Political Posturing -
07-07-2013, 10:26 AM
#144
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 152
Pre-merger compensation is not a factor in integration. Never has been used in any arbitration and not in the current policy. Plus it was proven that the UAL compensation (payrates + benefits) were slightly more for every UAL fleet seat compared to CAL. Yes I know the CAL side ONLY wants to look at hourly rates and ignore the rest of the package. Also historically, CAL payrates were far below UAL payrates.
There aren't "snapshots" being used. Both sides agreed in the Merger Protocol Agreement that the "Merger Acquisition Date" is the "date the merger is publicly announced".
Until that happened, there COULDN'T BE JOINT CONTRACT NEGOTIATION. So you're trying to say that the MAD was 2013, but the JOINT exhibit that CAL and UAL MECs both signed say that AFTER MAD the parties will begin to negotiate a JOINT CONTRACT. Here's the actual language "Within ten days following MAD, the UAL and CAL MECs shall each designate three Negotiating Committee members to jointly negotiate transition agreements, if appropriate, and a JCBA.
Well since we had a JCBA agreed to by the parties in June 2012 and FULLY RATIFIED in Dec 2012, there is no way that somehow in 2013 we still just are getting to the MAD date because we couldn't have started the JCBA negotiations until AFTER that date.
So the process agreement date was May 17th, 2010 and SIGNED by both parties agreeing to this. Then after seeing what kind of changes there were post-merger, the CAL side tried to make a case for a 2013 MAD.
So the date really isn't debatable. Its CONTRACTUAL, and was already decided by the parties.
I totally get it. You agree to 2010 MAD, then after a few years of seeing the single management team favor one side of the airline, stall and try to claim 2013 as the Merger date.
There aren't "snapshots" being used. Both sides agreed in the Merger Protocol Agreement that the "Merger Acquisition Date" is the "date the merger is publicly announced".
Until that happened, there COULDN'T BE JOINT CONTRACT NEGOTIATION. So you're trying to say that the MAD was 2013, but the JOINT exhibit that CAL and UAL MECs both signed say that AFTER MAD the parties will begin to negotiate a JOINT CONTRACT. Here's the actual language "Within ten days following MAD, the UAL and CAL MECs shall each designate three Negotiating Committee members to jointly negotiate transition agreements, if appropriate, and a JCBA.
Well since we had a JCBA agreed to by the parties in June 2012 and FULLY RATIFIED in Dec 2012, there is no way that somehow in 2013 we still just are getting to the MAD date because we couldn't have started the JCBA negotiations until AFTER that date.
So the process agreement date was May 17th, 2010 and SIGNED by both parties agreeing to this. Then after seeing what kind of changes there were post-merger, the CAL side tried to make a case for a 2013 MAD.
So the date really isn't debatable. Its CONTRACTUAL, and was already decided by the parties.
I totally get it. You agree to 2010 MAD, then after a few years of seeing the single management team favor one side of the airline, stall and try to claim 2013 as the Merger date.
Protocol agreement allows us to use the 2013 list.
Our merger committee knew we would have hiring, retirements, advancements way back in 2010. It was a smart move on their part to allow for this.
07-07-2013, 10:32 AM
#145
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Pre-merger compensation not a factor? I believe the policy allows it. If it is an equity and of value present it and hope for the best.
Protocol agreement allows us to use the 2013 list.
Our merger committee knew we would have hiring, retirements, advancements way back in 2010. It was a smart move on their part to allow for this.
Protocol agreement allows us to use the 2013 list.
Our merger committee knew we would have hiring, retirements, advancements way back in 2010. It was a smart move on their part to allow for this.
07-07-2013, 10:39 AM
#146
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Funny I didn't see those written in there anywhere.
07-07-2013, 01:09 PM
#147
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 152
but it is fine to use a 2010 seniority list and current pay rates?
07-07-2013, 03:56 PM
#148
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
My prediction is that the arbitrators will not make a decision based on pay and that it will not influence their award.
I will go out on a limb and make a ridiculous assertion that the arbitrators pick 2010 as the merger year (I just randomly picked that year. There isn't really any basis for it as we all know the merger isn't done until all the unions have contracts, etc which could be 2015 or later) and use longevity, status and category, and career expectations.
I randomly picked these three instead of the mandatory ones by ALPA policy which are 1. pre-merger W-2 pay for a few select pilots, 2. Who flew a bio fuel flight first 3. How many 737 flights on international segments (i.e. Texas to Mexico) and 4. Being in the top 3 airlines to get a 707 in the 1970s.
I will go out on a limb and make a ridiculous assertion that the arbitrators pick 2010 as the merger year (I just randomly picked that year. There isn't really any basis for it as we all know the merger isn't done until all the unions have contracts, etc which could be 2015 or later) and use longevity, status and category, and career expectations.
I randomly picked these three instead of the mandatory ones by ALPA policy which are 1. pre-merger W-2 pay for a few select pilots, 2. Who flew a bio fuel flight first 3. How many 737 flights on international segments (i.e. Texas to Mexico) and 4. Being in the top 3 airlines to get a 707 in the 1970s.
07-10-2013, 05:30 AM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: B756 Capt Junior Lineholder
Posts: 136
Maybe those 75s were falling apart. Naw, lets go with another Pierce/Baron conspiracy theory...
CONSPIRACY ALERT - YouTube
CONSPIRACY ALERT - YouTube
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
