ua/co sen. list
07-31-2010, 12:41 PM
#11
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
But you forget to mention the context of that statement. Everything is different when explained in context.
Capt. Brucia was on the arbitration panel of the USAirways pilot seniority list integration. He had a problem with the fact that the USAirways EAST pilots who were recalled AFTER the merger was announced were put below America West pilots who were relatively new. They were for all intents and purposes treated as still furloughed while the SLI process was happening and not given credit for the fact that they had been flying before, were furloughed and had now been recalled before the list was finalized. So, his argument was that they should have been given different consideration and placed higher on the seniority list since they were recalled and back to work and not still furloughed.
Capt. Brucia was on the arbitration panel of the USAirways pilot seniority list integration. He had a problem with the fact that the USAirways EAST pilots who were recalled AFTER the merger was announced were put below America West pilots who were relatively new. They were for all intents and purposes treated as still furloughed while the SLI process was happening and not given credit for the fact that they had been flying before, were furloughed and had now been recalled before the list was finalized. So, his argument was that they should have been given different consideration and placed higher on the seniority list since they were recalled and back to work and not still furloughed.
07-31-2010, 01:08 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Captain Bligh;
the portions of ALPA's new merger policy that mandate
a. Preserve jobs.
[FONT=Times New Roman
the portions of ALPA's new merger policy that mandate
a. Preserve jobs.
[FONT=Times New Roman
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.[/FONT][/SIZE]
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.[/LEFT]
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.[/LEFT]
07-31-2010, 04:47 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,130
It's interesting how quickly a few have jumped in to shout "JCBA first!"
Always being the contrarian when other pilots tell me what I should think (rather than points I should consider), I subscribe to the idea that most of the seniority list decisions have been made by now.
You can rest assured that the CAL team, under the leadership of Captain Brucia, has made some strong arguments for years of service. Brucia, who wrote, "...where I differ with my fellow members of the Board is in the area of credit that should be given to a pilot based on date of hire and the pilot's resulting length of service", will cause a bit of a dilemma for the junior CAL pilots.
Conversely, the comparatively inexperienced UAL NC will bring a strong argument that the wide body slots are somehow worth "more" or need to be fenced. They will also tend to want to dampen the effect of note e., and amplify point c, the portions of ALPA's new merger policy that mandates:
So? The list may not be completely finalized, but it is real close and will be sat on until a JCBA is announced. Why? Because national can't afford another decertification over SLI. The list will be bad news for someone. If that news is held until all the other cards are played first, the chances of ALPA national being able to ride through the resulting waves will be much better than if they announce SLI now and a grass roots decertification effort gets underway before anything else is done.
National and anyone that thinks they want to leave the cockpit for a job inside the beltway at national, will be quick to shout "JCBA first!" The painful lessons learned in the LCC disaster were a real wake up call and a big financial hit for ALPA staffers, particularly the legal staff. On the other hand, the administration of the Spirit strike was a huge success, so maybe we are beginning to see more responsible leadership. Unfortunately it took the loss of US airways as fellow ALPA members to bring about the change.
Always being the contrarian when other pilots tell me what I should think (rather than points I should consider), I subscribe to the idea that most of the seniority list decisions have been made by now.
You can rest assured that the CAL team, under the leadership of Captain Brucia, has made some strong arguments for years of service. Brucia, who wrote, "...where I differ with my fellow members of the Board is in the area of credit that should be given to a pilot based on date of hire and the pilot's resulting length of service", will cause a bit of a dilemma for the junior CAL pilots.
Conversely, the comparatively inexperienced UAL NC will bring a strong argument that the wide body slots are somehow worth "more" or need to be fenced. They will also tend to want to dampen the effect of note e., and amplify point c, the portions of ALPA's new merger policy that mandates:
a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.
So? The list may not be completely finalized, but it is real close and will be sat on until a JCBA is announced. Why? Because national can't afford another decertification over SLI. The list will be bad news for someone. If that news is held until all the other cards are played first, the chances of ALPA national being able to ride through the resulting waves will be much better than if they announce SLI now and a grass roots decertification effort gets underway before anything else is done.
National and anyone that thinks they want to leave the cockpit for a job inside the beltway at national, will be quick to shout "JCBA first!" The painful lessons learned in the LCC disaster were a real wake up call and a big financial hit for ALPA staffers, particularly the legal staff. On the other hand, the administration of the Spirit strike was a huge success, so maybe we are beginning to see more responsible leadership. Unfortunately it took the loss of US airways as fellow ALPA members to bring about the change.
I believe you have been told by others that your excerpt from ALPA merger policy is OLD. The new policy is available on line at the ALPA website.
Anyway, with regards to LCC's merger, that is why the policy was modified in an attempt to avoid that type of result in the future.
Nothing prevents the 2 MEC's from setting a different timeline than the recommended one, but the JCBA should be the first priority to ensure an LCC scenario doesn't play out. Then the ISL should be completed.
I have no doubts that seniority integration negotiations are going on at times currently. However, one would hope that both UAL and CAL MEC's have their eye on the right target and put forth the effort needed to get the JCBA first.
Frats,
Lee
07-31-2010, 08:35 PM
#14
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Actually, that is the old policy. The new policy is: status and category; longevity; and career expectations. In no particular order or weight.
08-01-2010, 05:41 AM
#15
Fore!
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 756 F/O
Posts: 505
Another way they could merge the seniority list is to go DOH but have domicile fences and equipment fences(for current (including ordered) equipment) for X number of years. So if a United guy wanted to go fly at EWR or IAH he could, but he would be the most junior guy at the base and only hold what that seniority would get him. This would only apply to all pilots currently on a seniority list. The said pilot would only "gain seniority" at the CAL base when New Hires came in. Same thing for a CAL pilot who wanted to fly in SFO. He could go there but would be the most junior at that domicile.
08-01-2010, 06:36 AM
#16
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Another way they could merge the seniority list is to go DOH but have domicile fences and equipment fences(for current (including ordered) equipment) for X number of years. So if a United guy wanted to go fly at EWR or IAH he could, but he would be the most junior guy at the base and only hold what that seniority would get him. This would only apply to all pilots currently on a seniority list. The said pilot would only "gain seniority" at the CAL base when New Hires came in. Same thing for a CAL pilot who wanted to fly in SFO. He could go there but would be the most junior at that domicile.
We exchange 1400 working CAL pilots with 1400 furloughed UAL pilots. No Thanx.
08-01-2010, 07:01 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 786
Ya'll are right. Sorry about the old merger policy in my post.
On a tangential thought, this is one of the few areas where I am sensitive to what the decisions our MECs make, actually cost the airline. It's why we need an integrated list that everyone can live with. If there are artificial sweeteners added, like fences, pay protections or Tony's proposed non-portable seniority system, it can end up driving the real cost of staffing this monster beyond costs that are reasonably assumed on the front end. Granted some pilots would become beneficiaries, but that type of a windfall is not worth the aggravation (read anti-pilot motivation) it causes management in future negotiations, when compared to an across the board solid contract.
So we agree? Transitions Agreement, JCBA, ISL, "system flush bid", in that order?
On a tangential thought, this is one of the few areas where I am sensitive to what the decisions our MECs make, actually cost the airline. It's why we need an integrated list that everyone can live with. If there are artificial sweeteners added, like fences, pay protections or Tony's proposed non-portable seniority system, it can end up driving the real cost of staffing this monster beyond costs that are reasonably assumed on the front end. Granted some pilots would become beneficiaries, but that type of a windfall is not worth the aggravation (read anti-pilot motivation) it causes management in future negotiations, when compared to an across the board solid contract.
So we agree? Transitions Agreement, JCBA, ISL, "system flush bid", in that order?
08-01-2010, 07:11 AM
#18
Fore!
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 756 F/O
Posts: 505
Get a no furlough clause in the JCBA just like the one in the transition agreement. Although I think they should have gotten more than 1 year after SOC in the TrA. Granted with a 2nd half 2012 SOC plus 1 year at least the 65er's will be retiring.
08-01-2010, 08:42 AM
#20
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Fix the UAL Scope problem and we should all be ok. DOH is DOA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
