Colgan And Skywest Pilots

[PCL_128]

"A joint contract?" West pilots already have better workrules and payrates than their East counterparts. It is far more in the East's interest to obtain a joint contract than the West.

The East is concerned with keeping their upgrades coming based on mandatory retirements. A joint contract could mean that many of those upgrade slots will go to West pilots and the junior Easties could be stuck pulling gear for a former West FO. A joint contract would mean higher FO pay, but not higher than what that upgrade slot would have brought them.

"A healthy US Air?" Has there ever been a healthy US Air?

Neverthless, it's in the best interests of both sides to move on and at least attempt to create a healthy airline. This continuing animosity will only get worse as time goes on, and USAir (both sides) will suffer because of it. Is destroying the company from the inside out really worth it? Give the guys the fences they need and be done with the dang thing.

"Stubbornly refusing to compromise just out of principal" sure didn't prove to be a wise move for the East pilots, now did it?

No, it didn't, which is exactly my point. Even if you agree with the West pilots that this was a fair award, that doesn't change the realities of the situation. The East pilots stuck to their DOH mantra and got screwed because of it. Will the West now stick to their "binding arbitration is final" mantra no matter what the consequences? It's time for both sides to start looking at what is best for the long-term health of the airline and what is in the best long-term interests of both pilot groups. Throwing the same arguments back and forth over and over again to either attack the award or to defend it will not change the situation.

 

[BoilerUP]

The East is concerned with keeping their upgrades coming based on mandatory retirements. A joint contract could mean that many of those upgrade slots will go to West pilots and the junior Easties could be stuck pulling gear for a former West FO. A joint contract would mean higher FO pay, but not higher than what that upgrade slot would have brought them.

Let us not forget that many of those retirements are from the right seat, and how the staffic dynamic changes with a change in the mandatory retirement age (which I understand won't happen this year, no?).

No, it didn't, which is exactly my point. Even if you agree with the West pilots that this was a fair award, that doesn't change the realities of the situation. The East pilots stuck to their DOH mantra and got screwed because of it. Will the West now stick to their "binding arbitration is final" mantra no matter what the consequences? It's time for both sides to start looking at what is best for the long-term health of the airline and what is in the best long-term interests of both pilot groups. Throwing the same arguments back and forth over and over again to either attack the award or to defend it will not change the situation.

So you're king for a day. What would YOU do to rectify this situation?

 

[TWA Dude]

Because if they don't, then they'll probably never see a joint contract and a healthy USAir.

This is called "Turning the Victim into the Perpetrator". You think the Westies should give unilateral concessions to the East so they'll drop their stalling of the Joint Negotiating process? What kind of unionist are you that you want one side to give in to extortion? We followed the rules and the Easties are trying to muscle their way around them. I don't care how anybody feels about the Nicolau Award, we're talking about following the rules. The ALPA EC ruled there was nothing improper about the Award and I guarantee you no judge will touch it. So you know what that means? It means binding abritration is binding! Nobody coerced them into it; they went willingly just like we did. That means you accept the results come what may. They agreed to this!

 

[PCL_128]

Here is where you keep falling off the truck!! You have got to be as dumb as a bag of hammers!!!

Again with the personal attacks? I'm trying to keep this civil with you since you claim to be a rep, but you're making it very difficult.

Follow the rules Binding means Binding PERIOD!!!!

You may think that sticking to principals is noble, but is it really what's in the best interests of your pilot group that you represent? What will be the long-term consequences? Will the two sides ever agree to move on and negotiate a joint contract? Will that integrated list you're holding onto so tightly ever become a reality? Why hold on if it's not worth the paper it's printed on?

 

[PCL_128]

So you're king for a day. What would YOU do to rectify this situation?

I would imagine that some simple long-term fences to protect East upgrades would suffice to bring the East MEC on board. If so, that's exactly what the West should do.

 

[TWA Dude]

Stubbornly refusing to compromise just out of principal is not a wise move, and will not prove to be in the best long-term interests of the West pilots.

Sorry for the multiple postings but I'm on a roll.

This isn't just about principle to me. Not only do I believe we have the ethical high-ground but I believe we'll eventually prevail by the East's attempt at an end-run around the rules failing. I believe the chances of them succeeding in the ALPA decert are not high and even if it does it will benefit them naught. I believe eventually they will see reason. And if they don't I believe Parker will do something at some point that may help change their minds. And lastly, I don't believe the company will be brought down by their actions. For these reasons I support our MEC in their position against the Easties.

 

[TWA Dude]

I would imagine that some simple long-term fences to protect East upgrades would suffice to bring the East MEC on board. If so, that's exactly what the West should do.

As I've written before, I have no problem with that kind of solution. But this can't happen with a gun pointed at our heads. The East has to drop the lawsuit, drop the decert drive, and drop its objections to the Nic Award and then I'd be happy if our JNC discusses fences.

Why is it that you favor giving-in to extortion?

 

[PCL_128]

This is called "Turning the Victim into the Perpetrator". You think the Westies should give unilateral concessions to the East so they'll drop their stalling of the Joint Negotiating process? What kind of unionist are you that you want one side to give in to extortion? We followed the rules and the Easties are trying to muscle their way around them. I don't care how anybody feels about the Nicolau Award, we're talking about following the rules. The ALPA EC ruled there was nothing improper about the Award and I guarantee you no judge will touch it. So you know what that means? It means binding abritration is binding! Nobody coerced them into it; they went willingly just like we did. That means you accept the results come what may. They agreed to this!

This may surprise you, but I agree with everything you just said. I personally don't agree with the arbitration award, but the EC looked at the arguments from both sides and ruled that it was compliant with policy. That being the case, I think that should be the end of it.

Unfortunately, that's not reality. The EC's ruling should have been case closed, but the East isn't giving up. They're going to stall for an eternity on this joint contract and they're going to drag the entire company down with them. Is that fair and just? Of course not, but no amount of debating the merits of the award or the policy is going to change that. So, the West MEC has a decision to make: stick to principals and watch the company and Association implode, or swallow their pride and make some small fence concessions to put an end to this BS. Is it fair that the West has to make this decision? Of course not, but life isn't fair.

 

[BoilerUP]

I would imagine that some simple long-term fences to protect East upgrades would suffice to bring the East MEC on board. If so, that's exactly what the West should do.

Okay, fences it is.

How long and covering what scope?

 

[PCL_128]

Okay, fences it is.

How long and covering what scope?

That's a very complicated question. It would require in-depth study of the original seniority lists, planned aircraft orders, historic attrition from medical-outs, etc... I don't have all of that information in front of me, and I certainly don't have the time or desire to study it to that degree, so I can't give you an answer to exactly what the scope and length of the fences would have to be. Suffice it to say that the upgrade expectations of the East pilots would have to be maintained to the greatest extent possible. These are the sorts of thing that the two sides should be talking about rather than threatening lawsuits and screaming "binding arbitration is final."

 

[BoilerUP]

That's a very complicated question. It would require in-depth study of the original seniority lists, planned aircraft orders, historic attrition from medical-outs, etc... I don't have all of that information in front of me, and I certainly don't have the time or desire to study it to that degree, so I can't give you an answer to exactly what the scope and length of the fences would have to be. Suffice it to say that the upgrade expectations of the East pilots would have to be maintained to the greatest extent possible. These are the sorts of thing that the two sides should be talking about rather than threatening lawsuits and screaming "binding arbitration is final."

Come on now...that sounds like something a Democrat would say at a debate on foreign policy.

5 years? 10? Longer? Covering all widebody flying, or just the current number of positions? How does that relate to the top 518 numbers going to AAA?

I'm not looking for a political statement, I'm looking for what YOU would do with what you know right now. Remember though, when accounting for the upgrade expectations of the East pilots don't forget all the right seat retirements and the change in mandatory retirement age...

 

[PCL_128]

Remember though, when accounting for the upgrade expectations of the East pilots don't forget all the right seat retirements and the change in mandatory retirement age...

That's what I'm trying to tell you, Boiler. I don't have those numbers in front of me, so I can't account for them and give you a hard number. Maybe even a traditional "fence" wouldn't be the best solution. Maybe a ratio'd upgrade bid until reaching the bottom of the original East list would be a better option. Without having all of the information in front of me, I just can't give you an answer.