SO - Where's the SLI?
08-25-2016, 09:35 AM
#1673
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,948
A quick look.
The 200th LAA pilot was hired 7/23/2001. Furloughed around Oct/Nov 2001. Offered recall by 5/2013. Total LOS on 12/13/13 approximately 10 months.
On DOC, 254 LUS pilots had less LOS than he had.
For this last pilot we are waiting on it may mean losing up to 254 numbers. Think it's important to him?
The 200th LAA pilot was hired 7/23/2001. Furloughed around Oct/Nov 2001. Offered recall by 5/2013. Total LOS on 12/13/13 approximately 10 months.
On DOC, 254 LUS pilots had less LOS than he had.
For this last pilot we are waiting on it may mean losing up to 254 numbers. Think it's important to him?
08-25-2016, 09:42 AM
#1674
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
A quick look.
The 200th LAA pilot was hired 7/23/2001. Furloughed around Oct/Nov 2001. Offered recall by 5/2013. Total LOS on 12/13/13 approximately 10 months.
On DOC, 254 LUS pilots had less LOS than he had.
For this last pilot we are waiting on it may mean losing up to 254 numbers. Think it's important to him?
The 200th LAA pilot was hired 7/23/2001. Furloughed around Oct/Nov 2001. Offered recall by 5/2013. Total LOS on 12/13/13 approximately 10 months.
On DOC, 254 LUS pilots had less LOS than he had.
For this last pilot we are waiting on it may mean losing up to 254 numbers. Think it's important to him?
Very important, and worth getting it right.
As an aside, understanding this discussion must be very difficult for some of our only remaining West posters....one of them didn't even know what LOS was until yesterday, and the other can't even read and comprehend that "DOH, adjusted for furlough time" is equal to LOS. So, when the inevitable inane, random, irrational response from them crops up, someone is going to have to be patient and use simple language to explain this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-25-2016, 09:56 AM
#1675
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: A330
Posts: 173
Very important, and worth getting it right.
As an aside, understanding this discussion must be very difficult for some of our only remaining West posters....one of them didn't even know what LOS was until yesterday, and the other can't even read and comprehend that "DOH, adjusted for furlough time" is equal to LOS. So, when the inevitable inane, random, irrational response from them crops up, someone is going to have to be patient and use simple language to explain this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As an aside, understanding this discussion must be very difficult for some of our only remaining West posters....one of them didn't even know what LOS was until yesterday, and the other can't even read and comprehend that "DOH, adjusted for furlough time" is equal to LOS. So, when the inevitable inane, random, irrational response from them crops up, someone is going to have to be patient and use simple language to explain this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-25-2016, 10:15 AM
#1676
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
No. The affected pilot we are discussing is the more junior Letter T pilot. They recalled in inverse seniority so he had to come back or forgo his seniority number when his number came up in reverse order. The actual Letter T pilots still coming back are more senior.
A Letter T pilot still left to return could be as senior as 4500 (LAA list) and return to a CA bid.
If he returns, and depending what the arbs decide, a pilot on the back of the list (my example) needs to be moved back further on the combined list to balance out the positions LAA brought and the pilots they will have on flight status.
In the example I gave, if the senior most Letter T pilot would return and he was the 200th letter T pilot to return then the pilot hired on 7/2001 would need to be adjusted back not the pilot that returned.
The most senior Letter T pilot still out was hired 7/30/1992. He has over 10 years LOS. He could return as a Captain. The arbs are not going to pull him out of the list and then move him back in the list to reorder his placement. They will allow him to return to his relative position on the list and then move a more junior LAA pilot back so that the junior LUS pilot will not have more LAA pilots in front of him than positions LAA brought.
Is it becoming a little more clear (like mud) why this may be more complicated than many see and maybe more important for the arbs to get correct?
A Letter T pilot still left to return could be as senior as 4500 (LAA list) and return to a CA bid.
If he returns, and depending what the arbs decide, a pilot on the back of the list (my example) needs to be moved back further on the combined list to balance out the positions LAA brought and the pilots they will have on flight status.
In the example I gave, if the senior most Letter T pilot would return and he was the 200th letter T pilot to return then the pilot hired on 7/2001 would need to be adjusted back not the pilot that returned.
The most senior Letter T pilot still out was hired 7/30/1992. He has over 10 years LOS. He could return as a Captain. The arbs are not going to pull him out of the list and then move him back in the list to reorder his placement. They will allow him to return to his relative position on the list and then move a more junior LAA pilot back so that the junior LUS pilot will not have more LAA pilots in front of him than positions LAA brought.
Is it becoming a little more clear (like mud) why this may be more complicated than many see and maybe more important for the arbs to get correct?
08-25-2016, 10:19 AM
#1677
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,948
No. The affected pilot we are discussing is the more junior Letter T pilot. They recalled in inverse seniority so he had to come back or forgo his seniority number when his number came up in reverse order. The actual Letter T pilots still coming back are more senior.
A Letter T pilot still left to return could be as senior as 4500 (LAA list) and return to a CA bid.
If he returns, and depending what the arbs decide, a pilot on the back of the list (my example) needs to be moved back further on the combined list to balance out the positions LAA brought and the pilots they will have on flight status.
In the example I gave, if the senior most Letter T pilot would return and he was the 200th letter T pilot to return then the pilot hired on 7/2001 would need to be adjusted back not the pilot that returned.
The most senior Letter T pilot still out was hired 7/30/1992. He has over 10 years LOS. He could return as a Captain. The arbs are not going to pull him out of the list and then move him back in the list to reorder his placement. They will allow him to return to his relative position on the list and then move a more junior LAA pilot back so that the junior LUS pilot will not have more LAA pilots in front of him than positions LAA brought.
Is it becoming a little more clear (like mud) why this may be more complicated than many see and maybe more important for the arbs to get correct?
A Letter T pilot still left to return could be as senior as 4500 (LAA list) and return to a CA bid.
If he returns, and depending what the arbs decide, a pilot on the back of the list (my example) needs to be moved back further on the combined list to balance out the positions LAA brought and the pilots they will have on flight status.
In the example I gave, if the senior most Letter T pilot would return and he was the 200th letter T pilot to return then the pilot hired on 7/2001 would need to be adjusted back not the pilot that returned.
The most senior Letter T pilot still out was hired 7/30/1992. He has over 10 years LOS. He could return as a Captain. The arbs are not going to pull him out of the list and then move him back in the list to reorder his placement. They will allow him to return to his relative position on the list and then move a more junior LAA pilot back so that the junior LUS pilot will not have more LAA pilots in front of him than positions LAA brought.
Is it becoming a little more clear (like mud) why this may be more complicated than many see and maybe more important for the arbs to get correct?
08-25-2016, 10:40 AM
#1679
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
We shall soon see, whether it is next week like Sliceback heard or the middle of September. Either way it will finally be over. The decision that is.
08-25-2016, 01:01 PM
#1680
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
“We’ve got to make decisions to protect the bottom line.”
— AAG COO Robert Isom
Upon being informed by the Company of its intent to initiate the most recent LUS equipment bid (vacancy run), the APA National Officers and respective domicile officers engaged management in an attempt to open the equipment bid to as many American Airlines pilots as possible by delaying the bid until after “Single FOS Partition” (SFP) and the SLI (Seniority List Integration) decision.— AAG COO Robert Isom
APA’s request was made in order to afford as many American Airlines pilots as possible the opportunity to bid these important seats, equipment, and domiciles. The APA National Officers are well aware that the LUS-West pilots have been isolated from previous LUS equipment bids and understand their desire to have access to each equipment bid.
Unfortunately, APA’s request to delay the equipment bid was denied by management. In fact, at an employee town hall meeting on August 23, 2016, AAG COO Robert Isom addressed a question regarding the equipment bid. He acknowledged that all American Airlines pilots are eager to reap the benefits of the merger’s flying opportunities and that the LUS-West pilots in particular have been “constrained with nobody being able to upgrade,” adding that it is “demoralizing.” Mr. Isom then lamented that December’s schedule increase versus current manning would risk damage to the “bottom line,” adding that “we’ve got to make decisions to protect the bottom line.”
This callous response is yet another example of the myopic vision of management when faced with making decisions that have deep, long-term, negative effects on this airline’s frontline leaders: you, the pilots.
It is APA’s position that this latest equipment bid (vacancy run) should be delayed to allow as many American Airlines pilots as possible the opportunity to participate.
Your APA leadership will not waver from doing all that we can to ensure that ALL American Airlines pilots are afforded the rights and opportunities that we’ve worked so hard to secure through this merger. Whether it be access to equipment bids or realizing the full implementation and protection of each and every contractual provision, we stand unified, and we will not stand silent.
Can not wait to see the response now that LAA pilots have voiced their opinion on this subject.
WD
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
