ALPA National Raids USAIRWAYS KPIT OFFICE!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPA National Raids USAIRWAYS KPIT OFFICE!
A friend who flys for USAIRWAYS (east) just reported to me that ALPA national raided the KPIT USAIRWAYS MEC OFFICE. Changing the locks, installing security cameras.
This seems to have been done with regard to the recent seniority award which places pilots with just a few years of experience at America West senior to pilots at USAIRWAYS who have been on the job almost 20 years...through thick and thin.
There is an effort among USAIRWAYS (*east) pilots to decertify alpa and start a new union which would redo the seniority award to actually respect date of hire.
There is speculation that if USAIRWAYS pulls out of alpa, that other major airlines just might follow suit.
Anyone with more information, please post.
This seems to have been done with regard to the recent seniority award which places pilots with just a few years of experience at America West senior to pilots at USAIRWAYS who have been on the job almost 20 years...through thick and thin.
There is an effort among USAIRWAYS (*east) pilots to decertify alpa and start a new union which would redo the seniority award to actually respect date of hire.
There is speculation that if USAIRWAYS pulls out of alpa, that other major airlines just might follow suit.
Anyone with more information, please post.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality check needed
Yes, a reality check.
America West actually purchased the bankrupt assets of US Air, and it was certainly not a 'merger' in the usual sense.
A merger is when two going concerns join together.
US Air on the other hand, was just about to disappear if they remained on their own.
So, me thinks the old US Air folks have very little to complain about, for if it had not been for America West, all of these folks would be without a job.
And yes, ALPA will shoot itself in its collective foot at every opportunity.
America West actually purchased the bankrupt assets of US Air, and it was certainly not a 'merger' in the usual sense.
A merger is when two going concerns join together.
US Air on the other hand, was just about to disappear if they remained on their own.
So, me thinks the old US Air folks have very little to complain about, for if it had not been for America West, all of these folks would be without a job.
And yes, ALPA will shoot itself in its collective foot at every opportunity.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a seems to be quite wrong. evidence to the contrary exists that while one company has to go on record as the acquiring company, USAIR east has consistently made much more money than usair west (america west).
further research into something called "operation zanzibar" shows that america west was days away from going into bankruptcy.
profits from usair EAST are 3 to 4 times what the west operation is bringing in.
there is much misinformation being sent out.
all pilots who depend on union representation, who benefit from seniority, should and must keep an eye on what is happening.
further research into something called "operation zanzibar" shows that america west was days away from going into bankruptcy.
profits from usair EAST are 3 to 4 times what the west operation is bringing in.
there is much misinformation being sent out.
all pilots who depend on union representation, who benefit from seniority, should and must keep an eye on what is happening.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A non-seniority pilot-totem? or a Seniority List?
"... all pilots who depend on union representation, who benefit from seniority ... keep an eye on what is happening...."
Should we permit any use of the term "Seniority List" when applied to a non-seniority merger-totem: with one company's pilots mostly placed atop the other company's??? For recent mergers, shouldn't pilots honestly acknowledge that their merged "Seniority List" isn't really?
For USA pilots, the requirements for a "seniority" list were defined in the October 1932 issue of _Airline Pilot_ [that original definition refers to a pilot's DATE of qualification at his "component" company]. Only a few mergers in past three decades have stuck with the idea of a "seniority list".
Ironically, many of the AW-pilots were earlier victims of the non-seniority pilot-totem, during mergers within the past decade.
Should we permit any use of the term "Seniority List" when applied to a non-seniority merger-totem: with one company's pilots mostly placed atop the other company's??? For recent mergers, shouldn't pilots honestly acknowledge that their merged "Seniority List" isn't really?
For USA pilots, the requirements for a "seniority" list were defined in the October 1932 issue of _Airline Pilot_ [that original definition refers to a pilot's DATE of qualification at his "component" company]. Only a few mergers in past three decades have stuck with the idea of a "seniority list".
Ironically, many of the AW-pilots were earlier victims of the non-seniority pilot-totem, during mergers within the past decade.
Or 'analogue' as we say in Europe ......... and lots of other places.
Seriously though, this 'merger' (or takeover or whatever) stuff is becoming an issue here in Europe too!
Seriously though, this 'merger' (or takeover or whatever) stuff is becoming an issue here in Europe too!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Robin Hood country.
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seniority award was derived through binding arbitration as agreed by both the USAir and America West union councils. Many factors were weighed, the award was made, but the final decision was not to the liking of the USAir group who now wish to retroactively change the rules of engagement. The arbitration was binding and changing union affiliation will not make it otherwise. ALPA's concern is not unexpected, the loss of such a major pilot group would be a serious blow.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
merger AWA USAirways
If you look at the paperwork filed, AWA did not buy USAirways. A consortium of groups put the money up. Neither AWA nor USAirways. It was a merging of the airlines.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF USAIR leaves ALPA, United will likely follow and the end of alpa will not be far behind.
alpa managed to say bye bye to pensions, a huge amount of pay, reversed itself from saying pilots can't be sky king and marshall dillon at the same time. I loved what ALPA should have been, but what it has turned into falls short of the founder's ideas.
and to those of you who don't know...people with 4 or 5 years airline experience are now (or might be) senior to those who have flown the line for 20 years and have made captain.
there is one case where someone who was two years old when someone else got his ATP is now the senior pilot.
its also funny to watch this happen with a continental pilot at the helm ( cal used to be a scab line...though alpa head may not be a scab) and that some pilots at America West were only too happy to replace annsett airlines striking pilots in Australia.
If I am wrong, please correct me. But I would almost wager that the replacement union will win the big vote ahead.
alpa managed to say bye bye to pensions, a huge amount of pay, reversed itself from saying pilots can't be sky king and marshall dillon at the same time. I loved what ALPA should have been, but what it has turned into falls short of the founder's ideas.
and to those of you who don't know...people with 4 or 5 years airline experience are now (or might be) senior to those who have flown the line for 20 years and have made captain.
there is one case where someone who was two years old when someone else got his ATP is now the senior pilot.
its also funny to watch this happen with a continental pilot at the helm ( cal used to be a scab line...though alpa head may not be a scab) and that some pilots at America West were only too happy to replace annsett airlines striking pilots in Australia.
If I am wrong, please correct me. But I would almost wager that the replacement union will win the big vote ahead.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never did understand that particular "merger". It seems the best that could have happened is two crappy airlines becoming one big crappy airline, which looks to be exactly what took place.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a friend who works at usair told me how great a place it was just before the first gulf war.
it was a money maker.
the planes were very well maintained.
the flight attendants were very good looking
the pay, benefits, perks, scheduling was among the best in the industry.
you could get your time in, in 12 days
the best balance sheet in the industry.
first rate hotels.
mainline planes served small airports like Elmira, New York among others.
two mechanics were on duty each night at out stations.
except for weather and the last flight of the night, the airline ran on time.
last flights were always held for connections at hub airports.
KPIT, was one of the finest hubs in the country from an operational view.
Where did things go wrong? cheap airlines that screwed pilots pulled the whole industry down.
it was a money maker.
the planes were very well maintained.
the flight attendants were very good looking
the pay, benefits, perks, scheduling was among the best in the industry.
you could get your time in, in 12 days
the best balance sheet in the industry.
first rate hotels.
mainline planes served small airports like Elmira, New York among others.
two mechanics were on duty each night at out stations.
except for weather and the last flight of the night, the airline ran on time.
last flights were always held for connections at hub airports.
KPIT, was one of the finest hubs in the country from an operational view.
Where did things go wrong? cheap airlines that screwed pilots pulled the whole industry down.
Sevenstroke:
About ten years ago in Initial Tng. for a different plane, a guy there told us that he worked in Australia during the strike. It had been a good experience for him. Of course he was fresh from a military squadron (A-4) and was ignorant of civilian aviation. He flew the A-320 over there.
The other problem at USAirways was that the pilots were apparently cheated by Neil Cohen
.
As to how the USAirways MEC agreed to certain language in their TA (tentative agreement) is baffling to me. Upper Mgmt. then announced that the pilot retirement pension was then terminated. What language was overlooked, or was it vague, deceptive wording?
Mr. C. might want to reconsider staying in this business.
About ten years ago in Initial Tng. for a different plane, a guy there told us that he worked in Australia during the strike. It had been a good experience for him. Of course he was fresh from a military squadron (A-4) and was ignorant of civilian aviation. He flew the A-320 over there.
The other problem at USAirways was that the pilots were apparently cheated by Neil Cohen
.As to how the USAirways MEC agreed to certain language in their TA (tentative agreement) is baffling to me. Upper Mgmt. then announced that the pilot retirement pension was then terminated. What language was overlooked, or was it vague, deceptive wording?
Mr. C. might want to reconsider staying in this business.
In February and March of 2003 US Airways spent over $10 million on some very capable lawyers who persuaded the bankruptcy judge that the airline would go TU if they didn't get the pilot's pension. The ALPA leaders believed the company (who said "chapter seven if you don't give us the pension") and caved. Smoke and mirrors and an ALPA leadership who went off to bigger and better things at ALPA National caused the loss.
At about the same time ALPA national conducted a successful campaign to shoot down a campaign to change the age 60 rule.
Finally the debacle at the new US Airways. Going to arbitration is a crap shoot. US East pilots should never have been talked into letting that happen..again ALPA failing its members.
ALPA is long past its sell by date and should be replaced.
At about the same time ALPA national conducted a successful campaign to shoot down a campaign to change the age 60 rule.
Finally the debacle at the new US Airways. Going to arbitration is a crap shoot. US East pilots should never have been talked into letting that happen..again ALPA failing its members.
ALPA is long past its sell by date and should be replaced.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about that. I used to work in the old school house on the 75/767 and thought it wasn't looking too good...and it certainly wasn't at that time, but I've been flying on them lately and they're clean, on-time and full. All of the staff seem more motivated than they used to be and even the on board announcements are better. I think they're going to be just fine now if they can start getting this merger language sorted out. I haven't been this optimistic about their future in quite some time.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority, lost to LPPs, then the "staple"
“Consolidate” for profit! for economy! for reduced competition! So says the market.
Ok, is it a Merger, a Route transfer, or Acquisition? (does it matter?)
OK, now:
-- do you want modern Labor Protection Provisions (LPPs)? or
-- do you prefer a simple “seniority” merger [from ALPA in Oct’32 suggesting use of a “Date” of qualification at a component company]? or
-- maybe use a 21st Century southern anti-labor concept of first consolidate, and then “dump” their more “senior” guys, or maybe keep or even “staple” a lucky few.
Merger-“Seniority” was lost to LPPs. LPPs focused merely on “compensation” rather than the older “seniority” idea (seat, bid-order).
United-Capital provisions? [ca ‘61]
Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs? [ca ‘72]
Was it a Merger? No, Acquisition? Or Route Transfer?
“The term "merger" as used herein means to join action by the two carriers whereby they unify, consolidate, merge, or pool in whole or in part their separate airline facilities or any of the operations or services previously performed by them through such separate facilities....”
Complicated? Read the following sentence about a “merger”, and then judge the simplicity or complexity of Labor’s merger-LPPs versus the simplicity of the older “seniority” concept:
“... no employee of either... carriers ... merger ... shall ... be placed in worse position with respect to compensation than he occupied immediately prior to his displacement so long as he is unable in the normal exercise of his said seniority rights under existing agreements, rules, and practices to obtain a position producing compensation equal to or exceeding the compensation of the position held by him immediately prior to such date, except, however, that if he fails to exercise his seniority rights to secure another available position, which does not require a change in residence, to which he is entitled under the working agreement and which carries a rate of pay an compensation exceeding those of the position which he elects to retain, he shall thereafter be treated for the purposes of this section as occupying the position which he elects to decline...."
From 411 just above: "... the ... folks at the 'old' US Air can like it, or lump it ..."
Hmmm, is 411 suggesting an appropriate regard for this pilot-group, in light of their past merger-seniority decisions?
Question: How often has USAir (or its merged or acquired components) deviated away from the “seniority” concept in earlier “mergers” or “acquisitions”?
All American Airways (start-up in ’37, pilots signed with ALPA in ’50).
In ’53 “All American Airways” name-changed to “Allegheny”.
In 1968 Allegheny “acquired” Lake Central (nee RoscoeTurnerAero from’47 with a name-change in ’50 then signed w/ALPA in ‘52).
In 1972 Allegheny “merged” with Mohawk [nee Robinson since start-up in ’45, signed w/ALPA in’49, w/name-changed to Mohawk in ’52].
In ’79 Allegheny name-changed to USAir.
In ’88 USAir merged with PSA [PSA start-up in ’45, pilots signed w/ALPA in ‘81].
In ’89 USAir merged with Piedmont [since ’48, signed w/ALPA in ’52 (in ’84 Piedmont merged w/Empire Airlines w/Empire pilots “stapled”?)].
Ok, is it a Merger, a Route transfer, or Acquisition? (does it matter?)
OK, now:
-- do you want modern Labor Protection Provisions (LPPs)? or
-- do you prefer a simple “seniority” merger [from ALPA in Oct’32 suggesting use of a “Date” of qualification at a component company]? or
-- maybe use a 21st Century southern anti-labor concept of first consolidate, and then “dump” their more “senior” guys, or maybe keep or even “staple” a lucky few.
Merger-“Seniority” was lost to LPPs. LPPs focused merely on “compensation” rather than the older “seniority” idea (seat, bid-order).
United-Capital provisions? [ca ‘61]
Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs? [ca ‘72]
Was it a Merger? No, Acquisition? Or Route Transfer?
“The term "merger" as used herein means to join action by the two carriers whereby they unify, consolidate, merge, or pool in whole or in part their separate airline facilities or any of the operations or services previously performed by them through such separate facilities....”
Complicated? Read the following sentence about a “merger”, and then judge the simplicity or complexity of Labor’s merger-LPPs versus the simplicity of the older “seniority” concept:
“... no employee of either... carriers ... merger ... shall ... be placed in worse position with respect to compensation than he occupied immediately prior to his displacement so long as he is unable in the normal exercise of his said seniority rights under existing agreements, rules, and practices to obtain a position producing compensation equal to or exceeding the compensation of the position held by him immediately prior to such date, except, however, that if he fails to exercise his seniority rights to secure another available position, which does not require a change in residence, to which he is entitled under the working agreement and which carries a rate of pay an compensation exceeding those of the position which he elects to retain, he shall thereafter be treated for the purposes of this section as occupying the position which he elects to decline...."
From 411 just above: "... the ... folks at the 'old' US Air can like it, or lump it ..."
Hmmm, is 411 suggesting an appropriate regard for this pilot-group, in light of their past merger-seniority decisions?
Question: How often has USAir (or its merged or acquired components) deviated away from the “seniority” concept in earlier “mergers” or “acquisitions”?
All American Airways (start-up in ’37, pilots signed with ALPA in ’50).
In ’53 “All American Airways” name-changed to “Allegheny”.
In 1968 Allegheny “acquired” Lake Central (nee RoscoeTurnerAero from’47 with a name-change in ’50 then signed w/ALPA in ‘52).
In 1972 Allegheny “merged” with Mohawk [nee Robinson since start-up in ’45, signed w/ALPA in’49, w/name-changed to Mohawk in ’52].
In ’79 Allegheny name-changed to USAir.
In ’88 USAir merged with PSA [PSA start-up in ’45, pilots signed w/ALPA in ‘81].
In ’89 USAir merged with Piedmont [since ’48, signed w/ALPA in ’52 (in ’84 Piedmont merged w/Empire Airlines w/Empire pilots “stapled”?)].
Last edited by IGh; 5th Nov 2007 at 19:37.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPA Merger Policy???
So, what does the current ALPA Merger Policy say? I'm not familiar, so this is why I ask.
Does the seniority list award (America West / USAirways) satisfy the current ALPA Merger Policy?
Let's continue the discussion from there.....
PantLoad
Does the seniority list award (America West / USAirways) satisfy the current ALPA Merger Policy?
Let's continue the discussion from there.....
PantLoad