AAA ALPA Thread 9-21 to 9-27

[EyeInTheSky]

They better get their hiney on the seat with the JNC process and keep Prater from passing a jont contract without membership ratification.

Rome wasn't built in a day. You can't force a deal - it has to be given to membership to vote on. I personally know of a bunch of people that haven't voted "Yes" on a contract at this company since the 80's -- and they are still here.


Later,
Eye

 

[prechilill]

You do realize Delta and United pilots are laughing their a$$es off at this whole mess don't you? Way to go EAST and WEST let those ALPA vultures come in and steal your jobs. WEST - ALPA isn't your friend, they are ultimately your enemy.
Later,
Eye

Actually, I have spoken to a few of them and they are laughing at your pilot group. This has been an entertaining venture for many of us and unfortunately, this show is about over. Time to pack up your tent and move on to the next catastrophe that awaits you.

 

[Phoenix]

...Furthermore, they are fundamentally flawed in fiscal responsibility and organization -- it's a bloated mess run by buffoons. If you want to see what a real union looks like check out AFA - at least they get the solidarity thing.

Later,
Eye

Dude, can you believe the unrest that happened because of the AFA merger policy (Oops.. I mean guidelines). Oh the horror of it all. I think it lasted at least 20 minutes.

It was just unbearable. But what really made me mad was when the AFA showed me the flyer about a sickout on Friday. It had a KFC logo on it! What are we gonna eat!

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Actually, I have spoken to a few of them and they are laughing at your pilot group. This has been an entertaining venture for many of us and unfortunately, this show is about over. Time to pack up your tent and move on to the next catastrophe that awaits you.

That's a really stupid thing to say considering you're in the same "tent" and all.

Later,
Eye

 

[Phoenix]

Actually, I have spoken to a few of them and they are laughing at your pilot group.

Yeah, some of them contributed to the DOH change...

And some of them have donated to USAPA.


One man's suggar daddy is another man's devil.

 

[Junebug172]

USA320pilot said: "Separately, it is my understanding things went very bad for the West pilots at today’s EC meeting."

Ha, HA, HA, HA ,HA.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Speaking of ha ha ha ha, I can't believe we had some of our own westies proudly proclaiming we were wu$$ies and that they were counting on the east to show us the way. Now that there is a HA HA HA HA if there ever was one.

 

[Jetz]

I was what can best be described as an east "lurker" for the past few months reading and learning west viewpoints. I'm coming out of my shell to voice my opinions on the abomination of seniority as we know it. Let me start by saying I could care less about what pilots at other airlines are thinking or saying. What's the relevance? They did not get their seniority trampled on! BTW, our catastrophe is yours too so don't wet your pants there sonny.

Actually, I have spoken to a few of them and they are laughing at your pilot group. This has been an entertaining venture for many of us and unfortunately, this show is about over. Time to pack up your tent and move on to the next catastrophe that awaits you.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Let me start by saying I could care less about what pilots at other airlines are thinking or saying. What's the relevance? They did not get their seniority trampled on! BTW, our catastrophe is yours too so don't wet your pants there sonny.

Call the process a catastrophe if it makes you feel better, but the rest of the world doesn't see it that way which is yet another reason why the East cannot stop the "catastrophe" from moving forward. The roadmap as to how this will be wrapped up shortly was detailed above.

 

[767jetz]

I was what can best be described as an east "lurker" for the past few months reading and learning west viewpoints.

Hey Jetz,

Nice call sign!

Would that be 190Jetz, 737Jetz, 757Jetz, 320Jetz, or 330Jetz? B)
Peace,
767jetz

 

[Jetz]

All of them at one time or another (except 190Jetz), plus 727Jetz, DC9Jetz. What about you Junior?

Hey Jetz,

Nice call sign!

Would that be 190Jetz, 737Jetz, 757Jetz, 320Jetz, or 330Jetz? B)
Peace,
767jetz

 

[aquagreen73s]

What about you Junior?

Unbelievable. One would think that along the long road of misery that you have walked you would've at least lost your attitude somewhere along the way.

 

[USA320Pilot]

USAPA - Pilots First

US Airline Pilots Association
P.O. Box 57
Essington, PA 19029

September 22, 2007

Dear US Airways Pilots,

By now many of you have read of yesterday’s decision by the executive board of ALPA to send the Nicolau award to the company. This is in keeping with current ALPA merger policy as is a procedural step.

• The Council found that there was no basis to set aside the seniority arbitration award issued in May by an arbitration board. The Council concluded that no evidence of impropriety or failure to follow ALPA Merger Policy had been presented. ALPA will now defend the award. The award is to be submitted to management as issued, but with the proviso that it will have no effect until the parties complete a single collective bargaining agreement.

• The Council determined that there was no basis under the ALPA–US Airways Transition Agreement to contest the operation of US Airways under a single FAA operating certificate with separate operations that keep the aircraft and pilots of AAA and AWA apart until completion of a single collective bargaining agreement.

• The Council is supporting a fast-track negotiating strategy to raise the pay of AAA pilots in order to achieve pay parity with AWA pilots and to achieve major raises (pay parity plus) for both pilot groups. These negotiations—which will move AAA and AWA pay rates beyond current AWA levels—will be conducted by the JNC.

Please understand that these are procedural steps required by the transition agreement.

There is no implementation of the Nicolau award until it is codified in the contract. As long as the contract is open, any issue including seniority can be revisited.

The general rule is that seniority is a creature of contract, much like any other term or condition of employment:

Once a seniority position is in place, many employees come to think of their position in the pecking order as a form of property. … Yet seniority does not “belong†to an employee, any more than he “owns†the prospect of receiving a given wage next year or flying the St. Louis – Paris route rather than the leg from Minneapolis to Duluth. … Like wages and fringe benefits, seniority is a legitimate subject of discussion and compromise in collective bargaining. … “Forever†in labor relations means “until the next collective bargaining agreement.†Seniority is a creature of the contract, it lives and is defined in the contract. Until the contract is closed, seniority is an open question.

To defend your seniority you need to be current on your ALPA dues. You need to be able to VOTE NO on any contract offer that has the Nicolau award intact. You need to be dues current to defend your seniority and you need to sign a card and make sure everyone you meet and fly with does the same. Please consider carefully, the fine print and negative snap backs that are sure to part of any contract that is produced in the near future.

IS YOUR SENIORITY FOR SALE?

The negotiations over the seniority issue are over as far as ALPA is concerned.

Have you sent in your card? There is no longer any reason to delay.

SEND THE CARD NOW!!

We have just passed 2450 cards and we will be filing with the NMB in the near future. We need a card from every pilot we can get. Do it today!!!

Sincerely,

US Airline Pilots Association

 

[USA320Pilot]

USAPA - Pilots First

US Airline Pilots Association
P.O. Box 57
Essington, PA 19029

September 22, 2007


Dear Fellow East and West US Airways Pilots:

This week, pilots received an unsigned letter from ALPA National titled “Just the facts 2.†This document referenced comments and legal statements made by the law firm retained by USAPA. These statements made by our USAPA attorney were carefully made and give credit to each legal source, the court decisions, and why in fact he believes that these statements have merit and why we are likely to prevail.

Most of all, at USAPA we are angry at the contention of this anonymous author of this ALPA publication that attempting to realign a seniority list on a date of hire (DOH) basis is in fact, a basis for a Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit. DOH is a basic labor tenet, recognized by the Supreme Court as being in the interest of labor in general, and having a long history of status in labor issues. It is a self defining term; it has a recognized and easily defendable basis.

Consider this quote “The final product of a bargaining process may constitute evidence of a DFR violation “only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.†’†ALPA v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991). In the O’Neill case, for example, the Supreme Court held that ALPA committed no DFR violation even if, in retrospect, the reinstatement agreement negotiated on behalf of striking Continental pilots left them in a worse position than if ALPA had simply surrendered and voluntarily terminated the strike. Id. at 79.
USAPA is not attempting some bizarre punishment of the West pilots; we are upholding a long labor standard of Date of Hire as the basis for seniority integrations. As shown above in O’Neill, it is recognized by the Supreme Court as having a valid basis. If we were attempting to punish the west or arrange a seniority list by some other bizarre method we would be in a DFR violation. No, Date of hire meets the “reasonableness†standard, thus DFR would be difficult to prove.

The ALPA letter quotes the judges in the Rakestraw case as saying;

“[A] union may not take away the seniority of some employees for no reason other than that the losers have too few votes to affect the outcome of an intra-union election . . . “

“[A] union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one group of employees over another. The change must rationally promote the aggregate welfare of employees in the bargaining unit.â€

This unsigned ALPA publication fails to point out that the courts recognized Date of Hire as a normal seniority situation and by upholding DOH the courts contend that a union is not attempting to juggle the seniority of one group over another. The Federal Judges in the Rakestraw case upheld the re-ordering of the seniority list. They put the strike breakers on the bottom and re-instated the strikers on the basis of Date of Hire. The courts recognize Date of Hire as a legitimate goal and one supported by most labor organizations. Date of Hire has such a long history of legal standing in labor law, that the legal issue is with the current ALPA policy. ALPA itself has deviated from this historical practice of Date of Hire preferences for seniority integrations. Today, it is ALPA that must prove its current methodology is reasonable.

The unsigned ALPA national letter continues:

“Third, if you think ALPA policy is a problem now; see what it looks like when you’re outside the union.â€
The unknown author contends that we should be careful of what happened to the TWA pilots.
TWA was on the verge of shutting down and they agreed to the proposed seniority integration by the non-ALPA American Airlines pilots. They gave up their seniority integration rights. They were not treated fairly. The US Airways pilots did not give up their rights, our contract is still in place and we are a profitable company. And by the way, it was the TWA ALPA pilots who lost out in that case. They were defended by Roland Wilder, who our ALPA MEC has hired in our case. Will he do the same type of job for us as he did for the TWA pilots?

“What would it be like if we were outside of ALPA?â€

What does our current contract say?

The US Airways pilots have very strong merger protection language and it states:

C) Successor ship and Labor Protection

1. The Agreement shall be binding upon any successor, including, without limitation, any merged company or companies, assignee, purchaser, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor and/or trustee of US Airways Group or the Company. The Company and US Airways Group shall require a Successor to assume and be bound by all terms of the Agreement as a condition of any transaction that results in a Successor.

2. If the Successor is an air carrier (or a corporate parent or subsidiary of an air carrier), US Airways Group and the Company shall require the Successor to provide the Company's pilots with seniority integration governed by the Association Merger Policy, if applicable, and otherwise by Sections 2, 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions. The airline operations of the Company and Successor shall be merged no later than twenty-four months following the integration of the pilot seniority lists and negotiation of an integrated collective bargaining agreement applicable to the merged operation Agreement.

3. In the event that the Company is merged with another airline, the Company’s pilots shall, upon such merger, be provided labor protective provisions no less favorable than those specified by the CAB in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger.

Interesting reading, isn’t it? Remember, this is language in our current collective bargaining agreement.

Section 13 of Allegheny Mohawk states that we get to go to arbitration with an NMB selected arbitrator not an ALPA selected arbitrator. The NMB is biased towards DOH integrations.

It appears that ALPA President Prater is not familiar with the strength of our merger protections.
Where else has Captain Prater failed to do his homework?

Let’s take a look at Section 13 of Allegheny Mohawk LPP’s:

Section 13 Allegheny Mohawk

Section 13. (a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settle by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time it is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.

(b.) The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method for dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selection of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all parties.

We would remind everyone that the language above does not constrain an NMB arbitrator to use ALPA merger policy. He would be free to use a much broader and open definition of seniority, one that has a recognized basis in law and in the courts, one like Date of Hire.

In fact it could be argued that any other side in this situation would be hard pressed to negotiate from some other position without substantial evidence that their position is more in keeping with the overall interest of labor in general.

The officers and volunteers of USAPA will not hide behind a logo. We are not attempting to deprive anyone of anything and we are upholding a long tenet of labor law and past practice. Our policy will use appropriate conditions and restrictions to protect both the East and West pilots from loss of bidding power and we will not remove any pilot from their rightfully earned positions. We will explore various methods to achieve this objective such as fences and other methods to achieve fair and equitable seniority integration. We will attempt to use ALPA’s past practice in mergers which states:

"The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached. Merger representatives should, when possible, use Conditions and Restrictions so as to accomplish seniority list integration based on date of hire, keeping in mind the following primary goals:

a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pro-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

Let us be perfectly clear. If USAPA is selected as the bargaining agent for all US Airways pilots, we have an obligation to fairly represent all US Airways pilots. The West pilots, as well as the East pilots will have a voice in the process. A fair and equitable integration for all pilots ensures the future success of this company and this pilot group. USAPA will strive for that goal. We believe that it can be attained.

Sincerely,

Stephen H. Bradford
Interim President USAPA

Mark Thorpe
Interim Vice President

Mark King
Interim Secretary and Treasurer

Jed Thomas
Chairman/Volunteers

Scott Theuer
Chairman/Communications

 

[electricjet98]

Just curious...has the east MEC said if they will be sending their negotiators to the JNC meetings on the 24th? It would seem like that is the only avenue that remains open for their voices to be heard and have any input to the future CBA proposal.