AOL update
02-20-2014, 07:49 AM
#2811
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
One more thing wiggy. I was made aware of PanAm/National by a west guy. He is one of the principles in AOL now. Their situation was very similar to ours, but Gill handled it slightly different. I firmly believe that had Nicolau used more of Gill's logic, we wouldn't be here today.
Here are the AOLers words for 2005:
"Mark my words, this will go exactly like Pan-Am/National. Why? Because the merger is almost a dead-ringer. Because the "unfairness" arguments from the Pan-Am/National merger have already been argued in federal court following the merger and all challenges lost. That means there is already precedent for this sort of integration. It's the safest way out for the arbitrator, the unions (national leadership, of course) and the two airlines. And that's what everyone wants; just dispose of it as soon as possible. Anybody expecting something other than a ratio based on longevity will be disappointed.
But the PanAm-National merger directly applies. And that was straight longevity for the top part of the seniority lists, and then dovetailing for the rest. That's the scenario you outlined above. It's been done before and will be done again.
As for slotting, don't assume it would be one for one or tailed in such a way that the bottom flying UAir guy is paired with the bottom AWA guy. There will be some sort of slotting but consideration will be given to age and longevity as well. I expect the number one UAIR guy on furlough won't be much worse off than the bottom UAIR pilot flying. If he were markedly worse off solely because of his "furlough" status, then we're getting away from fairness and into pure arbitrariness in dictating peoples' lives and careers. [He kind of got that part right-the first(formerly) furloughed guy wasn't markedly worse off than the (formerly) bottom guy. They both had all but one of the west list ahead of them!] The number one guy on furlough all of a sudden falls way behind the bottom flying guy, just ahead of him. Not cool. Make your arguments and let the chips fall where they may. It'll be a subjective, gut instinct decision on the part of the arbitrator, but that is just the way it is and is the best way for all.
But I doubt the furloughees with 15 years of longevity will go to the bottom. [They did] My guess on the ultimate integration will be to integrate using a weighted longevity formula. Somebody with fifteen years at U that's now on the street is likely to integrate somewhere around senior AWA f/o or perhaps very junior captain.[They were stapled below every single west pilot, even the guy that was in indoc. when the merger was announced] But that's just a guess.
Given my place, it won't make much of a difference whether there is a dovetail or longevity based integration. I suspect I'd end up right around the 90-91 hires. [He ended up way, way senior to that on the Nic] I'm a somewhat senior f/o by the way.
I'd like to say one more thing about the integration: the focus needs to be on results, not applications. Just because a method is applied uniformly does not make it fair. Lots of ideas seem fair, but all ideas should be put to the test and judged according to the result. [This where I think Nicolau failed. I've been told there was no testing of the list, they put it together in 2 days in Ireland and boom, there ya go. True? I don't know, but if they had tested it, ran it out in to the future they would have seen the tremendous shift from east to west, the kind of shift Gill said was unfair] It's not fairness in the application we should seek but fairness in the result because it's the result we all have to live with."[Nailed it, then forgot it]
Suffice it to say, he changed his tune after the Nicolau award came out. He was places hundreds, if not thousands of numbers higher than he predicted.
Here are the AOLers words for 2005:
"Mark my words, this will go exactly like Pan-Am/National. Why? Because the merger is almost a dead-ringer. Because the "unfairness" arguments from the Pan-Am/National merger have already been argued in federal court following the merger and all challenges lost. That means there is already precedent for this sort of integration. It's the safest way out for the arbitrator, the unions (national leadership, of course) and the two airlines. And that's what everyone wants; just dispose of it as soon as possible. Anybody expecting something other than a ratio based on longevity will be disappointed.
But the PanAm-National merger directly applies. And that was straight longevity for the top part of the seniority lists, and then dovetailing for the rest. That's the scenario you outlined above. It's been done before and will be done again.
As for slotting, don't assume it would be one for one or tailed in such a way that the bottom flying UAir guy is paired with the bottom AWA guy. There will be some sort of slotting but consideration will be given to age and longevity as well. I expect the number one UAIR guy on furlough won't be much worse off than the bottom UAIR pilot flying. If he were markedly worse off solely because of his "furlough" status, then we're getting away from fairness and into pure arbitrariness in dictating peoples' lives and careers. [He kind of got that part right-the first(formerly) furloughed guy wasn't markedly worse off than the (formerly) bottom guy. They both had all but one of the west list ahead of them!] The number one guy on furlough all of a sudden falls way behind the bottom flying guy, just ahead of him. Not cool. Make your arguments and let the chips fall where they may. It'll be a subjective, gut instinct decision on the part of the arbitrator, but that is just the way it is and is the best way for all.
But I doubt the furloughees with 15 years of longevity will go to the bottom. [They did] My guess on the ultimate integration will be to integrate using a weighted longevity formula. Somebody with fifteen years at U that's now on the street is likely to integrate somewhere around senior AWA f/o or perhaps very junior captain.[They were stapled below every single west pilot, even the guy that was in indoc. when the merger was announced] But that's just a guess.
Given my place, it won't make much of a difference whether there is a dovetail or longevity based integration. I suspect I'd end up right around the 90-91 hires. [He ended up way, way senior to that on the Nic] I'm a somewhat senior f/o by the way.
I'd like to say one more thing about the integration: the focus needs to be on results, not applications. Just because a method is applied uniformly does not make it fair. Lots of ideas seem fair, but all ideas should be put to the test and judged according to the result. [This where I think Nicolau failed. I've been told there was no testing of the list, they put it together in 2 days in Ireland and boom, there ya go. True? I don't know, but if they had tested it, ran it out in to the future they would have seen the tremendous shift from east to west, the kind of shift Gill said was unfair] It's not fairness in the application we should seek but fairness in the result because it's the result we all have to live with."[Nailed it, then forgot it]
Suffice it to say, he changed his tune after the Nicolau award came out. He was places hundreds, if not thousands of numbers higher than he predicted.
Last edited by R57 relay; 02-20-2014 at 08:01 AM.
02-20-2014, 02:14 PM
#2812
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Ok R, after your diatribe of last night, I thought I might have over reacted, and like you, not trusting my judgement in such matters, I submitted it via email late last night to a couple of professional expert friends of mine whom I thought might be able to help me make sense of it. When I attempted to contact them this morning, I was unsuccessful.
A few hours ago though, I find out through some acquaintances of mine that the one friend, a CIA cryptographic deciphering analyst, was in a car wreck. Now, ordinarily you wouldn't think anything untoward of this, but on the local news coverage, eyewitnesses report he appeared to have swerved through a freeway median and crashed into oncoming rush hour traffic...They weren't sure it was intentional, some eyewitnesses say it was. I'm happy to report he is now in the hospital in satisfactory condition.....
Even with that, I'd say it most likely had nothing to do with his attempted decipher of your post. But then I find out that the other friend, an academic type, actually a professor of ancient Chinese hieroglyphics and his graduate assistant, were found by the professor's wife this morning in their basement...Her husband had hung himself from a rafter by a DSL cord taken from his computer, and his assistant was lucky, she pulled the plug on a rather large paper shredding machine as he was attempting to feed his necktie into the slot. I'm happy to report that he too is ok, he's resting comfortably at the county psychiatric hospital, but is reported by doctors to be in a "profound, catatonic meditative state of Dementia Praecox, induced by an underlying acute Taedium Vitae" -it is interspersed with moments of vivid, hallucinogenic disorientation...mumbling incoherent phrases such as "Nic....no Nic!....west....pil-lots...must...stop..."
So now I'm in a conundrum here R, not knowing whether to report such information I might have concerning these apparently unrelated tragedies....of course...understand that I don't hold you personally responsible. I afterall, sent them the post. It appears to be a case where everyone potentially involved in this is a "victim of circumstances".
I am happy to see you have re-formulated your argument in much more coherent fashion....I only wish, perhaps, that you'd done it sooner...
[round of applause from audience] How's that for cornball?'
A few hours ago though, I find out through some acquaintances of mine that the one friend, a CIA cryptographic deciphering analyst, was in a car wreck. Now, ordinarily you wouldn't think anything untoward of this, but on the local news coverage, eyewitnesses report he appeared to have swerved through a freeway median and crashed into oncoming rush hour traffic...They weren't sure it was intentional, some eyewitnesses say it was. I'm happy to report he is now in the hospital in satisfactory condition.....
Even with that, I'd say it most likely had nothing to do with his attempted decipher of your post. But then I find out that the other friend, an academic type, actually a professor of ancient Chinese hieroglyphics and his graduate assistant, were found by the professor's wife this morning in their basement...Her husband had hung himself from a rafter by a DSL cord taken from his computer, and his assistant was lucky, she pulled the plug on a rather large paper shredding machine as he was attempting to feed his necktie into the slot. I'm happy to report that he too is ok, he's resting comfortably at the county psychiatric hospital, but is reported by doctors to be in a "profound, catatonic meditative state of Dementia Praecox, induced by an underlying acute Taedium Vitae" -it is interspersed with moments of vivid, hallucinogenic disorientation...mumbling incoherent phrases such as "Nic....no Nic!....west....pil-lots...must...stop..."
So now I'm in a conundrum here R, not knowing whether to report such information I might have concerning these apparently unrelated tragedies....of course...understand that I don't hold you personally responsible. I afterall, sent them the post. It appears to be a case where everyone potentially involved in this is a "victim of circumstances".
I am happy to see you have re-formulated your argument in much more coherent fashion....I only wish, perhaps, that you'd done it sooner...
Yes, except for the top 500 slots reserved for US widebodies, he apparently integrated by status and category, going to the bottom of each list.
No he didn’t. He put the bottom of the AW 2007 list with the bottom of the 2005 US list.
-Am I to understand that AWA separately hired pilots between 2005 and 2007? It's my understanding that that isn't the case, correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, the bottom of the 2007 AWA list was identical to the bottom of the AWA list when the merger was announced in 2005. For purposes of the merger, any recalls after 2005 (the 300) should have had an expectation that they might not be considered as having been employees of the airline as of the date of the merger in 2005.
Apples and oranges. By using the 2007 list he didn't give us credit for about 50 aircraft that we brought to the merger. So he used our 2007 fleet, but our 2005 pilots. Normally that would help, right? But not with us because of our attrition and return to realistic staffing we had returned 300 pilots to flying despite removing the aircraft. For the AW side, they removed only a few aircraft and kept their same pilots.
I don't know, R, not knowing the intricacies of what he was presented with, I can speculate that perhaps he had indications that those fleet reductions were already earmarked, and thus why should AWA pilots pay for the inefficiencies of older, higher cost aircraft that US brought to the merger. Furthermore, you stated earlier that US retired 4 times as many aircraft as the AWA side, but you neglected to mention the US fleet was some multiple larger than the AW fleet...though I'm sure not 4 times larger, it does bring that figure into a little more rational perspective than you have portrayed.
As far as the staffing was concerned, if it is as you say, that US carried understaffing into the merger, and only rationalized it after the merger with the recall of the 300. (who, BTW, under the ALPA guidelines then in effect, didn't bring equities to the merger at the time of the merger, -to be matched with corresponding AW pilots who did all bring equities to the merger.) So why again should the AW pilots be made to account for the understaffing of US at the time of the merger? After the 500, I assume that he matched the equities according to status and category as of the date of merger, going in stovepipe order, matching such equities brought to the merger until the equities were exhausted at the bottom of the list. That's my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong.
It is not clear at all that LOS or DOH should carry any special consideration.
I told everyone that we flew with that we would not get LOS.
Even you, R, have abandoned the concept of pure DOH or LOS as being the sole relevant criteria for constructing seniority lists.
See above. You cannot abandon something you never had.
Touché, I stand corrected. So if you were one of those dissenters from the DOH position from the get-go, during the arbitration, presumably you weren't shocked by the results. I will speculate about your nature here R, that since your expectations were not nearly so high for a DOH list, did your initial gut-reaction (who some say is the most accurate, or telling reaction) to the Nic tell you the ensuing fiasco would be warranted? The reason I say so is that you were, in some sense, against the radicalism USAPA by voting to retain ALPA, then only later became caught up in the ongoing mass group-psychology of DOH entitlement that you'd resisted during arbitration. One gets the feeling that at some point early on in that process, you were of a mind to accept the Nic and move on.
I agreed with Nicolau on several points, just confounded at how he put the list together after making them. Unless you want to start today and say that from this day forward, all pilots will be merged under X policy, every merger does turn on it’s own facts. We agree on that. The problem with the Nicolau is that he ignored the upcoming, huge upward movement that was coming for the east list. The west argument was “You were going out of business, you weren’t going to get it anyway!” Well, nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that was true. Even if US had shutdown, AW wasn’t going to get that upward movement. We didn’t go out of business, we brought our toys to the merger, it was obvious they were and would be the largest part of the new airline. Why should AW pilots get the value of it? That’s what Nicolau did, he shifted the east attrition to the west by not placing east pilots(below 500) slightly higher than the west guys. And you will notice that I said slightly, not a reserve F/O ahead of a line holding captain as WD said. I think the east MEC report to the BOD shows this clearly. Have you read it? Have you read Brucia’s dissent? I can provide you copies if you would like.
I seem to recall Brucia's dissent, though not in detail. But I acknowledge it. As to the future attrition...I think it is a common practice in mergers that the "vagaries of the future" should not be given equal weight to the reality of the present. Though retirements are certain, it so happened to work out that there was a confluence of events that influenced the attrition argument, such that the specifics of attrition at that time were not so certain...I'm speaking of the age 65 mandatory retirement issue. This no doubt influenced his thoughts on balancing attrition equities and, if I am not mistaken, resulted in Nicolau conditionally applying the widebody fences. The net result of which attrition was given lesser weight.
You are correct that the ALPA merger policy had no reference to DOH/LOS. It was taken out a while back, and there was a US pilot on the panel that did it. I don’t know why, but our debacle put it back in. If the Nicolau award wasn’t a debacle, then why have all the changes to merger policies occurred? Why have a panel of three arbitrators now? Could it be that many at ALPA agreed with Brucia’s dissent and realized that if he had a vote that this may have turned out differently? Even without any consideration for DOH/LOS, one of the goals was no windfall at the expense of others. That clearly happened with this arbitration.
As far as the ethical results of the Nic are concerned, and the West's role in it, perhaps this best sums up my feelings:
'I don't know if the Nic is right or wrong; I'm not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this — the West pilots won't sell anybody out to buy their future! And that, my friends, is called integrity. That's called courage. Now that's the stuff airline pilots should be made of.....Now we have come to the crossroads in this merger. And we always knew what the right path was; without exception, we knew. But Usapa never took it. You know why? It was too...damn...hard. Now here's the west pilots, they've come to the crossroads. They have chosen a path. It's the right path. It's a path made of principle, that leads to character. Let them continue on his journey. You hold this pilot group's future in your hands, merger committee! It's a valuable future. Believe me! Don't destroy it — protect it, embrace it. It's gonna make you proud one day, I promise you.
No he didn’t. He put the bottom of the AW 2007 list with the bottom of the 2005 US list.
-Am I to understand that AWA separately hired pilots between 2005 and 2007? It's my understanding that that isn't the case, correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, the bottom of the 2007 AWA list was identical to the bottom of the AWA list when the merger was announced in 2005. For purposes of the merger, any recalls after 2005 (the 300) should have had an expectation that they might not be considered as having been employees of the airline as of the date of the merger in 2005.
Apples and oranges. By using the 2007 list he didn't give us credit for about 50 aircraft that we brought to the merger. So he used our 2007 fleet, but our 2005 pilots. Normally that would help, right? But not with us because of our attrition and return to realistic staffing we had returned 300 pilots to flying despite removing the aircraft. For the AW side, they removed only a few aircraft and kept their same pilots.
I don't know, R, not knowing the intricacies of what he was presented with, I can speculate that perhaps he had indications that those fleet reductions were already earmarked, and thus why should AWA pilots pay for the inefficiencies of older, higher cost aircraft that US brought to the merger. Furthermore, you stated earlier that US retired 4 times as many aircraft as the AWA side, but you neglected to mention the US fleet was some multiple larger than the AW fleet...though I'm sure not 4 times larger, it does bring that figure into a little more rational perspective than you have portrayed.
As far as the staffing was concerned, if it is as you say, that US carried understaffing into the merger, and only rationalized it after the merger with the recall of the 300. (who, BTW, under the ALPA guidelines then in effect, didn't bring equities to the merger at the time of the merger, -to be matched with corresponding AW pilots who did all bring equities to the merger.) So why again should the AW pilots be made to account for the understaffing of US at the time of the merger? After the 500, I assume that he matched the equities according to status and category as of the date of merger, going in stovepipe order, matching such equities brought to the merger until the equities were exhausted at the bottom of the list. That's my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong.
It is not clear at all that LOS or DOH should carry any special consideration.
I told everyone that we flew with that we would not get LOS.
Even you, R, have abandoned the concept of pure DOH or LOS as being the sole relevant criteria for constructing seniority lists.
See above. You cannot abandon something you never had.
Touché, I stand corrected. So if you were one of those dissenters from the DOH position from the get-go, during the arbitration, presumably you weren't shocked by the results. I will speculate about your nature here R, that since your expectations were not nearly so high for a DOH list, did your initial gut-reaction (who some say is the most accurate, or telling reaction) to the Nic tell you the ensuing fiasco would be warranted? The reason I say so is that you were, in some sense, against the radicalism USAPA by voting to retain ALPA, then only later became caught up in the ongoing mass group-psychology of DOH entitlement that you'd resisted during arbitration. One gets the feeling that at some point early on in that process, you were of a mind to accept the Nic and move on.
I agreed with Nicolau on several points, just confounded at how he put the list together after making them. Unless you want to start today and say that from this day forward, all pilots will be merged under X policy, every merger does turn on it’s own facts. We agree on that. The problem with the Nicolau is that he ignored the upcoming, huge upward movement that was coming for the east list. The west argument was “You were going out of business, you weren’t going to get it anyway!” Well, nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that was true. Even if US had shutdown, AW wasn’t going to get that upward movement. We didn’t go out of business, we brought our toys to the merger, it was obvious they were and would be the largest part of the new airline. Why should AW pilots get the value of it? That’s what Nicolau did, he shifted the east attrition to the west by not placing east pilots(below 500) slightly higher than the west guys. And you will notice that I said slightly, not a reserve F/O ahead of a line holding captain as WD said. I think the east MEC report to the BOD shows this clearly. Have you read it? Have you read Brucia’s dissent? I can provide you copies if you would like.
I seem to recall Brucia's dissent, though not in detail. But I acknowledge it. As to the future attrition...I think it is a common practice in mergers that the "vagaries of the future" should not be given equal weight to the reality of the present. Though retirements are certain, it so happened to work out that there was a confluence of events that influenced the attrition argument, such that the specifics of attrition at that time were not so certain...I'm speaking of the age 65 mandatory retirement issue. This no doubt influenced his thoughts on balancing attrition equities and, if I am not mistaken, resulted in Nicolau conditionally applying the widebody fences. The net result of which attrition was given lesser weight.
You are correct that the ALPA merger policy had no reference to DOH/LOS. It was taken out a while back, and there was a US pilot on the panel that did it. I don’t know why, but our debacle put it back in. If the Nicolau award wasn’t a debacle, then why have all the changes to merger policies occurred? Why have a panel of three arbitrators now? Could it be that many at ALPA agreed with Brucia’s dissent and realized that if he had a vote that this may have turned out differently? Even without any consideration for DOH/LOS, one of the goals was no windfall at the expense of others. That clearly happened with this arbitration.
As far as the ethical results of the Nic are concerned, and the West's role in it, perhaps this best sums up my feelings:
'I don't know if the Nic is right or wrong; I'm not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this — the West pilots won't sell anybody out to buy their future! And that, my friends, is called integrity. That's called courage. Now that's the stuff airline pilots should be made of.....Now we have come to the crossroads in this merger. And we always knew what the right path was; without exception, we knew. But Usapa never took it. You know why? It was too...damn...hard. Now here's the west pilots, they've come to the crossroads. They have chosen a path. It's the right path. It's a path made of principle, that leads to character. Let them continue on his journey. You hold this pilot group's future in your hands, merger committee! It's a valuable future. Believe me! Don't destroy it — protect it, embrace it. It's gonna make you proud one day, I promise you.
02-20-2014, 02:18 PM
#2813
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Usapa opposes single carrier
Communications Committee February 20, 2014 New Legal Postings
This week USAPA and the APA submitted documents to the National Mediation Board (NMB), in response to the NMB's request for position statements. From USAPA's Initial Position Statement:
USAPA submits that the record evidence will establish American Airlines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. are not substantially integrated in operations, have not achieved substantial integration of rates of pay, rules and working condition among the pilots of the carriers, have not substantially integrated their dealings with the traveling public, and are not yet substantially integrated even for labor relations management purposes. As American Airlines Chief Executive Officer Doug Parker has stated publicly, American and US Airways will operate separately for 18 to 24 months and “Very few changes will happen immediately.”
USAPA Communications
The following filings are now posted in the Legal Library under National Mediation Board Filings>AA/US Airways Single Carrier.
02-20-2014, 03:27 PM
#2814
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
12/20 apa update
As part of APA's ongoing effort to keep you informed about the progress of the merger, we provide this update on the seniority-integration process and the single-employer proceeding before the National Mediation Board (NMB).
Seniority Integration
On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.
By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.
On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.
APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.
In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."
USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.
Single-Employer Proceeding
As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.
It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.
USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.
What's Next?
Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.
Seniority Integration
On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.
By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.
On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.
APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.
In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."
USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.
Single-Employer Proceeding
As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.
It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.
USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.
What's Next?
Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.
02-20-2014, 03:30 PM
#2815
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Ok R, after your diatribe of last night, I thought I might have over reacted, and like you, not trusting my judgement in such matters, I submitted it via email late last night to a couple of professional expert friends of mine whom I thought might be able to help me make sense of it. When I attempted to contact them this morning, I was unsuccessful.
A few hours ago though, I find out through some acquaintances of mine that the one friend, a CIA cryptographic deciphering analyst, was in a car wreck. Now, ordinarily you wouldn't think anything untoward of this, but on the local news coverage, eyewitnesses report he appeared to have swerved through a freeway median and crashed into oncoming rush hour traffic...They weren't sure it was intentional, some eyewitnesses say it was. I'm happy to report he is now in the hospital in satisfactory condition.....
Even with that, I'd say it most likely had nothing to do with his attempted decipher of your post. But then I find out that the other friend, an academic type, actually a professor of ancient Chinese hieroglyphics and his graduate assistant, were found by the professor's wife this morning in their basement...Her husband had hung himself from a rafter by a DSL cord taken from his computer, and his assistant was lucky, she pulled the plug on a rather large paper shredding machine as he was attempting to feed his necktie into the slot. I'm happy to report that he too is ok, he's resting comfortably at the county psychiatric hospital, but is reported by doctors to be in a "profound, catatonic meditative state of Dementia Praecox, induced by an underlying acute Taedium Vitae" -it is interspersed with moments of vivid, hallucinogenic disorientation...mumbling incoherent phrases such as "Nic....no Nic!....west....pil-lots...must...stop..."
So now I'm in a conundrum here R, not knowing whether to report such information I might have concerning these apparently unrelated tragedies....of course...understand that I don't hold you personally responsible. I afterall, sent them the post. It appears to be a case where everyone potentially involved in this is a "victim of circumstances".
I am happy to see you have re-formulated your argument in much more coherent fashion....I only wish, perhaps, that you'd done it sooner...
[round of applause from audience] How's that for cornball?'
A few hours ago though, I find out through some acquaintances of mine that the one friend, a CIA cryptographic deciphering analyst, was in a car wreck. Now, ordinarily you wouldn't think anything untoward of this, but on the local news coverage, eyewitnesses report he appeared to have swerved through a freeway median and crashed into oncoming rush hour traffic...They weren't sure it was intentional, some eyewitnesses say it was. I'm happy to report he is now in the hospital in satisfactory condition.....
Even with that, I'd say it most likely had nothing to do with his attempted decipher of your post. But then I find out that the other friend, an academic type, actually a professor of ancient Chinese hieroglyphics and his graduate assistant, were found by the professor's wife this morning in their basement...Her husband had hung himself from a rafter by a DSL cord taken from his computer, and his assistant was lucky, she pulled the plug on a rather large paper shredding machine as he was attempting to feed his necktie into the slot. I'm happy to report that he too is ok, he's resting comfortably at the county psychiatric hospital, but is reported by doctors to be in a "profound, catatonic meditative state of Dementia Praecox, induced by an underlying acute Taedium Vitae" -it is interspersed with moments of vivid, hallucinogenic disorientation...mumbling incoherent phrases such as "Nic....no Nic!....west....pil-lots...must...stop..."
So now I'm in a conundrum here R, not knowing whether to report such information I might have concerning these apparently unrelated tragedies....of course...understand that I don't hold you personally responsible. I afterall, sent them the post. It appears to be a case where everyone potentially involved in this is a "victim of circumstances".
I am happy to see you have re-formulated your argument in much more coherent fashion....I only wish, perhaps, that you'd done it sooner...
[round of applause from audience] How's that for cornball?'
Just admit that you were wrong and you pulled **** out of your ass.
There is help out there for your alignment.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...61725948,d.cWc
"If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere."
02-20-2014, 03:38 PM
#2816
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
As part of APA's ongoing effort to keep you informed about the progress of the merger, we provide this update on the seniority-integration process and the single-employer proceeding before the National Mediation Board (NMB).
Seniority Integration
On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.
By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.
On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.
APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.
In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."
USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.
Single-Employer Proceeding
As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.
It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.
USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.
What's Next?
Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.
Seniority Integration
On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.
By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.
On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.
APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.
In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."
USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.
Single-Employer Proceeding
As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.
It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.
USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.
What's Next?
Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.
Let's keep this in the courts for at least 5 years. While east US has the greatest attrition. Throw me in that briar patch!
02-20-2014, 04:22 PM
#2818
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
02-20-2014, 04:27 PM
#2819
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
If the APA takes full control and representation authority of all pilots, even regarding the MB SLI, immediately at the singer carrier status, regardless of USAPA's protest otherwise, then why the he1! is the APA wasting time trying to scare USAPA into agreeing?
Yes, delay is cool by me!
Yes, delay is cool by me!
WD at AWA
02-20-2014, 04:36 PM
#2820
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
You didn't answer the question, again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
