I believe the East pilots are not correctly looking at the Nicolau Award or the PA discussions.
Most East pilots view the Nicolau Award as a moral issue. They simply look at dollars and cents; along with time off, and then they become a deer in headlights. The problem is that the Nicolau Award stopped being a moral issue the day USAPA was elected and is now a legal issue because we lost two separate leadership bodies -- the two MECs. With one leadership body -- the BPR, USAPA must represent all pilots fairly and honor all aspects of our contract. With USAPA's certification the AWA SLI became a legal issue that is still DFR because LOA 96, Section 4 still applies, when the violation is ripe for adjudication.
As far as the PA discussions most people including myself believe the M-B statute is designed to prevent an AA APA-TWA ALPA type of result, which is the objective of the statute. The challenge is USAPA negotiated and the pilots authorized a process for APA to become our union before the M-B arbitration, if held. That's why Judge Silver unequivocally held that USAPA cannot participate in the M-B proceedings once it is no longer the certified bargaining agent.
Why? A finding of Single Carrier Status (SCS) will quickly eliminate USAPA’s role as our collective bargaining agent (CBA), and thereafter it will be legally barred from representing anyone. The Allied Pilots Association (APA) will become the CBA for all American Airlines pilots, just as USAPA became the CBA for all US Airways pilots when it was certified by the NMB.
Do I like this? No, of course not. But, it's the law and we have a federal judge who wrote in her Addington II DFR that " USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU, in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integrationproceedings."
For those who would argue differently can you show me one example where after the NMB orders a SCS, where one union is certified to represent the combined employee groups, where both unions continue to exist and represent their pre-merger/SCS pilots in contract or ISL negotiations post SCS?
As far as listening to the advice of our advisors I believe it's important to point out ALPA's advisors were salaried or contract employees who did not have "skin" in the game because they were not charging billable hours. USAPA's advisors have a retainer and then only get paid if they generate work -- with billable hours. And, if USAPA's advisors do not provide the BPR a recommendation the BPR wants to hear how long will the adivsors continue to be paid by USAPA? Just ask Lee Seham. I believe Russ Blackwell hit the nail on the head when he said, "I have experience with the B&W firm, who ably represented the union at my former employer - the Wilders are very good at what they do. All lawyers will give the best advice they can to their clients, but if their clients instruct them to take course of action contrary to their recommendation, they must do so. 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.."
In conclusion, I do not have the same level of advisor confidence as some of USAPA's leaders because USAPA's advisors will only get paid if they recommend what USAPA desires.
And, I believe the NMB will shortly determine APA is our new union. Once a SCS determination is made I believe we will see a 3-way ISL arbitration with 3 MCs (APA MC, USAPA legacy East MC, and a USAPA legacy West MC).
