Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
USA320Pilot said:MOU, Paragraph 10. A., states, “A seniority integration process consistent with McCaskill-Bond shall begin as soon as possible after the Effective Date.”
USAPA’s pilot contract does not state the APA-USAPA SLI will be conducted using M-B statute, the contract states the “seniority integration process (will be) consistent with McCaskill-Bond.” That’s a big difference. APA and AAG have offered a process “consistent” with M-B with 3 post SCC MC’s: APA, APA Leagcy USAPA East MC, & APA Legacy West MC. USAPA has said “no” because USAPA has been focused on a 5,000 versus 15,000 pilot SLI, which now appears to be very short-sighted (But, what do you expect by people who have zero ISL/MC experience?).
Furthermore, once USAPA ratified the MOU the USAPA waived its independent union rights per the RLA and agreed to a specific SLI protocol consistentwith M-B as described in the MOU paragraph 10. As one pilot said, “(USAPA’s approval) of the MOU is basically the same really no different than AirTran's approval of the SWA proposal, the only minor difference being the SWA/AT agreement contained a specific SLI order whereas the MOU defines a specific SLI protocol.”
Clearly, the East portion of the BPR did not understand what they negotiated and ratified and now they’re trying to circumvent the pilot’s contract, specifically MOU paragraph 4 and 10. Recognizing their mistake (just like with LOA 96 – coupled with USAPA’s certification – created the DFR violation when ripe for adjudication) the BPR and USAPA UELs want to violate the pilot’s contract (again). However, AAG and APA will not allow USAPA to violate the contract much to USAPA’s disdain. And, now after about one-month since USAPA provided APA USAPA’s ideas on a draft PA, UMTA and GA in a final effort to remain relevant, in exchange for a MBLS offer, APA continues to ignore USAPA while waiting for the NMB to render a SCC decision.
If this was not so sad it would be comical watching the UELs try to play chess with checkers.
USAPA = Pyrrhic Victory.
It might make sense for people to clearly read the contract's language versus accommodating their beliefs to believe what they want versus what is their contractual obligation(s).
Nothing in the contract releases the APA and the company from complying with the Federal Statute, 13(a). They will have to comply, just like the NMB complied and performed their duties in accord with the MB Statute. The NMB just doesn't have the money or motivation that APA has, so the NMB consented more easily.
