nycbusdriver
Veteran
luvthe9 said:
I heard the Chinese factory where they are made is posting overtime to up their "Liberty Tie" production by 300%. They get US$0.45 per tie, after all.
2014 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
I heard the Chinese factory where they are made is posting overtime to up their "Liberty Tie" production by 300%. They get US$0.45 per tie, after all.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
The West's request to have a merger committee will be heard before a "preliminary arbitration" panel (arbitrators picked by APA and USAPA). That preliminary panel has no authority to elevate a West Merger Committee to "party status" in the protocol agreement....
In other words, the APA, American, and USAPA remain the only parties to the protocol agreement, and their stipulation that the status quo is three lists (excluding Nic) will not be changed.
In other words, the APA, American, and USAPA remain the only parties to the protocol agreement, and their stipulation that the status quo is three lists (excluding Nic) will not be changed.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
IOW, whether or not a west committee is enpaneled, that committee must comply with PA language which stipulates that the status quo of Dec 2013 is the starting point for negotiations. That starting point was unfettered by the Nic in such areas as monthly bidding, vacancies, vacation, access to domiciles, etc. IOW - everything.
The west is no longer merging with the east. This will be the integration of three separate lists. The status quo (as defined) cannot encompass something which predates Dec 2013. The mini arb will only decide whether the west gets a committee. The PA determines the jurisdiction of the maxi arb.
Just sayin.
The west is no longer merging with the east. This will be the integration of three separate lists. The status quo (as defined) cannot encompass something which predates Dec 2013. The mini arb will only decide whether the west gets a committee. The PA determines the jurisdiction of the maxi arb.
Just sayin.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
So, if the arbitration panel decides the west should get a committee, the PA demands that they sit in the corridor outside the room where the SLI arbitration is held.
I said that months ago...in so many words...that the west committe would be there to run errands and get coffee.
I said that months ago...in so many words...that the west committe would be there to run errands and get coffee.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Indeed you did predict as much.nycbusdriver said:
The parties to the Protocol Agreement have already agreed to the first Amendment... LOA #1 if you will..
In order to avoid confusion, waiters and busboys during arbitration working lunches will be issued Liberty Ties.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
algflyr said:
Here we go yet again...
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
That is all fine and good, get the wording and language done the right way, We get burned every time by something like that, Make it right so it's a unanimous vote. We need to learn from past mistakes on our wording of these agreements.nycbusdriver said:
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Yes, by all means! Lets show them like we did on LOA93 and the NIC.luvthe9 said:
You dumbasses amaze me...
nycbusdriver
Veteran
luvthe9 said:
Well, there will never be a unanimous vote on this. PHX will never be on board, and who cares? If the expert labor attorneys under contract with USAPA, Szymanski and Wilder, feel the language is tight enough, then maybe the BPR second-guessers should listen to them. (It's not like that sleaze-bag ALPA ambulance-chaser years ago who was set to get a $1 million "success bonus" from USAirways if he talked us into voting for one of the many concession LOAs.)
Do the CLT Reps who will vote against it think THEY can come up with tighter language? Do they really think that even if they could they could get the APA and the company to just give in?
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Apparently the CLT Captain rep doesn't have the support of the other two reps.nycbusdriver said:
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
CLT Domicile Chairman’s Update
By now you have received the Merger Committee's update with the attached Protocol Agreement that they are requesting the BPR to approve and the request for you to contact your Representatives to discuss. I am writing this update as a singular Chairman’s update since your CLT Representatives are not in agreement on whether to approve the PA or not. Since I have been your Chairman I have never attempted to influence the vote of either Vice-Chair and I will not now. I believe in articulating my view in a compelling way so as to earn support for my position. With that said, I am writing to inform you that I plan to vote against the approval of the Protocol Agreement.
As many know, up until now I have been an ardent supporter of the Merger Committee. I have gone on record as having “Ultimate Confidence” in the committee. I helped pass resolutions giving them a degree of autonomy so as to not be influenced by any one seniority group. Over the last six months I have watched what at first was a fairly solid Protocol Agreement become watered down to a document that I believe essentially does one thing; allow a process that basically guarantees a West Merger Committee. Let me state for the record that I want all pilots at US Airways and American Airlines to be treated fairly in the seniority process. You could make a valid argument that it is hypocritical to say that APA would not treat us fairly if they solely represented us in seniority talks but USAPA could fairly represent the West in the same talks. I get it, but the Nicolau Award presents a different dynamic. Given the chance to stand before an arbitration panel as a full participant and present their case to implement the Nic, or a close substitute based on the argument that it was previously awarded by an arbitrator, is a potentially career ending chance that we cannot accept. Although we have won numerous court cases rejecting the Nic, arbitration is different and uncertain. The rules of law that apply to the decision making process of courts do not apply to arbitration. If there had not been a Nicolau Award I would have no problem with a West Merger Committee. In fact I would embrace it!
Here is a direct quote from the Merger Committee’s letter:
“Judge Silver decided the McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not give any subgroup of US Airways pilots a right to separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond process”.
It does not get any clearer than that. Under the federal law, USAPA and APA are the parties, period! If APA, the West pilot class, or the Company wants another group, they would have to argue in court that the West should have that ability. The law does not provide for it. Additionally, if the APA wants to open that can of worms of allowing a separate pilot class, then the TWA pilots would be able to request the same. In the Protocol Agreement the APA has put in wording to prevent that. With the Protocol Agreement I believe we voluntarily create a process that essentially guarantees a West Committee because the standard the panel will use is: Can they (the West) be treated fairly by USAPA in a combined list? Since we have had a long running dispute and spent millions on lawsuits between each other, I think it is clear the arbitration panel will allow a West Committee. Once we sign the Protocol Agreement we are now under section 13B of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which means that we have agreed to an alternative to the McCaskill-Bond 13A section that is governed by the federal law.
I want every pilot involved in this merger to be treated fairly. We had West pilots as members of the USAPA Merger Committee. They resigned because they indicated it was their obligation to only consider the Nicolau Award in a US/AA combined list. Unfortunately, that would severely harm thousands of our pilots and potentially create an environment where the APA capitalizes on this disagreement and irreversibly harms all US Airways pilots. It is my belief that this Protocol Agreement language was contemplated two years ago during the MOU talks and conveniently swept under the rug so as to not influence voting on the MOU. The same attorney that is responsible for the loose MOU language has written the Protocol Language. For those that say “trust your advisors,” let me say that USAPA’s general counsel has been 180 degrees in disagreement with the Merger Counsel in many areas. This is phase one of the merger process. We all want to start talking about the merged list and see what our career has in store for us. We will get there, but we must ensure that haste does not cause errors in our judgment. I have more confidence in the Merger Committee in respect to the actual math and methodology of combining the list than that of the legal wrangling’s of the Protocol Agreement.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and understand my concerns for your future.
Bob Frear
Charlotte Chairman
By now you have received the Merger Committee's update with the attached Protocol Agreement that they are requesting the BPR to approve and the request for you to contact your Representatives to discuss. I am writing this update as a singular Chairman’s update since your CLT Representatives are not in agreement on whether to approve the PA or not. Since I have been your Chairman I have never attempted to influence the vote of either Vice-Chair and I will not now. I believe in articulating my view in a compelling way so as to earn support for my position. With that said, I am writing to inform you that I plan to vote against the approval of the Protocol Agreement.
As many know, up until now I have been an ardent supporter of the Merger Committee. I have gone on record as having “Ultimate Confidence” in the committee. I helped pass resolutions giving them a degree of autonomy so as to not be influenced by any one seniority group. Over the last six months I have watched what at first was a fairly solid Protocol Agreement become watered down to a document that I believe essentially does one thing; allow a process that basically guarantees a West Merger Committee. Let me state for the record that I want all pilots at US Airways and American Airlines to be treated fairly in the seniority process. You could make a valid argument that it is hypocritical to say that APA would not treat us fairly if they solely represented us in seniority talks but USAPA could fairly represent the West in the same talks. I get it, but the Nicolau Award presents a different dynamic. Given the chance to stand before an arbitration panel as a full participant and present their case to implement the Nic, or a close substitute based on the argument that it was previously awarded by an arbitrator, is a potentially career ending chance that we cannot accept. Although we have won numerous court cases rejecting the Nic, arbitration is different and uncertain. The rules of law that apply to the decision making process of courts do not apply to arbitration. If there had not been a Nicolau Award I would have no problem with a West Merger Committee. In fact I would embrace it!
Here is a direct quote from the Merger Committee’s letter:
“Judge Silver decided the McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not give any subgroup of US Airways pilots a right to separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond process”.
It does not get any clearer than that. Under the federal law, USAPA and APA are the parties, period! If APA, the West pilot class, or the Company wants another group, they would have to argue in court that the West should have that ability. The law does not provide for it. Additionally, if the APA wants to open that can of worms of allowing a separate pilot class, then the TWA pilots would be able to request the same. In the Protocol Agreement the APA has put in wording to prevent that. With the Protocol Agreement I believe we voluntarily create a process that essentially guarantees a West Committee because the standard the panel will use is: Can they (the West) be treated fairly by USAPA in a combined list? Since we have had a long running dispute and spent millions on lawsuits between each other, I think it is clear the arbitration panel will allow a West Committee. Once we sign the Protocol Agreement we are now under section 13B of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which means that we have agreed to an alternative to the McCaskill-Bond 13A section that is governed by the federal law.
I want every pilot involved in this merger to be treated fairly. We had West pilots as members of the USAPA Merger Committee. They resigned because they indicated it was their obligation to only consider the Nicolau Award in a US/AA combined list. Unfortunately, that would severely harm thousands of our pilots and potentially create an environment where the APA capitalizes on this disagreement and irreversibly harms all US Airways pilots. It is my belief that this Protocol Agreement language was contemplated two years ago during the MOU talks and conveniently swept under the rug so as to not influence voting on the MOU. The same attorney that is responsible for the loose MOU language has written the Protocol Language. For those that say “trust your advisors,” let me say that USAPA’s general counsel has been 180 degrees in disagreement with the Merger Counsel in many areas. This is phase one of the merger process. We all want to start talking about the merged list and see what our career has in store for us. We will get there, but we must ensure that haste does not cause errors in our judgment. I have more confidence in the Merger Committee in respect to the actual math and methodology of combining the list than that of the legal wrangling’s of the Protocol Agreement.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and understand my concerns for your future.
Bob Frear
Charlotte Chairman
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
luvthe9 said:
When was the last arbitration in which WB flying was not taken into account and protected?
I don't think your Frear mongering is going to work.
Did you enjoy the snap back wording of alpa sir.A320 Driver said:
You need to do an inventory of your intestinal fortitude. If you look at APA history of pilot seniority integrations, you better dot your I's and cross your tees.. APA is after the west pilots, you need to protect them while you sing your swan song and retire.
Frankly it does not help to hear from someone like you already bending over and grabbing your ankles.
I don't think wanting to get clearer language at this point is a bad thing. Even if the TA is approved at tomorrows meeting, the arbitration still CANNOT happen until the JCBA is approved and in place. That ain't happening anytime soon. So we have time to get concise language in place. I agree with the concerns on the CLT Chairman, but was wondering why he made his decision so quickly and was able to get out an update within a few hours. Surely their will be a Q and A period with council before the vote. The Chairman can voice his concerns there and have them addressed by council. It seems he has already made up his mind.
There is a lot of the language I like in the TA, but there is also some I have questions about... I guess we'll see what tomorrow brings...
There is a lot of the language I like in the TA, but there is also some I have questions about... I guess we'll see what tomorrow brings...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
