Gooner

I disagree. A clause needs to go, but it is the UNA clause. That or a more detailed description of what UNA is. ALPA’s understanding prior to the first bid after the MD was that they were proffer position, aka new hire here is what is available. The company had a different read and we now know which side won. This at least according to the ALPA Contract guy I talked with after I was displaced. Reinstatement is a good protection, there were never supposed to be 2500+ pilots in a “fake category” that had reinstatement rights.

Gone Flying

there are 2 groups of pilots, one is the bottom 1713 affected pilots will have no reinstatement rights, the other is pilots who were part of the 2558 from the MOAD but who are senior to the 1713 affected pilots who still are UNA (about 170 pilots hired between 12/5/2016- 9/24/2017 are still UNA) these pilots will still have reinstatement rights and will be the ones bidding on this AE, I don’t think any affected pilots will get a seat on this bid.

DWC CAP10 USAF

I think there is some crossing of the streams in the above replies.

Everyone of the 1941 either had already converted to UNA or were scheduled to.

With the passage of 20-04, everyone hired 25 Sept and later went from UNA to "affected pilot"

There are approx 169 people that were UNAcorns, hired before 25 Sept, that didn’t end up with a category in the last few AE's, and I believe it is mainly becuase of category closings, like the Maddog, NYC 717, etc.

Those 169 UNAcorns still have re-instatement rights I believe, but I don't know how many of them actually have their original category to go back to, so it might just be a moo point.

tennisguru

There is a lot of co-mingled terminology out there right now. The 1713 "Affected Pilots" are technically UNA on 30 hour pay status. However, there are still "normal" UNA's who are senior to the affected pilots who still do not have a future award past UNA status. This includes several in the 600 who were saved by the VEOP and some in the 220 saved by LOA 20-03.

Basically before LOA 20-04, even though the company was on a path to furlough the bottom of the group, those groups still could actively participate in AE's and contractually had reinstatement rights. Thus there were very few actual positions that could be awarded via AE since reinstatements took up most if not all of the offered positions. The company basically had to do it this way (granted, this is all their fault stemming from the MOAD) and had to award reinstatements to pilots who were never going to actually fill those spots because they were going to be furloughed (and now still won't fill those spots as affected pilots). So on previous AE's the 175 or so UNA's NOT in the affected pilot group were too junior to be reinstated to their previous aircraft, and any other spost they could hold via AE were taken by reinstatements from pilots junior to them. This problem is now solved by 20-04 since the bottom 1713 on affected status are not a factor on this bid, and the company is free to award AE positions through the normal process without having to deal with the now nonexistent reinstatement rights of the 1713.

FangsF15

I have to agree with you, and disagree with Hockey. Reinstatement, in this instance, was an unforeseeable symptom of a once-in-a-lifetime event. It is there to protect us. The reason the company contractually agrees to it, is because it benefits them in reducing training requirements.

It was not right or fair for the company to have overly-displaced so many pilots, in order to force so many to take the VEOP. Reinstating those pilots partially rights that wrong. They should never have been displaced in the first place. While I understand the anger and frustration at pilots who did not have the opportunity to bid for open positions due to junior pilots' reinstatement, to remedy is not to further screw up the system. The remedy is to fix the problem before the machine is so twisted out of whack in the first place.

I do agree with Hockey in one respect: it isn't working like it's supposed to. But again, no-one could have foreseen the ramifications of Covid. Let's fix the contract further up the accident chain, and leave the protections to return to a category you recently held alone.

*Note* A good friend was a M88 A, and denied a captain seat due to reinstatements. He got screwed. I submit the fix isn't putting a band-aid on the wrap on a band-aid on a dressing of the wound... It's fixing the primary dressing. Treat the disease, not the symptom.

FL370esq

I think you are obfuscating the simple inquiry of the OP which was:

"Would I go before 11,900 UNA who bid ATL320B and was displaced from that category on May MOAD?"

The simple answer, as I said is yes As of Dec 1st, an 11,900 seniority # is a Jan 2019 hire and therefore represents an "Affected Pilot." Per the language I voted in LOA 20-04, that pilot has no reinstatement rights. Yes, there are a few UNAs who are not "Affected Pilots" and thererfore they do have reinstatement rights but the previously inquired about 11,900 seniority # is not one of them.

Eldee5

Fangs, you are a gentleman and a scholar. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am a NYC717A refugee, with a low 7000s seniority number. I don't get political about the contract or whatever. I am just happy to see that some were able to keep their seats. Good on them. And yes, it is lessons like these one can take to the ballot box when it is time to vote. Whatever its motivation, the company followed the contractual language to the letter. Period.

I do have a question, and am getting conflicting answers. When will one be able to finally bid back to the left seat, without being affected by junior reinstatements? Does 20-04 address this for "affected pilots" only (I think I do know what that means now thanks to this thread), or does it also extend to downgraded displaced CA with no reinstatement opportunities?
Thanks!

hockeypilot44

That's not my issue. My issue is creating fake MD's to block real MD's, then using reinstatement rights to take the fake MD's away.

Hrkdrivr

Senior pilots could have bid MD into a category from which junior pilots got displaced. They didn't. They went for something else and either got it or didn't. Now when future A positons open up, they want to prevent juniot pilots, who bid those positions years ago, from reinstating.

I agree the MOAD was a disaster of mismanagement, but have no issues with displaced junior pilots exercising reinstatement rights per the PWA, and yes, I'm one of them trying to do so.

Gooner

Yes, but without UNA being available, with zero training obligation, the company would have had to run a more realistic Displacement bid. Giving the company a fake category to store pilots at zero penalty is the root of this mess. Granted none of the things being used were designed for what they are being used for.