An open letter to USAPA Members

[Flybywire44]

Do you enjoy supporting the policies of USAPA which take money out of every pilot's pocket to continue the battle against your fellow US pilots in PHX? Even if the APA comes in and imposes new order as representitive, the bad blood will remain until the pilots on the east who value unity and comraderie with ALL their fellow pilots, take back control of the union from the slim minority who have co-opted it for their own benefit and say "enough". What better time than the first day of 2013?

It starts with formal demands of the BPR to present an uncontested seniority list to management and finish negotiations and allow the pilots to excercise their right to vote on a contract. There is no union worth 2% of a pilots pay whose sole mandate is to "stall until we get what we want". USAPA must earns its dues or be replaced.

Many have tried to separate themselves from their union's actions. "I just fly my trips" does not absolve them from taking responsibility for the destructive actions of those in power and it will be no consolation when crews are mixed with no reconciliation. The FAA wouldn't accept the excuse for an altitude bust of "it was on autopilot" and likewise, your fellow pilots in the west will not accept "yeah that USAPA..." in exchange for years of being denied a joint contract with pay and benefit increases.

Do not count on the generousity of the APA to heal the damage of USAPA. The BPR needs to hear loud and clear that the PILOTS will not support further division and will accept the consequences of doing what is right, regardless of whether a court compels them to or not. You can't ignore that a mixed crew future awaits and the only way it will be tolerable will be for the majority as a group to "be the bigger man" that the pilots as individuals perceive themselves to be and make healing and unity a priority.

It is not too late to begin reconciliation, but it must be done and that begins with setting the agenda of the BPR. I think everyone involved will be surprised at how well the long-awaited olive brance would be received.

I hope 2013 makes this merger a reality for your sake. USAPA can holdout otherwise.

You folks need to move on.

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

Does it bother anyone in USAPA that the BK deal the AA guys negotiated is a still a better deal than USAPA has gotten from a profitable USAirways in the 7 Years its been the negotiating agent for all the US Airways pilots? Because it bothers the Eff outta' me.

Look guys, the merger is going to happen and it will play out two ways:

1) USAPA plays along and joins the party. Everyone gets a signing bonus and retro pay when the POR is presented in 6 or 7 months. We become AA and start building an Airline that can compete.

OR

2) USAPA plays the usual a**hole games. The merger proceeds but with separate ops kinda like the US Air merger is now. And then you can capture all the attrition and stay on loa 93 rates until single carrier status is achieved in about 2 years.

Please, choose option 1. We need to move forward. We need raises and a new beginning.

 

[General Lee]

Yes Field Marshall that could have happened but it didn't and the pilot employees at the former AWA did not save us. Explain to me in detail this time how a bunch of line pilots saved me. Yes you are right they did not and don't deserve credit for the merger. What is relevent is they are probably going to go almost ten years with their ALPA created contract to get their ALPA created windfall. Tell me all about why you think this union labour work should be about luck. My good freind at United was hired 14 years ago and was told in his interview that he would be a captain in 3 years. He is a junior narrow body FO. Is he stupid for going to UAL or just unlucky? You are probably in a pretty good postion at your company do you really think it is because of your high IQ? Really? I think pilots should never be against other pilots when their management screws up. Yes my management has been horrible so in your world it means that I have to retire as an FO to a youngster. NOT! You can keep repeating INTEGRITY BINDING but as you can see those words have not helped the AWA ALPA lovers at all. There is a better way to treat each other and it is not letting the greedy over paid management peeps to manipulate us.

Charlie, regardless of what your buddy Turtle says, I am glad you like to debate, but this issue is pretty hard to debate, due to the fact that it is so cut and dry. Each party signed up for arbitration, and that meant also accepting the award, supposedly. I see what you are saying with your friend at United, and I also have a couple friends there right about the same longevity. Is it fair? Well, did you, or your United friend have to stay at your job? Have to stay, or in other words couldn't get up and find another job at another airline? If your airline was the ONLY airline, then maybe it would be true, but nobody had to pick an initial airline, or stay at a current one. That is key. You may want to stay because a base is in the town you want to live in, etc.. But, if you do stay, then you must ride up and down with the airline's financials, and when it was bought by Parker and AWA, it wasn't as financially healthy. Same with UAL, they aren't as strong as they were pre 9-11. So, the arbitrator looks at the current financials, and what planes etc each group brings to the table. UAL dumped 100 737-300s before the merger with CAL, and that makes them weaker in the arbitrator's eyes. NWA had old 747-200 freighters that were going away, and that was noted by the arbitrator. US was week at your merger, and NIC took a look at that, and gave your side more than one hint that DOH wasn't going to work with what your airline was bringing to the table at that time. Your guy didn't listen, and the NIC award resulted.

You can try to debate what could be fair in your eyes or your UAL buddy's eyes, but if the groups decide to go that route, they have to honorably accept the eventual award, and that is a snapshot of what your side currently brings to your collective table. It's fair, both sides accepted it at the start, and it always includes an explanation in the award. Unfortunately your group did the SLI first prior to the joint contract, and that was a lesson for everyone on how NOT to do it. That was both your MEC and the AWA MEC's fault.


And another thing, Turtle21 has no honor whatsoever. I hope you will eventually.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Bringupthebird]

The point I was trying to make is that we need to look forward, because the Fairy GodUnion APA will not make the animosity between east and west go away. That will only come when USAPA is forced by it's membership to do the right thing and submit an uncontested seniority list. The MOU will likely contain fences, but will also likely mean the end of segregation of crews. Do we really want hundreds of flight decks to be copies of what we see here and on many other forums, for many years to come? If not, then it's time to compel USAPA to abandon their strategy to evade the NIC and realize how vital unity is to the careers of every US pilot.

 

[Sluggo_63]

I do but please tell us the relevence in the AWA US merger? Longevity was not even remotely respected by mr. nic. Senority in most unions is based on DOH. So what is your point young lady?

Longevity determines things like how much vacation you get per year, retirement multiplier, etc. Seniority determines where you are on the pilot list as far as what seat you can bid, where you bid in your seat, etc.

You can have lots of longevity at a company, but very little seniority (US Air pilots post furlough), or in the case of a startup airline (for example, jetBlue when at the beginning), you can have very little longevity, but high seniority.

We tend to think of them the same, because, for the most part we get our seniority number when we start at a company, and as our longevity goes up, our seniority does also. But that's not always the case. There are plenty of times where someone might be working for a company in a non-pilot role (sim instructor, dispatcher, flight attendant), then gets hired on as a pilot. Most places allow you to keep your longevity for things like vacation accrual, retirement, but your seniority as a pilot starts at zero. They are not tied, and as you pointed out, Mr. Nic did not respect longevity, and rightly so (IMO). Again, in my opinion, mergers should be based on seniority and having the same relative seniority post merger than pre-merger, give or take a few percentage points and with a couple of fences.

P.S. Nice ad hominem attack with the "young lady" at the end. That's a nice touch and a great way to get your point across.

 

[Sluggo_63]

So how does fedex determine seniority for the new hires if not by longevity?

M

FedEx determines seniority on the first day of Basic Indoc based on the new hire's last four numbers of their Social Security Number. The most senior in the class would be 9999, and 0000 would be the most junior.

If a new hire had worked for the company previously (Professional Instructor, Corporate Pilot, Dispatcher, etc.), they get to keep their original employee number, and retain longevity for certain things (retirement, etc.), but not others (you start on the year one pay scale).

So you can be a new hire pilot with zero seniority and five year of longevity (for certain things).

 

[charlie2]

Longevity determines things like how much vacation you get per year, retirement multiplier, etc. Seniority determines where you are on the pilot list as far as what seat you can bid, where you bid in your seat, etc.

You can have lots of longevity at a company, but very little seniority (US Air pilots post furlough), or in the case of a startup airline (for example, jetBlue when at the beginning), you can have very little longevity, but high seniority.

We tend to think of them the same, because, for the most part we get our seniority number when we start at a company, and as our longevity goes up, our seniority does also. But that's not always the case. There are plenty of times where someone might be working for a company in a non-pilot role (sim instructor, dispatcher, flight attendant), then gets hired on as a pilot. Most places allow you to keep your longevity for things like vacation accrual, retirement, but your seniority as a pilot starts at zero. They are not tied, and as you pointed out, Mr. Nic did not respect longevity, and rightly so (IMO). Again, in my opinion, mergers should be based on seniority and having the same relative seniority post merger than pre-merger, give or take a few percentage points and with a couple of fences.

P.S. Nice ad hominem attack with the "young lady" at the end. That's a nice touch and a great way to get your point across.

It was no "attack" as this is an anonymous web forumn so I have absolutely no idea of your gender so I took a 50/50 shot and if I'm wrong I apologize young man or whatever.

 

[Dan Roman]

That's a good explanation sluggo and points out how ludicrous the straight date of hire argument can be. Time in service does make more sense. Someone hired and furloughed ten years ago with a total of say 3 years active should not be senior to someone who has been flying actively for 5 years at an airline that hasn't furloughed. Even though the 5 year guy has a later DOH, he has better career expectations. Even worse in the USAPA deal, USAir east was in deep trouble when the west deal potentially saved their careers. Finally, right wrong or indifferent, since it was an obviously tough set of lists to merge, both parties rightfully agreed to binding arbitration. Never could understand how anyone could possibly think forming a union based on reneging on a promise and designed to pit one pilot against another could think it would ever accomplish anything positive.

I think it's a safe bet that the AMR deal, in whatever form, will have to accept the nic award to move forward.

 

[Dan Roman]

It was no "attack" as this is an anonymous web forumn so I have absolutely no idea of your gender so I took a 50/50 shot and if I'm wrong I apologize young man or whatever.

You sound like Glen Beck. You meant it as an insult, now you are twisting it around.

 

[charlie2]

Charlie, regardless of what your buddy Turtle says, I am glad you like to debate, but this issue is pretty hard to debate, due to the fact that it is so cut and dry. Each party signed up for arbitration, and that meant also accepting the award, supposedly. I see what you are saying with your friend at United, and I also have a couple friends there right about the same longevity. Is it fair? Well, did you, or your United friend have to stay at your job? Have to stay, or in other words couldn't get up and find another job at another airline? If your airline was the ONLY airline, then maybe it would be true, but nobody had to pick an initial airline, or stay at a current one. That is key. You may want to stay because a base is in the town you want to live in, etc.. But, if you do stay, then you must ride up and down with the airline's financials, and when it was bought by Parker and AWA, it wasn't as financially healthy. Same with UAL, they aren't as strong as they were pre 9-11. So, the arbitrator looks at the current financials, and what planes etc each group brings to the table. UAL dumped 100 737-300s before the merger with CAL, and that makes them weaker in the arbitrator's eyes. NWA had old 747-200 freighters that were going away, and that was noted by the arbitrator. US was week at your merger, and NIC took a look at that, and gave your side more than one hint that DOH wasn't going to work with what your airline was bringing to the table at that time. Your guy didn't listen, and the NIC award resulted.

You can try to debate what could be fair in your eyes or your UAL buddy's eyes, but if the groups decide to go that route, they have to honorably accept the eventual award, and that is a snapshot of what your side currently brings to your collective table. It's fair, both sides accepted it at the start, and it always includes an explanation in the award. Unfortunately your group did the SLI first prior to the joint contract, and that was a lesson for everyone on how NOT to do it. That was both your MEC and the AWA MEC's fault.


And another thing, Turtle21 has no honor whatsoever. I hope you will eventually.



Bye Bye---General Lee

"Bring to the table?" AWA and US Airways pilots did not bring anything to the "table" our over paid managements were at the table. I'm saying we as line pilots shouldn't take advantage of someone else's overpaid managements and use it against other pilots. If we allow that to happen one group might take advantage over the other group and use every means available to delay their windfall and it take a decade to get a new contract.

General you seem like an intelligent person so will you talk to me about scope, min fleet and min utilizatio rate? (no one else is willing to) Five or so years ago our President Scott Kirby came up with a contract proposal that had no mention of any of these important items. The "Term Sheet" withh AA has none of this in it.