USA320Pilot said:
APA made its draft PA public not to inform AA's pilots, but to inform US Airways' pilots to build pressure on the BPR. APA knows that the BPR has kept the draft PA, UMTA, GA, and settlement offer private and our union has not been transparent with the rank-and-file. And, APA knows the BPR Hardliner's history, which is why I believe APA's new PA proposal gives USAPA an out or a way out of its box. The question is will USAPA seize this opportunity?
Last week was another bad week for USAPA with the union losing three legal battles. With the M-B ISL situation resting with the NMB and Judge Howell, APA just provided USAPA an opportunity to shift blame to an arbitrator for the West getting a seat at the MB ISL table. This will give USAPA political cover and permit the union to not take responsibility for the Nic to possibly become USAPA's M-B ISL starting point with a final and binding arbitration to determine whether or not the West can have a seat at the M-B ISL table, if required.
I bright East pilot said, “And a number of USAPA's leadership will gladly have the lawyers press a losing case, so that they can blame the lawyers or the courts for a bad outcome, rather than having to make a hard decision themselves and accept the ‘blame’ from the pilot group.”
AMR, LCC, AAG, APA, and AOL have pushed for a 3-way ISL arbitration in US Airways' Summary judgment & Motion to Reconsider and APA/AAG's M-B Injunction Reply, M-B Injunction Counterclaim, and Draft PA. Furthermore, I believe AAG/APA will continue to do so.
A bright West pilot said, "(East pilots) might believe that the 'changing circumstance' will dismantle the Nic, however, I doubt any arbitration panel will. IMO the arbitration panel will certainly consider the intervening 7 years that the Nic hasn't been used but, in the opposite direction that you see. I see them considering the harm foisted upon the West pilots as they construct the SLI. Jeff Freund is sure to present this in an elegant yet poignant argument to the panel."
How will this thought affect the agenda driven BPR?
The later today the NMB made its CWA/IBT SCC determination. [background=#fafafa]I believe the NMB's comments regarding the two pilot groups is very interesting. I suspect APA knew this ruling was pending along with the NMB's comments in the Determination, which were highlighted in APA's Information Hotline, when APA made its Draft PA public. Both APA's public dissemination of its PA proposal and today's NMB CWA/IBT filing (along with the NMB's pilot language) has ratcheted up the pressure on USAPA. The NMB appears to be close to making a SCC ruling where APA will become our union. Will USAPA agree to APA's PA proposal or risk having no PA when the NMB likely rules on SCC in the not-too-distant future?[/background]
APA has now taken the PA discussions public with SCC looming, which clearly places more pressure on USAPA and will force our union to be more transparent. The question is will USAPA accept APA’s PA terms or will the union reject the terms and then double down on its NMB and District Court bet?
My guess? USAPA will reject APA’s draft PA proposal, which will be interesting because this time the rank-and-file will finally know what’s going on with the NMB SCC and M-B Injunction lawsuit risk looming on the horizon.
However, in the end, I believe the West pilots will get their own MC when it is all said and done. Why? Everybody but USAPA wants it and as the bright East pilot said, "any neutral onlooker will see that that (USAPA's) desire to exclude the West (pilots) is driven by agenda.”
Merger Committee Update
Click here to read the proposed Protocol Agreement from the APA, which you may have seen posted elsewhere after its release by the APA. Our Merger Counsel sent our proposals for Protocol, Union Transition, and Global Settlement Agreements to APA Counsel on April 29. This week’s APA proposal came to us unannounced, with no prior communication to our Merger Counsel. Needless to say, we were surprised to see the APA’s proposal, given APA's recent refusal to negotiate, and after we were told there would be no counterproposal.
Contrary to what you may have heard from APA communications, this APA Protocol Agreement proposal does not incorporate the compromises we offered back on April 29. In fact, the APA proposal rejects virtually every item we included in our April 29 proposal, which protected your McCaskill-Bond rights, while also resolving the impasse in the negotiations.
For example:
(1) The APA proposal continues to provide that once APA becomes the certified representative, it controls the Seniority List Integration (SLI) process, thus allowing it and the Company to make wholesale changes to the Protocol Agreement. This means US Airways pilots would waive their protections under McCaskill-Bond and only be protected by APA's Duty of Fair Representation. This was the reason we could not agree on a Protocol Agreement back in February, and is what led to the need for USAPA to file a lawsuit in the federal court in the District of Columbia compelling APA, AA and US Airways to follow the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment.
(2) The APA proposal adds a new requirement that the integrated list resulting from the M-B process would be implemented only through a Joint Collective Bargaining Process, completely controlled by APA. If this requirement were allowed, USAPA and our Merger Committee would be cut out of the process.
(3) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw its opposition to the NMB single carrier determination, paving the way for APA to become the sole bargaining representative for the combined pilot group and eliminating USAPA’s right to separately represent our pilots, thereby allowing APA to implement its plan to unilaterally control the SLI process.
(4) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw the M-B Injunction Action currently pending in federal court in the District of Columbia with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the claims in the lawsuit cannot be refiled and that we give up our right under McCaskill-Bond to proceed to arbitration now.
(5) The APA proposal includes no guarantee whatsoever that APA will refrain from interfering with USAPA’s relationship with the USAPA Merger Committee.
The TWA pilots waived their contractual language which would have ensured Allegheny-Mohawk Section 3 and 13 protections. The Merger Committee has resisted any effort to forfeit our M-B rights to ensure those protections, and rest assured, we will continue to do so.
In short, the APA proposal is regressive. It is a step backwards from the proposal we rejected in February.
Additionally, the APA posted its proposal on the web just hours after providing it to us, after agreeing to keep protocol negotiations confidential. We fully appreciate the need for appropriate transparency, but productive negotiations do not happen on the internet. While we intend to honor the confidentiality of protocol negotiations we agreed to, you should know our compromise proposal was a reasonable solution to the impasse. We cannot accept a proposal that separates us from our M-B rights and effective representation in the SLI process.
We assure you we are committed to gaining a fair and equitable result for all US Airways pilots in the SLI process. We will keep you informed of any developments in this matter as they occur.
USAPA Merger Committee
