uSAPa begins destruction of USAirways

[Kristie]

You seem to have the same problem as the East pilots: you don't understand the difference between seniority and longevity. If you're an East pilot with 18 years at Airways, you have a lot of longevity, but practically zero seniority. Lists aren't merged based on longevity, they are merged based on seniority..

wait.. i'm confused with that....i thought longevity (aka years) was seniority? as in DOH seniority is based on what date you joined....


EDIT: Sorry, just noticed post above..disregard above question

Also, what is DOL? Thanks!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

inside0ut, it's an old concept called "full pay till the last day." In other words, why quit when you can leech every last cent out of them first? I'm not addressing any ethical or moral implications, just telling you what the thought process of many pilots will be.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

wait.. i'm confused with that....i thought longevity (aka years) was seniority? as in DOH seniority is based on what date you joined....

Seniority is a place on the seniority list. Longevity is years of service. You can have 20 years of service (longevity), but have virtually no seniority if the company hasn't been hiring since you got hired 20 years ago. That was the case with USAirways. They did very minimal hiring in the '90s and '00s, so the furloughs went all the way back to '88. So, someone hired in '88 has 20 years of longevity, but not really any meaningful seniority since his 20 years still only gets him a junior copilot slot.

Also, what is DOL? Thanks!

Department of Labor. Sorry for all the acronyms. It's a pilot thing.

 

[Kristie]

oh i understand about the pilot thing with acronyms....don't mind me....I know quite a few, just didn't know that one off the top of my head

also, from reading some of the posts above, it almost sounds like seniority has a lot to do with aircraft type of a certain airline? like does NWA hve seniority over the DAL guys because NWA has 747's which are "bigger" aircraft (more seat capacity) than the 777's that DAL has?

just wanna understand more cuz i've always thought seniority was based on longevity...but if seniority and longevity are essentially the same for *each* airline, then how does it equate *between* airlines?

Thanks for humoring me

and Todd, thanks for helping make the site a better place...we really DO appreciate (and recognize) your effort.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

also, from reading some of the posts above, it almost sounds like seniority has a lot to do with aircraft type of a certain airline?

It can definitely be a factor. A merger between airlines with extremely disparate fleet types can make an SLI very difficult to accomplish.

like does NWA hve seniority over the DAL guys because NWA has 747's which are "bigger" aircraft (more seat capacity) than the 777's that DAL has?

I'm sure that that's an argument the NWA merger committee will make in mediation and arbitration. It's a tough argument for them in this case, though, because their 747s pay less than the smaller 777s at DAL. They could still have an argument, though, because bigger airplanes have a better potential of better pay under a combined contract after the SLI. It might just depend on what an arbitrator thinks, and how good the merger committees make their arguments. Those airplanes are close enough in size to create a bit of a dilemma.

just wanna understand more cuz i've always thought seniority was based on longevity...but if seniority and longevity are essentially the same for *each* airline, then how does it equate *between* airlines?

That's the million dollar question. This is why so many SLIs end up in arbitration. Everybody has a different opinion of how seniority should be measured between companies. This is also the reason that a national seniority list could never happen. Think of how contentious it is just trying to merge a list of 12,000 pilots, then imagine trying to do it for 70,000 from a few dozen companies.

 

[inside0ut]

inside0ut, it's an old concept called "full pay till the last day." In other words, why quit when you can leech every last cent out of them first? I'm not addressing any ethical or moral implications, just telling you what the thought process of many pilots will be.

No worries, I completely understand what it means. It just seems like your previous posts condone those actions. I guess I should have asked that question first.

So to make it clearer, is that what you believe?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

No worries, I completely understand what it means. It just seems like your previous posts condone those actions. I guess I should have asked that question first.

So to make it clearer, is that what you believe?

No, I think there are other avenues to take. For instance, my plan of action would be to get a small group of West pilots together to join uSAPa and pay dues (since an overwhelming majority of them won't), and then sue uSAPa for breach of Duty of Fair Representation. DFR requires that unions negotiate on behalf of all of their members fairly and equally. If uSAPa tries to negotiate a new seniority list in favor of the East pilots (as they've openly admitted to planning), that would be a blatant breach of DFR since it favors the East over the West. A successful DFR suit would completely bankrupt uSAPa, and the lawsuit would likely require a judge to place an injunction against them to stop negotiating such a list while the case proceeds. That would provide protection for the West in the meantime while the lawsuit progresses, and eventually get rid of uSAPa, paving the way for ALPA's return.

Unfortunately, most pilots don't behave in that sort of strategic manner. Instead, they behave in a very emotional manner. That's why most pilots don't make good union reps. It's also why the AAA/AWA situation is going to get much worse before it gets any better, if it ever gets any better.

 

[Bumblebee]

No, I think there are other avenues to take. For instance, my plan of action would be to get a small group of West pilots together to join uSAPa and pay dues (since an overwhelming majority of them won't), and then sue uSAPa for breach of Duty of Fair Representation. DFR requires that unions negotiate on behalf of all of their members fairly and equally. If uSAPa tries to negotiate a new seniority list in favor of the East pilots (as they've openly admitted to planning), that would be a blatant breach of DFR since it favors the East over the West. A successful DFR suit would completely bankrupt uSAPa, and the lawsuit would likely require a judge to place an injunction against them to stop negotiating such a list while the case proceeds. That would provide protection for the West in the meantime while the lawsuit progresses, and eventually get rid of uSAPa, paving the way for ALPA's return.

Unfortunately, most pilots don't behave in that sort of strategic manner. Instead, they behave in a very emotional manner. That's why most pilots don't make good union reps. It's also why the AAA/AWA situation is going to get much worse before it gets any better, if it ever gets any better.

I need some help in understanding some of this complexity . . .

In the US Airways deal they had a lot of larger equipment than what America West had, right?
for example
let's say;
USAir pilots hired in 1975 represented the top 1% of their seniority list
AmWe pilots hired in 1985 represented the top 1% of their seniority list
So if the seniority lists were based on a percentage of DOH in each group then pilots who previously held positions on larger aircraft now must fly the smaller aircraft at AW amongst other seniority issues?

Is that one of the reasons why this has gone sideways?

 

[inside0ut]

No, I think there are other avenues to take. For instance, my plan of action would be to get a small group of West pilots together to join uSAPa and pay dues (since an overwhelming majority of them won't), and then sue uSAPa for breach of Duty of Fair Representation. DFR requires that unions negotiate on behalf of all of their members fairly and equally. If uSAPa tries to negotiate a new seniority list in favor of the East pilots (as they've openly admitted to planning), that would be a blatant breach of DFR since it favors the East over the West. A successful DFR suit would completely bankrupt uSAPa, and the lawsuit would likely require a judge to place an injunction against them to stop negotiating such a list while the case proceeds. That would provide protection for the West in the meantime while the lawsuit progresses, and eventually get rid of uSAPa, paving the way for ALPA's return.

Unfortunately, most pilots don't behave in that sort of strategic manner. Instead, they behave in a very emotional manner. That's why most pilots don't make good union reps. It's also why the AAA/AWA situation is going to get much worse before it gets any better, if it ever gets any better.

I totally agree.

I think the East guys may look at this as a windfall and look to effectively "screw" the West, thinking that most West guys will oppose the union and not remain in good standing. Thinking that the West now has no say, they will try and negotiate for a very East friendly contract, knowing that they have the majority. Lawsuits ensues...not very pretty.

Or they try and congeal as one pilot group, sit down and hammer out something amicable...try and place fences, hold the golden nugget of West being able to bid East equipment, and so on.

Or the whole thing can explode and put yoke all over everyones face while Mgmt. laughs their tail off in the background.

Time will tell, I know I've got my popcorn ready, I just wish the best for both pilot groups - hopefully they can turn out something decent.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I need some help in understanding some of this complexity . . .

In the US Airways deal they had a lot of larger equipment than what America West had, right?
for example
let's say;
USAir pilots hired in 1975 represented the top 1% of their seniority list
AmWe pilots hired in 1985 represented the top 1% of their seniority list
So if the seniority lists were based on a percentage of DOH in each group then pilots who previously held positions on larger aircraft now must fly the smaller aircraft at AW amongst other seniority issues?

Is that one of the reasons why this has gone sideways?

I don't think I really understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

 

[CFIscare]

Why should a senior Captain at AWA get knocked back to FO just because his airline merged with a company that hasn't hired since the '80s? You think that's fair to the AWA pilot? Yes, it would be "easier," but not right.

Nobody wants to knock an AWA captain out of his seat, and no F/O at US is looking for an instant upgrade. They just don't want to be a F/O for the rest of their careers, especially since their retirement was taken away from them and they need all the help they can get financially.

And US was hiring in the late 90's and early 2000's.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

They just don't want to be a F/O for the rest of their careers, especially since their retirement was taken away from them and they need all the help they can get financially.

I understand their frustrations, but they have no right to get their upgrade by taking it from an America West pilot, which is exactly what they're trying to do. America West pilots are not responsible for the slow advancement of the Easties during their careers.

And US was hiring in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Barely.

 

[Bumblebee]

I don't think I really understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

My understanding of how they did the seniority lists was that they each took the senority list and broke them down into percentages.
Example:
Larger carrier ........................Smaller carrier
200 pilots .............................100 pilots
1% = 2 pilots DOH 01/01/75......1% = 1 pilot DOH 01/01/85
2% = 2 pilots DOH 02/01/75......2% = 1 pilot DOH 02/01/85

they would blend this list so it looked something like this
1% = 3 pilots DOH (2) 01/01/75 and (1) 01/01/85
2% = 3 pilots DOH (2) 02/01/75 and (1) 02/01/85
3% of the blended seniority list 2 guys hired in Mar 75 would have 1 guys hired in Mar 85 from the smaller airline and so on.

then when a position on a 777 opened up the guy hired in Feb 85 could beat out the guy hired in Mar 75.

I hope this helps, otherwise we have to get together and drink beer

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

My understanding of how they did the seniority lists was that they each took the senority list and broke them down into percentages.
Example:
Larger carrier ........................Smaller carrier
200 pilots .............................100 pilots
1% = 2 pilots DOH 01/01/75......1% = 1 pilot DOH 01/01/85
2% = 2 pilots DOH 02/01/75......2% = 1 pilot DOH 02/01/85

they would blend this list so it looked something like this
1% = 3 pilots DOH (2) 01/01/75 and (1) 01/01/85
2% = 3 pilots DOH (2) 02/01/75 and (1) 02/01/85
3% of the blended seniority list 2 guys hired in Mar 75 would have 1 guys hired in Mar 85 from the smaller airline and so on.

then when a position on a 777 opened up the guy hired in Feb 85 could beat out the guy hired in Mar 75.

I hope this helps, otherwise we have to get together and drink beer

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. That's basically a really complicated way of saying "ratio'd integration." But yeah, you're correct. The only exception was that the top 423 slots were awarded to USAirways Captains to account for the widebody flying that they brought to the table. If you read the actual award, the whole thing makes complete sense. It's just not what the Easties wanted.

 

[Bumblebee]

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. That's basically a really complicated way of saying "ratio'd integration." But yeah, you're correct. The only exception was that the top 423 slots were awarded to USAirways Captains to account for the widebody flying that they brought to the table. If you read the actual award, the whole thing makes complete sense. It's just not what the Easties wanted.

Cool, from what I understood it was a fair deal, especially now that you pointed out the top 423. I am also under the impression that USAir would have been cutting the bottom off the list anyway (furlough), right?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

USAirways still had lots of pilots on furlough when the merger took place, and the continued viability of the company was pretty much nonexistent, meaning that not just more furloughs would take place, but that the entire company would cease to exist, leaving all of them without jobs. This isn't just idle speculation, it is the statement of the USAirways CEO. So, the USAirways East pilots got to keep their jobs, they got the top 423 slots, they got the same relative seniority that they had prior to the merger, and they'll end up with the ability to bid new domiciles out west. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If AAI ends up merging with someone, I just hope we get that good of a deal.

 

[TheOneMarine]

USAirways still had lots of pilots on furlough when the merger took place, and the continued viability of the company was pretty much nonexistent, meaning that not just more furloughs would take place, but that the entire company would cease to exist, leaving all of them without jobs. This isn't just idle speculation, it is the statement of the USAirways CEO. So, the USAirways East pilots got to keep their jobs, they got the top 423 slots, they got the same relative seniority that they had prior to the merger, and they'll end up with the ability to bid new domiciles out west. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If AAI ends up merging with someone, I just hope we get that good of a deal.

Never really noticed it before but we really are our own worst enemy with all the internal fighting between pilots aren't we?

My other question PCL (and thanks for the great info so far) is how can ALPA representation ever be fair? Isn't Each MEC only looking out for their own in any merger or instance where their companies interests are not prioritized over anothers? Example, here at PSA (and Ethan please clear up any mistake I write) weren't all the J4J guys put atop the seniority list and the original DO captains pushed back to accomodate? I'm just trying to get ahold of all this, again, just asking.

 

[Velocipede]

There is no reason to try and make a company fail just because you don't agree with the current policy. There is no reason to screw your fellow pilots because you are unhappy with company policies. If you don't like it, why not just leave? I mean, after all, with the mentality that you stated of "burn it down" the end result is the same. Why not let the ones who want to work there, work there? If they have the wear with all to try and change things from the inside, let them. You are not obligated to work there.

You forget (or don't know) that it was the USAir pilots who coined the phrase, "full pay until the last day." In other words, they weren't going to give the Company a nickel, even if it meant USAir going out of business. And when they did eventually get pay concessions imposed upon them by the bankruptcy court, they engaged in a 100% program and put the Company in the position that AWA had to come and rescue them. Remember, USAir was only days away from liquidation when the merger was announced.

Nobody wants to knock an AWA captain out of his seat, and no F/O at US is looking for an instant upgrade.

Unfortunately, this is a uSAPa lie. Easties wanted DoH. They wanted FURLOUGHED pilots to be recalled into Captain seats. Their whole campaign was based on overturning legal BINDING arbitrated SLI in order to impose a DoH list on AWA pilots. So, your statement is patently false.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Never really noticed it before but we really are our own worst enemy with all the internal fighting between pilots aren't we?

Without a doubt.

My other question PCL (and thanks for the great info so far) is how can ALPA representation ever be fair?

It depends on your definition of "fair." These issues are rarely black and white. You mention the J4J situation. I'm a supporter of J4J agreements when structured correctly. Many pilots feel that they're horrible abrogations of seniority rights, though. You may feel that way. It's not a black and white issue. There are good arguments on both sides of that debate. For ALPA, the question becomes what is best for the entire profession, not just what is best for one individual pilot group. ALPA has to weigh the pros and cons of everything and make a compromise. This inevitably leads to someone saying that things aren't "fair," but the alternative would be each pilot group slugging it out with each other and the profession as a whole slips further into the abyss. So ALPA is always left in a tough position of mediating these things across company lines and trying to reach a middle ground. This makes ALPA unpopular in many cases, but it is necessary for our profession's survival. A disparate group of independent unions each representing their own pilot group and trying to screw the other pilot groups would be a disaster, but that's what uSAPa seems to envision. Not good.

 

[Kristie]

That's the million dollar question. This is why so many SLIs end up in arbitration. Everybody has a different opinion of how seniority should be measured between companies. This is also the reason that a national seniority list could never happen. Think of how contentious it is just trying to merge a list of 12,000 pilots, then imagine trying to do it for 70,000 from a few dozen companies.

if that's the million dollar question....why not merge via aircraft type? i mean, if things are somewhat based on types of aircraft...well, then NWA has the 747's...DAL doesn't have the 747's but has 777's.....so NWA folks would stay on the 747's, DAL would stay on the 777's...but if each has 737's, then those particular seniority lists would be integrated 1:1....if anyone wanted to move from a DAL type plane to an NWA vice versa, then they'd have to fold to that particular seniority ratio to get onto that aircraft type.

There aren't going to be that many types of aircraft that are different, altho i could be wrong.. i haven't taken the time to look at what aircraft NWA has.

so, as the company gets rid of or brings in new aircraft type, the lists "merge"