Recommended Posts

TWO OBSERVATIONS:

1) How does one get around the fact that "the parties" agreed to "binding arbitration" (the Keller arbitration) and it is not open (should not be open) for one party to unilaterally reject that award and seek a more palatable resolution? The Tepitsky "solution" may be acceptable but where is the legal and moral authority for implementation?

2) Noticed lately how a Jazz Dash seems less prevalent than a Jazz jet? Evolution is funny. If the difference between mainline and regional was jet/prop, where is the difference now? Point....pilots....all just (repeat..."JUST") pilots. The course of the future is apparently, domestic-----"small body"; international..."wide body" and the point of demarcation for purposes of ego will be....?

It is so unfortunate that such a large percentage of pilots believe in this hierchical structure and will shortly "swear" that the Embraer pilot is somehow inferior to his/her 330 or "Dreamliner" compatriot.

Ah, well! Feed the dogs.

Upperdeck,

Your first question is one a few of us are asking. It'll be interesting to see where that goes, and how...

Your second "observation" lost me... just taking an opportunity to throw a spear at pilots? You're starting to sound a bit like Fran... "all just (repeat..."JUST") pilots".... almost sounds like an inferiority complex showing it's colours... but I could be reading something other than you intended?...

The division between Jazz and mainline is number of seats, if I understand correctly... 75 and less go to Jazz? isn't that it?

In any case, the Embraers are all AC mainline.

What "hierchical structure" are you talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest long keel

Kip,

While most OAC types are not pleased that Kellers ratios are being used, I think it is a shame some here took the bait when Buzzed blink.gif appropriately. CAIL bashing will not move any of us forward, and I want no part of it. Likewise, Buzz and his ilk should stop thinking every OAC should have to lay down there career and hand it to him because his old company experienced no growth at the hands of a more aggressive competitor. I got your entire meaning clearly.

I'm ready to accept this Mr. T. list and move on, with its losses shared on all sides. I dislike the anti-everyone rhetoric these discussions create. No winners, no losers, from what I've seen, the OAC are still losing more relative to premerger positioning, the OCP losing more relative to DOH. Either side won't truly be happy until they get the list to match % or DOH. Having read all of Mr. T's report on aeronet, I have to say the dude has a good grasp on things and made a better attempt at fair for ALL sides than either previous arbitrator.

It is as much time for the OAC's to settle down and accept reality as it is for Capt Blue McG and crew to say, enough is enough and say we're ready accept this to move forward.

An award where everyone is p$ss@d off is as close to fair as we'll end up with. This is likely it. If the CIRB accepts it the issue will be closed for me.

Edited by long keel
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) How does one get around the fact that "the parties" agreed to "binding arbitration" (the Keller arbitration) and it is not open (should not be open) for one party to unilaterally reject that award and seek a more palatable resolution? The Tepitsky "solution" may be acceptable but where is the legal and moral authority for implementation?

Hi Upperdeck

I'll stick my toe in the water again and try and answer this. I'm retired and although I have my point of view, I can be somewhat objective, as I have no personal investment in the outcome. (No kids in the airline either.)

Both sides agreed to binding arbitration based on D183. ACPA's contention is that Keller did not follow D183. In the first instance Keller favoured the OCP group in the way that he matched up aircraft types. (Keeping 747 as one type and then combining the A340 and the 767 as one type for example.) That however was a judgement call and was consistent with D183.

What he did however, after matching likes with likes, was to arbitrarily go beyond D183 in two ways. The first way was to change the date used for combining lists, which benefited the OCP group primarily because of the demographics of the retirements. The second way he went beyond D183 was that he penalized the OAC group for the Mitchnik award by discounting the seniority of the OAC group as if Mitchnik's award was their fault. Basically he said that because the OCP group was subject to Mitchnik for something like 2 years that he would permanently discount the seniority of the OAC group.

Teplitsky has suggested that the Keller award stand, but that the penalties have served, (more than served as he puts it), the purpose that Keller had intended and should now be removed. The new list is Keller adjusted for the date change and the Mitchnik factor.

I think that ACPA is morally justified in working to change an award that was to be binding because it did not follow the parameters that were laid down in D183. It would be like acquiring a business based on the financial statements given to you, and then finding out after you own the business that the statements did not represent the true value of the business.

I looked at my own number on the list. The new list would have had me 23 behind where I was with Mitchnik and 17 ahead of where I was with Keller unchanged.

It seems to me that Teplitsky has come up with the only possible solution under the circumstances. I realize it is hard for the OCP group to accept a decrease in their seniority now but it was also difficult for the OAC group to lose their Mitchnik seniority.

It really is time to put this to bed, shake hands and get on with life. smile.gif

Greg Robinson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

Very well said. Perfect. While most (if not all) of the OAC would like something better than what Mr T has advocated, we are becoming realists. Will we get anything better? Highly unlikely. Do we need to be unified, and face the challenges of the next few years in solidarity? You betcha.

One could also ask: Will both sides be able to move on, regardless of the CIRBs decision? Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely imho...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moeman, quick comment regarding the tent. For some reason, with some crews it has become an issue as to who stows it. My personal observation is that there is a lack of awareness of some crews of the phase of the flight. The last break normally ends just before or at top of decent. With the need for a dash to the bathroom there sometimes is just not enough time for the pilot on the last break to stow it. From this point on, it is extremely important for all pilots to be in the flight deck. Fatigue is at its maximum, alertness at its lowest level, and the greatest potential for mistakes exists with the greatest ramifications, especially with foreign accents on the radio making understanding difficult. To have a pilot out of the flight deck at this point in order to stow the tent is contrary to a safe operation. Personally, I have had a call from the Incharge decending through 10000 ft asking who was going to come back and stow the tent for landing. imo, that was unacceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredulous, that is the only possible description for this ACPA circle-jerk. Teplitsky's list is going to end up in circular file number 13 just as it's prececessor, MEC list II did. This discussion about list implementaion as if it was just a mere formality now, and the attendant references to fairness, compromise, et al, reminds me of a chant by another bunch of sycophanitc acolytes when things started to go pear shaped... "His name as Robert Polson, his name was Robert Polson..."

Just keep saying it to yourself. I'm sure it will make you all feel better.

Sheesh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given your obvious interest in the outcome, do you really expect that we'll accept your opinion as "the way it should be"? I may be an outsider, but I sure don't feel qualified to call ACPAs actions good or bad. Seems to me that should be left up to those who are deemed to be experts, i.e. the arbitrators, adjudicators and the CIRB.

If you have an issue with the process, challenge it on its' merits as ACPA has done. Both sides agreed to a process, providing it followed an established criteria. So far, it's been successfully proven that Keller did not follow that process. If you can get a higher authority to disagree, then fine. Otherwise, try your best to look at it with a teeny bit more objectivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several other adjectives to describe ACAP's actions. Dishonourable is the first that comes to mind. As for your statement, "So far, it's been successfully proven that Keller did not follow that process." well, what can I say? I think I'll just going to go out and hire my own pencil to file a report that says he did follow the process.

Doens't it strike you as unusual that ACPA couldn't even convince Teplitsky of the merits of their argument when they were, A) the only party in the room and cool.gif were the ones cutting him a cheque. I guess that is why he continually attempted to get ALPA counsel involved becase he, "didn't believe the crap he was getting from ACPA."

Teplitsky didn't buy ACPA's argument but he did what ACPA and Air Canda paid him to do. So far, nobody else, right up to the Supreme Court, has bought ACPA's line either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moeman, quick comment regarding the tent. For some reason, with some crews it has become an issue as to who stows it. My personal observation is that there is a lack of awareness of some crews of the phase of the flight. The last break normally ends just before or at top of decent. With the need for a dash to the bathroom there sometimes is just not enough time for the pilot on the last break to stow it. From this point on, it is extremely important for all pilots to be in the flight deck. Fatigue is at its maximum, alertness at its lowest level, and the greatest potential for mistakes exists with the greatest ramifications, especially with foreign accents on the radio making understanding difficult. To have a pilot out of the flight deck at this point in order to stow the tent is contrary to a safe operation. Personally, I have had a call from the Incharge decending through 10000 ft asking who was going to come back and stow the tent for landing. imo, that was unacceptable.

Chico nailed it. We find it unacceptable that you wouldn't have the consideration to get up 30 seconds prior to your break being over so that you could do the responsible thing and put away what you took down. I don't make the crew start a service without me for 2 or 3 minutes because my break just ended and I have to "freshen up" before I can get to work. I use the last few minutes of my rest time to do that as it's the responsible thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moeman, quick comment regarding the tent. For some reason, with some crews it has become an issue as to who stows it. My personal observation is that there is a lack of awareness of some crews of the phase of the flight. Then perhaps you pilot crews should make yourselves more aware of the phase of flight[The last break normally ends just before or at top of decent.Then common sense would dictate that you take your potty break a few minutes before your break is up. Isyour break say, 2hours, or is it 2 hours with an extra ten minutes to freshen up. When our breaks end we are expected to be ready for duty at that time with none of this post break freshening up time. That just doesn't seem logical. With the need for a dash to the bathroom there sometimes is just not enough time for the pilot on the last break to stow it. From this point on, it is extremely important for all pilots to be in the flight deck.That's your problem for not being prepared when your break is OVER Fatigue is at its maximum, alertness at its lowest level, and the greatest potential for mistakes exists with the greatest ramifications, especially with foreign accents on the radio making understanding difficult. To have a pilot out of the flight deck at this point in order to stow the tent is contrary to a safe operation.Sounds like laziness to me and a lack of common courtesy Personally, I have had a call from the Incharge decending through 10000 ft asking who was going to come back and stow the tent for landing. imo, that was unacceptable. Yes it's unacceptable that he/she should have to call to remind you of your duties. Sheesh

Edited by Booya
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to start a fight on the tent and as far as I know this is a color blind issue. First of all, there is no procedure as to who's work it is to stow and setup the tent. In fact, one might ask if the pilots have no other duties in the cabin why would this task be considered by some flight attendants to be one of them? Who is responsible for preparing the cabin for landing? As to getting up early, this defeats the purpose of the rest break. The more sleep one gets during a break, the better one performs. The better the pilots perform, the safer the flight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to getting up early, this defeats the purpose of the rest break. The more sleep one gets during a break, the better one performs. The better the pilots perform, the safer the flight.

Then, obviously your breaks are not long enough for you and perhaps an extra augment should be on board. Makes about as much sense as what you've just said, huh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doens't it strike you as unusual that ACPA couldn't even convince Teplitsky of the merits of their argument when they were, A) the only party in the room and cool.gif were the ones cutting him a cheque. I guess that is why he continually attempted to get ALPA counsel involved becase he, "didn't believe the crap he was getting from ACPA."

Teplitsky didn't  buy ACPA's argument but he did what ACPA and Air Canda paid him to do. So far, nobody else, right up to the Supreme Court, has bought ACPA's line either.

From Teplitsky's report;

"The massive post-Keller loss of positions and fleet changes represents a significant change of circumstances which have accelerated the elimination of the Mitchnick effect and in fact, have created the opposite result, a "Keller effect". To continue the .25 discount and the migration discounts would be unfair. To remove these would result in a fair and equitable seniority list for all pilots. I am completely satisfied that these discounts have already served their purpose and then some"..

"I note as well that "Keller undiscounted" which is the net effect of this recommendation, if accepted and implemented, represents the fulfillment of what I understand to be the CIRB general guidelines of a ratio-integrated list by category without discounts or premiums, given the CIRB's view that both parties brought relatively equal amounts to the table at the effective date of the integration of the seniority lists. Each group has now had either a premium or discount for approximately 2 years, although the Blue Pilots' advantage continues on"..

"I am satisfied at this time that a ratio-integrated list without discounts or premiums on a category basis is just and equitable for all pilots - "no bump-no flush" to apply."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch....are you still there? Mitch?

No, my second remark concerning Jazz jets was not borne of an inferiority complex. In fact, I confess, I have never been "accused" of that particular character deficiency.

No, Mitch. What I was too vaguely alluding to was the seeming inability of certain pilots to accept any determination by a 3rd party delegate as to an appropriate "intermingling". Oh, hell. No punches pulled.

Rightly or wrongly, AC pilots concluded that they were "superior" to "feeder pilots" aka, regionals. Any merger had to recognize this hierarchy so that regional pilots would be placed at the bottom of any such list.

My point was simply that ATP pilots are pilots regardless of equipment operated.

As you know, the AC pilots sought merger because "their" flying was threatened and since merger would obviously be botl, their job security would be protected regardless of the assignment by the mother corp of flying.

However, merger became less "urgent" once the AC pilots negotiated the no-jet provisions and a revised scope. In fact; "Forget it! We no longer want (read "need") a merger".

That's the background to Picher----and no one needs a primer as to the AC pilot response to that particular award.

In the years since, the scenario painted by Picher has been realised. The company played the two pilot groups off against each other resulting in lower wages. (He did predict that would occur). Meanwhile, the so-called Regionals have increased their share of domestic flying and will probably continue to do so. And....increasingly, those "regional" pilots will be operating economical and efficient jet aircraft.

If Picher had not been rejected by the AC pilot group, I venture to suggest that the pilot group as a whole would be much stronger (and better off).

And now...here we are again. Another arbitration award deemed unacceptable by AC pilots and I doubt that any tactic with promise will be ignored in the battle to have that award over-turned or ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest directlaw
Doens't it strike you as unusual that ACPA couldn't even convince Teplitsky of the merits of their argument when they were, A) the only party in the room and cool.gif were the ones cutting him a cheque. I guess that is why he continually attempted to get ALPA counsel involved becase he, "didn't believe the crap he was getting from ACPA."

Teplitsky didn't buy ACPA's argument but he did what ACPA and Air Canda paid him to do. So far, nobody else, right up to the Supreme Court, has bought ACPA's line either.

Since your group was not there...........how would you know?

In fact Teplitsky did buy ACPA's argument that the re ratio was extremely punitive to the OAC. He did not agree though that the whole award should be thrown out. Instead he felt removing the punitive re ratio met the guidelines set out in D183

Teplitsky had the company rerun all equipment bids, since 2000, using the undiscounted Keller award. The assumption was that if the Keller award had been implemented first there would have been no need for the re ratio for the Mitchnick effect. He then compared the time frame between Mitchnick and Keller to quantify how much effect the Mitchnick award actually had. Then he compared the Keller award from 2003 on against the undiscounted Keller award to quantify how much correction had taken place.

His result.......the OCP have been over compensated.

This was his own analysis. Not ACPA's or the company's. Throughout the process he dictated what info he wanted from each party. Not the other way around.

Do you really believe that the CIRB has not been playing along with this the whole time now?

Remember it was your choice not to attend. You were offered to attend without prejudice for future law suits. You were even offered to be subpoenaed, to appear as if you were forced to attend.

The seniority list will be changed and it will be approved by the CIRB. For the CIRB to allow the process to get this far without the intention of allowing implementation makes absolutely no sense. To do nothing now after Teplitsky's review will make the labor situation worse not better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to start a fight on the tent and as far as I know this is a color blind issue. First of all, there is no procedure as to who's work it is to stow and setup the tent. In fact, one might ask if the pilots have no other duties in the cabin why would this task be considered by some flight attendants to be one of them? Who is responsible for preparing the cabin for landing? As to getting up early, this defeats the purpose of the rest break. The more sleep one gets during a break, the better one performs. The better the pilots perform, the safer the flight.

I don't think anybody really minds putting it up when there's a good reason, like the person right in front of the seat is sleeping and his/her head is right next to the velcro strip so removing the tent might wake the person up unnecessarily. Every other time it's simply about respect. You took it down. You put it away. No big deal, is it? We have enough cleaning up to do before landing without having to make your bed too smile.gif .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kilo Mike

Seems like a fair enough request Moeman.

I for one have no problem with getting my cr*p together such that at the end of the break ... It's show time ... and not p** time. It also allows the individual a chance to properly wake up and be useful when they actually get into the cockpit.

It's common sense really.

Edited by Kilo Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike. I suppose the "problem" is that when you guys just get up and leave your mess for us to clean up, it feels like a slap in the face. We're supposed to be colleagues and for the pilots to treat us like we're there to serve and clean up after them, especially when we usually have nowhere to sit and rest except our jumpseats for the entire flight, well it leaves a bad taste if you know what I mean. It's ruined many a pub night between the front and back end, and that's a shame . smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moeman, just out of curiosity, do most guys put it away themselves? Is it just a handful that are leaving it for the FA's to clean up, or is it more than that?

It sounds like something that should be written down in the FOM and the FAM, so as to clear up these "misunderstandings".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say about 8 or 9 out of 10 do it, so the ones that don't that really stick out.

I had a funny incident with an RP a couple of years ago. I called up to request assistance taking it down and she slammed open the door and yelled that this was a critical phase of flight and she could not come out now. I looked her in the eye and said "Yeah. Right." Then she slammed the door shut. So the next day on the flight back, she's in the forward galley trying to find an empty oven to warm up something or other, basically being in the way of the entire J-class crew trying to stow everything for landing. So as one we cornered her in the galley and requested that she leave immediately as this was a critical phase of flight and her presence in the flight deck was absolutely necessary for the safe landing of the aircraft. It was, after all, later in the flight than her little hissy-fit the day before. So she left.

And she never did get her food warmed up tongue.gif .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starman

OK, I've just got to jump in here... It takes me about 38 seconds to put up the tent and about 15 seconds to stow it. I always do it if I am last in it, but if I ever happened to forget for some reason we're talkin' 15 seconds of work... blink.gif

When the seat is used for aircrew fatigue management, there isn't a customer in it, therefore the overall work load of the J class F/A's is reduced very slightly. If a pilot is too lazy to put it away, or conversely, if an F/A complains about putting it away on some rare occasion, I'd say that neither has the mentality to play on a successful team in a competitive environment.

As for the RP who barked out the door at the F/A's about it; she'd be getting a little corrective guidance if she were flying with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.