If they were on the bottom of the list pre-merger why wouldn't they be post merger? It's the AA list that tries to steal seniority, 2013 hires are holding captain seats and lines in all group 2 seats and bases. Can a recently recalled lAA pilot make any of those statements? If you were 98% prior to the merger you should be 98% after the merger. The AA pipe dream has LUS pilots going from mid 80s to high 90s.

 

I understand your frustration and I deeply sympathize for the TWA pilots- it was unconscionable what APA did to you guys! I also recognize your length of service argument as well and can appreciate you displeasure of the west list. However, two points need to be made with regards to each seniority proposal:
1. Each list is constructed with prejudice.
2. The arbitrators will decide the final product after weighing arguments and considering witness testimony.

That said, my view regarding the third list pilots begins with the belief US Airways brings one pilot group to this merger. Sure, I acknowledge we have two subgroups fighting the order of a combined seniority list, however the AAPSIC and the west pilots both tacitly agree the conflict between east and west does not involve third list pilots as evidenced by the initial proposals (which may change, I acknowledge that). Assuming the third list placement on the AAPSIC doesn't change with their resubmission, it can be inferred both groups agree the third list pilots will be placed behind the LUS (pre-2005) and AWA. Better placement of the third list pilots helps for better placement of all LUS pilots in general. As I mentioned above, the third list pilot group is symbolic of a vibrant, growing entity in contrast to AA. I mostly agree the west proposal correctly places the third list pilots where they rightfully should be- perhaps the 2007-08 hires should be placed even higher up (I don't know, and that's for the arbitrators to decide.). The west proposal, though, does not consider and should not consider the injustices brought upon the TWA crowd. It is not the responsibility nor the proper obligation of our third list pilots to shoulder that burden. In four years they will be seeing upgrades to group 2 captain positions and that was adopted into the west proposal. You can't argue career expectations for wide body flying and then turn around and ignore it for narrow body flying like the AAPSIC is (unwisely) attempting to do. That's how I see things anyway.

 

"2013 hires are holding lines in all G2 seats and bases?

There are 2013 hire line holdimg group 2 Captains?

The long-furloughed and junior at LAA also have career expectations.

I have often, publicly and for literally decades promoted that SLI should preserve what each group brought to the party, with full proportionality given to future expansion or inevitable shrinkage.

Unfortunately, unless the two groups and the two airlines are very very similiar in composition this is impossible to do without very long lasting fences, and those seem to be out of favor these days.

Perhaps if they were very general in nature, say for example by Group/Seat and not specifying bases, they might be more workable and come back.

It is of course up to neither of us, but just for grins, how would you suggest constructing a list without fences that preserves the flying and advancement, proportionally, until we are all wherever we would have wound up?

Just curious

(Understand that this is all academic to me personally, they already "fixed it" for me...)

 

So it's not the responsibility of the west merger committee to be concerned about what or how former TWA pilots were/are treated, but the AAPSIC damn well better understand why former AWA guys are not in the seats that the seniority list they want use placed them. Got it.

Did you even read that before you posted? You do not bring the seats that you want to THIS merger! If we start with the Nic, LAA or east pilots will pay for that.

I understand how you feel about the third listers. I think the problem with placing them on a proposal junior to all west pilots is that the protocol agreement calls for a status quo of three lists. How do you carve out one subset of pilots and not apply your methodology to them? I don't see how the USAPA or LAA committee could do that, but it doesn't mean the panel won't.

As far as other comments about the proposals, I contend that we don't have enough information about the fairness of the proposals by looking at the raw lists. They don't show career progression as compare to your original list.

 

I say start with the lists and fleets the day the merger closed. After that all our fates are intertwined. Run those out on a stove pipe basis and see the results. Try to build a list that replicates that list as much as possible.

From the little I know it seems like that was what the USAPA list tried to do.

 

IOW...

We all know "where we are"

How do you propose to account for "where we are going"

Eg; I can not hold any Group 4 position until the junior dude on the date of acquisition can hold a position in that individual G4 status.

That is fair and equitable. His career path on 4/9/2001 included those positions. Mine didn't include those G4 positions until 4/10/2001.

It doesn't matter that my airline had flown the World for 70 years, was the first all-jet airline, one of the first two to get 747's, the first to conduct ETOPS, how old I was, how cute my mother used to think I was - or anything else.

Those were our respective career paths, and his has been preserved in that respect.

It seems that some think that a positin on one list entitles them to jump over those on the other list and take a larger share of those opportunities that existed only in much smaller numbers/proportions.

Yes?

No?

Solutions?

 

You're right, that's exactly what it does... tries to forget the last 10 years ever happened. That methodology is DOA.

 

I don't think you need to worry about this. IIRC all flows who were withheld from AA were on property prior to the snapshot.

It is kinda nice being a fourth-lister and watching all this with relative dis-interest.

 

This post just shows how absolutely out of your mind you are.

 

Nope, there was somewhere between 150-200 flows that made it into the snapshot.
Under the APA proposal (or whatever its called) placed plenty of flows senior to third listers even though their DOH were after said third listers.
I had about 100 placed ahead of me that should be junior.