Value of USAir merger?
12-10-2011, 07:17 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 1,458
And when USAPA soon exhausts all appeals and is forced to accept Nicolau, they will just stop or stall negotiations to delay its implementation. So again, pilots lose.
This is another good reason for an AA merger. AA pilots outnumber outnumber USAPA more than two to one. They will get a joint contract passed since they will have a majority of votes to pass it. This will finally signal the extinction of USAPA so everyone can then try and enjoy a decent career.
This is another good reason for an AA merger. AA pilots outnumber outnumber USAPA more than two to one. They will get a joint contract passed since they will have a majority of votes to pass it. This will finally signal the extinction of USAPA so everyone can then try and enjoy a decent career.
12-10-2011, 08:24 AM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Airbus CA
Posts: 947
Some of you or none of you could be right. Way too many variables to predict. One thing though....AA/east would outnumber West 10-1. USAPA might yet get their do-over. Yeah there might be a ripe DFR and the courts would all agree the West is "right"....and how's being right worked out so far? We could be sitting here in 2020 waiting for the final "victory"...at what cost?
12-10-2011, 10:14 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Some of you or none of you could be right. Way too many variables to predict. One thing though....AA/east would outnumber West 10-1. USAPA might yet get their do-over. Yeah there might be a ripe DFR and the courts would all agree the West is "right"....and how's being right worked out so far? We could be sitting here in 2020 waiting for the final "victory"...at what cost?
I'm not going to have any changes to my working conditions based of the east/west/aa thing, as I work elsewhere.....
IMHO, the Nic will be the governing list when and if LCC merges with anyone. Anything else and there will be piles of lawsuits from West pilots who feel "harmed".
12-10-2011, 10:23 AM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
I'm not an attorney, but this is my understanding of what our attorney says:
There are two issues here, contract law(RLA?) and DFR. He says the two are improperly being mixed even if they work together. He says it is basic law that any and ALL sections of a contract are allowed to be renegotiated after the election of a new CBA. With that right goes the responsiblity of DFR of that new CBA to all members. The 9th circuit appeals court has held that the west couldn't sue for DFR until a joint contract was ratified, so that needs to be set aside. So you go to the question of whether the union has the right to negotiate away from the Nic and that answer is yes, but it can't be arbitrary and must be within a wide range of reasonableness.
So, if I got it right, he is saying the company has to negotiate. That doesn't say they have to say yes to the current USAPA proposal if they feel that it will violate their responsiblitly under that TA, but they have to entertain it. They may come up with something else and then it will be the right of west members to weight the outcome and file DFR II or not.
12-10-2011, 10:44 AM
#125
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
That doesn't say they have to say yes to the current USAPA proposal if they feel that it will violate their responsiblitly under that TA,
12-10-2011, 10:57 AM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Well you are wrong right there. If it were the end of the story we wouldn't be talking about it.
I'm not an attorney, but this is my understanding of what our attorney says:
There are two issues here, contract law(RLA?) and DFR. He says the two are improperly being mixed even if they work together. He says it is basic law that any and ALL sections of a contract are allowed to be renegotiated after the election of a new CBA. With that right goes the responsiblity of DFR of that new CBA to all members. The 9th circuit appeals court has held that the west couldn't sue for DFR until a joint contract was ratified, so that needs to be set aside. So you go to the question of whether the union has the right to negotiate away from the Nic and that answer is yes, but it can't be arbitrary and must be within a wide range of reasonableness.
So, if I got it right, he is saying the company has to negotiate. That doesn't say they have to say yes to the current USAPA proposal if they feel that it will violate their responsiblitly under that TA, but they have to entertain it. They may come up with something else and then it will be the right of west members to weight the outcome and file DFR II or not.
I'm not an attorney, but this is my understanding of what our attorney says:
There are two issues here, contract law(RLA?) and DFR. He says the two are improperly being mixed even if they work together. He says it is basic law that any and ALL sections of a contract are allowed to be renegotiated after the election of a new CBA. With that right goes the responsiblity of DFR of that new CBA to all members. The 9th circuit appeals court has held that the west couldn't sue for DFR until a joint contract was ratified, so that needs to be set aside. So you go to the question of whether the union has the right to negotiate away from the Nic and that answer is yes, but it can't be arbitrary and must be within a wide range of reasonableness.
So, if I got it right, he is saying the company has to negotiate. That doesn't say they have to say yes to the current USAPA proposal if they feel that it will violate their responsiblitly under that TA, but they have to entertain it. They may come up with something else and then it will be the right of west members to weight the outcome and file DFR II or not.
The company says they have a duty to negotiate under Section 6 of the RLA and they have a duty to honor the transition agreement. They can't do both as long as USAPA sticks to demanding a new seniority list, their date of hire. The company wants the court to help them out the jam.
The company's position, one that increasingly seems to be adopted by the court, is that they have to honor the transition agreement. That means USAPA either accepts the Nicolau list or they will never be able to negotiate a new contract. The company will receive a "get out of jail free card" from the declaratory judgement. USAPA cannot be forced to abandon date of hire, but the company will get a free ride from the NMB because USAPA will be asking them to violate a court order. USAPA will have to make a choice.
In essence, this case is all about the next merger. Most people have written off USAPA's ability to ever complete a contract negotiation. The company wants the court to force them to honor the transition agreement so they can begin a new merger and the seniority issue is already settled. The fantasy that you get to start a new merger with an East list and a West list is just that, a fantasy.
As far as the duty to negotiate, you forgot one item. The union cannot be arbitrary, they have a wide range of reasonableness, and they also have to negotiate in good faith. In seniority issues, the courts have ruled that you cannot swap one group of unhappy employees for another group of unhappy employees unless you can show an over riding purpose that benefits the entire group. USAPA's intentions are clearly in bad faith, their objective is to use majority rule to override a binding arbitration award and they aren't very subtle about it.
12-10-2011, 11:06 AM
#127
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Actually we are saying the same thing. There is a single seniority list at LCC and it is the Nicolau list. The union does have the right to negotiate a new seniority list. The company does have an obligation to follow the contract they signed in the Transition Agreement. If they don't follow that contract, they face damages, alongside the union, from the pilots harmed by the "new" seniority list.
The company says they have a duty to negotiate under Section 6 of the RLA and they have a duty to honor the transition agreement. They can't do both as long as USAPA sticks to demanding a new seniority list, their date of hire. The company wants the court to help them out the jam.
The company's position, one that increasingly seems to be adopted by the court, is that they have to honor the transition agreement. That means USAPA either accepts the Nicolau list or they will never be able to negotiate a new contract. The company will receive a "get out of jail free card" from the declaratory judgement. USAPA cannot be forced to abandon date of hire, but the company will get a free ride from the NMB because USAPA will be asking them to violate a court order. USAPA will have to make a choice.
In essence, this case is all about the next merger. Most people have written off USAPA's ability to ever complete a contract negotiation. The company wants the court to force them to honor the transition agreement so they can begin a new merger and the seniority issue is already settled. The fantasy that you get to start a new merger with an East list and a West list is just that, a fantasy.
As far as the duty to negotiate, you forgot one item. The union cannot be arbitrary, they have a wide range of reasonableness, and they also have to negotiate in good faith. In seniority issues, the courts have ruled that you cannot swap one group of unhappy employees for another group of unhappy employees unless you can show an over riding purpose that benefits the entire group. USAPA's intentions are clearly in bad faith, their objective is to use majority rule to override a binding arbitration award and they aren't very subtle about it.
The company says they have a duty to negotiate under Section 6 of the RLA and they have a duty to honor the transition agreement. They can't do both as long as USAPA sticks to demanding a new seniority list, their date of hire. The company wants the court to help them out the jam.
The company's position, one that increasingly seems to be adopted by the court, is that they have to honor the transition agreement. That means USAPA either accepts the Nicolau list or they will never be able to negotiate a new contract. The company will receive a "get out of jail free card" from the declaratory judgement. USAPA cannot be forced to abandon date of hire, but the company will get a free ride from the NMB because USAPA will be asking them to violate a court order. USAPA will have to make a choice.
In essence, this case is all about the next merger. Most people have written off USAPA's ability to ever complete a contract negotiation. The company wants the court to force them to honor the transition agreement so they can begin a new merger and the seniority issue is already settled. The fantasy that you get to start a new merger with an East list and a West list is just that, a fantasy.
As far as the duty to negotiate, you forgot one item. The union cannot be arbitrary, they have a wide range of reasonableness, and they also have to negotiate in good faith. In seniority issues, the courts have ruled that you cannot swap one group of unhappy employees for another group of unhappy employees unless you can show an over riding purpose that benefits the entire group. USAPA's intentions are clearly in bad faith, their objective is to use majority rule to override a binding arbitration award and they aren't very subtle about it.
12-10-2011, 03:50 PM
#129
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Don't be sorry, you are correct. Just ask piedmont and psa guys what they think, or if you have been around long enough, any united union officer that dealt with them in 2000.
12-10-2011, 04:07 PM
#130
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
FYI:
LCC fleet:
128-----------50 or less seat RJ's
212-----------A319/320 and 737-300/400
AA Fleet:
200-----------50 or Less seat RJ's
247-----------MD-80 series aircraft
Can you see how in a merger that phasing out MOST of the small RJ's*(prob AE unfortunately) and ALL of the MD-80's is a "synergy opportunity" for LCC/AA?
I hope with the new deliveries coming at both carriers that a fleet removal of 247 Douglas jets could be done without furloughs.....
LCC fleet:
128-----------50 or less seat RJ's
212-----------A319/320 and 737-300/400
AA Fleet:
200-----------50 or Less seat RJ's
247-----------MD-80 series aircraft
Can you see how in a merger that phasing out MOST of the small RJ's*(prob AE unfortunately) and ALL of the MD-80's is a "synergy opportunity" for LCC/AA?
I hope with the new deliveries coming at both carriers that a fleet removal of 247 Douglas jets could be done without furloughs.....
I'd put a full blown AA/U merger at about 25% (within the realm of possibilities, but unlikely). I agree with Boyd........they'll try all right, but I think AA will come out still itself and that might actually be their BEST strategy as with U's problems, ultimately they'll become weaker while a stronger, yet still independent AA flourishes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
