En Banc Denied!
09-03-2015, 06:02 PM
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 227
Putting east in charge again (they would control this new committee by their larger numbers) would be a total disaster.
Because the distribution of east and west on combined list is not even and different work rules, fences and other matters may impact east and west differently having east rep the west (a la USAPA) is a terrible idea. Keep the committees separate.
09-03-2015, 06:15 PM
#162
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Wow!
Putting east in charge again (they would control this new committee by their larger numbers) would be a total disaster.
Because the distribution of east and west on combined list is not even and different work rules, fences and other matters may impact east and west differently having east rep the west (a la USAPA) is a terrible idea. Keep the committees separate.
Putting east in charge again (they would control this new committee by their larger numbers) would be a total disaster.
Because the distribution of east and west on combined list is not even and different work rules, fences and other matters may impact east and west differently having east rep the west (a la USAPA) is a terrible idea. Keep the committees separate.
But it is just that..........a hypothetical. The REALITY is that there are three separate seniority lists, three separate committees and if each has the ability to argue any integration methodology they see fit either for their benefit or their own peril, the arbitrators then have full and free reign to determine whose model is most appropriate or in absence of that, to craft their own model to achieve what they believe to be a fair and equitable integration.
Isn't that the pure goal of a McCaskill-Bond process ?
Oh yeah, I forgot............it would be a BINDING result too.
09-03-2015, 06:35 PM
#163
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
If there was only one LUS list how would the group as a whole be segmented like you claim ? Remember, the ISL will be the last thing implemented so any present differences in the above issues would no longer exist at ISL implementation. In this hypothetical, ALL LUS pilots would be the same.
But it is just that..........a hypothetical. The REALITY is that there are three separate seniority lists, three separate committees and if each has the ability to argue any integration methodology they see fit either for their benefit or their own peril, the arbitrators then have full and free reign to determine whose model is most appropriate or in absence of that, to craft their own model to achieve what they believe to be a fair and equitable integration.
Isn't that the pure goal of a McCaskill-Bond process ?
Oh yeah, I forgot............it would be a BINDING result too.
But it is just that..........a hypothetical. The REALITY is that there are three separate seniority lists, three separate committees and if each has the ability to argue any integration methodology they see fit either for their benefit or their own peril, the arbitrators then have full and free reign to determine whose model is most appropriate or in absence of that, to craft their own model to achieve what they believe to be a fair and equitable integration.
Isn't that the pure goal of a McCaskill-Bond process ?
Oh yeah, I forgot............it would be a BINDING result too.
The best way ahead is to disband all the merger committees and instead give the Arbs free accounts on C&R.. that way ever pilot gets to voice his opinion and the Arbs get to hear it all.
And best of all its cheap and quick.
09-03-2015, 07:03 PM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Wow!
Putting east in charge again (they would control this new committee by their larger numbers) would be a total disaster.
Because the distribution of east and west on combined list is not even and different work rules, fences and other matters may impact east and west differently having east rep the west (a la USAPA) is a terrible idea. Keep the committees separate.
Putting east in charge again (they would control this new committee by their larger numbers) would be a total disaster.
Because the distribution of east and west on combined list is not even and different work rules, fences and other matters may impact east and west differently having east rep the west (a la USAPA) is a terrible idea. Keep the committees separate.
Eaglefly brings up an interesting point.
How is it the West can claim there is only one list (Nic list) for the former East and West pilots yet they deserve two SLI committees?
In that case shouldn't the TWA pilots be allowed separate representation with their own committee since even though they are on one list with all other former LAA pilots (like West contends East and West are) they need individual representation to guarantee their Supp CC rights are protected since they are specific to TWA pilots and in many cases negatively impact non-TWA LAA pilots?
Not to mention the APA has agreed to divide the $4 million SLI monies amongst the three separate groups. If their is only one list (West position) with East and West then doesn't that give 2/3rds of the monies to one group's interests and only 1/3rd money to the other group's interest?
How is that "fair and equatable"?
09-04-2015, 06:25 AM
#165
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
dynap09,
Eaglefly brings up an interesting point.
How is it the West can claim there is only one list (Nic list) for the former East and West pilots yet they deserve two SLI committees?
In that case shouldn't the TWA pilots be allowed separate representation with their own committee since even though they are on one list with all other former LAA pilots (like West contends East and West are) they need individual representation to guarantee their Supp CC rights are protected since they are specific to TWA pilots and in many cases negatively impact non-TWA LAA pilots?
Not to mention the APA has agreed to divide the $4 million SLI monies amongst the three separate groups. If their is only one list (West position) with East and West then doesn't that give 2/3rds of the monies to one group's interests and only 1/3rd money to the other group's interest?
How is that "fair and equatable"?
Eaglefly brings up an interesting point.
How is it the West can claim there is only one list (Nic list) for the former East and West pilots yet they deserve two SLI committees?
In that case shouldn't the TWA pilots be allowed separate representation with their own committee since even though they are on one list with all other former LAA pilots (like West contends East and West are) they need individual representation to guarantee their Supp CC rights are protected since they are specific to TWA pilots and in many cases negatively impact non-TWA LAA pilots?
Not to mention the APA has agreed to divide the $4 million SLI monies amongst the three separate groups. If their is only one list (West position) with East and West then doesn't that give 2/3rds of the monies to one group's interests and only 1/3rd money to the other group's interest?
How is that "fair and equatable"?
As it stands now, this subsegment of LAA pilots is represented by a committee that has formed its opinion on the value of their vested seniority rights based on information from the entity (APA) that has in the past attempted to not just dilute that seniority, but eliminate it all together. As far as these hens should be concerned, their seniority rights are presently being represented by a group of appointed foxes that have eyed them hungrily in the past. The APA is responsible for a fair process and in regards to that, there is SERIOUS question as to whether that has occurred.
09-04-2015, 08:24 AM
#166
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 227
If there was only one LUS list how would the group as a whole be segmented like you claim ? Remember, the ISL will be the last thing implemented so any present differences in the above issues would no longer exist at ISL implementation. In this hypothetical, ALL LUS pilots would be the same.
East might withdraw again if ordered to do Nic, may appeal an order to use nic, may write a computer program to reorder nic based on other factors in overall merged list. Now they can do all of that and west can just advocate Nic and the arbs can move on.
West may also just like their team better than east's team. Nic was good for them. Their new proposals are good for them. They could even try throwing east under bus (ie, compress the feather and start lower) and give AA the higher spots and sacrifice the top of the US list.
Do folks really think these two groups would work well together? We'd be seeing litigation about how a merger committee was operating as all the hate spilled over...
09-04-2015, 08:25 AM
#167
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
For that matter, how about the Eagle flow-thru's ?
As it stands now, this subsegment of LAA pilots is represented by a committee that has formed its opinion on the value of their vested seniority rights based on information from the entity (APA) that has in the past attempted to not just dilute that seniority, but eliminate it all together. As far as these hens should be concerned, their seniority rights are presently being represented by a group of appointed foxes that have eyed them hungrily in the past. The APA is responsible for a fair process and in regards to that, there is SERIOUS question as to whether that has occurred.
As it stands now, this subsegment of LAA pilots is represented by a committee that has formed its opinion on the value of their vested seniority rights based on information from the entity (APA) that has in the past attempted to not just dilute that seniority, but eliminate it all together. As far as these hens should be concerned, their seniority rights are presently being represented by a group of appointed foxes that have eyed them hungrily in the past. The APA is responsible for a fair process and in regards to that, there is SERIOUS question as to whether that has occurred.
Not sure I understand your beef with APA about your seniority.
Looks to me like the Eagle guys have faired pretty well in this flow through. The AAL/Envoy (Eagle) flow-through is the most lucrative flow-through of any flow-through program out there for regional pilots that I can see.
The original flow-throughs are now flying Captain and making $234 a hour with a 16% pension instead of $100 an hour and a 8% 410K at Envoy. Not to mention a whole lot better looking future than remaining at Envoy. Nearly 50% of new hires at AAL are flow-throughs and this year it will be greater than 50%.
Don't understand how that is bad. What new hire Eagle pilot in the 80's and early 90's ever thought that by being hired at Eagle he/she would one day be a AAL Captain making $250,000 a year just for holding a Eagle seniority number?
From what I understand, Supplement W was a creation of APA in 1998 with the concurrence of ALPA. Not seeing your view. Could you clarify it so I can understand how you (Eagle flow-throughs) are being harmed.
09-04-2015, 08:34 AM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
eaglefly,
Not sure I understand your beef with APA about your seniority.
Looks to me like the Eagle guys have faired pretty well in this flow through. The AAL/Envoy (Eagle) flow-through is the most lucrative flow-through of any flow-through program out there for regional pilots that I can see.
The original flow-throughs are now flying Captain and making $234 a hour with a 16% pension instead of $100 an hour and a 8% 410K at Envoy. Not to mention a whole lot better looking future than remaining at Envoy. Nearly 50% of new hires at AAL are flow-throughs and this year it will be greater than 50%.
Don't understand how that is bad. What new hire Eagle pilot in the 80's and early 90's ever thought that by being hired at Eagle he/she would one day be a AAL Captain making $250,000 a year just for holding a Eagle seniority number?
From what I understand, Supplement W was a creation of APA in 1998 with the concurrence of ALPA. Not seeing your view. Could you clarify it so I can understand how you (Eagle flow-throughs) are being harmed.
Not sure I understand your beef with APA about your seniority.
Looks to me like the Eagle guys have faired pretty well in this flow through. The AAL/Envoy (Eagle) flow-through is the most lucrative flow-through of any flow-through program out there for regional pilots that I can see.
The original flow-throughs are now flying Captain and making $234 a hour with a 16% pension instead of $100 an hour and a 8% 410K at Envoy. Not to mention a whole lot better looking future than remaining at Envoy. Nearly 50% of new hires at AAL are flow-throughs and this year it will be greater than 50%.
Don't understand how that is bad. What new hire Eagle pilot in the 80's and early 90's ever thought that by being hired at Eagle he/she would one day be a AAL Captain making $250,000 a year just for holding a Eagle seniority number?
From what I understand, Supplement W was a creation of APA in 1998 with the concurrence of ALPA. Not seeing your view. Could you clarify it so I can understand how you (Eagle flow-throughs) are being harmed.
Because he thinks they deserve advanced seniority
09-04-2015, 08:35 AM
#169
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Even though one list US guys may have more of the top spots and have bases in say PHL or CLT that have more wide body flying. This will give them a different set of incentives in negotiations.
East might withdraw again if ordered to do Nic, may appeal an order to use nic, may write a computer program to reorder nic based on other factors in overall merged list. Now they can do all of that and west can just advocate Nic and the arbs can move on.
West may also just like their team better than east's team. Nic was good for them. Their new proposals are good for them. They could even try throwing east under bus (ie, compress the feather and start lower) and give AA the higher spots and sacrifice the top of the US list.
Do folks really think these two groups would work well together? We'd be seeing litigation about how a merger committee was operating as all the hate spilled over...
East might withdraw again if ordered to do Nic, may appeal an order to use nic, may write a computer program to reorder nic based on other factors in overall merged list. Now they can do all of that and west can just advocate Nic and the arbs can move on.
West may also just like their team better than east's team. Nic was good for them. Their new proposals are good for them. They could even try throwing east under bus (ie, compress the feather and start lower) and give AA the higher spots and sacrifice the top of the US list.
Do folks really think these two groups would work well together? We'd be seeing litigation about how a merger committee was operating as all the hate spilled over...
Once there was one list (NIC list) then there is one group, yes maybe with differing opinions. How is that any different than one group (LAA) with three differing opinions, LAA, former TWA and former Eagle (as eaglefly is arguing for). The problem becomes with two committees representing one list the LUS (East and West) groups get two-thirds of the monies to fight for their position which should be "mostly" aligned since their placement on the NIC list is defined. While the LAA group only gets 1/3rd of the monies to negotiate against the combined strength of the East and West. That doesn't seem fair at all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
