Let's Make it Right
 

The voting is done and the TA has passed. As everyone is aware, it included a provision that significantly discriminates against the United pilots that have been furloughed twice. We reached out to the MEC’s as well as ALPA national to attempt to have the language removed with no success. A website has been established to raise funds to take whatever steps are necessary to insure that furloughed United pilots are not treated as second class citizens. The United MEC has stated that they do not believe that this carve out will have an influence on the SLI, but Jay Pierce demanded it be inserted for a reason. If the CAL MEC is successful in stapling the bottom 1436 pilots on the United list, it will have an impact on every United pilot with the possible exception of the number pilot on the list. Every pilot has received a retroactive pay increase and most will be getting a lump sum distribution in the tens of thousands of dollars. If you haven’t contributed already, please take a moment to visit www.LOA25.com. Many of us hired 12 or 13 years ago have struggled throughout this period with some involuntarily furloughed for as long as nine years. We don’t expect this to be easy and we need your help, please donate whatever you think is appropriate and thank you.

Thumbs up!

I need some help with this one if you can.

If you are currently a furloughed UAL pilot that does not have a job, how is it possible to go anywhere other than the bottom of the list? Not a smartarse question.... I can understand if you got bypassed or if you are out on military leave and they recalled someone junior to you. But, the way I have seen these things go down historically is the union negotiates on behalf of those members who are currently employed and paying dues.

The flip side deserves a thought.... If ALPA promised the furloughed pilots something it would be doing so at the expense of those who are currently employed and who have not been furloughed.

I am just trying to understand this.

Regardless of you are a one time or two time furloughee, I don't understand why, or how ALPA could negotiate on your behalf without violating its duty of fair representation to those who are currently on the seniority list and who are currently employed.

I get it that you are furloughed. And, I also know it stinks bad. I just don't understand why you think you should be in a different position, seniority wise, than you currently are. Naturally, those out on MLLV, who would have been recalled would be in a different situation (I think). Probably those out on LTD, or similar circumstance for that matter.

Perhaps I should have mentioned to you that I am flying for CAL and paying dues. ALPA is legally obligated to represent us per the counsel. We appreciate your donation!

Coto, save your breath, we are the red-headed step-children of UAL. No one wants to claim us, help us, or feel sorry for us. The guys that have managed to keep their jobs and benefits have no idea what our lives and careers have been like. Why should we be thrown a bone just one time? It ain't gonna happen. Never has, never will.
I guess it is human nature for everyone to want the best for themselves, to hell with everyone else. If you are or were furloughed, you are nothing. It doesn't matter the dues you paid , what you've been through. Your timing was off, you chose poorly, etc.. 1999 hires at UAL have dealt with more than ANYONE on the property. I am in on this with you and will fight for anything we can get. I am tired of being stepped on.

Dude,

Mil LV guys don't get recalled. They tell the company when they are returning and are not affected by loa 25.

I'm on the cal side right now and loa 25 gives the company relief from contractual language, takes about $7500 out of my pay, and could possibly hurt every UAL pilot durning SLI arbitration.

Probably not. The active pilots Longevity and career expectations are not affected by LOA 25. That was ONLY for pay purposes for the furloughees. Any reasonable arbitrator can see that and the UAL side is clearly going to point that out.

If anything the UAL side can make the argument to the arbitrator that the best way to help the furloughees is to give them at least DOH seniority becaue LOA 25 would then restore their full pay.

So on the surface it looks to be ISL neutral and its very transparent why this was done.

But yes, this is going to be a difficult question fundamentally. These guys would have come back and would have a defined career expectation based on the status quo, many of which holding widebody capts at some point. So how they get handled will be interesting.

RIGHT

Put them ahead of active CAL pilots, who weren't furloughed, and who are able to hold CA right now, and did so pre merger.
Man, talk about a f'n windfall.

I suppose there is a first time for everything.

I don't see how you expect to make it right AFTER you vote yes on a substandard TA.

Good Luck with that.

Its not just about "what people can hold now". We have way more widebody aircraft on the UAL side and LONGEVITY and CAREER EXPECTATIONS are part of Merger Policy.

Just look at DAL and NWA. DAL had a higher percentage of widebody and the new list reflected that.

No one is going to be displaced, so everyone will maintain their pre-merger status and position.

Longevity is part of the policy, so you can could out a staple job.

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

I doubt the arbitrator will see it that way.

That was sarcasm. Should have put in a :rolleyes:.