Seniority dispute ends at US Airways

[charlie2]

Charlie, Some people are growing frustrated with Kirby.

Example:

Dear Scott:
I just finished watching the latest PHX Crew News, and frankly I am a little puzzled by some of your answers during the Q&A session. It would seem there is a major disconnect from reality regarding the Final and Binding Arbitration decision of George Nicolau, and I offer some observations and a few questions please. The first issue is NEUTRALITY. You are correct that both MEC’s asked for and received neutrality from the company during the process that ended in Binding Arbitration. It was, and remains, an arbitration process signed onto by both East and West pilots through their respective MECs. In spite of knowingly and willingly signing that agreement, the East has been less than honorable in keeping that agreement by refusing to be held to the results. However, despite the dishonorable acts of the East pilots, the issue of company neutrality ended the day the arbitrated list was delivered and accepted by the company. The request for neutrality was a request to protect the sanctity of the PROCESS. You indicate during the Q&A that your opinion has, from week one, been the need for compromise. That statement raises a question. If you (the company) should win the current arbitration concerning the LOA93 “snap-back”, we can reasonably assume that the East pilots will be upset. Can we expect then to see you (the company) approach the East Pilots and offer compromise?” Conversely, if you (the company) should lose that arbitration, binding you to huge amounts of salary increases and back pay for the East Pilots, can we expect you (the company) to dodge the decision by reorganizing US Airways under a different name and operating certificate? It caused me a great deal of discomfort to watch you parse words, using ambiguity to camouflage the obvious. You maintain that a “second opinion” is out there concerning this quagmire. I respectfully disagree. The “second opinion” you refer to is simply an attempt by USAPA to achieve a second bite at the apple -- something they clearly are not entitled to under the TA, or the signed agreement to enter into Binding Arbitration. This is not, as you profess, a “point of law,” but rather a matter of HONOR -- something that I would expect a USAFA graduate to understand and uphold. HONOR is not negotiable, and having once taken the oath “I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor will I tolerate those among us who do” you know that. While I do not believe you to be a liar, a cheat, or a thief….I seriously question your tolerance of those among us who lie, cheat, and attempt to steal what is rightfully not theirs. The Tolerance clause of that oath does in fact include intent. I suspect you know that too. You indicated during the Q&A that your (the company’s) request for Declaratory Judgment would yield one of two answers. Either you (the company) will be bound to the arbitrated list vis-à-vis the Transition Agreement (signed by all three parties), or you (the company) will be free to entertain the “date of hire” concept preferred by the dishonorable people who formed and run USAPA. I suggest there is a third possibility. Approximately 18 months ago, you (the company) appealed to Judge Wake to not interfere in the running of your business, which resulted in you (the company) being excused from the Addington case (with restriction). With no resolution of the problem since that time, you (the company) are now asking the court system to reenter the fray and do what you have been unable, or unwilling, to do. I believe it likely now that the Federal Judge will NOT give you a peek under the rug at all; instead, telling you to “run your business and make some decisions.” I also believe the wrong decision will land you (the company) back in Federal Court as the defendant under less than optimistic circumstances -- and I believe you know that too. Your parsing of the difference between “accepting” the Arbitrated List, and “implementing” that list…was shallow sir. The “acceptance” was your agreed to portion of the Transition Agreement. The resulting implementation of that list through the CBA is your DUTY to both parties without qualification. Admittedly the dual ratification clause that was in place when the list was derived could have been problematic. But that ratification process no longer exists, and continuing to crouch behind that perception is disingenuous at best. Single ratification of a viable (for both company and pilots) CBA is not nearly as problematic, and could easily pass with the Nicolau section 22, if it otherwise provides industry standard improvements over the current East LOA93, and former AWA CBA. I once again, gently, remind you of those days at USAFA when HONOR and INTEGRITY were your constant companions. You are the Commander, and it is your sole responsibility to set the bar of behavior within this organization, and to hold those who refuse to stand to that bar accountable for their dereliction.

Respectfully,
Name withheld

Cowboy,

Yes, we all are frustrated with Kirby, Dougweiser and the rest. This is really well written and I really do understand the sound logic and reason in this letter to Kirby. As a LtCol. in the best gun club in the world, USMCR-Ret (ya, passed over many times for Col.) I wish there was a General who could have ordered the nic to be instituted NOW and settled this years ago but unfortunately this is not the military.

You would think that being called dishonorable or being told that I lack integrity would really hurt a retired Marine but it doesn't. I have watched both my management and our ALPA reps (and yes God forbid ALPA national) do many dishonorable things and I think there are many people in our management and ALPA who have a major lack of integrity.

One really big integrity issue is we think Mr. Nicolau was given a flawed seniority list by our ALPA reps, a list that the line pilot didn't vote for or was even aware of. The company treated Mid Atlantic pilots as non-mainline when it suited them and treated them as mainline when it suited them while ALPA stood by and watched. Most of us feel it would be dishonorable to not fight this and we are proud of our brethern for paying alot of money to sue ALPA on this one.

As far as LOA 93, a "snap back" is very differant from our position on this. We will know soon what an arbitrator thinks but an expiration of a freeze is really an EXPIRATION of a freeze. The company wants an arbitrator to define "is" like slick willy wanted...I know what "is" means and what an expiration to a freeze means. We will soon see what someone else thinks.

As far as litigation is concerned lets do it and get it done. Cowboy I will buy you a beer when I swing your gear in a few years. I really hope for some explosive growth soon that will make this all irrelevant because everyone is moving up so fast. But if that doesn't happen I hope that in 10 years Cowboy when you have 16 years service (that was a WAG Cowboy sorry if I' wrong) the same doen't happen to yu and yours.

 

[St. Nic]

East upgrades will continue.....and actually accelerate soon.

As long as NIC is a threat the East will continue to choose Separate Ops. Under combined operations with NIC, things would be quite different and very detrimental to the East. The bidding picture would be very different, with the West having significantly more bidding power (which is what Pi was trying to tell you).

Are you getting it yet??? Or do you still believe that the East attrition has no value to us?

It's no wonder that so many of the West posts reek of frustration and sour grapes. Look for this frustration to only get worse.

"All the risk lies with the West"........remind me now, who said that????

 

[Cowboy75]

Cowboy,

Yes, we all are frustrated with Kirby, Dougweiser and the rest. This is really well written and I really do understand the sound logic and reason in this letter to Kirby. As a LtCol. in the best gun club in the world, USMCR-Ret (ya, passed over many times for Col.) I wish there was a General who could have ordered the nic to be instituted NOW and settled this years ago but unfortunately this is not the military.

As far as litigation is concerned lets do it and get it done. Cowboy I will buy you a beer when I swing your gear in a few years. I really hope for some explosive growth soon that will make this all irrelevant because everyone is moving up so fast. But if that doesn't happen I hope that in 10 years Cowboy when you have 16 years service (that was a WAG Cowboy sorry if I' wrong) the same doen't happen to yu and yours.lude

I could tell you are a level head and we are on the same page with the management. We share common ground.

I considered the USMC PLC program (1980) and looked at spending some time in Quantico, VA. I took four years off to start and operate a business. By the time I finished my degree, I was too old at age 27 for the military. I applaud your service. I also read a post where you desired international flying. I prefer domestic and living in the SW US. I also saw the 6-7 year time frame for upgrades at HP. I never considered Us Air for the commute, type of flying, (international) and little chance of upgrading. You and I had different goals and career expectations but ended up in a shotgun wedding. I was indifferent until seeing fellow pilots sued by a union which had a duty to represent them. Friends of mine got caught in that dragnet and I came off the sidelines. That is the case for many West pilots.

I'll include you on my bet with Metro. I'm to a point of letting the courts decide. Who knows, I may be swinging the gear for you and buying a round for you and Metro when this is all done. If that is the case so be it, but I am going to support Leonidas until this is over.

 

[B-atch]

Hello LADIES!! Did you miss me?? NOT.

I figured I'd revive the old thread...35 pages just isn't enough.....

 

[Cowboy75]

Hello LADIES!! Did you miss me?? NOT.

I figured I'd revive the old thread...35 pages just isn't enough.....

Welcome back to the sandbox.