to the CAL/Continental Express "flow-through" which were two totally different agreements in scope and value. Clearly, the West is aiming high and arguing for the Nic is understandable, but I get the initial impression that some of the positions I'm going to read will be considered blatant attempts at obtaining a windfall for West pilots.
In doing so, that may just muddy up the effectiveness of any argument regarding the Nic and result in it being a casualty of a group that reached for the Sun and got burned. I'll reserve judgement on all three sides positions and arguments until I've read their proposals in detail though.
I fail to see how a pilot's work at another corporation (Eagle) should be credited toward a pilot's SLI position between these two merged corporations. End of the day Eagle's and AA's work benefited AMR, not each other.
06-20-2015, 05:10 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by teddyballgame
To anybody other than an American or US East pilot -- say, an arbitrator, for example -- the West proposal actually looks the most balanced.
It appears that the West Merger Committee has done its homework.
It appears that the West Merger Committee has done its homework.
Of course "the most balanced" homework would give the smaller group, that is 1/3 of the total and that has only 21% as many w/b's, 39% of the first 1000 seniority numbers.
Of course "the most balanced" would take guys that currently can't bid a w/b CA seat and give them seniority numbers that makes them instant 777 CA line holders.
What's that famous line, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Let's see what the future years look like.
Last edited by Sliceback; 06-20-2015 at 05:11 PM. Reason: added "give"
06-20-2015, 08:23 PM
#46
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,876
Originally Posted by FreighterGuyNow
We are not merging with Eagle. Your time there means nothing.
06-20-2015, 08:33 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Sliceback
Of course "the most balanced" homework would give the smaller group, that is 1/3 of the total and that has only 21% as many w/b's, 39% of the first 1000 seniority numbers.
Of course "the most balanced" would take guys that currently can't bid a w/b CA seat and give them seniority numbers that makes them instant 777 CA line holders.
What's that famous line, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Let's see what the future years look like.
Of course "the most balanced" would take guys that currently can't bid a w/b CA seat and give them seniority numbers that makes them instant 777 CA line holders.
What's that famous line, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Let's see what the future years look like.
06-21-2015, 02:33 AM
#49
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 1,043
Originally Posted by Cheddar
From what I've read so far, I'm shocked there are no proposed fences.
There has been, for Group IV captains (SCREW THE FO'S) from APA and the West brings it up in one of their attachments for 330 and 350.
From APA:
2. Group IV Captain Fence
The AAPSIC’s proposed integrated seniority list is designed to be fair and equitable in the
long run, based on the equities discussed above. However, in the near term (roughly corresponding
with the term of the JCBA), age-65 attrition will disproportionately affect the US Airways Pilots –
following which the American Pilots expect disproportionate attrition, until at least 2029. The
AAPSIC recognizes that, during that near-term period, the construction of the integrated list may
impact the ability of US Airways Pilots to advance into Group IV Captain positions which they
would have expected absent the merger. Accordingly, the AAPSIC proposes a transitional fence
provision, effective until the amendable date of the JCBA, providing that the US Airways Pilots (East
and West) continue to hold the proportion of the Group IV Captain bid positions that they hold on
the date on which the integrated seniority list is implemented.
From the West:
2. Fences:
a. No fences on any equipment, except:
b. If AAPSIC requests fences on 787 aircraft or its replacement and the Board is
inclined to grant that request, the West Proposal shall include a request for a fence
of equal duration on A-350 aircraft or its replacement commencing on the date
that the Company issues the first vacancy bid for the A-350.
3. Commencing with the first vacancy bid following implementation of the ISL, and
continuing until 37 West Pilots hold A-330 CA positions and 78 West Pilots hold A-330
FO positions, as between West Pilots and East Pilots the Company shall award all such
vacancy bids exclusively to West pilots.
Last edited by DCA A321 FO; 06-21-2015 at 03:08 AM.
06-21-2015, 02:37 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: AB 320 Captain
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Care to elaborate on the PI "Greed Grab"? Were you even at USAir in 1988?
The Merger with US/PI was pure DOH with the exception of a Fence on the Piedmont 767 since USAir didn't have any wide bodies at the time of the merger. The Arbitrator agreed.
BTW many Junior PI FO's lost 2 months seniority due the fact that at Piedmont a new FO didn't get a Seniority Number until he/she completed Training, where his/her Counterpart who started training at USAir got a Seniority # from day one, yet they were both technically hired on the same day.
No dog in your fight, but when I hear comments like this it needs clarification.
The Merger with US/PI was pure DOH with the exception of a Fence on the Piedmont 767 since USAir didn't have any wide bodies at the time of the merger. The Arbitrator agreed.
BTW many Junior PI FO's lost 2 months seniority due the fact that at Piedmont a new FO didn't get a Seniority Number until he/she completed Training, where his/her Counterpart who started training at USAir got a Seniority # from day one, yet they were both technically hired on the same day.
No dog in your fight, but when I hear comments like this it needs clarification.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
