ALL Flying will performed by AA pilots

[PCL_128]

How many Eagle pilots are still furloughs? That may play into this. Whatever happens it won't be pretty.

Eagle pilots furloughed? I think you mean AMR pilots. About 2000+. Doesn't really matter though, because you can't instantly train them to replace a couple thousand EGL pilots on their equipment. There's simply no way to replace Eagle or to eliminate it. The RJ feed will have to continue flying, and you'll need the RJ pilots to continue doing it. I'm not sure exactly what sort of system the APA is proposing to take care of that, but I'm sure they have something in mind.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Yes, I was.

I was there also on the DFW/ATL end of the push and you write the truth. Again (for the 10,000th time - Dan Ford is who I quote when I write "look at ALPA's past mergers...paycheck, or equipment type, either way it is a staple.")

I don't know why something that is common sense generates such debate. Of course there are going to be crew room rumors of some guy who said he was going to be a Captain on a 767. You have one of those in every crowd, but, amongst the leadership there were no expectation of anything other than a staple with fences. It was not ALPA policy to publish that expectation up front, but it would have been a good move to try and work the PID out with the Delta MEC first given the absence support at national.

At Delta there will be a political backlash against any attempt to merger lists with a pilot group that they see as not meeting Delta's standards, whether it be background, flying, equipment, or some other criteria. I do not know how you get around that issue without convincing pilots that ending outsourcing is more important than maintaining exclusivity.

Education is part of the solution.

At American there are a whole lot of MD80's due for replacement. As fuel prices bring immediate pressure to bear on fleet renewal the APA may have figured out and honestly recognized the threat to mainline flying.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Are you really this dense, or do you just pretend to be? Trying to weasel your way into 20 years of mainline seniority is a seniority grab. That's what your RJDC buddies tried to do. A mainline group trying to negotiate for a single list isn't a seniority grab, because they already own the seniority. Really, this isn't that complicated.

Can you explain how your post is anything other than a distinction with no real difference?

It is politics - the mainline pilots have the power to make it popular with mainline pilots and mainline pilots are the only pilots on the property with the power to maybe pull it off.

Still, let us be intellectual enough to set aside our bigotries and admit onelist makes good sense on its own merits, regardless of who's idea it is.

 

[PCL_128]

Can you explain how your post is anything other than a distinction with no real difference?

The distinction is important. Regional pilots trying to force one list in an attempt to circumvent the usual seniority system is an important distinction from mainline pilots trying to create a single list in order to stop the whipsaw and the outsourcing.

Again, if the regional pilots want to make single lists a possibility, then they'll have to give up the idea that they're owed any seniority on a merged list. A straight staple with fences to protect RJ equipment/seats is the only acceptable solution. That is the simple political reality. If they want to argue that point, then they'll only hold up any progress on this issue.

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL - you are right and we echo each other in a couple of posts there. Although it is reality, it is an unfortunate reality, because ALPA does have a merger and fragmentation policy and one group prostrating themselves should not be policy. After all, isn't the result simply the other side trying to circumvent the seniority integration process?

ALPA's current position seems to be, "work it out amongst yourselves and leave us out of it until you have your solution." That kind of leadership is not going to get everyone together.

I'm very glad the APA is bringing some light to this issue.

 

[PCL_128]

ALPA's current position seems to be, "work it out amongst yourselves and leave us out of it until you have your solution." That kind of leadership is not going to get everyone together.

Unfortunately, that's the only way that ALPA can handle seniority mergers. For ALPA to come down and tell two groups how to merge would represent an enormous conflict of interest. The integration has to be settled between the parties, or an arbitrator has to settle it. It may create a messy situation, but not quite as messy as a situation created by ALPA trying to dictate terms of a merger to two pilot groups.

 

[aa73]

APA has been criticized for not merging fairly and it has cost them - when the Reno pilots sicked out and I'm sure the TWA pilots can not stand the APA.

Fins - the Reno pilots did not sick out. The AA pilots did - because AMR management was trying to operate Reno as a seperate low cost entity doing what was now our flying on the West Coast, i.e. a total scope bust.

73

 

[~~~^~~~]

aa73 - Thanks, I got that story third hand.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Unfortunately, that's the only way that ALPA can handle seniority mergers.

ALPA has to have a fair policy and follow it.

 

[PCL_128]

ALPA has to have a fair policy and follow it.

Define "fair." That's the problem. To me, "fair" is DOH for mergers involving two mainline carriers, and a staple for mergers involving a mainline and a regional carrier. I'd imagine that you have a different idea of "fair," and so would lots of other people. There's a reason that ALPA has the current merger policy. You just can't get enough people to agree on what a "fair" policy would be.