This is for you NOLA, just to show I don't hold a grudge.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
Having been chosen to serve in the capacity of a Pilot Neutral under the
provisions of ALPA Merger Policy in the above referenced matter, I have elected to
confirm my concurrence with most matters decided upon by the Arbitration Board while
dissenting from the decision of my fellow members of the Board on one important
aspect of the Award.
1
The two pilot groups involved in this merger had marked similarities but they also
had wildly disparate issues separating-them. The similarities were manifested in the areas
of compensation for the narrow body aircraft that both airlines utilized, route structure
and work rules and other lesser items. However, there were some glaring
dissimilarities. The US Airways pilots, brought with them long haul International flying
and routes and the associated wide body aircraft to perform that flying. America West
had no similar flying, routes or aircraft. The Chairman's wisdom and experience dealt
with these and many other issues in a fair and equitable manner. The one aspect of the
Award where I differ with my fellow members of the Board is in the area of credit that
should be given to a pilot based on date of hire and the pilot's resulting length of service.
As noted in "The Background" section of the Award, US Airways had a
significant number of pilots on furlough at the time the merger was announced while
America West had none. The most senior furloughed US Airways pilot (Colello) was
hired in 1988 and had accrued 16.4 years of service as of the date of announcement of the
merger. He was furloughed in 2003. Below Colello, there were over 440 pilots on
furlough with at least 15 years of tenure and well over 12 years of credited length of
service. The remaining furloughees (not including the CEL pilots) had at between 5
years and 15 years of tenure and from 1 to 6 years of service.
The junior 305 pilots on the America West seniority list all had less than 2 years
of service when the merger was announced on May 19,2005. In fact, the bottom 150
pilots on the America West list were hired less than 1 year before the announcement. I
do not agree with the Board's decision, in the particular circumstances of this case, to
integrate only working pilots as of the date announcement, leaving all those on furlough at that date on the bottom of the combined seniority list. As a consequence of the Boards
decision, America West pilot Odell, who was hired less than 2 months before merger
was announced, has been placed immediately senior to US Airways pilot Colello who
was hired more than 16 years earlier and who had over 16 years of credited length of
service. I disagree with this placement, which disregards Colello's substantial service
time.
There is no dispute in this case that the US Airways pilots as a group are
considerably older than the pilots on the America West list. The record is replete with
discussion by both committees relating to age-related attrition, with both groups claiming
entitlement to advance in seniority as a result of age-based attrition. The Board did not
adequately take into account the realities of the "new" airline, the return of furloughees
that has already taken place and the much greater rate of age-based attrition at US
Airways as compared to the rate at America West. The vast amount of age-related
attrition that has occurred within the US Airways pilot group caused the recall of over
300 US Airways pilots between March 2006 and the first week of January of this year.
The pace of recalls is brisk and has continued. During the hearings we learned that
additional recalls were taking place and there was testimony that stated at the current
pace it was possible that all US Airways pilots would receive recall notices before the
end of 2007.
At a minimum, it is my opinion that the US Airways pilots, who had already
received notice of their opportunity to return to work from furlough, should have received
some consideration for the substantial time they have already invested in their airline. In
the event that the "new" company again decided to furlough pilots in the near future,conditions and restrictions could have been used to insure a measure of protection for the
junior America West pilots to protect them from furlough for some period of time. In
fact such a restriction was part of the US Airways Pilot's integration proposal in this case.
I believe that this approach would have better balanced the equities that each pilot group
brought to this merger.
Finally I would like to a reaffirm my opinion that the Chairman Nicolau
demonstrated exceptional judgment and wisdom working through many very difficult and
challenging issues including the disparate aircraft types, routes, compensation systems,
and pilot staffing formulas to mention just a few. It has been a privilege to work together
with Chairman Nicolau and Captain Gillen[UAL] on this Opinion and Award.
Dated: May 1, 2007
Captain James P Brucia[CAL]
Pilot Neutral
4

It wouldn't be the first time.

And that would be the opinion of a pilot. Arguably NOT a neutral individual. So when outside NEUTRALS looked at the issue they disagreed, but they must be wrong because they just "didn't get it". Here in lies the reason that we as pilots keep shooting ourselves in the foot every time we try to take on the outside world. Reminds me of that commercial where the doctor is trying to describe how to make an incision in the chest over the phone and the guy is contemplating performing his own chest surgery. It is my experience that pilots are terrible at taking outside advice and tend to think their opinions must be right with no regard for outside independent council.

Joe Peck
IADFO-756
DOH 4/1/96

You would be right.

Pilots are very good at what they do. But they have average intelligence coupled with absolutely incredible arrogance. The combination of the two makes for horrible decision-making on anything other than aircraft procedures.

So would you say that having one arbitrator and two pilot "neutrals" was a bad idea? If so, I agree.

Good luck to you guys, I hope the new merger policy serves you all well. Seriously-sometimes it's hard to tell on a board.

Pre-merger status and position is bottom of the FO list for a LUAL '96 hire and furloughed for a LUAL 2001 hire. Better be careful what you ask for.

So exactly how many furloughees have "already recieved notice of their opportunity to return to work"? Not so many I guess if you don't count the ones that went to work at L-CAL...

I have no idea, I don't work for you guys. Just posted to show that there can be different opinions on the "value" of a furloughed pilot. Good luck.

Since the author's on the CAL Merger Committee, I'm confident he's quite capable of explaining that "value" himself.

What about Longevity and Career Expectations, the other two cornerstones of the new and exciting ALPA Merger Policy? ("no windfalls" is out, "longevity" is in). There is no sense in going there. Both MECs have agreed to a pre-determined timeline that includes final and binding arbitration. We will all get a look around June. Meanwhile, enjoy the new pay raise.

Sled