USAPA loses LOA93
12-12-2011, 08:22 AM
#111
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I didn't say SWA failed to comply with a law. I said the combined efforts of SWA and SWAPA effectively terrified the AirTran pilots away from a process that McCaskill-Bond mandated. I know you don't think that's what happened and that the AirTran guys just willingly voted away their rights to arbitration without duress, but that IS what happened. I don't have sympathy for the AirTran guys because they showed themselves to be completely manipulatable by fear. But SWA/SWAPA definitely dealt out the fear.
Exactly. And what you guys did is ensure that there was a "negotiated" settlement. Thus no need for any of the provisions of McCaskill-Bond. This is why I advocate that no pilot group should be allowed to "negotiate" away their rights. Simply because, we don't always know if there's a gun to the head of someone being "negotiated" with.
Never said that an integration should be forced after an acquisition. I've only said that a threat of it should not be allowed as a tool to dodge the provisions of a US law. The minute that tactic was used, SWA should have been charged to completely undo the merger and rebuild the corporate structure of AirTran to its exact state prior to the acquisition. Whatever costs required would be borne by SWA. Then we would have a true picture of just how much SWA wanted to operate as separate entities for no other reason but good business sense. McCaskill-Bond should be amended with those provisions in mind so that the acquiring company knows their responsibilities prior to future acquisitions. You guys averted US law by exploiting a hole in that law. That hole should be closed since it currently renders the law utterly useless. Most legislators don't take kindly to that type of thing.
Carl
Carl
12-12-2011, 08:35 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
If you read the transcript you will find this little nugget:
Hollerbach is a current LCC pilot who would get a 40% raise if they won the grievance.
So the reason that other people wouldn't testify is that they knew this grievance was bogus, they knew that no snapback had been negotiated, and they had too much integrity to lie to an arbitrator. Even the one negotiator who showed up didn't really talk about snapback, he concentrated on the word freeze and how a pay freeze and a training freeze were just the same because of, well, the word freeze.
Everyone that negotiated this knew there was no snapback. This was our favorite DPA lawyer creating billable hours while the USAPA leadership fed one more deception to their pilots. Carl tries to paint this as some ALPA failure when in fact it was just further flailing on the part of USAPA.
Just to recap the legal situation at USAPA:
Seham has been fired
USAPA quit paying his bills and hired a firm to audit his billing practices
Seham filed a lien on the legal files and now USAPA has no access to their previous case history
Seham has filed a lawsuit against John and Jane Doe, allegedly a USAPA officer, who created a fake email address and sent fake emails supposedly from a lawyer
USAPA has an injunction filed against them for illegal job action
USAPA faces millions in damages as a result of illegal job action
USAPA just had their butts handed to them in federal court (again) on the declaratory action. There is agreement on a move towards summary judgement on counts one and two of the company's action and by the sound of it, USAPA is in for a rude awakening
USAPA has another phony Pension Investigation that is now out of money. They are assessing the East pilots who are now paying more than ALPA dues rates.
USAPA is broke
Hollerbach is a current LCC pilot who would get a 40% raise if they won the grievance.
So the reason that other people wouldn't testify is that they knew this grievance was bogus, they knew that no snapback had been negotiated, and they had too much integrity to lie to an arbitrator. Even the one negotiator who showed up didn't really talk about snapback, he concentrated on the word freeze and how a pay freeze and a training freeze were just the same because of, well, the word freeze.
Everyone that negotiated this knew there was no snapback. This was our favorite DPA lawyer creating billable hours while the USAPA leadership fed one more deception to their pilots. Carl tries to paint this as some ALPA failure when in fact it was just further flailing on the part of USAPA.
Just to recap the legal situation at USAPA:
Seham has been fired
USAPA quit paying his bills and hired a firm to audit his billing practices
Seham filed a lien on the legal files and now USAPA has no access to their previous case history
Seham has filed a lawsuit against John and Jane Doe, allegedly a USAPA officer, who created a fake email address and sent fake emails supposedly from a lawyer
USAPA has an injunction filed against them for illegal job action
USAPA faces millions in damages as a result of illegal job action
USAPA just had their butts handed to them in federal court (again) on the declaratory action. There is agreement on a move towards summary judgement on counts one and two of the company's action and by the sound of it, USAPA is in for a rude awakening
USAPA has another phony Pension Investigation that is now out of money. They are assessing the East pilots who are now paying more than ALPA dues rates.
USAPA is broke
There was no snap back and the issue of a snap back wasn't argued. Snap back has a specific definition in contracts and it wasn't used. That's why the freeze was used. Why was it there? There was no need for an end date as RLA contracts do not end, so why put one in if it didn't have another meaning? Unless you have another motive? The whole LOA 93 was a failure of ALPA, national and local. I would have liked for the millions of dollars of US/PI/EA and PS dues over the years to produce something better than this POS. We had to give to save, but this was an absolute cluster. Largely US pilot's fault, but where was national with all their respected experience with the wording of the actual contract?
Some of the issues you raise with Seham I don't know all the details and so I wonder how you do. He was paid. Millions and he won't respond to the audit. His lawsuit against the John/Jane Doe was dropped with prejudice.
USAPA did not have their butts handed to them. It was a scheduling conference. Yes, their motions were denied, but the judge has not ruled on the case.
The injunction was like UA's. It was stupid for the BPR not to learn, but they didn't. There are no damages being faced. There were none asked for and the operation has returned to normal. We just live with the latest trend in management trends.
Phony pension investigation? Look at the name: Pension INVESTIGATION Committee. Not Pension RESTORATION Committee. We were told going into this that there was no guarantee of any money being returned. It has taken back the curtain and exposed a lot of potentially shady deals and an inept PBGC. Are you in a group that now has the PBGC funding your pension? Wouldn't you like to have the confidence that they knew what they were doing? This committee was funded by east pilot, and approved by a vote by east AND west pilots. To hear anyone else talking down about it is a little disturbing.
USAPA is not "broke". It has money issues, but nothing a little special assessment of west pilots won't fix!
That's a joke, in case you couldn't figure that out either.I voted for ALPA over USAPA but not because of ALPA. I voted that way because I didn't think the USAPA plan would work and we would be left with years of legal battles and infighting. Now, if we had been voting on an independent union after setting our issues, I would have been all over it. Even now, if there is a card drive to go back to ALPA I will vote no. I think ALPA is a bloated left over from an era that is trying to serve too many masters and not doing a very good job of it.
12-12-2011, 08:54 AM
#113
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
As it was explained to me, by some Pan Am 727 Shuttle pilots I was on a layover with, shortly after the merger;
Before the DAL/PA merger, most of the Pan Am senior guys thought Delta would surely buy the South American routes and 747's, and the 727 Shuttle ops. As one PA guy said, "Nobody thought Delta wanted the Atlantic routes, That's what put us into Bankruptcy!"
So some of the more senior guys jumped off the A300 to get onto the 747, hoping they would be picked up, while some of the other guys were jumping onto the 727 NY-BOS-DC shuttle. The pilots taken by DAL were not in seniority order, they were who ever was on what ever equipment DAL bought. Some junior guys on the A300 came over, while more senior guys on the 747 didn't.
Since DAL bought the Trans Atlantic routes, and the A300's, and the Shuttle, only those pilots came over...BUT...there was talk that as soon as some of their ALPA guys found out Delta was going to buy the A300, not the 747, they quickly "Bid" onto to the A300.
You'll have to find a Pan Am guy to get "The Rest of the Story".
Before the DAL/PA merger, most of the Pan Am senior guys thought Delta would surely buy the South American routes and 747's, and the 727 Shuttle ops. As one PA guy said, "Nobody thought Delta wanted the Atlantic routes, That's what put us into Bankruptcy!"
So some of the more senior guys jumped off the A300 to get onto the 747, hoping they would be picked up, while some of the other guys were jumping onto the 727 NY-BOS-DC shuttle. The pilots taken by DAL were not in seniority order, they were who ever was on what ever equipment DAL bought. Some junior guys on the A300 came over, while more senior guys on the 747 didn't.
Since DAL bought the Trans Atlantic routes, and the A300's, and the Shuttle, only those pilots came over...BUT...there was talk that as soon as some of their ALPA guys found out Delta was going to buy the A300, not the 747, they quickly "Bid" onto to the A300.
You'll have to find a Pan Am guy to get "The Rest of the Story".
12-12-2011, 09:17 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
I didn't say SWA failed to comply with a law. I said the combined efforts of SWA and SWAPA effectively terrified the AirTran pilots away from a process that McCaskill-Bond mandated. I know you don't think that's what happened and that the AirTran guys just willingly voted away their rights to arbitration without duress, but that IS what happened. I don't have sympathy for the AirTran guys because they showed themselves to be completely manipulatable by fear. But SWA/SWAPA definitely dealt out the fear.
Exactly. And what you guys did is ensure that there was a "negotiated" settlement. Thus no need for any of the provisions of McCaskill-Bond. This is why I advocate that no pilot group should be allowed to "negotiate" away their rights. Simply because, we don't always know if there's a gun to the head of someone being "negotiated" with.
Never said that an integration should be forced after an acquisition. I've only said that a threat of it should not be allowed as a tool to dodge the provisions of a US law. The minute that tactic was used, SWA should have been charged to completely undo the merger and rebuild the corporate structure of AirTran to its exact state prior to the acquisition. Whatever costs required would be borne by SWA. Then we would have a true picture of just how much SWA wanted to operate as separate entities for no other reason but good business sense. McCaskill-Bond should be amended with those provisions in mind so that the acquiring company knows their responsibilities prior to future acquisitions. You guys averted US law by exploiting a hole in that law. That hole should be closed since it currently renders the law utterly useless. Most legislators don't take kindly to that type of thing.
Carl
Exactly. And what you guys did is ensure that there was a "negotiated" settlement. Thus no need for any of the provisions of McCaskill-Bond. This is why I advocate that no pilot group should be allowed to "negotiate" away their rights. Simply because, we don't always know if there's a gun to the head of someone being "negotiated" with.
Never said that an integration should be forced after an acquisition. I've only said that a threat of it should not be allowed as a tool to dodge the provisions of a US law. The minute that tactic was used, SWA should have been charged to completely undo the merger and rebuild the corporate structure of AirTran to its exact state prior to the acquisition. Whatever costs required would be borne by SWA. Then we would have a true picture of just how much SWA wanted to operate as separate entities for no other reason but good business sense. McCaskill-Bond should be amended with those provisions in mind so that the acquiring company knows their responsibilities prior to future acquisitions. You guys averted US law by exploiting a hole in that law. That hole should be closed since it currently renders the law utterly useless. Most legislators don't take kindly to that type of thing.
Carl
12-13-2011, 06:08 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
As it was explained to me, by some Pan Am 727 Shuttle pilots I was on a layover with, shortly after the merger;
Before the DAL/PA merger, most of the Pan Am senior guys thought Delta would surely buy the South American routes and 747's, and the 727 Shuttle ops. As one PA guy said, "Nobody thought Delta wanted the Atlantic routes, That's what put us into Bankruptcy!"
So some of the more senior guys jumped off the A300 to get onto the 747, hoping they would be picked up, while some of the other guys were jumping onto the 727 NY-BOS-DC shuttle. The pilots taken by DAL were not in seniority order, they were who ever was on what ever equipment DAL bought. Some junior guys on the A300 came over, while more senior guys on the 747 didn't.
Since DAL bought the Trans Atlantic routes, and the A300's, and the Shuttle, only those pilots came over...BUT...there was talk that as soon as some of their ALPA guys found out Delta was going to buy the A300, not the 747, they quickly "Bid" onto to the A300.
You'll have to find a Pan Am guy to get "The Rest of the Story".
Before the DAL/PA merger, most of the Pan Am senior guys thought Delta would surely buy the South American routes and 747's, and the 727 Shuttle ops. As one PA guy said, "Nobody thought Delta wanted the Atlantic routes, That's what put us into Bankruptcy!"
So some of the more senior guys jumped off the A300 to get onto the 747, hoping they would be picked up, while some of the other guys were jumping onto the 727 NY-BOS-DC shuttle. The pilots taken by DAL were not in seniority order, they were who ever was on what ever equipment DAL bought. Some junior guys on the A300 came over, while more senior guys on the 747 didn't.
Since DAL bought the Trans Atlantic routes, and the A300's, and the Shuttle, only those pilots came over...BUT...there was talk that as soon as some of their ALPA guys found out Delta was going to buy the A300, not the 747, they quickly "Bid" onto to the A300.
You'll have to find a Pan Am guy to get "The Rest of the Story".
I was based on the 727 in New York shortly after the Pan Am acquisition...
First, Delta did not take any A-300s. Delta took a total of 21 A-310s; 14 were A-310-300s and 7 were A-310-200s (subsequently traded to FedEx for 727 Hush Kits).
My memory is all the Pan Am pilots coming to Delta had to be qualified and current on the aircraft they came over with. Delta acquired the New York shuttle operation (727s) and the North Atlantic operation (A-310s). They did not purchase any 747s or A-300s.
Pan Am's training department had the capability to send 30 pilots to requal school on the 727. Thirty 747 Captains did exactly that. They requaled on the 727 and came to Delta as 727 Captains. Those pilots were known as the "Dirty Thirty".
12-13-2011, 06:25 AM
#117
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,761
Question: (Dwight Schrute style) Did the other 747 crews go to United with the Pacific routes?
12-13-2011, 06:51 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
Yeah, I know that story. I have also heard about all the guys that hadn't even been on the airplane as a nonrev in 20 years that worked in the training department and were able to get "qualified" to somehow make their way back onto that list. From what I heard, they did an awful lot of back stabbing over there that had nothing to do with ALPA.... hence my question.
12-13-2011, 07:52 AM
#120
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I didn't say SWA failed to comply with a law. I said the combined efforts of SWA and SWAPA effectively terrified the AirTran pilots away from a process that McCaskill-Bond mandated. I know you don't think that's what happened and that the AirTran guys just willingly voted away their rights to arbitration without duress, but that IS what happened. I don't have sympathy for the AirTran guys because they showed themselves to be completely manipulatable by fear. But SWA/SWAPA definitely dealt out the fear.
Last edited by tsquare; 12-13-2011 at 08:04 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
