![]() |
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
(Post 270259)
I stand by the post ..................
I 'll make a further assumption that by being a SWA pilot many of your Jumpseater guests are USAir West guys (former AWA)? They certainly have their own opinions on how the merger went, but most will (secretly tell you they made out better than they thought) Notice I said better than they thought, not made out how they wanted ...... The reason the AWA guy will say they did better than they expected is that they were prepared for the WORST ! Not the same on the East side, they expected the best ... and struck out. Another bad move on their MEC's part. To put it in perspective ... when I left HP, I was located approx 65% down the active seniority list. My position on the awarded Nic list was approx 70% down the list. ( approx P26__ , to those that really know) but who cares ? It is a SENIORITY list. It is NOT a DOH list, it is NOT a longevity list ... that point is really relative if you understand the ALPA merger policy. The policy changed for obvious political reasons, and those that fail to understand what it means and why it happened, will be sorely disappointed. THAT is why the AWA guys feel they did better than expected. I HAVE SAID ENOUGH .... FLAME AWAY FOR A FEW MORE PAGES ! Later, BROWN CC ;) |
Originally Posted by CactusCrew
(Post 272134)
Just what can ALPA due in this case ?
Inaction is their ONLY course ... think Duty of Fair Representation ... Throw out the Nic award and there will be a DFR lawsuit brought to them from the AWA guys. Stay the course, and the USAir MEC might file a DFR suit against them ... but they might have already burnt that bridge when they went outside of ALPA and supported the new union. Not the best strategic move if you ask me ... Later, Brown CC PS. Just happy to be watching from the sidelines like you ! |
Originally Posted by MaxEPR
(Post 262577)
The highest paid carriers today are non ALPA. :mad:
It doesn't mean that a strong alpa isn't good for all of us though. |
Originally Posted by A320fumes
(Post 268514)
... and the east guys can enjoy what they had. All the east guys need to do is keep the award idle until the next merger. Problem solved.
How does the age 65 law play into the the strategy of delay and upgrade as many as we can as fast as we can while seperate ? Interesting times for sure ... many on the east looking at the retirement numbers with hopeful anticipation, may have a lengthly delay ?!?! What's the hopes now ? Glad to be watching from here ... although it is a whole different animal with 60-65 years olds on the panel looking for a window seat in the cargo world ! :confused: |
I think with 65 the East if there is any intelligence left will come to the table. With our stock price at $15 a share and $3.5 billion in the bank we are a major aquisition target. To go USAPA now would be a real friggin stupid thing to do.
|
Originally Posted by 767pilot
(Post 272666)
One is (FDX), one isn't (UPS)
It doesn't mean that a strong alpa isn't good for all of us though. |
George Nicolau Page 33-34
AWARD 4. The first 161 positions as Captain and the first 262 positions as First Officers on the A330 and B767, or replacement aircraft as herein defined, shall be reserved for the top tier pre-merger US Airways pilots for a period of four years from the date of this Award. However, if the Age 60 limit is changed to Age 65 during the existence of this condition and restriction, said condition and restriction shall cease to, exist upon the effective date of the age limit change. As long as the condition and restriction does exist positions in excess of the aforesaid quota as well as positions within the quota if there are insufficient bidders for said vacancies from the US Airways top tier group shall be allocated pursuant to the Seniority List as shall positions within this quota upon the expiration of this restriction. 5. A330, B767 or similar aircraft that replace the existing A330 and B767 aircraft set forth in Condition 4 that no longer remain in the fleet are "replacement" aircraft within the meaning of Condition 4. All other aircraft, of whatever type, are "new" aircraft, positions on which are to be allocated to the pre-merger US Airways and America West pilot groups, respectively, 2:1 on wide- widebodies bodies and 1: 1 on narrow-bodies for a period of four years from the date of this Award. Thereafter, positions are to be allocated pursuant to the Seniority List. George Nicolau Page 22-23 Discussion and Analysis Though we have not constructed the list based on Age 65 retirement, closing statements and ongoing events have persuaded us that we should consider the possibility of that change occurring. With that in mind, we have set forth a change in the condition and restriction we intend to impose on bidding for the A330 and B767 positions, finding it prudent to incorporate the likelihood of such a change into our view of the post-integration world. The FAA's announcement of a Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the pending legislation in both houses of Congress, and the drive to harmonize with the ICAO age standards have all created a momentum for change that has not been present to date. In so far as we have imposed conditions & restrictions that affect a pilot's ability to bid into a particular type of equipment and status for a set period of time, we recognize that the measure of attrition is a component in determining the length of such a restriction. Were the Age 60 Rule to change within the period such conditions and restrictions are in place, such a change would have a negative impact on the attrition component which we relied on in our original thinking. If the FAA FAAAge Age 60 Rule were to change within the period of the restriction on pilots bidding into the existing international wide-body aircraft (A330 and 8767), any restrictions with respect to the bidding for positions in those aircraft would be made null and void on the date of implementation of the change. US Airways pilots entitled to bid those positions have already been protected for two years. A further fence of four years from the date of this Award is based on attrition projected on Age 60 retirement. If the age limit were raised to 65 and becomes effective prior to the expiration of the condition and restriction in 2011, there seems little fairness in its continuance. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:25 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands