ALPA/USAPA Topic for week of 1/24 to 1/31

[Rico]

Did you ever ask yourself why exactly those changes were added to the ALPA merger policy....?

Quite simply, it was pushed through by the United pilots to avoid a DOH merger from occurring with a more senior pilot group such as USAir...


If the ALG-Mohawk LLP's were left in place, and not superceded by the "additional merger goals", then the probability of a Date of Hire senority list merger was far greater, than with the purposely muddled ALPA version.




It's only a good reason to not have DOH if you are a junior pilot, looking for a windfall

 

[CactusFlyr]

Wow, you are right. No DOH mentioned, I must be "on drugs"...

But to quote:

Hmmm

So basically stick with ALPA, and be sure that you will not get DOH, or go USAPA and no longer be hamstrung by ALPA's merger policy.


Not much of a choice, unless you like being junior

How is being stapled, not junior?

 

[Rico]

How is being stapled, not junior?

That would only apply to you, if your date of hire was after everyone else, in which case YOU DESERVE to be stapled to the end of the list.

Just because you were handed a windfall once, does not mean you deserved it, nor should expect the same treatment from here on out.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If the ALG-Mohawk LLP's were left in place, and not superceded by the "additional merger goals", then the probability of a Date of Hire senority list merger was far greater, than with the purposely muddled ALPA version.

Mere conjecture based on desired outcome, Rico, since nothing in the A-M LPP's gives a preference to any method of integration. Ultimately, if a solution can't be arrived at consensually, an arbitrator's view of what's "fair and equitable" is all that matters. Citing a couple of cases where the integration ended up being DOH under the A-M LPP's only proves that in those cases DOH was judged "fair and equitable". It doesn't prove that DOH is the only method that's "fair and equitable".

You'll also notice that this law trumps USAPA's DOH only language. However, if you're so sure that the A-M LPP language is so much superior to ALPA's, you could argue that the law trumps ALPA's merger policy if you were represented by ALPA (although I wouldn't count on being on the winning side with that argument).

Jim

 

[Rico]

Mere conjecture based on desired outcome, Rico, since nothing in the A-M LPP's gives a preference to any method of integration. Ultimately, if a solution can't be arrived at consensually, an arbitrator's view of what's "fair and equitable" is all that matters. Citing a couple of cases where the integration ended up being DOH under the A-M LPP's only proves that in those cases DOH was judged "fair and equitable". It doesn't prove that DOH is the only method that's "fair and equitable".

You'll also notice that this law trumps USAPA's DOH only language. However, if you're so sure that the A-M LPP language is so much superior to ALPA's, you could argue that the law trumps ALPA's merger policy if you were represented by ALPA (although I wouldn't count on being on the winning side with that argument).

Jim

Like I said before, the changes made to the ALPA Policy were directly meant to avoid a DOH merger, by introducing such language as "career expectations" and so forth. Otherwise there would have been no need for such a change in the first place.

And you know that.


Just curious, you do know why this law, to force ALG-Mohawk LLP provisions in the case of a merger between two airline groups represented by different unions was created in the first place...?

If not, why dontcha ask the formerly "represented by ALPA" TWA pilots.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Let's see if I've got this right......

By having language that adds goals that aren't even mentioned in the A-M LPP's, ALPA's merger policy is worse than the A-M LPP's. Pursuing goals such as no windfalls, maintaining career expectations, etc, is bad but having absolutely no enunciated goals is good???

As for TWA pilots, who did that to them? None other than one of USAPA's role models - APA. It would seem that the "success" USAPA hopes to emulate is putting others on the bottom of the list (or the street).

Jim

 

[nostradamus]

Let's see if I've got this right......

By having language that adds goals that aren't even mentioned in the A-M LPP's, ALPA's merger policy is worse than the A-M LPP's. Pursuing goals such as no windfalls, maintaining career expectations, etc, is bad but having absolutely no enunciated goals is good???

As for TWA pilots, who did that to them? None other than one of USAPA's role models - APA. It would seem that the "success" USAPA hopes to emulate is putting others on the bottom of the list (or the street).

Jim

Jim, your original Piedmont Pilots wanted better than date of hire, now all they want is date of hire. I personally feel that most of your posts are trying to protect your libido, you do not want to look like a hypocrite. You at the time wanted more than date of hire, now you are not a player. It is easy for you to think the way you do.

 

[EastUS]

Let's see if I've got this right......

As for TWA pilots, who did that to them? None other than one of USAPA's role models - APA. It would seem that the "success" USAPA hopes to emulate is putting others on the bottom of the list (or the street).

Hmmm..let'see if I've got this right then:

TWA was "represented" by Alpa..and got stapled. The union doing the stapling ...you're assigning direct similarities to USAPA. Perhaps the moral of that story is that an independant union, with a majority of the workforce aboard, is best suited to serve the interests of said majority, and that Alpa's pretty much worthless in such a case...unless Alpa's left in charge of all of course...in which case it can sabotage things to the extent seen around here. Once a clearly quantifiable methodology, DOH, was abrogated..."seniority" ceased to exist as any rational notion, and instead became a debateable issue guaranteed to eventually produce an absurd monstrosity, and severe conflict between any two groups to be merged. Real genius on Alpa's part again.

What's any possible reason for the east pilots to stick with a scenario wherein Alpa's allready washed their hands of the east, and now seeks their "stapling"?

I think I've got a whole new sales pitch for Alpa = "Stick with us guys/gals...just look what we were able to do for those folks at TWA!" "If you didn't think that was funny..just look at what we've done for the US-east crowd!" "Stay tuned for more knee-slapping alpa comedy and "concerned" pilots' updates......."

 

[Rico]

Ahh, no Jim

Those so called "goals" were meant only to super cede DOH as the established criteria of what was equitable and fair. Granted, the language is positive sounding at face value, but make no mistake that adding those "goals" was only meant to add different benchmarks to replace DOH with what a less senior pilot group would consider fair...

Much like in the case of America West merging with the Pilots of US Airways. Or the more politically powerful (inside ALPA) pilots of United Airlines.


So it comes back to the question each US Airways pilot has to ask his or herself. Do you feel better protected with the merger policy of ALPA, or simply defaulting back to the ALG-Mohawk provisions that were previously in place...?


As for the TWA folks, they can only dream that they had the protection that this law provides when they had merged with AA, instead of ALPA. ALG-Mohawk would have made for a far greater degree of protection then, and in the future if the US Airways pilots merge again (than the flawed ALPA merger policy).

 

[nostradamus]

Hey, don't tell them that!! Let's let these USAPS get themselves hosed again. Let them believe what they want. Got to wonder how they ever get their pants on in the morning without assistance.

Great post, love the facts and the insight provided.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Those so called "goals" were meant only to super cede DOH as the established criteria of what was equitable and fair. Granted, the language is positive sounding at face value, but make no mistake that adding those "goals" was only meant to add different benchmarks to replace DOH with what a less senior pilot group would consider fair...

The "DOH is the only way" horse left the barn a long time ago, Rico - probably before you became an airline pilot (but that's just a guess) . And with this new law, it looks like it's escaped for good - USAPA or not.

So it comes back to the question each US Airways pilot has to ask his or herself. Do you feel better protected with the merger policy of ALPA, or simply defaulting back to the ALG-Mohawk provisions that were previously in place...?

You just can't come to grip with the fact that they are the same - negotiation followed if necessary by binding arbitration. You can call the A-M LPP's "The one and only truly fair integration method ever conceived" and it still won't say DOH.

As for the TWA folks, they can only dream that they had the protection that this law provides when they had merged with AA, instead of ALPA. ALG-Mohawk would have made for a far greater degree of protection then, and in the future if the US Airways pilots merge again (than the flawed ALPA merger policy).

The TWA folks may have been better off is this law had existed then - it all ultimately depends on how an arbitrator might have rule. Neither you nor I have any idea what would have happened, but at least they'd have had a shot at negotiation and arbitration.

But yet again you fail to realize that the A-M LPP's now codified into law guarantees that you won't automatically get DOH in any future merger - just like the last one under ALPA policy. As much as the East pilots hate to hear "binding arbitration" and long for "DOH only", it's the "binding arbitration" that this law (and the A-M LPP's) provide. If you like that "protection" you should be happy with the Nik award that resulted from ALPA's policy - you got the negotiation followed by binding arbitration exactly as specified by the A-M LPP's.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

Shucks, and here I was happily thinking that I was on your ignore list.....

I personally feel that most of your posts are trying to protect your libido, you do not want to look like a hypocrite. You at the time wanted more than date of hire, now you are not a player. It is easy for you to think the way you do.

Feel free to to jump to any erroneous conclusions you like - it's a free country. Not surprisingly, though, you take the broadly general and apply it to the singular individual. I'd have been disappointed otherwise.
Jim

 

[nostradamus]

Shucks, and here I was happily thinking that I was on your ignore list.....


Feel free to to jump to any erroneous conclusions you like - it's a free country. Not surprisingly, though, you take the broadly general and apply it to the singular individual. I'd have been disappointed otherwise.
Jim

I put you on ignore because anytime I disagreed with you I went to the cornfield.

You were a Piedmont pilot during the Usair, Piedmont merger. Piedmont wanted slotting, they got date of hire. Do you think this was fair and how does it relate to the current transaction with AWA. I realize this is a short question that requires a long answer, what you can add would be appreciated.

 

[EastUS]

If you like that "protection" you should be happy with the Nik award that resulted from ALPA's policy - you got the negotiation followed by binding arbitration exactly as specified by the A-M LPP's.

Interesting last minute shotgun wedding between the idea of some protection under law...and magically being "happy with the Nik award that resulted from ALPA's policy". On what planet do notions of codified legal protections couple with "ALPA's policy", and actually coexist as entities of equivalent weight and import?

"The "DOH is the only way" horse left the barn a long time ago," As one of the earlier pioneers in the effort to destroy such yourself....I must assume a wee bit of bias in this issue, not that most all concerned are in any way free from such.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Shucks, and here I was happily thinking that I was on your ignore list.....


Feel free to to jump to any erroneous conclusions you like - it's a free country. Not surprisingly, though, you take the broadly general and apply it to the singular individual. I'd have been disappointed otherwise.
Jim

I was a Piedmont pilot. The logic of slotting when I got hired eluded me. Needless to say most of my ORIGINAL Piedmont colleagues felt differently. If the Kagel award was "unfair" why did'nt us Piedmont guys say so and get out of ALPA then? Because, all in all, the effect was the majority of the pilots could see the logic of the award and were not willing to part with their collective bargaining agent. In fact, no one thought about getting out of ALPA at all. If Kagel had STAPLED the Piedmont Pilots I'm sure you would have seen wholescale revolution.

The shuttle pilots were different. I, personally, thought they SHOULD of gotten their EASTERN date of hire for several reasons.

1.) Had only about 200-250 pilots.
2.) They carried their attrition (age).
3.) If career expectations were an issue, fencing on equipment in their respective bases could have "mitigated" (still don't TRUST that word) their position losses.
4.) They brought a valuable peice of the puzzle to the airline even IF Trump didn't know how to run an air carrier.
5.) Most IMPORTANTLY, it carried a standard of UNIT MEASUREMENT that would set the example, once again for the industry.

However, when the "expert" merger negotiators called me to ask MY opinion, I was out walking my cat and was unavailible for consultation.

Kind of what we have here. Right, Jim?