Warning to new hires
01-17-2016, 04:05 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 547
It did happen. The Unions have no control over new hires and probationary pilots. Those pilots let go were considered new hires because they were on Furlough when this occurred. That is not even the worse thing that happened to the TWA pilots during the AA acquisition. I encourage you to educate yourself on what happened to the TWA pilots during that integration. It would amaze you about what a Union will allow to happen to their members. Multiple lawsuits and even a new law regulating how seniority lists can be integrated resulted in the wake of that shaft job.
01-17-2016, 08:21 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,450
A perceived stinginess among management and a very underwhelming reception to "the new American." I think the payrates will be lower than United and Delta's too. Parker might've been better than Smisek, but I'd rather negotiate with Munoz or Anderson in the future.
I could be wrong on this or have an outdated perception, but I think UAL/DAL have more widebody jobs too.
But that being said, yes, most guys would still happily accept a class date at AA.
I could be wrong on this or have an outdated perception, but I think UAL/DAL have more widebody jobs too.
But that being said, yes, most guys would still happily accept a class date at AA.
If you get hired at American, United or Delta you'll be in great shape. Remember American has a more widebodies coming, they've got tons of retirements coming. Win Win for any newhire. Haters gonna hate. Just remember in the end it's about 'You'. It's about where want to work and live. It's about that paycheck every two weeks and it's about how many days you get to spend at home with your family.
01-17-2016, 10:05 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,450
Probably anyone that's flight instructing, anyone at a regional, anyone flying overseas or the middle east, plus the 16,000 apps on file. 
Back to the original statement. Don't burn bridges in this industry! In my new hire class of 43 through aviation I was able to connect myself with 6 people in the class. Amazing how that works! You just never know. So to make it easy, "make the call and do it the right way."
Back to the original statement. Don't burn bridges in this industry! In my new hire class of 43 through aviation I was able to connect myself with 6 people in the class. Amazing how that works! You just never know. So to make it easy, "make the call and do it the right way."
01-18-2016, 08:17 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 471
Yes Unions or Association DO allow it. AA pilots were originally part of ALPA but split off from ALPA years ago and DAL pilots have been considering it. I sometimes get confused when ALPA uses "In unity". TWA pilots were ALPA but no affiliation with APA, (AA pilots union) and ALPA failed to protect the TWA pilots after AA bought TWA. It took an amendment "mccaskill bond amendment" to prevent any future buyouts screwing mainline pilots.
However the "mccaskill bond amendment" ONLY applies to mainline pilots not when mainline buys a regional. Also ALPA only views mainline pilots as having real jobs. What ever you do at the regionals it is not considered a real job that needs to be protected equally as a mainline pilots. It is still ok for a mainline to screw regional pilots however they wish when a mainline buys a regional and ALPA cannot or will do very little to protect you. Just review the history at DAL with the regionals they own or bought.
Here is a fun think to think about. If you are a SCAB flying at a mainline ALPA will afford you greater protection then if you a pilot flying at a regional and never crossed any picket line.
However the "mccaskill bond amendment" ONLY applies to mainline pilots not when mainline buys a regional. Also ALPA only views mainline pilots as having real jobs. What ever you do at the regionals it is not considered a real job that needs to be protected equally as a mainline pilots. It is still ok for a mainline to screw regional pilots however they wish when a mainline buys a regional and ALPA cannot or will do very little to protect you. Just review the history at DAL with the regionals they own or bought.
Here is a fun think to think about. If you are a SCAB flying at a mainline ALPA will afford you greater protection then if you a pilot flying at a regional and never crossed any picket line.
Last edited by jethikoki; 01-18-2016 at 08:28 AM.
01-18-2016, 08:50 AM
#47
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Yes Unions or Association DO allow it. AA pilots were originally part of ALPA but split off from ALPA years ago and DAL pilots have been considering it. I sometimes get confused when ALPA uses "In unity". TWA pilots were ALPA but no affiliation with APA, (AA pilots union) and ALPA failed to protect the TWA pilots after AA bought TWA. It took an amendment "mccaskill bond amendment" to prevent any future buyouts screwing mainline pilots.
However the "mccaskill bond amendment" ONLY applies to mainline pilots not when mainline buys a regional. Also ALPA only views mainline pilots as having real jobs. What ever you do at the regionals it is not considered a real job that needs to be protected equally as a mainline pilots. It is still ok for a mainline to screw regional pilots however they wish when a mainline buys a regional and ALPA cannot or will do very little to protect you. Just review the history at DAL with the regionals they own or bought.
Here is a fun think to think about. If you are a SCAB flying at a mainline ALPA will afford you greater protection then if you a pilot flying at a regional and never crossed any picket line.
However the "mccaskill bond amendment" ONLY applies to mainline pilots not when mainline buys a regional. Also ALPA only views mainline pilots as having real jobs. What ever you do at the regionals it is not considered a real job that needs to be protected equally as a mainline pilots. It is still ok for a mainline to screw regional pilots however they wish when a mainline buys a regional and ALPA cannot or will do very little to protect you. Just review the history at DAL with the regionals they own or bought.
Here is a fun think to think about. If you are a SCAB flying at a mainline ALPA will afford you greater protection then if you a pilot flying at a regional and never crossed any picket line.
Yes, ALPA was found liable for failure to fairly represent the TWA pilots, but ALPA is an entity whose first priority is to ensure their own financial viability. They wanted to lure AA pilots over and apparently thought their tack in the AA/TWA transaction was the way to go. Actually, since the AA/TWA transaction wasn't a merger, but instead an "acquisition with an offer of employment" by AMR, that is a primary reason why AA was able to reject certain TWA pilots as you mention. M/B was devised primarily in regards to the plight of the TWA F/A's, ALL of whom were stapled, whereas over half IIRC of the pilots were integrated with varying levels of seniority among legacy AA pilots. Many of those stapled to the bottom were already on furlough from TWA, so the pilots situation wasn't nearly as detrimental as the F/A's. In fact, there have been SLI's where similar situations have occurred such as Southwest and that small 737 outfit I forgot the name of, then AirTran and AA and Reno, etc.
The present AA/US Airways merger/SLI is not a covered transaction under M/B as neither carrier is ALPA, but in the interest of supposed fairness, the APA agreed to adopt its protocol and protections. As for ALPA truly representing the interests of regionals, IMO one need look no further then the letter penned to Envoy pilots by its President a couple of years ago which basically stated in a nutshell that they should take what they are offered and not rock the boat because, yes, you are just a stepping stone job. Personally, I think anyone who thinks things have changed in Herndon in that respect is in fantasy land.
01-18-2016, 09:05 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 471
M/B is NOT limited to "mainline" pilots. M/B is completely applicable when two ALPA carriers merge as part of a "covered transaction" and that could include a mainline carrier acquiring a regional. The purpose of M/B is to ensure a fair PROCESS (not necessarily a fair outcome as an arbitration usually is deemed unfair by the losing party based on no adoption of their proposal). It is based on Allegheny-Mohawk sections 3 and 13 and all that really means is negotiation (section 3) and if no agreement, arbitration (section 13).
Yes, ALPA was found liable for failure to fairly represent the TWA pilots, but ALPA is an entity whose first priority is to ensure their own financial viability. They wanted to lure AA pilots over and apparently thought their tack in the AA/TWA transaction was the way to go. Actually, since the AA/TWA transaction wasn't a merger, but instead an "acquisition with an offer of employment" by AMR, that is a primary reason why AA was able to reject certain TWA pilots as you mention. M/B was devised primarily in regards to the plight of the TWA F/A's, ALL of whom were stapled, whereas over half IIRC of the pilots were integrated with varying levels of seniority among legacy AA pilots. Many of those stapled to the bottom were already on furlough from TWA, so the pilots situation wasn't nearly as detrimental as the F/A's. In fact, there have been SLI's where similar situations have occurred such as Southwest and that small 737 outfit I forgot the name of, then AirTran and AA and Reno, etc.
The present AA/US Airways merger/SLI is not a covered transaction under M/B as neither carrier is ALPA, but in the interest of supposed fairness, the APA agreed to adopt its protocol and protections. As for ALPA truly representing the interests of regionals, IMO one need look no further then the letter penned to Envoy pilots by its President a couple of years ago which basically stated in a nutshell that they should take what they are offered and not rock the boat because, yes, you are just a stepping stone job. Personally, I think anyone who thinks things have changed in Herndon in that respect is in fantasy land.
Yes, ALPA was found liable for failure to fairly represent the TWA pilots, but ALPA is an entity whose first priority is to ensure their own financial viability. They wanted to lure AA pilots over and apparently thought their tack in the AA/TWA transaction was the way to go. Actually, since the AA/TWA transaction wasn't a merger, but instead an "acquisition with an offer of employment" by AMR, that is a primary reason why AA was able to reject certain TWA pilots as you mention. M/B was devised primarily in regards to the plight of the TWA F/A's, ALL of whom were stapled, whereas over half IIRC of the pilots were integrated with varying levels of seniority among legacy AA pilots. Many of those stapled to the bottom were already on furlough from TWA, so the pilots situation wasn't nearly as detrimental as the F/A's. In fact, there have been SLI's where similar situations have occurred such as Southwest and that small 737 outfit I forgot the name of, then AirTran and AA and Reno, etc.
The present AA/US Airways merger/SLI is not a covered transaction under M/B as neither carrier is ALPA, but in the interest of supposed fairness, the APA agreed to adopt its protocol and protections. As for ALPA truly representing the interests of regionals, IMO one need look no further then the letter penned to Envoy pilots by its President a couple of years ago which basically stated in a nutshell that they should take what they are offered and not rock the boat because, yes, you are just a stepping stone job. Personally, I think anyone who thinks things have changed in Herndon in that respect is in fantasy land.
01-21-2016, 07:28 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 417
I wouldn't be concerned with being a no show to PSA affecting your chances at AA. It's pretty clear AA is interested in receiving most of their pilots from flows, so unless you are no showing PSA for PDT or ENY you're not really having any effect on getting hired at AA. That is assuming AA even goes to the trouble of tracking who no shows PSA, which I feel is pretty unlikely.
If PSA is so concerned about no shows then they can do something about the ridiculous contract.
If PSA is so concerned about no shows then they can do something about the ridiculous contract.
01-21-2016, 07:38 AM
#50
Living the Dream
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,795
M/B is NOT limited to "mainline" pilots. M/B is completely applicable when two ALPA carriers merge as part of a "covered transaction" and that could include a mainline carrier acquiring a regional. The purpose of M/B is to ensure a fair PROCESS (not necessarily a fair outcome as an arbitration usually is deemed unfair by the losing party based on no adoption of their proposal). It is based on Allegheny-Mohawk sections 3 and 13 and all that really means is negotiation (section 3) and if no agreement, arbitration (section 13).
Yes, ALPA was found liable for failure to fairly represent the TWA pilots, but ALPA is an entity whose first priority is to ensure their own financial viability. They wanted to lure AA pilots over and apparently thought their tack in the AA/TWA transaction was the way to go. Actually, since the AA/TWA transaction wasn't a merger, but instead an "acquisition with an offer of employment" by AMR, that is a primary reason why AA was able to reject certain TWA pilots as you mention. M/B was devised primarily in regards to the plight of the TWA F/A's, ALL of whom were stapled, whereas over half IIRC of the pilots were integrated with varying levels of seniority among legacy AA pilots. Many of those stapled to the bottom were already on furlough from TWA, so the pilots situation wasn't nearly as detrimental as the F/A's. In fact, there have been SLI's where similar situations have occurred such as Southwest and that small 737 outfit I forgot the name of, then AirTran and AA and Reno, etc.
The present AA/US Airways merger/SLI is not a covered transaction under M/B as neither carrier is ALPA, but in the interest of supposed fairness, the APA agreed to adopt its protocol and protections. As for ALPA truly representing the interests of regionals, IMO one need look no further then the letter penned to Envoy pilots by its President a couple of years ago which basically stated in a nutshell that they should take what they are offered and not rock the boat because, yes, you are just a stepping stone job. Personally, I think anyone who thinks things have changed in Herndon in that respect is in fantasy land.
Yes, ALPA was found liable for failure to fairly represent the TWA pilots, but ALPA is an entity whose first priority is to ensure their own financial viability. They wanted to lure AA pilots over and apparently thought their tack in the AA/TWA transaction was the way to go. Actually, since the AA/TWA transaction wasn't a merger, but instead an "acquisition with an offer of employment" by AMR, that is a primary reason why AA was able to reject certain TWA pilots as you mention. M/B was devised primarily in regards to the plight of the TWA F/A's, ALL of whom were stapled, whereas over half IIRC of the pilots were integrated with varying levels of seniority among legacy AA pilots. Many of those stapled to the bottom were already on furlough from TWA, so the pilots situation wasn't nearly as detrimental as the F/A's. In fact, there have been SLI's where similar situations have occurred such as Southwest and that small 737 outfit I forgot the name of, then AirTran and AA and Reno, etc.
The present AA/US Airways merger/SLI is not a covered transaction under M/B as neither carrier is ALPA, but in the interest of supposed fairness, the APA agreed to adopt its protocol and protections. As for ALPA truly representing the interests of regionals, IMO one need look no further then the letter penned to Envoy pilots by its President a couple of years ago which basically stated in a nutshell that they should take what they are offered and not rock the boat because, yes, you are just a stepping stone job. Personally, I think anyone who thinks things have changed in Herndon in that respect is in fantasy land.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
