I just don't get it.
10-23-2012, 05:42 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: Toilet warmer.
Posts: 337
I just don't get it.
My colleague was former Eastern Airlines then US Air. After 18 years with US Air, and two furloughs, he had actually flown just 5. Yeah, the other 13 years were on furlough!
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
10-23-2012, 06:31 PM
#2
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by Hawker Driver
My colleague was former Eastern Airlines then US Air. After 18 years with US Air, and two furloughs, he had actually flown just 5. Yeah, the other 13 years were on furlough!
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
10-23-2012, 06:48 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by Hawker Driver
My colleague was former Eastern Airlines then US Air. After 18 years with US Air, and two furloughs, he had actually flown just 5. Yeah, the other 13 years were on furlough!
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
OK, I will give it a very simple read.
There was a merger process agreed to called the Transition Agreement (the TA). The TA said that the ALPA merger process would be followed (both AWA and US were ALPA carriers). That merger process called for negotiations between the two sides, then mediation if the negotiations were not successful. If mediation also did not result in a successful resolution then an independent arbitrator would be chosen, along with two pilot neutrals from other ALPA carriers. The US Air negotiators chose George Nicolau and the AWA guys agreed.
Nicolau heard the testimony from both sides and ultimately gave his ruling, the Nicolau Award. The east pilots insisted on date of hire, which the arbitrator told them during their testimony would be a non starter. His award was based on relative seniority on a ratio basis after the top 517 slots were given to the East to cover their 20 wide bodies. After the Nic award came out there was much crying and weeping from the East and a group of east pilots formed USAPA to circumvent the Nicolau Award by arguing that the new union would not inherit the contract responsibilities of the TA and would thus not be bound by the award. The west has argued since then that binding means binding and that we need to move on, that we have already settled the SLI process and we need to get a joint contract.
It doesn't matter what you think is fair. The problem is that we followed the agreed upon process and the Nicolau Award was the result. It's the process that was agreed upon. That is why you have a process to begin with, so one side can't drag their feet and crash the system when they don't get their way.
Now, for fairness. You say that the East pilots were disadvantaged. Yet you cite a pilot that spent most of his career stagnant in the right seat or furloughed. Why is that person owed a do over for a crappy career? I was hired at AWA in 1987. I was a captain in 1990, I have been a 737, a320 and 757 captain ever since. We had 6 year captains in 2005, when the merger took place. Why would you believe a career F/O should displace our captains?
Relative seniority in a SLI means that everyone retains the relative position they brought to the merger. A junior F/O at US Air stayed junior on the Nic list. Same for the junior AWA guys. Look at Delta/NWA, different length of service terms between the two sides yet no one moved more than a percentage or two off their relative seniority. That the only way it can work with disparate pilot groups. The job you bring to the merger is the job you wind up with after the merger.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
10-23-2012, 07:37 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Seriously? After all the threads and the back and forth on this?
OK, I will give it a very simple read.
There was a merger process agreed to called the Transition Agreement (the TA). The TA said that the ALPA merger process would be followed (both AWA and US were ALPA carriers). That merger process called for negotiations between the two sides, then mediation if the negotiations were not successful. If mediation also did not result in a successful resolution then an independent arbitrator would be chosen, along with two pilot neutrals from other ALPA carriers. The US Air negotiators chose George Nicolau and the AWA guys agreed.
Nicolau heard the testimony from both sides and ultimately gave his ruling, the Nicolau Award. The east pilots insisted on date of hire, which the arbitrator told them during their testimony would be a non starter. His award was based on relative seniority on a ratio basis after the top 517 slots were given to the East to cover their 20 wide bodies. After the Nic award came out there was much crying and weeping from the East and a group of east pilots formed USAPA to circumvent the Nicolau Award by arguing that the new union would not inherit the contract responsibilities of the TA and would thus not be bound by the award. The west has argued since then that binding means binding and that we need to move on, that we have already settled the SLI process and we need to get a joint contract.
It doesn't matter what you think is fair. The problem is that we followed the agreed upon process and the Nicolau Award was the result. It's the process that was agreed upon. That is why you have a process to begin with, so one side can't drag their feet and crash the system when they don't get their way.
Now, for fairness. You say that the East pilots were disadvantaged. Yet you cite a pilot that spent most of his career stagnant in the right seat or furloughed. Why is that person owed a do over for a crappy career? I was hired at AWA in 1987. I was a captain in 1990, I have been a 737, a320 and 757 captain ever since. We had 6 year captains in 2005, when the merger took place. Why would you believe a career F/O should displace our captains?
Relative seniority in a SLI means that everyone retains the relative position they brought to the merger. A junior F/O at US Air stayed junior on the Nic list. Same for the junior AWA guys. Look at Delta/NWA, different length of service terms between the two sides yet no one moved more than a percentage or two off their relative seniority. That the only way it can work with disparate pilot groups. The job you bring to the merger is the job you wind up with after the merger.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
OK, I will give it a very simple read.
There was a merger process agreed to called the Transition Agreement (the TA). The TA said that the ALPA merger process would be followed (both AWA and US were ALPA carriers). That merger process called for negotiations between the two sides, then mediation if the negotiations were not successful. If mediation also did not result in a successful resolution then an independent arbitrator would be chosen, along with two pilot neutrals from other ALPA carriers. The US Air negotiators chose George Nicolau and the AWA guys agreed.
Nicolau heard the testimony from both sides and ultimately gave his ruling, the Nicolau Award. The east pilots insisted on date of hire, which the arbitrator told them during their testimony would be a non starter. His award was based on relative seniority on a ratio basis after the top 517 slots were given to the East to cover their 20 wide bodies. After the Nic award came out there was much crying and weeping from the East and a group of east pilots formed USAPA to circumvent the Nicolau Award by arguing that the new union would not inherit the contract responsibilities of the TA and would thus not be bound by the award. The west has argued since then that binding means binding and that we need to move on, that we have already settled the SLI process and we need to get a joint contract.
It doesn't matter what you think is fair. The problem is that we followed the agreed upon process and the Nicolau Award was the result. It's the process that was agreed upon. That is why you have a process to begin with, so one side can't drag their feet and crash the system when they don't get their way.
Now, for fairness. You say that the East pilots were disadvantaged. Yet you cite a pilot that spent most of his career stagnant in the right seat or furloughed. Why is that person owed a do over for a crappy career? I was hired at AWA in 1987. I was a captain in 1990, I have been a 737, a320 and 757 captain ever since. We had 6 year captains in 2005, when the merger took place. Why would you believe a career F/O should displace our captains?
Relative seniority in a SLI means that everyone retains the relative position they brought to the merger. A junior F/O at US Air stayed junior on the Nic list. Same for the junior AWA guys. Look at Delta/NWA, different length of service terms between the two sides yet no one moved more than a percentage or two off their relative seniority. That the only way it can work with disparate pilot groups. The job you bring to the merger is the job you wind up with after the merger.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
10-23-2012, 09:06 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: Toilet warmer.
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Seriously? After all the threads and the back and forth on this?
OK, I will give it a very simple read.
There was a merger process agreed to called the Transition Agreement (the TA). The TA said that the ALPA merger process would be followed (both AWA and US were ALPA carriers). That merger process called for negotiations between the two sides, then mediation if the negotiations were not successful. If mediation also did not result in a successful resolution then an independent arbitrator would be chosen, along with two pilot neutrals from other ALPA carriers. The US Air negotiators chose George Nicolau and the AWA guys agreed.
Nicolau heard the testimony from both sides and ultimately gave his ruling, the Nicolau Award. The east pilots insisted on date of hire, which the arbitrator told them during their testimony would be a non starter. His award was based on relative seniority on a ratio basis after the top 517 slots were given to the East to cover their 20 wide bodies. After the Nic award came out there was much crying and weeping from the East and a group of east pilots formed USAPA to circumvent the Nicolau Award by arguing that the new union would not inherit the contract responsibilities of the TA and would thus not be bound by the award. The west has argued since then that binding means binding and that we need to move on, that we have already settled the SLI process and we need to get a joint contract.
It doesn't matter what you think is fair. The problem is that we followed the agreed upon process and the Nicolau Award was the result. It's the process that was agreed upon. That is why you have a process to begin with, so one side can't drag their feet and crash the system when they don't get their way.
Now, for fairness. You say that the East pilots were disadvantaged. Yet you cite a pilot that spent most of his career stagnant in the right seat or furloughed. Why is that person owed a do over for a crappy career? I was hired at AWA in 1987. I was a captain in 1990, I have been a 737, a320 and 757 captain ever since. We had 6 year captains in 2005, when the merger took place. Why would you believe a career F/O should displace our captains?
Relative seniority in a SLI means that everyone retains the relative position they brought to the merger. A junior F/O at US Air stayed junior on the Nic list. Same for the junior AWA guys. Look at Delta/NWA, different length of service terms between the two sides yet no one moved more than a percentage or two off their relative seniority. That the only way it can work with disparate pilot groups. The job you bring to the merger is the job you wind up with after the merger.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
OK, I will give it a very simple read.
There was a merger process agreed to called the Transition Agreement (the TA). The TA said that the ALPA merger process would be followed (both AWA and US were ALPA carriers). That merger process called for negotiations between the two sides, then mediation if the negotiations were not successful. If mediation also did not result in a successful resolution then an independent arbitrator would be chosen, along with two pilot neutrals from other ALPA carriers. The US Air negotiators chose George Nicolau and the AWA guys agreed.
Nicolau heard the testimony from both sides and ultimately gave his ruling, the Nicolau Award. The east pilots insisted on date of hire, which the arbitrator told them during their testimony would be a non starter. His award was based on relative seniority on a ratio basis after the top 517 slots were given to the East to cover their 20 wide bodies. After the Nic award came out there was much crying and weeping from the East and a group of east pilots formed USAPA to circumvent the Nicolau Award by arguing that the new union would not inherit the contract responsibilities of the TA and would thus not be bound by the award. The west has argued since then that binding means binding and that we need to move on, that we have already settled the SLI process and we need to get a joint contract.
It doesn't matter what you think is fair. The problem is that we followed the agreed upon process and the Nicolau Award was the result. It's the process that was agreed upon. That is why you have a process to begin with, so one side can't drag their feet and crash the system when they don't get their way.
Now, for fairness. You say that the East pilots were disadvantaged. Yet you cite a pilot that spent most of his career stagnant in the right seat or furloughed. Why is that person owed a do over for a crappy career? I was hired at AWA in 1987. I was a captain in 1990, I have been a 737, a320 and 757 captain ever since. We had 6 year captains in 2005, when the merger took place. Why would you believe a career F/O should displace our captains?
Relative seniority in a SLI means that everyone retains the relative position they brought to the merger. A junior F/O at US Air stayed junior on the Nic list. Same for the junior AWA guys. Look at Delta/NWA, different length of service terms between the two sides yet no one moved more than a percentage or two off their relative seniority. That the only way it can work with disparate pilot groups. The job you bring to the merger is the job you wind up with after the merger.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
10-24-2012, 05:04 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Cacti boss
OK, I'll bite, where are the errors in the posting?
GF
OK, I'll bite, where are the errors in the posting?
GF
10-24-2012, 05:13 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Relative seniority in a SLI means that everyone retains the relative position they brought to the merger. A junior F/O at US Air stayed junior on the Nic list. Same for the junior AWA guys. Look at Delta/NWA, different length of service terms between the two sides yet no one moved more than a percentage or two off their relative seniority. That the only way it can work with disparate pilot groups. The job you bring to the merger is the job you wind up with after the merger.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
That's as simple as I can make it. I hope this helps you understand.
Arbitrator Gill has the same issue with Pan Am/National and chose to handle it differently than Nicolau. But, that's what happens when you choose to put it in someone else's hands and again I agree that the west pilots followed the process and the outcome of that process was not their fault.
I've posted some links about that before, no need to go through it all again.
Last edited by R57 relay; 10-24-2012 at 05:23 AM.
10-24-2012, 05:39 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Hawker Driver
My colleague was former Eastern Airlines then US Air. After 18 years with US Air, and two furloughs, he had actually flown just 5. Yeah, the other 13 years were on furlough!
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
Later, when the merger occurred between America West and US Air, he simply could not reconcile to himself both the job insecurity up to that point and how the mediator had ruled. When the call came to come back after the second furlough, he retired instead.
Except for very senior US Air guys who operated equipment "Cactus" didn't operate at that time, the rest of the guys like him fell junior to the most junior America West fellows.
I'm just a corporate peon on the outside looking in. But, it just seems inconceivable to me how much older USAir guys, with not many years left, could be passed over en masse and the decision by the mediator be considered fair. I'm missing a whole lot of details here, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance. Thanks.
You are correct in your observation.
Every airline pilot employed with a significant/established operation should be concerned with the NIC and the possibility it could set a standard in senority dispute resolution.
I think the Airways east pilots deserve credit for thier fight against the injustice of the NIC.
