AAA ALPA Topic 8/24/07 - 8/31-07

[BoeingBoy]

Since it isn't policy, the part that remands it to arbitration is just a guideline too?

The process is policy and that includes arbitration if necessary. The 5 criteria to be considered and balanced against each other when combining seniority lists are goals.......

ALPA policy cannot mandate an outcome when ALPA represented carriers merge because of DFR responsibilities, so it cannot define via policy how the combined list is to be constructed. The goals to be sought can be enunciated, however, while leaving it up to the merger committees to negotiate how to best balance those goals, and requiring arbitration is those negotiations fail. Of course, it it goes to arbitration, the arbitrator decides how best to balance the enunciated goals.

Jim

 

[P51Pilot]

The process is policy and that includes arbitration if necessary. The 5 criteria to be considered and balanced against each other when combining seniority lists are goals.......

ALPA policy cannot mandate an outcome when ALPA represented carriers merge because of DFR responsibilities, so it cannot define via policy how the combined list is to be constructed. The goals to be sought can be enunciated, however, while leaving it up to the merger committees to negotiate how to best balance those goals, and requiring arbitration is those negotiations fail. Of course, it it goes to arbitration, the arbitrator decides how best to balance the enunciated goals.

Jim

It's funny how from 1986-1991, the"policy" stated that preference was given to DOH with no prejudice as the primary means for list construction.

The fact that ALPA fails to have any National "policy" other than collecting 1.95% of people's paychecks is all the more reason for people to use USAPA for better representation and to correct this seniority this fiasco.

Maybe Parker should realize this merger is going to be about as successful as the USAir/PSA or USAir/Piedmont merger and stop this train wreck before the train travels to far down the tracks.

 

[exB717Flyer]

I believe a solution to the problem is to negotiate fences for 10 to 15 years ...

I guess you missed the memo. Considering your MEC didn't want you to have access to the daily abritration hearing transcripts it's no surprise. But here it is: long term fences are gone. NW/RP and OZ/TW proved that long fences only succeed in prolonging the pain of a merger. Abritrators want to see integrations good and done in five years or less. I happen to agree.

 

[P51Pilot]

I guess you missed the memo. Considering your MEC didn't want you to have access to the daily abritration hearing transcripts it's no surprise. But here it is: long term fences are gone. NW/RP and OZ/TW proved that long fences only succeed in prolonging the pain of a merger. Abritrators want to see integrations good and done in five years or less. I happen to agree.

This one is going to take a lot longer than 5 years if ever. So much for no fences, if anything the Arbitrator in this case set the groups on a course for a change in representation, no single contract on the horizon, and pilot groups set against each other. Good Job.

 

[exB717Flyer]

This one is going to take a lot longer than 5 years if ever.

That's not the arbitrator's fault. I predict many AAA guys will be bitter no matter what happens.

 

[P51Pilot]

That's not the arbitrator's fault. I predict many AAA guys will be bitter no matter what happens.

Depends how this plays out, and that is far from set in stone.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's funny how from 1986-1991, the"policy" stated that preference was given to DOH with no prejudice as the primary means for list construction.

I don't have it anymore, but as I recall the previous policy stated a preference for DOH but not to the exclusion of the same 5 goals that are still enunciated today. That "preference" and "not to the exclusion of" made DOH just another guideline, although the "preference" gave it greater weight than the other 5. DOH hasn't been the policy for a long time.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

To elaborate a little further, if you want a policy concerning the construction of the combined list here it is:

"No integrated list shall be constructed which would change the order of the flight deck crew members on their own respective seniority lists."

That policy on list construction binds everyone's hands - ALPA's, the merger committee's, even the arbitrator's. You may recall that shortly after the combined list was made public it was pointed out that one of the East furloughees was on it twice, with several hundred numbers between the two positions he/she occupied. Of course, this was presented as "proof" that the combined list was flawed, but it actually was the result of the above policy.

Since the East furloughee had applied for and gotten a job at HP, outside of the provisions of the transition agreement, this furloughee was actually on both certified seniority lists. The policy, by prohibiting reordering of a pilot's position on the respective lists, forced the arbitrator to include that pilot twice with each position based on his/her position on each of the two individual lists. So he/she was listed once between the two pilots he/she had been between on the East list and then again between the pilots he/she was between on the West list.

To do otherwise - include him/her only once based on the position on only one of the two individual lists - would have meant reordering that pilot's position on the other list. So ALPA policy for combining lists tied even the arbitrator's hands.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways PHL Council 41 Update - August 26, 2007

Another Meaningless ALPA Policy?

Dear Philadelphia Pilots,

The following issue is about unearned synergies US Airways Management is taking without any resistance from our National Association or the AWA MEC. In Fact, we have been receiving internal resistance in our efforts to enforce the Separate Operations language in the Transition Agreement since the spring of 2006.

The Transition Agreement provided the company with Scope relief in exchange for certain protections and assurances stipulated in the Agreement. The Agreement spells out the planed process to integrate the Airlines. That process called for the accomplishment of three integral parts before the company would be allowed to merge the operations. Those three parts are 1) a Merged Pilot Seniority List, 2) a Joint Contract, and 3) a Single FAA Operating Certificate. None of the three could be used absent the other two without agreement of the parties (II. Period of Separate Operations).

The reason this is so important is that it is designed to prohibit management from whip-sawing the two pilot groups against each other by moving flying on either side of the merging Airlines. It also provided an incentive (synergies) for the Company and leverage (contract) for the Pilots in completing the Merger.

This is of such extreme importance that even our National Association recognized the importance of separate operations during any merger in that they wrote language into their Merger Policy. The following is out of Section 45 of the Administration Manual:

Part 1. MERGER POLICY AND PROCEDURES

D. ACTIONS TAKEN UPON DETERMINATION OF MERGER

4 The President shall take reasonable measures to provide that the flight operations, equipment, and existing flying of each company party to a merger shall remain separated until such time as the pilot seniority lists and the employment agreements are merged, or until the MECs of the affected pilot groups mutually agree otherwise. Any dispute shall be decided by the Executive Council. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)

The following Resolution was passed unanimously by your MEC on May 2, 2007 in CLT at a Special MEC Meeting prior to the release of the Nicolau Award.

Source: Council 41


WHEREAS the Transition Agreement dated 09-23-05 covers the agreed to requirements for the merger/integration of US Airways and America West Pilot groups, and

WHEREAS this agreement specifies in Roman Numeral II a Period of Separate Operations, and

WHEREAS this Period of Separate Operations remains in effect until there is an Operational Pilot Integration as provided in Section VI. A. of the Transition Agreement, and

WHEREAS the actual operations of America West and US Airways under a single FAA Operating Certificate would, in and of itself, violate the Period of Separate Operations, and

WHEREAS this single operations under one FAA Operations certificate would not be feasible nor plausible absent the merger of America West and US Airways (in other words, the two airlines would not be operating under one Certificate absent the merger), and

WHEREAS the Company has not yet complied with the Transition Agreement Section VI “Operational Pilot Integration,†and

WHEREAS the Separate Operations language in Section II of the Transition Agreement remains in effect and is controlling until “Operational Pilot Integration.†, and

WHEREAS the Company’s failure to complete the Operational Pilot Integration prohibits the separate carriers of AWA and US Airways from operating under a single FAA certificate.

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Section X dispute be filed immediately on behalf of the AAA Pilots, and

THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that every available ALPA National resource be exhausted in prohibiting the utilization of a single operating certificate until a negotiated single agreement has been ratified.

The following Resolution was passed by your MEC on August 1, 2007:

AI 07-81 - Transition Agreement Dispute

Source: Council 135 (LGA)

WHEREAS there is a provision in the Transition Agreement to settle disputes between US Airways Management and the Association, and

WHEREAS the AAA MEC has passed a resolution seeking to stop the
implementation of a single operation FAA certificate, and

WHEREAS dispute resolution language on this matter has been drafted by the Representation department of ALPA National, and

WHEREAS the AWA MEC has not recognized that a dispute exists between the Association and the Corporation, and refuses to address the dispute resolution language drafted by ALPA national,

WHEREAS the AWA MEC’s refusal to recognize that a dispute exists between the Association and the corporation causes and constitutes a dispute between the two ALPA parties (AAA and AWA), and

WHEREAS the Executive Council of ALPA National is the governing body tasked with settling disputes between the two ALPA parties should one arise during the life of the Transition Agreement, and

WHEREAS the AAA MEC is seeking resolution of the dispute between the two ALPA parties,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AAA MEC requests that the Executive Council rule on the dispute between the two ALPA parties in the matter of the filing of a dispute against the Corporation to maintain separate operations as stipulated in the Transition Agreement, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon resolution of the dispute between the two ALPA parties, if resolved as sought by the US Airways MEC, the Association will file the dispute resolution language drafted by the ALPA National Representation Department seeking to ensure that separate operations be maintained between the two ALPA parties, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that separate operations be maintained between the two parties as prescribed in the Transition Agreement.

Motion Passes Unanimously

ALPA National has failed to act on either of the two proceeding resolutions.

The Company has once again announced that they intend to secure and operate under a Single Certificate effective September 25, 2007 . Your PHL Reps believe this to be a violation of the Transition Agreement – a lawfully binding agreement entered into by ALPA and the company. We will be joining other Council Reps in calling for a Special MEC Conference Call Meeting on Tuesday to address this situation. Consideration will be given to retaining outside legal counsel in order to preserve our rights and enforce our agreement. Standby……..

Follow the three prong approach, Fly safe, Family First, and SAP down for quality of life.

Fraternally,

Eric Rowe - Chairman
Dave Ciabattoni - Vice Chairman
Jim Portale - Secretary/Treasurer

 

[USA320Pilot]

HP_FA,

HP_FA asked: "How so? What were you career expectations in mid-May, 2005?"

USA320Pilot answers: The same as it was for every other US Airways or America West employee. Both companies were operating as a going concern and nobody can predict the future. Furthermore, US Airways did not file its merger paperwork with the federal government using the "failing carrier" guidelines, as for example, TWA did with American as a means to influence regulatory approval.

I believe no employee should prosper at the expense of the other, which clearly happended in the Nicolau Award. For example, there is not one AWA pilot who had a widebody job in their career expectation, but with the Nicolau Award that has signficantly changed. Is that fair?

Let's look at some other points that were obtained from the US Airways MEC. Could you comment on each of the points listed below?

1. For each year from now until the year 2019 US Airways attrition accounts for over 80% of the source of Captain Vacancies. HP-FA, who should benefit from that attition and Captain vacancies.

HP-FA, should the pilots who bring those promotions to the combined business enterprise benefit or the ones who did not?

2. The Nicolau award integrates the bottom AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05, senior to all US Airways pilots who were actively flying EMB Aircraft under the ALPA US Airways CBA. Arbitrator Nicolau’s opinion incorrectly states that the US Airways Merger Committee’s certified list shows these pilots as furloughed. This placed the AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05 senior to the AAA pilot hired on 7/18/88.

HP_FA, what's your opinion of the US Airways pilots who were flying at MDA and that Nicolau did not give them credit?

3. HP-FA, since you inferred that US Airways pilots had no career expectation because the carrier was operating under court supervised protecation during its "formal reorganization", what about these facts?

Shared operating expenses:

Shared costs have been allocated based on AWA’s and US Airways’ statistics, including revenue passenger miles (“RPMsâ€) and passenger sales revenues.

First six months 2007, merger related transition expenses:

America West…………23 million
US Airways…………… 44 million

Now that we have the merger related expenses, here is the breakdown of operating income, 2Q 2007:

US Airways…………… $320 million dollar Operating Income
America West…………($25) million Operating Loss

4. HP-FA, how about this, "just in case you’re paying attention because the undisputable financial facts are?"

Operating Expenses 2Q, 2007

America West…………. 927 million
US Airways…………… 1.96 Billion, more than double AWA

5. HP-FA, another point made by the US Airways MEC is the "dfinition of a windfall: The total number of Captain years transferred from US Airways pilots to America West pilots is 4,463 years."

HP_FA, do you believe that is fair?

In conclusion, if the AWA MEC does not change their position and agree to negotiate "realistic solutions" to the Nicolau Award per the two ALPA EC Resolutions and the pending Rice Committee recommendations, then the US Airways pilot's lawsuit will proceed, which could take 3-5 year's according to the MEC's attorney (Roland Wilder). And, USAPA would undoubtedly replace ALPA as the collective bargaining agent for both the East and West pilots. In your opinion, how will these two points effect the pilot group integration, other employee groups/OAL pilot attempts to obtain a better contract, and the performance of the "New US Airways"?

HP-FA, you're a bright individual. Would you mind answering each of my questions above?

Thanks.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

2. The Nicolau award integrates the bottom AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05, senior to all US Airways pilots who were actively flying EMB Aircraft under the ALPA US Airways CBA. Arbitrator Nicolau’s opinion incorrectly states that the US Airways Merger Committee’s certified list shows these pilots as furloughed. This placed the AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05 senior to the AAA pilot hired on 7/18/88.

HP_FA, what's your opinion of the US Airways pilots who were flying at MDA and that Nicolau did not give them credit?

USA320Pilot,

You answered that one in the fall of 2005 when you argued strenuously that the MDA pilots flying the E-170's were in fact not active mainline pilots but were in fact furloughed mainline pilots flying for the E-170 division. In fact, your buddy Jack Stephan argued the same point at that time. Shall I pull those posts and MEC communications up?

Jim

 

[TheLarkAscending]

You answered that one in the fall of 2005 when you argued strenuously that the MDA pilots flying the E-170's were in fact not active mainline pilots but were in fact furloughed mainline pilots flying for the E-170 division. Shall I pull those posts up? Jim

You may have to, as historically, there seems to be quite a disparity** between the past quoted realities and the current quoted realities. Revisionist Historians Unite!

**containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy,

It is my undertstanding that John Prater told some of the BOS & CLT pilots in attendance at last week's meeting(s) that he believes the MDA lawsuit is the best way to get the Nicolau Award thrown out. It's not my opinion or previous comments that count, it's others when discussing this matter.

Since you elected to "chime in" on this discussion between HP_FA and myself, if you want to discuss point number 2, what's your opinion on John Prater's comment above? Furthermore, would you answer each of my questions in the post above and give us your opinion "of the US Airways pilots who were flying at MDA and that Nicolau did not give them credit?"

Thanks for taking the time to answer every question in my post above!

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

Comment on 2nd and 3rd hand remarks that you claim were made? You, who has been proven to fabricate whatever is needed to fit you argument? That's good for a laugh......

As far as chiming in, I'll continue to do just that whenever you change your argument to fit whatever you feel is best for you at the moment. If you think I need to justify any remarks I might make to you, you're wrong again - but what else is new.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

Lark,

As I indicated to BoeingBoy "it's not my opinion or previous comments that count, it's others when discussing this matter."

Since you elected to "chime in" on too on this discussion between HP_FA and myself, if you want to discuss point number 2, what's your opinion on John Prater's comment above in my response to BoeingBoy? Furthermore, would you answer each of my questions in the post above and give us your opinion "of the US Airways pilots who were flying at MDA and that Nicolau did not give them credit?"

I have a gut feeling you will not answer each question above...

Regards,

USA320Pilot