AA to furlough 178 more

[AWACoff]

I have a few questions for all of you venting about guys over 60 sticking around.

What if a pilot junior to you was upgraded ahead of you because he needed the money more than you did?

How about if they furloughed you instead of a more junior pilot because he needed the money more than you did?

What if they displaced you out of the domicile where you lived because a pilot junior to you couldn't afford to commute any more?

It's the same thing as you guys wanting to force retirement on somebody senior to you because you need the money. Either seniority matters or it doesn't. What's it gonna be?

Yeah, but we weren't lobbying congress to create a new law that would force people to retire earlier than 60. Of course the geezers on the other hand...hmm...what were they doing? Oh YEAH, lobbying congress for a new law to allow them an additional 5 years at the top of the seniority list even though they KNEW when they got hired they had to retire at 60. Take your excuses/reasoning/B.S. and shove it in your 60+ year old poop shoot. Cheers!

 

[Caveman]

Yeah, but we weren't lobbying congress to create a new law that would force people to retire earlier than 60. Of course the geezers on the other hand...hmm...what were they doing? Oh YEAH, lobbying congress for a new law to allow them an additional 5 years at the top of the seniority list even though they KNEW when they got hired they had to retire at 60. Take your excuses/reasoning/B.S. and shove it in your 60+ year old poop shoot. Cheers!

You still didn't answer my questions. Would you be willing to allow someone to violate your seniority simply because they needed the money?

It doesn't matter whether or not the rules were changed because the rules apply equally to everyone. The rules change all the time. Contracts change. FARs change. What's the difference? It would be unfair if only some folks were allowed to work to 65 and everybody else had to quit at 60. However, that's not the case. EVERYBODY gets to stay to 65 if they so choose. I agree the timing sucks if you happen to be junior.

I don't have any excuses. I use logic, reason and consistency. As soon as you run up against a point of view that logically torpedoes your EMOTIONALLY driven rant you resort to lame insults. For the record, you got it wrong. I'm an FO and I'm no where near upgrading. So, unlike you, I'm consistent. I support age 65 even though it financially harms me in the near term. You just want to take from somebody else to satisfy your own selfish desires. Wait your turn.

 

[AA717driver]

So you are saying a TWA pilot who never flew at AA and is junior to the AA pilot assigned to fly Eagle should be moved to AA before the senior AA pilot at Eagle? Somehow I don't see the logic in that and the arbitrator didn't either. It is very sound that if there are new positions at AA they should go to the senior AA pilot first not the junior one and that's whether they come from TWA, AE, or from the next merger. To do so otherwise would be stripping the agreement of it's basic tenets.

But why didn't ALPA file the grievance when the integration was done? Over 400 former TWA pilots were inserted into the list at the same time I was but not furloughed. They went through the same "newhire" training that Nicolau used to justify his decision. They were not considered by Nicolau to be "newhires" at any time during this process. There is no difference between those pilots and me except their position on the list (many below at least one flowthrough) and the varying size of AA.

Why didn't the grievance get filed in April '02 when the lists were merged and I was flying Capt. on a silver airplane in a blue uniform under an APA-negotiated contract with a 6XXXXX series AA employee number instead of my 00XXXX TWA Payroll number on my American Airlines-issued paycheck?

To say that the flowthroughs are "AA pilots assigned to fly at Eagle" is a good one. Did they go through AA indoc before being trained to fly a white airplane?

The remedy will be interesting.

TC

 

[AceOnTheRiver]

But why didn't ALPA file the grievance when the integration was done? Over 400 former TWA pilots were inserted into the list at the same time I was but not furloughed. They went through the same "newhire" training that Nicolau used to justify his decision. They were not considered by Nicolau to be "newhires" at any time during this process. There is no difference between those pilots and me except their position on the list (many below at least one flowthrough) and the varying size of AA.

Why didn't the grievance get filed in April '02 when the lists were merged and I was flying Capt. on a silver airplane in a blue uniform under an APA-negotiated contract with a 6XXXXX series AA employee number instead of my 00XXXX TWA Payroll number on my American Airlines-issued paycheck?

To say that the flowthroughs are "AA pilots assigned to fly at Eagle" is a good one. Did they go through AA indoc before being trained to fly a white airplane?

The remedy will be interesting.

TC

Which certificate were you flying under? AA, TWA or AE?

 

[AceOnTheRiver]

I think the fact that APA turned down a settlement and then turned down mediated talks with the arbitrator will only come back to hurt us. I know a lot of guys at Eagle that are happy making 160K a year and while they want to join us at AA they don't want the big pay cut. APA should of worked with ALPA Eagle on the TA. Those Eagle guys would of been happy to stay there until the furloughs were given a chance to return. I don't like APA's direction right now. We should have settled our loses and brought Eagle in years ago. Instead we have a cancer that is just slowly eating us up. I mean the company and not the Eagle pilots. They are not our enemy's.

 

[shroomwell]

160K a year at Eagle?

 

[pipejockey]

Ace , for 2 reasons.......

1. Its better for AMR to have the 2 groups fighting against each other than being united.........which , BTW , is going quite successful....

2. AE pilots would never accept a complete staple to the bottom. There
would have to be some type of integration, such as the top half for it to be agreed upon.

I believe in 2002 APA and ALPA were in discussions to merge the lists back then.....but ALPA would not accept a full staple to the bottom, while allowing new hire pilots STRAIGHT into mainline.

So, there ya have it.

You apparently haven't spoken to any Eagle pilots as I have. the vast majority would take a staple! Obviously every FO would take a staple as that is a no brainer. The Eagle CA's with AA numbers, especially the 244 affected by Nics ruling would require placement somewhat higher on the list than a staple would provide. And as far as the Eagle CA's that chose Eagle Rights, meaning they did not take an AA number upon upgrading to the jet prior to AA furloughing in 2001 could just be seat locked in anything with 70 seats or less for the remainder of their careers at the new Eagle/AA. After all, by choosing Eagle Rights, they had no reasonable expectation of going to AA anyway. They should have nothing to say about it.

The only other thing would be to protect the current Eagle FO's from being furlough fodder by seat locking them where they are until all AA furloughs are back and AA begins hiring again, of course they would have to hire to the ATR or RJ. That is probably the sticking point with the AA guys. How horrible it would be to actually require an AA new hire to have to start out on the RJ.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Hope & Change!

 

[Flyby1206]

You apparently haven't spoken to any Eagle pilots as I have. the vast majority would take a staple! Obviously every FO would take a staple as that is a no brainer. The Eagle CA's with AA numbers, especially the 244 affected by Nics ruling would require placement somewhat higher on the list than a staple would provide. And as far as the Eagle CA's that chose Eagle Rights, meaning they did not take an AA number upon upgrading to the jet prior to AA furloughing in 2001 could just be seat locked in anything with 70 seats or less for the remainder of their careers at the new Eagle/AA. After all, by choosing Eagle Rights, they had no reasonable expectation of going to AA anyway. They should have nothing to say about it.

The only other thing would be to protect the current Eagle FO's from being furlough fodder by seat locking them where they are until all AA furloughs are back and AA begins hiring again, of course they would have to hire to the ATR or RJ. That is probably the sticking point with the AA guys. How horrible it would be to actually require an AA new hire to have to start out on the RJ.

Or God forbid, the ATR!

Would AE pilots be subject to losing their CA seats from future AA furloughs? That would be a non-starter for the mid/junior AE CAs and senior AE FOs. The majority of FOs would be in favor of a staple (since we were hired after AA stopped hiring). I would bet the Eagle rights CAs wouldnt mind being stapled as long as they wont lose their seats. Senior AE CAs have AA #s, so they already have a spot on the AA list.

160K a year at Eagle?

That does seem a bit lofty... definitely from my $40k/yr seat

 

[lionflyer]

Or God forbid, the ATR!

In San Juan!