US Airways Appeal
06-11-2010, 09:52 AM
#201
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
Originally Posted by newKnow
Alfa,
It is funny that you should use the word “odd,” because I am finding some things to be rather strange myself.
First, let’s be clear here (once again). This is a discussion about the legal aspects and strategies of the East/West Merger. I find it odd that you decided to use this discussion as an opportunity to rehash the DAL/NWA seniority integration fight. Personally, I thought that was put to rest long ago.
Secondly, what’s even more peculiar is that in order to do it, you had to apply my views on the US Airways situation to the views of “many” of the 5,000 North pilots, many of whom have stated an opposite position than me on this very thread. If you want to go after my views on the East/West merger, do so. I am here for the taking, by myself. If you want to go after the “many” in the North Pilot group, find another torchbearer. I do not purport to represent their views, especially on this subject, because I have found that many don’t agree with me.
Third, even more perplexing is that you would do this, unprovoked and one post removed from admonishing the notion of North pilots “pointing the swords inward.” If anyone is pointing a sword inward, it's you.
Fourth, it’s also amazing that you had to distort what I wrote in order to find disgust at my “warped sense of values.” Where did I say that I found what the East guys were doing was admirable? I said what they were doing was legal. Where did I say that results don’t matter? I said that we should learn from what the winners do. Where did I cheer the self destructive tactics of the USAPA and their sub-standard contract? I merely said that “if that’s what they want[ed], that’s what they got."
Fifth, in a bewildering, final attempt to try to add insult to injury, you imply that my views must be attributed to the fact that I, “[am] still smarting because [my] side got spanked in the arbitration,” as if that’s the only reason I could possibly have the views that I have. Newsflash #1: I have the views that I have because I have the capacity to think outside of the box, for myself, and use this ability whenever I can. Newsflash #2: I’m a 1995 hire. Go look at our seniority list and see if I’m smarting because somehow I got spanked in the arbitration.
Sixth, what’s puzzling is that you want to act like I stole your bike because I decided to point out some of ALPA’s failures. Newsflash #3: In case you missed it, many pilots North and South alike, “rail about ALPA's failures” on the latest and greatest thread on the very issues I hi-lighted in this one. Or, do you put your head in your lap when you read a post from a south guy that bemoans our lack of scope protection (How did we let them get so many rj’s?). Or, do you, blink to the point where your eyes tear up, when a South guy posts the contract Delta pilots had in 2000 and proclaims that we have to get pre-concessionary pay-rates. (We have given too much. It’s time for us to get it back.). Or, does your screen saver mysteriously come on when a South guy posts that he wants more contributions into his pension fund for all the misery and uncertainty that has befallen him in the past 9 years (They owe us a lot more than they are giving us.). Finally do you have to run to the bathroom when a South guy speaks of how things would be much better if Age 65 hadn’t passed (We should have fought that.). The bottom line is that those aren’t “North Only” sentiments. These railings belong to everyone. Put your head in the sand if you want to.
Seventh, what’s really amazing is that you condemn the position of someone exhausting every angle before giving up. Equally as startling is that you don’t recognize or respect our legal system for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, not just the company you work for when they decide to go into bankruptcy to abrogate your contract and terminate your pension plan (so you can cooperate at a later date). But, every individual who thinks they suffered a harm has this right as well. I guess you missed the civics class that talked about our society being based on people being able to make choices. The judges and juries get to decide who wins and how long a case can be litigated, not you.
Finally, what’s really astounding is that you think anyone cares what you think is noble, or who you think has integrity, or what you find disgusting, or who you think has a warped sense of value. Those are all subjective words and phrases, that mean nothing in the court of law, or to wives, or children, or friends, or dogs, when you are 80 years old and have to get up at 6 am to go be a greeter in Wal-Mart because your pension was terminated, or you lost seniority in an arbitration award, or your union abrogated seniority that you were awarded in arbitration. If someone wants to fight, let them make their own decision on how to do so. If the courts allow it, it’s legal. If you don't like it, do something about it, or cooperate, or do whatever it is you do. Pertaining to the discussion at hand, that means the East can fight the arbitrated SLI, the West can fight the USAPA, and you can sit on the sidelines and continue to look for opportunities to rehash a SLI that has been over and done with long ago. I choose to have no part of that.
New K Now
It is funny that you should use the word “odd,” because I am finding some things to be rather strange myself.
First, let’s be clear here (once again). This is a discussion about the legal aspects and strategies of the East/West Merger. I find it odd that you decided to use this discussion as an opportunity to rehash the DAL/NWA seniority integration fight. Personally, I thought that was put to rest long ago.
Secondly, what’s even more peculiar is that in order to do it, you had to apply my views on the US Airways situation to the views of “many” of the 5,000 North pilots, many of whom have stated an opposite position than me on this very thread. If you want to go after my views on the East/West merger, do so. I am here for the taking, by myself. If you want to go after the “many” in the North Pilot group, find another torchbearer. I do not purport to represent their views, especially on this subject, because I have found that many don’t agree with me.
Third, even more perplexing is that you would do this, unprovoked and one post removed from admonishing the notion of North pilots “pointing the swords inward.” If anyone is pointing a sword inward, it's you.
Fourth, it’s also amazing that you had to distort what I wrote in order to find disgust at my “warped sense of values.” Where did I say that I found what the East guys were doing was admirable? I said what they were doing was legal. Where did I say that results don’t matter? I said that we should learn from what the winners do. Where did I cheer the self destructive tactics of the USAPA and their sub-standard contract? I merely said that “if that’s what they want[ed], that’s what they got."
Fifth, in a bewildering, final attempt to try to add insult to injury, you imply that my views must be attributed to the fact that I, “[am] still smarting because [my] side got spanked in the arbitration,” as if that’s the only reason I could possibly have the views that I have. Newsflash #1: I have the views that I have because I have the capacity to think outside of the box, for myself, and use this ability whenever I can. Newsflash #2: I’m a 1995 hire. Go look at our seniority list and see if I’m smarting because somehow I got spanked in the arbitration.
Sixth, what’s puzzling is that you want to act like I stole your bike because I decided to point out some of ALPA’s failures. Newsflash #3: In case you missed it, many pilots North and South alike, “rail about ALPA's failures” on the latest and greatest thread on the very issues I hi-lighted in this one. Or, do you put your head in your lap when you read a post from a south guy that bemoans our lack of scope protection (How did we let them get so many rj’s?). Or, do you, blink to the point where your eyes tear up, when a South guy posts the contract Delta pilots had in 2000 and proclaims that we have to get pre-concessionary pay-rates. (We have given too much. It’s time for us to get it back.). Or, does your screen saver mysteriously come on when a South guy posts that he wants more contributions into his pension fund for all the misery and uncertainty that has befallen him in the past 9 years (They owe us a lot more than they are giving us.). Finally do you have to run to the bathroom when a South guy speaks of how things would be much better if Age 65 hadn’t passed (We should have fought that.). The bottom line is that those aren’t “North Only” sentiments. These railings belong to everyone. Put your head in the sand if you want to.
Seventh, what’s really amazing is that you condemn the position of someone exhausting every angle before giving up. Equally as startling is that you don’t recognize or respect our legal system for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, not just the company you work for when they decide to go into bankruptcy to abrogate your contract and terminate your pension plan (so you can cooperate at a later date). But, every individual who thinks they suffered a harm has this right as well. I guess you missed the civics class that talked about our society being based on people being able to make choices. The judges and juries get to decide who wins and how long a case can be litigated, not you.
Finally, what’s really astounding is that you think anyone cares what you think is noble, or who you think has integrity, or what you find disgusting, or who you think has a warped sense of value. Those are all subjective words and phrases, that mean nothing in the court of law, or to wives, or children, or friends, or dogs, when you are 80 years old and have to get up at 6 am to go be a greeter in Wal-Mart because your pension was terminated, or you lost seniority in an arbitration award, or your union abrogated seniority that you were awarded in arbitration. If someone wants to fight, let them make their own decision on how to do so. If the courts allow it, it’s legal. If you don't like it, do something about it, or cooperate, or do whatever it is you do. Pertaining to the discussion at hand, that means the East can fight the arbitrated SLI, the West can fight the USAPA, and you can sit on the sidelines and continue to look for opportunities to rehash a SLI that has been over and done with long ago. I choose to have no part of that.
New K Now
Very, very well done.
Nu
06-11-2010, 01:57 PM
#202
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Check Essential
That's why the ALPA Merger Policy is toast.
Why bother with "binding" arbitration anymore?
If the majority doesn't like the arbitrator's list they can just ignore it and come up with another list as long as it will pass a court's test for DFR "fairness".
Why bother with "binding" arbitration anymore?
If the majority doesn't like the arbitrator's list they can just ignore it and come up with another list as long as it will pass a court's test for DFR "fairness".
OMG! You mean if an arbitrator screws over a majority of the pilots in a seniority arbitration they will be able to resort to a federal judge to seek fairness?? How unfair!
Last edited by Hiwaymiles; 06-11-2010 at 04:05 PM. Reason: spelling
06-11-2010, 02:25 PM
#203
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
Originally Posted by Hiwaymiles
I can't decide if your post is tongue-in-cheek or not. I guess I'll reply as though you said it with a straight face.
OMG! You mean if an arbitrator screws over a majority of the pilots in a seniority arbitration they will be able to resort to a federal judge to seek fairness?? How unfair!
OMG! You mean if an arbitrator screws over a majority of the pilots in a seniority arbitration they will be able to resort to a federal judge to seek fairness?? How unfair!
While sort of an extreme example, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. To dismiss another groups legal path for redress is tacky.
Nu
06-11-2010, 04:38 PM
#204
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
In the DAL pension termination, the total value of lost benefits for pilots was around $950 million. We received a claim that netted $1,300 million and a note that netted $650 million. The PBGC just sent out our final benefit statements that reflected the value of the stock they received from the bankruptcy. That value was so high that pilots received benefits back of around $400 million. So to summarize:
Loss : $950 million
Returns : $1,300 + 650 + 400 million
So we made money on the pension termination?
06-11-2010, 05:03 PM
#205
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Check Essential
So we made money on the pension termination?
Alfa's numbers were for the qualified portion of the pension. Non-qualified was paid at 60 cents on the dollar in the note model. Only about 1 in 6 active pilots had earned non-qual benefits.
If you got a years of service allocation, which about 50% of the pilot group did, and all the actuarial assumptions were met, then you made money.
How, you ask? The pension was soft, then hard frozen. Nearly all post 1996 hires total frozen pension was covered by the PBGC payment. Almost everyone that was hired from 1991 onward hadn't hit a 3 year FAE of $205K, so they would have been "stuck" at their actual FAE. The note model assumed $205K, so you got a bigger chunk of money than you'd actually "earned" in the pension. If you got a years of service allocation, the present value of that money was more than the present value of benefits not covered by PBGC and your MPPP or your "inflated" FAE benefit.
Of course, those pesky actuarial assumptions....I think it was something like 7.5% until 60 and then 6.5% in retirement, and you're supposed to die around age 84....and we know that instead the market tanked and we're going to fly until we die.
Also, it didn't take into account taxes. ALPA was successful in getting Roth treatment for all the bankruptcy returns (pretty darn valuable and an Airline specific Act of Congress), and there's a House Bill that the Senate is considering to give us full tax deferral should you choose that route instead. Hopefully the Senate will deliver.
06-11-2010, 08:00 PM
#206
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by newKnow
Alfa,
It is funny that you should use the word “odd,” because I am finding some things to be rather strange myself.
First, let’s be clear here (once again). This is a discussion about the legal aspects and strategies of the East/West Merger. I find it odd that you decided to use this discussion as an opportunity to rehash the DAL/NWA seniority integration fight. Personally, I thought that was put to rest long ago.
Secondly, what’s even more peculiar is that in order to do it, you had to apply my views on the US Airways situation to the views of “many” of the 5,000 North pilots, many of whom have stated an opposite position than me on this very thread. If you want to go after my views on the East/West merger, do so. I am here for the taking, by myself. If you want to go after the “many” in the North Pilot group, find another torchbearer. I do not purport to represent their views, especially on this subject, because I have found that many don’t agree with me.
Third, even more perplexing is that you would do this, unprovoked and one post removed from admonishing the notion of North pilots “pointing the swords inward.” If anyone is pointing a sword inward, it's you.
Fourth, it’s also amazing that you had to distort what I wrote in order to find disgust at my “warped sense of values.” Where did I say that I found what the East guys were doing was admirable? I said what they were doing was legal. Where did I say that results don’t matter? I said that we should learn from what the winners do. Where did I cheer the self destructive tactics of the USAPA and their sub-standard contract? I merely said that “if that’s what they want[ed], that’s what they got."
Fifth, in a bewildering, final attempt to try to add insult to injury, you imply that my views must be attributed to the fact that I, “[am] still smarting because [my] side got spanked in the arbitration,” as if that’s the only reason I could possibly have the views that I have. Newsflash #1: I have the views that I have because I have the capacity to think outside of the box, for myself, and use this ability whenever I can. Newsflash #2: I’m a 1995 hire. Go look at our seniority list and see if I’m smarting because somehow I got spanked in the arbitration.
Sixth, what’s puzzling is that you want to act like I stole your bike because I decided to point out some of ALPA’s failures. Newsflash #3: In case you missed it, many pilots North and South alike, “rail about ALPA's failures” on the latest and greatest thread on the very issues I hi-lighted in this one. Or, do you put your head in your lap when you read a post from a south guy that bemoans our lack of scope protection (How did we let them get so many rj’s?). Or, do you, blink to the point where your eyes tear up, when a South guy posts the contract Delta pilots had in 2000 and proclaims that we have to get pre-concessionary pay-rates. (We have given too much. It’s time for us to get it back.). Or, does your screen saver mysteriously come on when a South guy posts that he wants more contributions into his pension fund for all the misery and uncertainty that has befallen him in the past 9 years (They owe us a lot more than they are giving us.). Finally do you have to run to the bathroom when a South guy speaks of how things would be much better if Age 65 hadn’t passed (We should have fought that.). The bottom line is that those aren’t “North Only” sentiments. These railings belong to everyone. Put your head in the sand if you want to.
Seventh, what’s really amazing is that you condemn the position of someone exhausting every angle before giving up. Equally as startling is that you don’t recognize or respect our legal system for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, not just the company you work for when they decide to go into bankruptcy to abrogate your contract and terminate your pension plan (so you can cooperate at a later date). But, every individual who thinks they suffered a harm has this right as well. I guess you missed the civics class that talked about our society being based on people being able to make choices. The judges and juries get to decide who wins and how long a case can be litigated, not you.
Finally, what’s really astounding is that you think anyone cares what you think is noble, or who you think has integrity, or what you find disgusting, or who you think has a warped sense of value. Those are all subjective words and phrases, that mean nothing in the court of law, or to wives, or children, or friends, or dogs, when you are 80 years old and have to get up at 6 am to go be a greeter in Wal-Mart because your pension was terminated, or you lost seniority in an arbitration award, or your union abrogated seniority that you were awarded in arbitration. If someone wants to fight, let them make their own decision on how to do so. If the courts allow it, it’s legal. If you don't like it, do something about it, or cooperate, or do whatever it is you do. Pertaining to the discussion at hand, that means the East can fight the arbitrated SLI, the West can fight the USAPA, and you can sit on the sidelines and continue to look for opportunities to rehash a SLI that has been over and done with long ago. I choose to have no part of that.
New K Now
It is funny that you should use the word “odd,” because I am finding some things to be rather strange myself.
First, let’s be clear here (once again). This is a discussion about the legal aspects and strategies of the East/West Merger. I find it odd that you decided to use this discussion as an opportunity to rehash the DAL/NWA seniority integration fight. Personally, I thought that was put to rest long ago.
Secondly, what’s even more peculiar is that in order to do it, you had to apply my views on the US Airways situation to the views of “many” of the 5,000 North pilots, many of whom have stated an opposite position than me on this very thread. If you want to go after my views on the East/West merger, do so. I am here for the taking, by myself. If you want to go after the “many” in the North Pilot group, find another torchbearer. I do not purport to represent their views, especially on this subject, because I have found that many don’t agree with me.
Third, even more perplexing is that you would do this, unprovoked and one post removed from admonishing the notion of North pilots “pointing the swords inward.” If anyone is pointing a sword inward, it's you.
Fourth, it’s also amazing that you had to distort what I wrote in order to find disgust at my “warped sense of values.” Where did I say that I found what the East guys were doing was admirable? I said what they were doing was legal. Where did I say that results don’t matter? I said that we should learn from what the winners do. Where did I cheer the self destructive tactics of the USAPA and their sub-standard contract? I merely said that “if that’s what they want[ed], that’s what they got."
Fifth, in a bewildering, final attempt to try to add insult to injury, you imply that my views must be attributed to the fact that I, “[am] still smarting because [my] side got spanked in the arbitration,” as if that’s the only reason I could possibly have the views that I have. Newsflash #1: I have the views that I have because I have the capacity to think outside of the box, for myself, and use this ability whenever I can. Newsflash #2: I’m a 1995 hire. Go look at our seniority list and see if I’m smarting because somehow I got spanked in the arbitration.
Sixth, what’s puzzling is that you want to act like I stole your bike because I decided to point out some of ALPA’s failures. Newsflash #3: In case you missed it, many pilots North and South alike, “rail about ALPA's failures” on the latest and greatest thread on the very issues I hi-lighted in this one. Or, do you put your head in your lap when you read a post from a south guy that bemoans our lack of scope protection (How did we let them get so many rj’s?). Or, do you, blink to the point where your eyes tear up, when a South guy posts the contract Delta pilots had in 2000 and proclaims that we have to get pre-concessionary pay-rates. (We have given too much. It’s time for us to get it back.). Or, does your screen saver mysteriously come on when a South guy posts that he wants more contributions into his pension fund for all the misery and uncertainty that has befallen him in the past 9 years (They owe us a lot more than they are giving us.). Finally do you have to run to the bathroom when a South guy speaks of how things would be much better if Age 65 hadn’t passed (We should have fought that.). The bottom line is that those aren’t “North Only” sentiments. These railings belong to everyone. Put your head in the sand if you want to.
Seventh, what’s really amazing is that you condemn the position of someone exhausting every angle before giving up. Equally as startling is that you don’t recognize or respect our legal system for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, not just the company you work for when they decide to go into bankruptcy to abrogate your contract and terminate your pension plan (so you can cooperate at a later date). But, every individual who thinks they suffered a harm has this right as well. I guess you missed the civics class that talked about our society being based on people being able to make choices. The judges and juries get to decide who wins and how long a case can be litigated, not you.
Finally, what’s really astounding is that you think anyone cares what you think is noble, or who you think has integrity, or what you find disgusting, or who you think has a warped sense of value. Those are all subjective words and phrases, that mean nothing in the court of law, or to wives, or children, or friends, or dogs, when you are 80 years old and have to get up at 6 am to go be a greeter in Wal-Mart because your pension was terminated, or you lost seniority in an arbitration award, or your union abrogated seniority that you were awarded in arbitration. If someone wants to fight, let them make their own decision on how to do so. If the courts allow it, it’s legal. If you don't like it, do something about it, or cooperate, or do whatever it is you do. Pertaining to the discussion at hand, that means the East can fight the arbitrated SLI, the West can fight the USAPA, and you can sit on the sidelines and continue to look for opportunities to rehash a SLI that has been over and done with long ago. I choose to have no part of that.
New K Now
7.) I hope this litigation was a wake-up call to arbitrators to construct their seniority lists more carefully. (It might have helped our SLI.)
I will also infer that your belief (along with Carl and Nuguy) is that "any angle" is okay as long as it is legal. From that I will infer that you think there is no moral or ethical obligation for anyone to act in any manner other than what is spelled out in the legal code. You just want to observe who the winners are. I disagree in the strongest terms with that belief, whether or not that is actually what you ascribe to.
The East pilots have been around for a while, they have seen a bunch of mergers and they know how it goes. After merger policy was changed in 1991, the first pilot group to have a major integration was US Air and Trump Shuttle. The East pilots there demanded a "W-2" integration and argued vehemently against a date of hire integration. The arbitrator in that case ruled for a status and category integration basically just like the East pilots wanted. His name was George Nicolau.
Fast forward to 2007 and George Nicolau rules for a status and category integration with US Air and America West. When the ruling doesn't go their way, they attempt to use "every angle" to take away the rights from the West pilots. Every seniority integration involves two parties, each representing their interests. In this case, the East pilots want to usurp the rights of the West pilots to represent themselves and impose their own solution on them. In essence, they want to steal what they cannot win in a fair process. Every pilot I know has blasted this maneuver as lacking integrity and ethics. Yet you seem to defend their rights to use "every angle" as long as they haven't committed a criminal act. Carl and Nuguy say the same things. You are the only pilots I have seen that have taken this view other than East pilots themselves.
My inference (see, I am trying to protect myself here) is that you confuse your animosity with ALPA with this view of the East pilots' actions. You claim I ignore South pilots' attacks on ALPA just to discriminate against the North pilots. Balderdash. I regularly argue with them about ALPA matters and you know it. I just have never seen a Southie ever say anything supportive of the East pilots actions, other than they left ALPA. I am glad that the East pilots left ALPA, because they were a giant financial suck hole of my dues money. I don't care what they call their union, I just expect them to act in a manner that is both ethical and legal. Frankly, they are the definition of a DFR case, but the Ninth Circuit said, well you have to wait until they thrust the knife in, before you can accuse them of attempted murder. So yes they are legal for now, but their "angle" is to violate their duty to represent the West pilots. Remember, the West pilots had this representation forced on them, they are forced to pay dues, you would expect that their union has some ethical obligation to them, yet as long as there is "an angle" their actions seem OK with you, or at least that is the common sense understanding of what you wrote.
From the Roberts arbitrations, to the DAL/NWA SLI discussions, to the duty rig grievance, and in many other venues, I have observed from many North pilots that "having your day in court" seems to take precedence over actually obtaining the best outcome. That is my impression and it could be wrong, but that impression is not based on or two pilots' opinions but from many. I will never understand how anyone can endorse a subset of a pilot group trying to attack another subset of the same pilot group using "angles".
06-11-2010, 10:45 PM
#207
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Fast forward to 2007 and George Nicolau rules for a status and category integration with US Air and America West. When the ruling doesn't go their way, they attempt to use "every angle" to take away the rights from the West pilots. Every seniority integration involves two parties, each representing their interests. In this case, the East pilots want to usurp the rights of the West pilots to represent themselves and impose their own solution on them. In essence, they want to steal what they cannot win in a fair process. Every pilot I know has blasted this maneuver as lacking integrity and ethics. Yet you seem to defend their rights to use "every angle" as long as they haven't committed a criminal act. Carl and Nuguy say the same things. You are the only pilots I have seen that have taken this view other than East pilots themselves.
ALPA should be embarrassed and shamed by the way they handled the USAirways, America West merger. An in house board that included pilot "neutrals" from United and Continental (President of ALPA Praters airline) that reeks of conflict of interest.
A committee to investigate, included Paul Rice, Vice President of ALPA, a United pilot. This is a conflict of interest because at that time there was a pending merger with his airline.
ALPA acted like USAirways pilots friends when they were in the shower with them. ALPA dropped a bar of soap in said shower, USAirways pilots refused to pick it up.
YouTube - AAA-AWA USAPA: USAirways/America West Pilot Merger Facts [1 of 8]
06-12-2010, 07:01 AM
#208
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
In this case, the East pilots want to usurp the rights of the West pilots to represent themselves and impose their own solution on them. In essence, they want to steal what they cannot win in a fair process.
Membership Ratification is the ultimate conclusion. Trying to pair a 17 year pilot with a new hire just isn't ratifiable. Honestly, would any of you ( non - new hires ) vote "Yes" for that? Compounding the issue is the US Airways pilot group is twice the size of the America West. So, Democracy? Each pilot gets one vote or, if not, what representational system DO we use?
I've yet to even get an answer to that question.
One group will not budge on the seniority award but is outnumbered 2 - 1 by the other who simply will not ratify any contract containing it.
I respect the West pilots right to not move off their position however, I wish they were not so poisonous if I exercise the same right about mine.
06-12-2010, 08:21 AM
#209
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by FreighterGuyNow
Membership Ratification is the ultimate conclusion. Trying to pair a 17 year pilot with a new hire just isn't ratifiable. Honestly, would any of you ( non - new hires ) vote "Yes" for that?
Why not? Assuming a merger of equal companies, if a 17 year pilot is on the bottom at company A, and a new hire is the bottom pilot at company B, why should they not be side by side on the list?
06-13-2010, 07:08 PM
#210
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
I won't try to respond point by point to your post since it is clear it struck an emotional chord. I will just point out a fragment of your post I responded to...
... and you say that I was the one who opened up the discussion about the SLI? Surely you can infer from that quote that you think the arbitrators in our SLI did not construct the list carefully and that you are not happy with it. Sometimes it is difficult when you take the most common sense understanding of someone's words, respond to that understanding and then hear "well I didn't say that." Carl is an expert at that tactic.
I will also infer that your belief (along with Carl and Nuguy) is that "any angle" is okay as long as it is legal. From that I will infer that you think there is no moral or ethical obligation for anyone to act in any manner other than what is spelled out in the legal code. You just want to observe who the winners are. I disagree in the strongest terms with that belief, whether or not that is actually what you ascribe to.
The East pilots have been around for a while, they have seen a bunch of mergers and they know how it goes. After merger policy was changed in 1991, the first pilot group to have a major integration was US Air and Trump Shuttle. The East pilots there demanded a "W-2" integration and argued vehemently against a date of hire integration. The arbitrator in that case ruled for a status and category integration basically just like the East pilots wanted. His name was George Nicolau.
Fast forward to 2007 and George Nicolau rules for a status and category integration with US Air and America West. When the ruling doesn't go their way, they attempt to use "every angle" to take away the rights from the West pilots. Every seniority integration involves two parties, each representing their interests. In this case, the East pilots want to usurp the rights of the West pilots to represent themselves and impose their own solution on them. In essence, they want to steal what they cannot win in a fair process. Every pilot I know has blasted this maneuver as lacking integrity and ethics. Yet you seem to defend their rights to use "every angle" as long as they haven't committed a criminal act. Carl and Nuguy say the same things. You are the only pilots I have seen that have taken this view other than East pilots themselves.
My inference (see, I am trying to protect myself here) is that you confuse your animosity with ALPA with this view of the East pilots' actions. You claim I ignore South pilots' attacks on ALPA just to discriminate against the North pilots. Balderdash. I regularly argue with them about ALPA matters and you know it. I just have never seen a Southie ever say anything supportive of the East pilots actions, other than they left ALPA. I am glad that the East pilots left ALPA, because they were a giant financial suck hole of my dues money. I don't care what they call their union, I just expect them to act in a manner that is both ethical and legal. Frankly, they are the definition of a DFR case, but the Ninth Circuit said, well you have to wait until they thrust the knife in, before you can accuse them of attempted murder. So yes they are legal for now, but their "angle" is to violate their duty to represent the West pilots. Remember, the West pilots had this representation forced on them, they are forced to pay dues, you would expect that their union has some ethical obligation to them, yet as long as there is "an angle" their actions seem OK with you, or at least that is the common sense understanding of what you wrote.
From the Roberts arbitrations, to the DAL/NWA SLI discussions, to the duty rig grievance, and in many other venues, I have observed from many North pilots that "having your day in court" seems to take precedence over actually obtaining the best outcome. That is my impression and it could be wrong, but that impression is not based on or two pilots' opinions but from many. I will never understand how anyone can endorse a subset of a pilot group trying to attack another subset of the same pilot group using "angles".
... and you say that I was the one who opened up the discussion about the SLI? Surely you can infer from that quote that you think the arbitrators in our SLI did not construct the list carefully and that you are not happy with it. Sometimes it is difficult when you take the most common sense understanding of someone's words, respond to that understanding and then hear "well I didn't say that." Carl is an expert at that tactic.
I will also infer that your belief (along with Carl and Nuguy) is that "any angle" is okay as long as it is legal. From that I will infer that you think there is no moral or ethical obligation for anyone to act in any manner other than what is spelled out in the legal code. You just want to observe who the winners are. I disagree in the strongest terms with that belief, whether or not that is actually what you ascribe to.
The East pilots have been around for a while, they have seen a bunch of mergers and they know how it goes. After merger policy was changed in 1991, the first pilot group to have a major integration was US Air and Trump Shuttle. The East pilots there demanded a "W-2" integration and argued vehemently against a date of hire integration. The arbitrator in that case ruled for a status and category integration basically just like the East pilots wanted. His name was George Nicolau.
Fast forward to 2007 and George Nicolau rules for a status and category integration with US Air and America West. When the ruling doesn't go their way, they attempt to use "every angle" to take away the rights from the West pilots. Every seniority integration involves two parties, each representing their interests. In this case, the East pilots want to usurp the rights of the West pilots to represent themselves and impose their own solution on them. In essence, they want to steal what they cannot win in a fair process. Every pilot I know has blasted this maneuver as lacking integrity and ethics. Yet you seem to defend their rights to use "every angle" as long as they haven't committed a criminal act. Carl and Nuguy say the same things. You are the only pilots I have seen that have taken this view other than East pilots themselves.
My inference (see, I am trying to protect myself here) is that you confuse your animosity with ALPA with this view of the East pilots' actions. You claim I ignore South pilots' attacks on ALPA just to discriminate against the North pilots. Balderdash. I regularly argue with them about ALPA matters and you know it. I just have never seen a Southie ever say anything supportive of the East pilots actions, other than they left ALPA. I am glad that the East pilots left ALPA, because they were a giant financial suck hole of my dues money. I don't care what they call their union, I just expect them to act in a manner that is both ethical and legal. Frankly, they are the definition of a DFR case, but the Ninth Circuit said, well you have to wait until they thrust the knife in, before you can accuse them of attempted murder. So yes they are legal for now, but their "angle" is to violate their duty to represent the West pilots. Remember, the West pilots had this representation forced on them, they are forced to pay dues, you would expect that their union has some ethical obligation to them, yet as long as there is "an angle" their actions seem OK with you, or at least that is the common sense understanding of what you wrote.
From the Roberts arbitrations, to the DAL/NWA SLI discussions, to the duty rig grievance, and in many other venues, I have observed from many North pilots that "having your day in court" seems to take precedence over actually obtaining the best outcome. That is my impression and it could be wrong, but that impression is not based on or two pilots' opinions but from many. I will never understand how anyone can endorse a subset of a pilot group trying to attack another subset of the same pilot group using "angles".
As much fun as an argument on semantics would be, I would like to try to avoid a Billy Clint, “it depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is” discussion. Simply put, I was not inviting an argument on the outcome of the NWA/DAL merger SLI. I was not complaining about the list. I was not implying that the arbitrators haphazardly put the list together. If I was, I would have said;
“Maybe it would have helped with our SLI.”
Instead, “It might have helped with our SLI,” to me means, [the litigation] might have helped our SLI.
As in, I was saying that it’s possible the litigation helped our SLI process. If you don’t understand that, then I guess you will just have to take my word that I was not trying to open up that can of worms.
With a strong desire to return to the discussion and my main purpose for posting on this thread, I present some things for you to consider: 1.) Maybe you are a little too trigger happy to shoot off a North v. South battle. See above paragraph. 2.) Not every North pilot was spanked by the arbitrator’s award, so every time one mentions it, it does not mean he is complaining. 3.) Pursuing something from “any angle” is not ok because I say so; it’s ok because it’s legal and that’s all I’m concerned with. 4.) When someone criticizes ALPA, it does not mean they have animosity towards the organization.
Alfa, everything does not have to turn into a Grant vs. Lee, Civil War, Shenandoah Valley, North v. South, campaign. Dude, the surrender at Appomattox has come and gone, except both sides won. It's like you didn't get the memo. I'm sorry, telegraph. For the life of me, I don't understand why you have to do this:
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
I just have never seen a Southie ever say anything supportive of the East pilots actions, other than they left ALPA.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
From the Roberts arbitrations, to the DAL/NWA SLI discussions, to the duty rig grievance, and in many other venues, I have observed from many North pilots that "having your day in court" seems to take precedence over actually obtaining the best outcome.
What should be made clear is that I am not sensitive to well-reasoned, thought out positions. What does strike an “emotional chord” with me is when people throw obvious insults around for no good reason. Sure, my response to yours was full of insults, but I tend to fight fire with fire, which I guess is the principle that you disagree with so much.
Before you throw grenades SLI-wise, you should know that every North pilot is not hanging around and still licking his wounds from the SLI process. Some were helped more than the others by the pull-plug method the arbitrators used. (That process is what I was alluding to in the point I was making, that you said “surely” inferred that I thought the list was not carefully put together.) The vast majority of the others are consummate professionals who have moved on and rarely mention the outcome of the SLI beyond what their number is. I can’t even remember the last time a guy complained about the SLI to me.
Another thing that should be pointed out is that I am not here to attach labels to the actions of the East pilots or West pilots. I try to keep my posted subjective views to a minimum. (I think the only onse you can find is where I said I thought the arbitrators list was unfair, or that ALPA failed us.) I’ll say it again, all I am trying to do is learn winning, legal strategies and tactics in this industry. Like: Do you know if the arbitrated seniority list is considered to be a service contract? When the DFR action becomes ripe, will the court award damages and/or injunctive relief? What culpability does the US Airways corporation have? Stuff like that. I’m not into the name-calling and character assessment on this one. If you want to say the East pilots are despicable, fine. If you want to figure out who has the correct and acceptable morals and values, go right ahead. I’m sure you know that litigating arbitration decisions is nothing new. Arbitrator’s awards are often litigated in federal court, so those are the only judges’ decisions I am concerned with.
I also think you are unnecessarily attaching my criticism of ALPA with some kind of deep seeded animosity towards the union that you think I must have. I don’t. In fact, most would say that what you call my “railings” are simple observations. As a profession, we have gotten our butts kicked over the past 10 years. ALPA needs to do better. ALPA needs to learn how to win.
Finally, just because you "cooperated" to get a better outcome than everyone else, does not mean it was the best outcome. It only means that you got a better outcome than everyone else. It's sort of like comparing two innocent guys who were framed for murder. One got the the death sentence and the other got life in prison because he cooperated and plead guilty. Sure, the lifer would thank his lucky stars and feel he was lucky to have gotten the best outcome. He could be headed to the electric chair, right? But, in reality he should have been free to begin with. He should be home with his family, retired at 60 with a full pension. But, somehow he got fooled into thinking his deal was the best he could get and now he's just happy with his life sentence.
The best outcome is always a moving target that can never be known. For you to suggest that you know for sure how to get there is misleading, to say it nicely.
How we get to the real “the best outcome,” should be explored from “every angle” all the time. That's what I pay my ALPA dues for.
New K Now
Last edited by newKnow; 06-14-2010 at 05:52 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
20
01-01-2022 05:02 PM
