USAir Deal - WTFO?

[EAP]

WTFO

When I see posts throwing scab around like candy I sometimes have a hard time feeling pitty for certain WO pilots even though I know there have to be a few decent apples in the pile. What a joke. You will reap what you sow, bigshot.

There are PLENTY of pilots getting screwed right now, it's not just you. I know, it sounds wierd, saying "others", but there are others out there.

 

[FlyingSig]

You are missing the part of LOA 81 where it says that half the vacancies created by the Jets will be filled by mainline pilots. Therefore if we replace aircraft 1 for 1, half our current seniority list will be out on the street even though their seniority number will be greater than that of the mainline pilots.

I guess that just doesn't make much sence to my simple mind...

If a new airplane comes on property, the seats needed to staff this new airplane are vacancies...

If an airplane goes away, the seats needed to staff that airplane are now called surpluses.

I haven't read it, but does LOA81 provide furlough protection to those awarded new vacancies? It may but I haven't read about it... and again, all I know is what I read here and on the ALPA board...

So it seems to me a mainline pilot could be awarded a new vacancy when the airline gets a new jet, then a few months later when that same airline parks airplanes fall victim to surpluses and be furloughed.

I guess I just don't get how you could be out of a job when you are senior to those you claim would keep their jobs.

I've read in LOA81 where mainline pilots get preferential bidding for these vacancies (I'm not disputing that this is a shady deal).

I've read in LOA81 where mainline pilots get paid capt rates regardless of seniority (Also not disputing that this too is circumventing a negotiated contract of said regional)

What I have not read in LOA81 is where these mainline pilots get superseniority or furlough protection in the event said airline downsizes to the point where surpluses outnumber vacancies. Again, I very well may be wrong, and if I am could you point out the part of LOA81 that provides this benifit?

 

[skeezer]

FlyingSig,

When I first heard of LOA that is what I thought as well. If we expand, then half would go to mainilne pilots. If we didn't expand then no biggie.

If that were the case then none of the wholly owneds would have fought this LOA 81 crap. Who cares if Mainline pilots get half the seats if we expand and none if we don't. The reason we all fought this (until our wussy MEC caved in) was that the mainilne pilots would get half the jet seats period. That sucks.

That is what all the fighting is about. To have someone junior to you kick you out a seat is BS.

I can't find a copy of LOA 81 right now but that is how it is interpreted by all the party's involved.


Skeezer

 

[NCFlyer]

For those interested in LOA 81, here are a few of the questionable conditions. I didn't want to include the entire document since it is 9 pages long. Much of the 9 pages is administrative in nature. Attachment B is entirely the "Affected Pilot List" and how it is to be administered.


2. Conditions for Deployment of Additional Small Jets by Carriers

Letter of Agreement 81. This Letter of Agreement and Attachments A and B to this Letter of Agreement shall constitute Letter of Agreement 81.

All definitions used anywhere in this Letter of Agreement or in either Attachment A or B apply throughout this Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise specifically stated.

Carrier. A Domestic Air Carrier, other than the Company, that operates Small Jets under the Company’s designator code, name, logo or marketing identity.

New Vacancy. A Small Jet (Captain or First Officer) position that is created at a Carrier as a result of a Carrier’s taking delivery of, or announcing firm delivery of, Small Jets after the effective date of this Letter of Agreement. The number of New Vacancies at a Carrier shall be determined according to the Small Jet staffing requirements established by the Carrier and shall be determined without regard to whether pilots employed by the Carrier are furloughed or remain on furlough. The term "New Vacancy" does not include a position on a Small Jet that is introduced as a replacement for a Small Jet that is operated under the authority of Section 1(B) 3.d (4) or Letter of Agreement 79

INTERIM SMALL JET AGREEMENT.
Attachment A (The Protocol)
1. This Protocol applies to all Vacancies.

2. At Affiliate Carriers, at least 50% of New Vacancies (Captain and First Officer) and 100% of Backfill Vacancies (Captain and First Officer) will be made available to Affected Pilots and U pilots on a cumulative basis in accordance with this Protocol until the Affected Pilot List (“APL”) has been exhausted. A Vacancy will be eliminated, and not be included in the formula specified by the foregoing sentence, if no Affected Pilot has accepted employment to fill the Vacancy and no U Pilot has bid the Vacancy. Notwithstanding the foregoing ratios, 100% of the New Vacancies at Potomac Air shall be made available to Affected Pilots in accordance with this Protocol and Attachment B.

4.All pilots employed by a Carrier during their first year of service under this Letter of Agreement shall be paid, by the Carrier, first year Captain rates applicable to the jet equipment flown, regardless of seat occupied. In subsequent years of service, longevity pay increases, based upon Captain’s rates, shall apply.

 

[Tim47SIP]

What does this mean?

"2. At Affiliate Carriers, at least 50% of New Vacancies (Captain and First Officer) and 100% of Backfill Vacancies (Captain and First Officer) will be made available to Affected Pilots and U pilots on a cumulative basis in accordance with this Protocol until the Affected Pilot List (“APL”) has been exhausted. A Vacancy will be eliminated, and not be included in the formula specified by the foregoing sentence, if no Affected Pilot has accepted employment to fill the Vacancy and no U Pilot has bid the Vacancy. Notwithstanding the foregoing ratios, 100% of the New Vacancies at Potomac Air shall be made available to Affected Pilots in accordance with this Protocol and Attachment B. "

As you can see, I am not very bright. Can someone please tell me the difference between "Backfill Vacanies" and "New Vacancies"? What is the difference between a "U" pilot and an "Affected Pilot"?
Thanks, I'll reply to this once I figure out what it is trying to state. Can you believe that ALPA came up with this stuff?

 

[NCFlyer]

Don't know if this helps but here are some of the definitions:

"New Vacancy". A Small Jet (Captain or First Officer) position that is created at a Carrier as a result of a Carrier’s taking delivery of, or announcing firm delivery of, Small Jets after the effective date of this Letter of Agreement. The number of New Vacancies at a Carrier shall be determined according to the Small Jet staffing requirements established by the Carrier and shall be determined without regard to whether pilots employed by the Carrier are furloughed or remain on furlough. The term "New Vacancy" does not include a position on a Small Jet that is introduced as a replacement for a Small Jet that is operated under the authority of Section 1(B) 3.d (4) or Letter of Agreement 79.

"Backfill Vacancy". A Small Jet position (Captain or First Officer) at a Carrier that becomes open when a U Pilot vacates that position.

"Vacancy". A New Vacancy or a Backfill Vacancy.

"Affected Pilot". A pilot on the US Airways Pilot System Seniority List as of January, 2002, who:

(i) has been furloughed, and
(ii) has not been removed from the Affected Pilot List in accordance with Attachment B.

"U Pilot". A former Affected Pilot who:

(i) accepts a New Vacancy or a Backfill Vacancy with a Carrier and enters into employment with that Carrier, and
(ii) has not left the employ of a Carrier or has not been awarded a position at a Carrier as a result of a voluntary bid not covered by this Letter of Agreement.

Clear as mud now!

 

[canon]

help me please

As a prospective new hire with a possible class date of August 5, what should all of this mean to me.

Should I just jump and hope that the transition takes a while, or what.

 

[FlyingSig]

Who cares if Mainline pilots get half the seats if we expand and none if we don't. The reason we all fought this (until our wussy MEC caved in) was that the mainilne pilots would get half the jet seats period. That sucks.

That is what all the fighting is about. To have someone junior to you kick you out a seat is BS.

If that's true, then I would agree, but from what the other folks have posted on the board....

I agree that mainline pilots get half of the "new vacancy" jet seats. No dispute there. But there's still nothing that's been posted to say how they would be treated in the case of a furlough. Do they or don't they have furlough protection provided by LOA81?

I think you're assuming that if the jets are a 1-1 replacement, then the day you take delivery of a jet, they park a prop and furlough xx pilots. I really can't envision that at any airline, even one managed by Seigal (my former employer, thus the reason I hold him so high-TIC).

Typing this however, I just think I figured out how it could theoretically happen. Park all the props. Furlough the pilots. Then buy the jets and then, after the furlough, half the new seats go to the mainline folks, the other half goes to recalls ..... That's the only way I can think of that a furlough could happen out of seniority order. Think it'll go that route? Personally, I doubt it.

Again, I want to reiterate that I'm no way supporting this LOA (which again, I think is a raw deal because it circumvents the pay/bidding aspects of an ALPA contract)..... however in all the venom towards mainline pilots on this BB, I was just looking for some facts to back up the claim that these folks will cause people senior to them to loose their jobs.

 

[NCFlyer]

Maybe this will help.

Under Jet for Jobs/LOA 81 if USAirways Group allows or permits any regional carrier to operate any more regional jets under the USAirways banner then 50% of the pilots (both captain and first officers) that fly that aircraft must be a furloughed mainline pilot. All mainline pilots will be paid captain’s pay regardless of seat position. At the new MidAtlantic Air 100% of the pilots must be mainline furloughed pilots and all will be paid captain's pay. Those mainline pilots have to be given the seats regardless if the carrier has any other pilots already on furlough or regardless of the fact that current pilots on the carrier’s seniority list will need to be furloughed to make room for the mainline pilot. Under the worst case scenario if a carrier participating in the J4J/LOA 81 extortion replaces their entire fleet of turbo-props with RJ’s then that carrier would have to furlough half of their pilot group and half of their captains would be downgraded to F/O’s to allow mainline pilots to come in and fill 50% of the captain and 50% of the F/O positions on the RJ’s. LOA 81 includes protocols on how each aircraft added to the USAirways code share fleet has to be documented to be certain that each additional aircraft has the correct ratio of mainline pilots. It includes furlough protection for the mainline pilots to the extent as long as the carrier operates each aircraft added under LOA 81 half the pilots must be mainline pilots. So if the carrier parks other aircraft in their fleet other pilots with more seniority will have to be furloughed while the mainline pilots keeps his job in the RJ.

 

[Tim47SIP]

NC Flier

Question - Do the furloughed mainline guys get super seniority when they go to the RJ?

I guess one thing is starting to make sence in my mind is that with these deals (J4J), U management probably has no intent of bringing any of these furloughed guys back any time in the near or distant future. I think ALPA was told this and that is why they endorsed this abortion knowing it would affect the WO's pilots the way it does. I fully understand the need to get those guys back in the seat, but I think the methods are a devious at best.

 

[Vrefus]

Learlove,

I think you need to be educated as to what a SCAB actually is. According to the unions, a SCAB is anyone that either crosses a picket line to work struck work or works for a company that races in and flies struck work. IE when COMAIR was on strike last year, if Mesa or anyone else ran in and started flying COMAIR routes, they would theorhetically be considered SCABS. Not as you put it regarding the contract carriers.

Chill Out

 

[BoredToDeath]

To those of you that think our use of the word scab is wrong, lets look at this from a WO pilots perspective. There are three WO carriers that for years were not permitted to operate jets because the contract carriers "do it for less". In our eyes you are Advocating a lower wage to do the same job. Now they are flying mainline routes and "doing it for less". Where does it stop?

The WOs job was to feed mainline, you came in and did it for less, while our growth has been stunted. There is absolutley no need for contract carriers, of which there are aprox. 6 of you, to be here. So I think SCAB is a pretty good word to use. Not that you've crossed any pickett line but that you are Some Carrier Advocating B Scale. SCABS

Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[ChinaClipper]

Scab misuse and you are confused

A scab crosses picket lines, and you don't know what you're talking about , I DO know what strikes do to families (my own) and nothing is worse than seeing some one go to work while your family tries to exist on strike pay.....1)"Doing it for less" was a preexisting condition for Mesa Air group, WE GAVE UP NOTHING to fly jets a USAir, CCAir originally WOULD NOT do what the WO's are lining up to do now! SEKLLING OUT THE PROFESSION! You WO guys are now lowering the bar to get them, ain't that rich! Just when Mesa is gonna move things up in our contract negotiations, we get cut off at the knees by the Wholly Owneds who have decided to take the low road and become the ho's you always accused us of, classic selfish pilot BS. 2) The biggest growth spurt at the Wholly Owneds EVER HAD came from US Air mainline DOWNSIZING and YOU GUYS DOING IT FOR LESS! Remeber how big ROA was? DAY? and lots more? Are you by your own goofy scab definition a scab as well? Seems so if we use your logic! 3) Why don't the WO's stick it out to fight the next low bidder for flying? Good question, it appears YOU ARE THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER!!! DOOOOHHHH!!! Look in the mirror for the selling out of the profession I have heard so often. Seems ironic that the people who "sold out and did it cheaper than mainline" are complaining now, it is a small world!T he facts, my son, look bad for you and yours.....the new industry ho's I believe you guys called it, up to Sep 10

 

[BoredToDeath]

**CCAir originally WOULD NOT do what the WO's are lining up to do now! SEKLLING OUT THE PROFESSION! **

Thats a good one! The WO are trying to keep all US Airways Group Flying within Group and thats called selling out the Proffession.

**You WO guys are now lowering the bar to get them**

I'll give you this, Our (PSA) MEC is out of control, The pilot group here has not been allowed to vote on our current contract or the J4J issues. PSAs MEC has stated that they did what they did to keep the company alive and they knew the pilots would vote no.

**Just when Mesa is gonna move things up in our contract negotiations, we get cut off at the knees by the Wholly Owneds **

Honestly nobody cares what happens at MESA, your not wanted here. I'm not being mean in anyway but just telling it like it is.

**The biggest growth spurt at the Wholly Owneds EVER HAD came from US Air mainline DOWNSIZING and YOU GUYS DOING IT FOR LESS! **

What growth are you talking about? PDT, and ALG both have people on the street. PSA is operating with just enough people to cover the work we do have. 8 yr+ captains are being junior manned on a daily basis. And there are a hell of alot more RJs operating in DAY then there everwas. There is no growth here.

**Are you by your own goofy scab definition a scab as well? Seems so if we use your logic! 3) Why don't the WO's stick it out to fight the next low bidder for flying? Good question, it appears YOU ARE THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER!!! DOOOOHHHH!!! **

No and so what your saying is that if the WO MECs stick to their guns and not give in to mgnt. we'll still be around? NOT! ALGs ever decreasing sen. list is proof of that. Now if the Three WO pilot groups could have stayed together on this and the Mainline MEC would have backed us up, I belive there would not be any furloughed Mainline or WO pilots. In these bad times the first people to go should have been the contract carriers and if things were still bad then furlough the WO and if things were still worse then the mainline pilots. After all Sh$t roles downhill.

**Seems ironic that the people who "sold out and did it cheaper than mainline" are complaining now, **

The RJ operaters are the ones doing it cheeper than the Mainline. Remember the WO have no RJs. We've been doing the same routes for years trying to feed the mainline.

 

[Vrefus]

Bored,

I understand your sentiment completely. If you have a grudge against any of the contract carriers, well that's something you're going to have to deal with. As for labeling CCAir because it is a contract carrier a (paraphrasing now) "scab carrier because they advocate B scale wages", where did you get your info from? CCAir's wages had always been higher than PSAs ever were, plus CCAir was offered jets around two yrs ago but declined because of the trade off that was then being ramrodded down our throats. It was a carrot on a stick, "look at all these pretty jets to replace your junk Jetstreams and Dashs. If you want them though you're going to have to take a pay cut". The CCair guys stood up and said no way, we'll keep our Dashs and Jetstreams because we don't need to whore ourselves out to fly jets. It's not that important to us.

So, before you go shooting your mouth off, get the facts first.

Vrefus