SMART Committee
01-06-2024, 06:03 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: DHC-8 CA
Posts: 463
01-06-2024, 07:30 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 386
Anywho it kind of makes me nostalgic for the Jerry Springer show. Maybe I’ll burn more reserve time looking for a YouTube greatest hits.
01-07-2024, 07:06 AM
#74
New Hire
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Position: A320
Posts: 8
bro it's not happening. It will never happen. He appointed this committee because in his mind AA can't hire the number of pilots to get to their stated goal of 20k, so he assumes they are going to merge. That is it.
Ed does not exude confidence. He admitted on air multiple times he had no clue what he was even talking about. He comes off as a nice guy but seemed to do no prep for the town hall on the topics.
I'm sure AA management at one time or another has looked at this for funsies but that is all it will ever be.
Ed does not exude confidence. He admitted on air multiple times he had no clue what he was even talking about. He comes off as a nice guy but seemed to do no prep for the town hall on the topics.
I'm sure AA management at one time or another has looked at this for funsies but that is all it will ever be.
01-07-2024, 08:39 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2023
Posts: 147
The career expectation of the WO pilots is explicit and written in a contract.
01-07-2024, 11:50 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,117
Not saying youre wrong, but management staffing the airline is just one LOA away. I came from a WO and there were probably at least 10 LOAs that superseded and/or contradicted the contract. There were even a few LOAs that superseded other LOAs that were created to supersede the C.B.A.
Last edited by Thedude86; 01-07-2024 at 12:33 PM.
01-07-2024, 12:14 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,113
That's exactly what it is and I wouldn't even give it a second thought. Fear will be instilled that ALPA representation would result in 20-30 year RJ captains coming in and taking mainline seats with seniority, completely ignoring the fact that all of them have bypassed the opportunity to move to mainline and get an AA seniority number (for nearly a decade or more). If we didn't have the flow I could see an argument, but we do, so it's moot.
With the grenades that Sicher has lobbed at ALPA, I wouldn't be surprised for ALPA to take a hardline stance against any direct negotations with APA in advance of any announced merger like what happened at DAL and Endeavor just as a pronounced FU.
With the grenades that Sicher has lobbed at ALPA, I wouldn't be surprised for ALPA to take a hardline stance against any direct negotations with APA in advance of any announced merger like what happened at DAL and Endeavor just as a pronounced FU.
On the other hand, if APA merges with a wholly owned ALPA regional, Mckaskill-Bond law is used. And the law simply states that the list has to be fair and equitable. There is no hard requirement to apply status & category, longivity, or career expectations. The arbitrator (not required to be three) can use any factor(s) as long as he beleives the end product is fair and equitable.
A staple is likely in either scenrio. But a staple is far more likely under ALPA merger policy than Mckaskill-Bond, especially if you end up with a rogue arbitrator. So if this some sort of fear tactic to keep pilots from signing a card, it doesn't make sense. You are more protected if both pilot groups are represented by ALPA or by APA, assuming there is a similar merger policy within APA bylaws. But then you would have to convince three pilot groups to change to APA.
This would be the first integration of carriers which involved a subsidiary and an in place flow process prior to the integration.
In my opinion what the WO pilots need to be worried about is how the three WO are merged prior to the mass flow to mainline. That’s where the potential exists for career expectations to be affected.
Giving every WO pilot a number on the bottom of mainline overnight is a windfall in and of it self.
there should be fences in place but not a single eagle pilot will be senior to any mainline pilot.
any expectations otherwise are wildly inappropriate.
In my opinion what the WO pilots need to be worried about is how the three WO are merged prior to the mass flow to mainline. That’s where the potential exists for career expectations to be affected.
Giving every WO pilot a number on the bottom of mainline overnight is a windfall in and of it self.
there should be fences in place but not a single eagle pilot will be senior to any mainline pilot.
any expectations otherwise are wildly inappropriate.
I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already. If AA stapled their WO regionals to the bottom of the mainline AA list Delta would probably do the same with Endeavor.
Now think about United, they’re absolutely screwed with all their new aircraft orders. They’d have nobody left to hire except from their own regionals, which they don’t control or have full ownership. They’d have to fight over the leftover scraps of the ULCC pilots.
Now think about United, they’re absolutely screwed with all their new aircraft orders. They’d have nobody left to hire except from their own regionals, which they don’t control or have full ownership. They’d have to fight over the leftover scraps of the ULCC pilots.
01-07-2024, 07:08 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 634
ALPA merger policy, is pretty simple. ALPA requires negotiation, mediation, and arbitration if required. The arbitrators (three) are required to take at least those three things into account when crafting a fair and equitable list: status & category, longivity, and career expectations. That third item is key in a merger of two airlines with vastly different fleet types and business models. Another thing when taking into consideration status and category, there isn't any way to fairly and equitably integrate AA with any WO unless its a staple. With status and category, you integrate WB CAs from one airline with WB CAs from the other airline, then NB CAs, then WB FOs, then NB FOs, and lastly regional jet CAs and then regional jet FOs. Since the WOs dont have anything other regional jets and AA only has WBs and NBs, it becomes a staple. And like I said earlier, there is the career expectations thingy as well. I can't see convincing two out of the three arbitrators of anything but a staple. And there is also the fact that the WOs already have a flow through witch puts them at the bottom of the AA list. That seems to spell out career expectations pretty clearly so as to convince the arbitrator of a staple.
On the other hand, if APA merges with a wholly owned ALPA regional, Mckaskill-Bond law is used. And the law simply states that the list has to be fair and equitable. There is no hard requirement to apply status & category, longivity, or career expectations. The arbitrator (not required to be three) can use any factor(s) as long as he beleives the end product is fair and equitable.
A staple is likely in either scenrio. But a staple is far more likely under ALPA merger policy than Mckaskill-Bond, especially if you end up with a rogue arbitrator. So if this some sort of fear tactic to keep pilots from signing a card, it doesn't make sense. You are more protected if both pilot groups are represented by ALPA or by APA, assuming there is a similar merger policy within APA bylaws. But then you would have to convince three pilot groups to change to APA.
The fence that makes the most sense to keep the spirit of the flow is to fence the mainline aircraft until the most junior AA pilot on the list before the merger is able to bid over to a higher status or category. Then that fence comes down. You do this for each status and category until all fences eventually come down.
Nothing prevents the arbitrator from instituing a staple if they feel it is fair and equitable.
I haven't thought of this. If AA merges their WO with mainline, not only does it help protect from other airline poaching WO pilots, but it also keeps the RJs staffed. Would you want to fly an RJ for AA or for Skywest? And if Delta follows suit with Endevor, that leaves the UAX reginals vulnarable to poaching and threatening UA feed while the AA and DA are more pretected.
On the other hand, if APA merges with a wholly owned ALPA regional, Mckaskill-Bond law is used. And the law simply states that the list has to be fair and equitable. There is no hard requirement to apply status & category, longivity, or career expectations. The arbitrator (not required to be three) can use any factor(s) as long as he beleives the end product is fair and equitable.
A staple is likely in either scenrio. But a staple is far more likely under ALPA merger policy than Mckaskill-Bond, especially if you end up with a rogue arbitrator. So if this some sort of fear tactic to keep pilots from signing a card, it doesn't make sense. You are more protected if both pilot groups are represented by ALPA or by APA, assuming there is a similar merger policy within APA bylaws. But then you would have to convince three pilot groups to change to APA.
The fence that makes the most sense to keep the spirit of the flow is to fence the mainline aircraft until the most junior AA pilot on the list before the merger is able to bid over to a higher status or category. Then that fence comes down. You do this for each status and category until all fences eventually come down.
Nothing prevents the arbitrator from instituing a staple if they feel it is fair and equitable.
I haven't thought of this. If AA merges their WO with mainline, not only does it help protect from other airline poaching WO pilots, but it also keeps the RJs staffed. Would you want to fly an RJ for AA or for Skywest? And if Delta follows suit with Endevor, that leaves the UAX reginals vulnarable to poaching and threatening UA feed while the AA and DA are more pretected.
Only part I disagree with is where we benefit more through ALPA merger policy. The ALPA JSC sent an email 2 days ago telling the WO pilots they will "make certain AA... values the time you dedicated in the AA system". That's an extremely misleading statement for those union officers to make and is offering their membership false hope. The only fair solution is a staple. As you mentioned, the flow through agreements set a precedence of career expectations. Any WO pilot that stayed past their flow date should not be allowed to leap frog and integrate into a higher seniority at mainline that they previously turned down. Were we to switch to ALPA, I personally find it to be a huge conflict of interest for ALPA to represent our interests while simultaneously advocating for WO pilot's tenure at Eagle as "equal". There structure might be better but the rhetoric is not acceptable.
01-08-2024, 04:14 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,490
ALPA merger policy, is pretty simple. ALPA requires negotiation, mediation, and arbitration if required. The arbitrators (three) are required to take at least those three things into account when crafting a fair and equitable list: status & category, longivity, and career expectations. That third item is key in a merger of two airlines with vastly different fleet types and business models. Another thing when taking into consideration status and category, there isn't any way to fairly and equitably integrate AA with any WO unless its a staple. With status and category, you integrate WB CAs from one airline with WB CAs from the other airline, then NB CAs, then WB FOs, then NB FOs, and lastly regional jet CAs and then regional jet FOs. Since the WOs dont have anything other regional jets and AA only has WBs and NBs, it becomes a staple. And like I said earlier, there is the career expectations thingy as well. I can't see convincing two out of the three arbitrators of anything but a staple. And there is also the fact that the WOs already have a flow through witch puts them at the bottom of the AA list. That seems to spell out career expectations pretty clearly so as to convince the arbitrator of a staple.
On the other hand, if APA merges with a wholly owned ALPA regional, Mckaskill-Bond law is used. And the law simply states that the list has to be fair and equitable. There is no hard requirement to apply status & category, longivity, or career expectations. The arbitrator (not required to be three) can use any factor(s) as long as he beleives the end product is fair and equitable.
A staple is likely in either scenrio. But a staple is far more likely under ALPA merger policy than Mckaskill-Bond, especially if you end up with a rogue arbitrator. So if this some sort of fear tactic to keep pilots from signing a card, it doesn't make sense. You are more protected if both pilot groups are represented by ALPA or by APA, assuming there is a similar merger policy within APA bylaws. But then you would have to convince three pilot groups to change to APA.
The fence that makes the most sense to keep the spirit of the flow is to fence the mainline aircraft until the most junior AA pilot on the list before the merger is able to bid over to a higher status or category. Then that fence comes down. You do this for each status and category until all fences eventually come down.
Nothing prevents the arbitrator from instituing a staple if they feel it is fair and equitable.
I haven't thought of this. If AA merges their WO with mainline, not only does it help protect from other airline poaching WO pilots, but it also keeps the RJs staffed. Would you want to fly an RJ for AA or for Skywest? And if Delta follows suit with Endevor, that leaves the UAX reginals vulnarable to poaching and threatening UA feed while the AA and DA are more pretected.
On the other hand, if APA merges with a wholly owned ALPA regional, Mckaskill-Bond law is used. And the law simply states that the list has to be fair and equitable. There is no hard requirement to apply status & category, longivity, or career expectations. The arbitrator (not required to be three) can use any factor(s) as long as he beleives the end product is fair and equitable.
A staple is likely in either scenrio. But a staple is far more likely under ALPA merger policy than Mckaskill-Bond, especially if you end up with a rogue arbitrator. So if this some sort of fear tactic to keep pilots from signing a card, it doesn't make sense. You are more protected if both pilot groups are represented by ALPA or by APA, assuming there is a similar merger policy within APA bylaws. But then you would have to convince three pilot groups to change to APA.
The fence that makes the most sense to keep the spirit of the flow is to fence the mainline aircraft until the most junior AA pilot on the list before the merger is able to bid over to a higher status or category. Then that fence comes down. You do this for each status and category until all fences eventually come down.
Nothing prevents the arbitrator from instituing a staple if they feel it is fair and equitable.
I haven't thought of this. If AA merges their WO with mainline, not only does it help protect from other airline poaching WO pilots, but it also keeps the RJs staffed. Would you want to fly an RJ for AA or for Skywest? And if Delta follows suit with Endevor, that leaves the UAX reginals vulnarable to poaching and threatening UA feed while the AA and DA are more pretected.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
