SO - Where's the SLI?
09-02-2016, 07:53 AM
#1894
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
I know you didn't address me but here's my "westie" perspective on your points.
1. Implementation disposition does not necessarily invalidate the Nic. While the TA required a contract before its use the TA did not specify that the Nicolau award would only be validated once implemented. In fact the company accepted the list. The idea that it was simply a "proposal" is disingenuous.
2. This is closely tied to my (our) perspective in point #1. If in fact the validity of the Nic does not hinge on implementation than that should serve to support our position that MB cannot go back to revisit the award.
3. This is actually false. Freund et al did not sign the protocol agreement. The agreement was made before the west was allowed to participate as a separate entity. In fact if you read the transcripts you read where Freund explained that he would "never have signed" that document precisely because of the "three list" starting point.
In the end I really have no clue what the list will look like. I am personally prepared for serious disappointment and hopeful for something that will give me some quality of life. Anyway hopefully that answers your questions. You have been respectful and I appreciate that. There will most likely never be real understanding from our two camps but I believe we can work together. Just like politics and religion, seniority will be a topic for home.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
1. Implementation disposition does not necessarily invalidate the Nic. While the TA required a contract before its use the TA did not specify that the Nicolau award would only be validated once implemented. In fact the company accepted the list. The idea that it was simply a "proposal" is disingenuous.
2. This is closely tied to my (our) perspective in point #1. If in fact the validity of the Nic does not hinge on implementation than that should serve to support our position that MB cannot go back to revisit the award.
3. This is actually false. Freund et al did not sign the protocol agreement. The agreement was made before the west was allowed to participate as a separate entity. In fact if you read the transcripts you read where Freund explained that he would "never have signed" that document precisely because of the "three list" starting point.
In the end I really have no clue what the list will look like. I am personally prepared for serious disappointment and hopeful for something that will give me some quality of life. Anyway hopefully that answers your questions. You have been respectful and I appreciate that. There will most likely never be real understanding from our two camps but I believe we can work together. Just like politics and religion, seniority will be a topic for home.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to understand without the emotion and the biaseness that naturally comes from one's views.
Cactusboy53, thanks as well, but Xanderman addressed the points more directly so I'll confine my response to his points. It should dovetail in with some of your responses though.
Not trying to be inflammatory or confrontational I just want to see if I can understand the views. I'm personally way past all the infighting as I (we) can't do anything about it at this point. As "we" move forward I think it's important to understand what everyone's views were instead of just having an emotional reaction.
1.) I totally agree with your response.
What I am trying to understand from the BOA's perspective is what are they bound to abide by with "this" merger.
It's clear (should be) to all that the BOA cannot address previous mergers as part of their authority in this merger (MB language). This appears to be the first point of contention.
Does that mean they use the NIC list to integrate two groups, a "list" that had never been "implemented" before? By doing so they then become the instrument to implement a previous list that was never "implemented" but had been "awarded". Would that action violate the requirements of the MB language?
If on the other hand they do not use the NIC list are they making changes to a previous merger in violation of MB language?
If that accurately reflects the opposing views then does it not come down to
what the BOA's legally determine under their jurisdiction what lists were actually brought to the BOA for integration? The NIC and LAA, or three lists? The crutch of the argument.
2. Agree with your response as far as revisiting but still see it hinging on the BOA's conclusion described in 1 above.
3. I think you misread my question. I didn't write he signed the "Protocol Agreement". I wrote he signed the "Procedural Ground Rules" after the West was allowed to participate in the SLI proceedings. Read my post 1835. Read the language under the highlighted portion of "Procedural Ground Rules April 2015". This language clearly states the Protocol Agreement will apply to this integration and it was signed by Mr. Freund and Harper. The procedural ground rules state the West Pilot's Merger Committee is one of the parties established by the Protocol Agreement. I am not contesting that they did not sign the Protocol Agreement but they signed the Procedural Ground Rules containing language that required the Protocol Agreement to be used.
I read the transcripts and instantly noted Mr. Freunds statement about not signing the Protocol Agreement. I understand Mr. Freund's strategy (future litgation) but my read was this was not well received by the BOA. Particularly after all the BOA did to meet the requests of the West Merger Committee to be included as a separate party in the SLI proceedings. It smacked a little of the East's tactics that the West had been criticizing them of for the past decade (we are not bound by an agreement simply because we feel we have a loophole to not be bound by it).
While the West was arguing to be included in the SLI they clearly new the requirements contained in the Protocol Agreement. Had Mr. Freund not wanted to be bound by the Protocol Agreement he should have not requested to be part of the SLI after the agreement had been agreed to with the BOA's by the other parties and he should not have signed the ground rules. I think Mr. Freund's position left an impression on the BOA's (not a good one).
The West demands that they be included in the SLI proceedings raise further questions beyond the fact that the Protocol and Ground rules contained reference to imply three list would be used.
Had there only been two lists, NIC and LAA, there would not had been a requirement for a West Committee. I understand the emotional aspect and the practical aspect of the West's request, I am just trying to understand the BOA's legal (MB) aspect.
It was obviously to protect the interests of the West pilots in this integration. But if there was one list (NIC) wouldn't their interest be aligned with the East against the LAA list so separate committees were not needed.
The former TWA pilots are covered by Supplement CC, a separate section of the JCBA, covering the treatment of TWA pilots.
Like the view of the West Merger Committee, one list for AWA/LUS (NIC), LAA had one list for AA and TWA pilots that was decided prior to the establishment of the MB legislation.
Why was the TWA pilot group not afforded a separate committee to address their particular interests since their seniority rights contained within the LAA list could be negatively impacted based on the BOA's decision concerning Suplement CC? It seems the TWA groups request would have been exactly the same as the West reasoning. The TWA group didn't request because they were contained in one combined list with the other LAA pilots.
Does the West's committees demands to be included as a separate committee reinforce, diminish, or have no impact on the concluded view of the BOA's decision of whether there were two lists or three lists brought to "this" merger?
09-02-2016, 08:15 AM
#1895
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Sorry. Saying so over and over won't make it true. The problem here is EVEN IF I document what has been documented TIME and TIME again, you will hold your breath and say "it's not true".
Even the COMPANY testimony in Addington I documents that the company fully expected a complete contract with wages (in 2008) expected to be as high as 11% above what the AWA pilots were making at that time. The contract in negotiation also held many of the same benefits of C2004.
But once again you will call me a liar, and expect me to waste my time PROVING it (again) only to have you call my documentation a fabrication.
Sit tight. The list will come out, and you can react to that.
Even the COMPANY testimony in Addington I documents that the company fully expected a complete contract with wages (in 2008) expected to be as high as 11% above what the AWA pilots were making at that time. The contract in negotiation also held many of the same benefits of C2004.
But once again you will call me a liar, and expect me to waste my time PROVING it (again) only to have you call my documentation a fabrication.
Sit tight. The list will come out, and you can react to that.
You are still full of it. You and Hillary would make great company in a jail cell.
09-02-2016, 09:08 AM
#1896
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
Xanderman,
The former TWA pilots are covered by Supplement CC, a separate section of the JCBA, covering the treatment of TWA pilots.
Like the view of the West Merger Committee, one list for AWA/LUS (NIC), LAA had one list for AA and TWA pilots that was decided prior to the establishment of the MB legislation.
Why was the TWA pilot group not afforded a separate committee to address their particular interests since their seniority rights contained within the LAA list could be negatively impacted based on the BOA's decision concerning Suplement CC? It seems the TWA groups request would have been exactly the same as the West reasoning. The TWA group didn't request because they were contained in one combined list with the other LAA pilots.
Does the West's committees demands to be included as a separate committee reinforce, diminish, or have no impact on the concluded view of the BOA's decision of whether there were two lists or three lists brought to "this" merger?
The former TWA pilots are covered by Supplement CC, a separate section of the JCBA, covering the treatment of TWA pilots.
Like the view of the West Merger Committee, one list for AWA/LUS (NIC), LAA had one list for AA and TWA pilots that was decided prior to the establishment of the MB legislation.
Why was the TWA pilot group not afforded a separate committee to address their particular interests since their seniority rights contained within the LAA list could be negatively impacted based on the BOA's decision concerning Suplement CC? It seems the TWA groups request would have been exactly the same as the West reasoning. The TWA group didn't request because they were contained in one combined list with the other LAA pilots.
Does the West's committees demands to be included as a separate committee reinforce, diminish, or have no impact on the concluded view of the BOA's decision of whether there were two lists or three lists brought to "this" merger?
Supp CC was replaced with Supp C.
Protected CA slots/positions for ALL TWA CA's and ALL TWA FO's have a reinstatement to CA in DFW and in MIA and STL.
Reminder Jan 2001 TWA pilots merged into AA seniority list at 1500 then feathered 8:1. until they ran out of native pilots.
In 2001 I had been at AA for over 2 years. 800 TWA CA's came in senior to me. More than 100 CA's held their CA seats jr to me for the whole time of those only a few were temporarily displaced for 1-2 years then reinstated to CA. Nearly ALL TWA CA's have been CA the whole time.
At the time early 2001 seniority list came out in April 2001 the most junior AA CA 777 was 1400-1500.
AA then closed all TWA bases and put them in STL.
My understanding is that the former TWA pilots tried very hard to get their own committee on the SIC for the SIL. My understanding is they were not successful.
In the just the last year TWA CA's are using their regular seniority numbers to hold CA around the AA system LAX, MIA, LGA on 737 and Airbus.
I recently flew with an Eagle Flow thru that told he that he should be senior to all the TWA FO's. I asked did he actually sign a flow thru agreement?
He said he did, signed it in Dec 2001. I then asked we bought TWA in Jan 2001, why do you think that?
He said they weren't AA. I reminded him they wore the AA uniform and used the AA call sign ALL by the end of 2001.
He didn't elaborate further.
09-02-2016, 10:22 AM
#1897
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
MB was enacted to apply to covered transactions when combining multiple carriers. When the combining carriers had class and craft that were covered by the RLA then MB invoked the required use of the Allegheny Mohawk provisions for the employees' mutual protections.
MB was about "integrating" covered employees and ensuring their "fair and equatable treatment".
Trying to learn. If you can show how MB was strictly about mergers and not about integrating the carriers' RLA covered employees it would be helpful if you could show me the reference. I can't find one to support what you conclude.
09-02-2016, 10:35 AM
#1898
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Supp CC was replaced with Supp C.
Protected CA slots/positions for ALL TWA CA's and ALL TWA FO's have a reinstatement to CA in DFW and in MIA and STL.
Reminder Jan 2001 TWA pilots merged into AA seniority list at 1500 then feathered 8:1. until they ran out of native pilots.
In 2001 I had been at AA for over 2 years. 800 TWA CA's came in senior to me. More than 100 CA's held their CA seats jr to me for the whole time of those only a few were temporarily displaced for 1-2 years then reinstated to CA. Nearly ALL TWA CA's have been CA the whole time.
At the time early 2001 seniority list came out in April 2001 the most junior AA CA 777 was 1400-1500.
AA then closed all TWA bases and put them in STL.
My understanding is that the former TWA pilots tried very hard to get their own committee on the SIC for the SIL. My understanding is they were not successful.
In the just the last year TWA CA's are using their regular seniority numbers to hold CA around the AA system LAX, MIA, LGA on 737 and Airbus.
I recently flew with an Eagle Flow thru that told he that he should be senior to all the TWA FO's. I asked did he actually sign a flow thru agreement?
He said he did, signed it in Dec 2001. I then asked we bought TWA in Jan 2001, why do you think that?
He said they weren't AA. I reminded him they wore the AA uniform and used the AA call sign ALL by the end of 2001.
He didn't elaborate further.
Protected CA slots/positions for ALL TWA CA's and ALL TWA FO's have a reinstatement to CA in DFW and in MIA and STL.
Reminder Jan 2001 TWA pilots merged into AA seniority list at 1500 then feathered 8:1. until they ran out of native pilots.
In 2001 I had been at AA for over 2 years. 800 TWA CA's came in senior to me. More than 100 CA's held their CA seats jr to me for the whole time of those only a few were temporarily displaced for 1-2 years then reinstated to CA. Nearly ALL TWA CA's have been CA the whole time.
At the time early 2001 seniority list came out in April 2001 the most junior AA CA 777 was 1400-1500.
AA then closed all TWA bases and put them in STL.
My understanding is that the former TWA pilots tried very hard to get their own committee on the SIC for the SIL. My understanding is they were not successful.
In the just the last year TWA CA's are using their regular seniority numbers to hold CA around the AA system LAX, MIA, LGA on 737 and Airbus.
I recently flew with an Eagle Flow thru that told he that he should be senior to all the TWA FO's. I asked did he actually sign a flow thru agreement?
He said he did, signed it in Dec 2001. I then asked we bought TWA in Jan 2001, why do you think that?
He said they weren't AA. I reminded him they wore the AA uniform and used the AA call sign ALL by the end of 2001.
He didn't elaborate further.
Thanks for the background information. Didn't know that detail.
You raise a point I am trying to clarify.
The LAA list contained, native AA and TWA pilots on one list. The NIC list contained AWA and native US pilots on one list.
The TWA pilots had some very particular contractual items that pertained just to their group, Supp C,
that were not particular to native AA pilots. Yet they were not provided a separate committee during the SLI proceedings to ensure their interests were protected.
AWA pilots argued they were integrated on one list, NIC, and covered under the same contract, JCBA, as the East (LUS) pilots.
Why then were TWA pilots who were on one list denied having their separate committee and the West who was on one list given separate representation? Doesn't seem fair and equatable to the TWA pilots if their were only two lists.
09-02-2016, 11:01 AM
#1899
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,547
...
I recently flew with an Eagle Flow thru that told he that he should be senior to all the TWA FO's. I asked did he actually sign a flow thru agreement?
He said he did, signed it in Dec 2001. I then asked we bought TWA in Jan 2001, why do you think that?
He said they weren't AA. I reminded him they wore the AA uniform and used the AA call sign ALL by the end of 2001.
He didn't elaborate further.
I recently flew with an Eagle Flow thru that told he that he should be senior to all the TWA FO's. I asked did he actually sign a flow thru agreement?
He said he did, signed it in Dec 2001. I then asked we bought TWA in Jan 2001, why do you think that?
He said they weren't AA. I reminded him they wore the AA uniform and used the AA call sign ALL by the end of 2001.
He didn't elaborate further.
09-02-2016, 11:18 AM
#1900
New Hire
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Reclined
Posts: 7
Xanderman,
Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to understand without the emotion and the biaseness that naturally comes from one's views.
Cactusboy53, thanks as well, but Xanderman addressed the points more directly so I'll confine my response to his points. It should dovetail in with some of your responses though.
Not trying to be inflammatory or confrontational I just want to see if I can understand the views. I'm personally way past all the infighting as I (we) can't do anything about it at this point. As "we" move forward I think it's important to understand what everyone's views were instead of just having an emotional reaction.
1.) I totally agree with your response.
What I am trying to understand from the BOA's perspective is what are they bound to abide by with "this" merger.
It's clear (should be) to all that the BOA cannot address previous mergers as part of their authority in this merger (MB language). This appears to be the first point of contention.
Does that mean they use the NIC list to integrate two groups, a "list" that had never been "implemented" before? By doing so they then become the instrument to implement a previous list that was never "implemented" but had been "awarded". Would that action violate the requirements of the MB language?
If on the other hand they do not use the NIC list are they making changes to a previous merger in violation of MB language?
If that accurately reflects the opposing views then does it not come down to
what the BOA's legally determine under their jurisdiction what lists were actually brought to the BOA for integration? The NIC and LAA, or three lists? The crutch of the argument.
2. Agree with your response as far as revisiting but still see it hinging on the BOA's conclusion described in 1 above.
3. I think you misread my question. I didn't write he signed the "Protocol Agreement". I wrote he signed the "Procedural Ground Rules" after the West was allowed to participate in the SLI proceedings. Read my post 1835. Read the language under the highlighted portion of "Procedural Ground Rules April 2015". This language clearly states the Protocol Agreement will apply to this integration and it was signed by Mr. Freund and Harper. The procedural ground rules state the West Pilot's Merger Committee is one of the parties established by the Protocol Agreement. I am not contesting that they did not sign the Protocol Agreement but they signed the Procedural Ground Rules containing language that required the Protocol Agreement to be used.
I read the transcripts and instantly noted Mr. Freunds statement about not signing the Protocol Agreement. I understand Mr. Freund's strategy (future litgation) but my read was this was not well received by the BOA. Particularly after all the BOA did to meet the requests of the West Merger Committee to be included as a separate party in the SLI proceedings. It smacked a little of the East's tactics that the West had been criticizing them of for the past decade (we are not bound by an agreement simply because we feel we have a loophole to not be bound by it).
While the West was arguing to be included in the SLI they clearly new the requirements contained in the Protocol Agreement. Had Mr. Freund not wanted to be bound by the Protocol Agreement he should have not requested to be part of the SLI after the agreement had been agreed to with the BOA's by the other parties and he should not have signed the ground rules. I think Mr. Freund's position left an impression on the BOA's (not a good one).
The West demands that they be included in the SLI proceedings raise further questions beyond the fact that the Protocol and Ground rules contained reference to imply three list would be used.
Had there only been two lists, NIC and LAA, there would not had been a requirement for a West Committee. I understand the emotional aspect and the practical aspect of the West's request, I am just trying to understand the BOA's legal (MB) aspect.
It was obviously to protect the interests of the West pilots in this integration. But if there was one list (NIC) wouldn't their interest be aligned with the East against the LAA list so separate committees were not needed.
The former TWA pilots are covered by Supplement CC, a separate section of the JCBA, covering the treatment of TWA pilots.
Like the view of the West Merger Committee, one list for AWA/LUS (NIC), LAA had one list for AA and TWA pilots that was decided prior to the establishment of the MB legislation.
Why was the TWA pilot group not afforded a separate committee to address their particular interests since their seniority rights contained within the LAA list could be negatively impacted based on the BOA's decision concerning Suplement CC? It seems the TWA groups request would have been exactly the same as the West reasoning. The TWA group didn't request because they were contained in one combined list with the other LAA pilots.
Does the West's committees demands to be included as a separate committee reinforce, diminish, or have no impact on the concluded view of the BOA's decision of whether there were two lists or three lists brought to "this" merger?
Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to understand without the emotion and the biaseness that naturally comes from one's views.
Cactusboy53, thanks as well, but Xanderman addressed the points more directly so I'll confine my response to his points. It should dovetail in with some of your responses though.
Not trying to be inflammatory or confrontational I just want to see if I can understand the views. I'm personally way past all the infighting as I (we) can't do anything about it at this point. As "we" move forward I think it's important to understand what everyone's views were instead of just having an emotional reaction.
1.) I totally agree with your response.
What I am trying to understand from the BOA's perspective is what are they bound to abide by with "this" merger.
It's clear (should be) to all that the BOA cannot address previous mergers as part of their authority in this merger (MB language). This appears to be the first point of contention.
Does that mean they use the NIC list to integrate two groups, a "list" that had never been "implemented" before? By doing so they then become the instrument to implement a previous list that was never "implemented" but had been "awarded". Would that action violate the requirements of the MB language?
If on the other hand they do not use the NIC list are they making changes to a previous merger in violation of MB language?
If that accurately reflects the opposing views then does it not come down to
what the BOA's legally determine under their jurisdiction what lists were actually brought to the BOA for integration? The NIC and LAA, or three lists? The crutch of the argument.
2. Agree with your response as far as revisiting but still see it hinging on the BOA's conclusion described in 1 above.
3. I think you misread my question. I didn't write he signed the "Protocol Agreement". I wrote he signed the "Procedural Ground Rules" after the West was allowed to participate in the SLI proceedings. Read my post 1835. Read the language under the highlighted portion of "Procedural Ground Rules April 2015". This language clearly states the Protocol Agreement will apply to this integration and it was signed by Mr. Freund and Harper. The procedural ground rules state the West Pilot's Merger Committee is one of the parties established by the Protocol Agreement. I am not contesting that they did not sign the Protocol Agreement but they signed the Procedural Ground Rules containing language that required the Protocol Agreement to be used.
I read the transcripts and instantly noted Mr. Freunds statement about not signing the Protocol Agreement. I understand Mr. Freund's strategy (future litgation) but my read was this was not well received by the BOA. Particularly after all the BOA did to meet the requests of the West Merger Committee to be included as a separate party in the SLI proceedings. It smacked a little of the East's tactics that the West had been criticizing them of for the past decade (we are not bound by an agreement simply because we feel we have a loophole to not be bound by it).
While the West was arguing to be included in the SLI they clearly new the requirements contained in the Protocol Agreement. Had Mr. Freund not wanted to be bound by the Protocol Agreement he should have not requested to be part of the SLI after the agreement had been agreed to with the BOA's by the other parties and he should not have signed the ground rules. I think Mr. Freund's position left an impression on the BOA's (not a good one).
The West demands that they be included in the SLI proceedings raise further questions beyond the fact that the Protocol and Ground rules contained reference to imply three list would be used.
Had there only been two lists, NIC and LAA, there would not had been a requirement for a West Committee. I understand the emotional aspect and the practical aspect of the West's request, I am just trying to understand the BOA's legal (MB) aspect.
It was obviously to protect the interests of the West pilots in this integration. But if there was one list (NIC) wouldn't their interest be aligned with the East against the LAA list so separate committees were not needed.
The former TWA pilots are covered by Supplement CC, a separate section of the JCBA, covering the treatment of TWA pilots.
Like the view of the West Merger Committee, one list for AWA/LUS (NIC), LAA had one list for AA and TWA pilots that was decided prior to the establishment of the MB legislation.
Why was the TWA pilot group not afforded a separate committee to address their particular interests since their seniority rights contained within the LAA list could be negatively impacted based on the BOA's decision concerning Suplement CC? It seems the TWA groups request would have been exactly the same as the West reasoning. The TWA group didn't request because they were contained in one combined list with the other LAA pilots.
Does the West's committees demands to be included as a separate committee reinforce, diminish, or have no impact on the concluded view of the BOA's decision of whether there were two lists or three lists brought to "this" merger?
Ugh... Great questions but man that's a lot of them. Frankly, I ponder the same questions myself. I do that because who knows what the panel will reason. I agree with everything you say. As bipolar as that may seem one has to have these same questions to prepare for whatever outcome may be ahead. They will come up with a list and the will have a well thought out explanation of how they arrived at that list. Beyond that I only have my opinions. And we all know what that's worth. Hopefully this damned guessing game will be over next week and we can all move forward.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
