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

[end_of_alpa]

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".

I agree with Jim here. A-M LPP does NOT specify a method. However, at that time, the CAB set a precedence on deciding the labor rights and positions of respected merger groups....groups I might add that were extremely far apart in career expectations. What they did there is much like what the NMB does today when making a decision....they cite prior precedent to back up their logic. Courts of law use Stare Decisis as a bed rock principle. Nicolau in FACT did no such thing. Every case stands on its merits...remember?

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

Here it will do nothing, because the representational vote combines the craft and class, and the craft and class will determine the final outcome with a vote.

It is here I will disagree with my fellow pilots and say that A-M LPP will probably be ruled ineffective and/or unconstitutional in the future because seniority is negotiated in the contract with the employer and the courts hands off approach to labor will probably tested in the future on this matter. In short, government can't tell us how to negotiate our contracts. Remeber, A-M LPP was enforced by the CAB back then and adjudicated by the NMB or another party.

In a "deregulated" environment I think A-M LPP's will be almost impossible, a best. I noticed that the original bill had an enforcement provision that can be filed in federal court.

I saw in the final bill that provision removed. The question becomes, if CAB enforced A-M LPP's, who will enforce it now? That is the difference.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Something called the "Railway Labor Act". Good reading if you seek facts.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zVRPXtnUu...Tx25U#PPA369,M1

That is a very good reading. I've ALREADY read it. In a latter post with Jim I actually agree with you that the differences between the two "policies" are subtle. However, enforement BACK THEN utilized the services of the NMB or another recognized party in a REGULATED environment. ALPA merger policy doesn't have an enforcement procedure IF YOU LEAVE!

It is the Department of Transportations decision to STAY OUT OF SENIORITY disputes if and when contracts become merged or amenable. As I said to Jim and I'll say to you, A-M LPP's will have, most likely, little headway in provide peaceful seniority integrations in labor. We're back to the beginning again.

In fact, my US Air-Shuttle merger scenaro, if EVERY pilot on the US Air side though that arbitration would have put the Shuttle guys at the TOP of the list, every pilot at US Air would have been out of ALPA and the Shuttle guys would probably gotten their Shuttle date of hire. (Conjecture, of course, but I know what I would have done back then and I think others would agree.)

 

[end_of_alpa]

OK, Before everyone BUSTS MY BA11S, here is a piece from Ford and Harrison....a law firm that REPRESENTS MANAGEMENT!!

It is NOT INTENDED TO SUPPORT MANAGEMENTS POSITION OR SHOW ANTI-UNION TENDANCIES...it is a good piece, however, of the intracacies of Management-Labor relations. (You have to be willing to read both sides of the argument.) It is relatively old in light of the bill signing and the few changes made but I do believe that enforcment will be difficult, at best.

However, if their IS a choice in policies and their "enforcment" provisions, I'd prefer A-M LPP provisions over ALPA merger policy ANYDAY!! In short, the "TREND" in A-M LPP...LABOR PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS is to require employers to recognize "length of service", thereby establishing a nationally recognized benchmark. (which also promotes labor piece industry wide.)

Airline Legal Alert: Allegheny-Mohawk
LPP Amendment Added to FAA
Reauthorization Bill
5/21/2007

On May 16, the Senate Commerce Committee added an amendment to the FAA Reauthorization bill (the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, S.1300) that would impose Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions (LPPs) on any future airline mergers or acquisitions. If the bill is approved with this amendment, it will significantly impact the financial feasibility of future airline mergers and acquisitions. It could also nullify existing merger provisions in collective bargaining agreements negotiated between airlines and unions.

Specifically, the amendment (proposed by Senator McCaskill from Missouri) amends § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 156, by providing that "with respect to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the [RLA], the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB] in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the covered employees of the covered air carrier."

The amendment also provides that any individual, including a labor organization representing the individual, claiming to be aggrieved as a result of a violation of the LPPs may file suit in federal court. The LPPs referred to in the amendment were established by the CAB in 1972. The CAB routinely imposed LPPs in the 1950s and 60s in airline mergers and, in its 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk decision, formalized a standard set of LPPs granting specific forms of financial aid and other rights to employees affected by a CAB-approved merger. These provisions included:

• A monthly "displacement allowance" for employees who, as a result of the merger, were placed in jobs that paid less than the jobs the employees held prior to the merger. The displacement allowance was based upon the employee's average monthly compensation in the higher paying job for the twelve months immediately preceding the employee's displacement. This average monthly compensation was the minimum amount guaranteed to the displaced employee. In any month in which the employee's compensation in his post-merger position was less than the average monthly compensation, the employee was to be paid the difference. This protection applied to displacement occurring within a period of three years from the effective date of the merger. Employees were entitled to the displacement allowance for a period of four years from the date of the employee's displacement.

• A "dismissal allowance" for employees who lost their job as a result of the merger, within three years from the effective date of the merger. This allowance was 60% of the employee's average monthly compensation for the prior twelve months in which the employee earned compensation before being deprived of employment as a result of the merger. The length of time the employee received this allowance varied based on the employee's length of service, with a maximum of five years for employees who had been employed for fifteen years or longer.

• A requirement that provisions be made for the integration of seniority lists "in a fair and equitable manner," including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the airlines and the representatives of the employees affected.

The LPPs did not define "fair and equitable."

Other provisions included continued access to job benefits such as health insurance for affected employees and reimbursement for specified moving and traveling expenses, and for expenses and losses resulting from the sale of their homes for employees required to relocate. After deregulation, the CAB announced that it would no longer require LPPs as a matter of course, but only under special circumstances. When the Department of Transportation (DOT) acquired jurisdiction over the airline mergers in 1985, it reiterated the policy against LPPs and consistently rejected requests for their imposition. The DOT has repeatedly stated that mandatory LPPs are inconsistent with deregulation and that if employees want merger protections they should obtain them through collective bargaining. Accordingly, airline unions have routinely negotiated merger and succession provisions into their labor contracts.

However, if the proposed amendment becomes law, such negotiated provisions would apparently be rendered void if they conflict with the LPPs. Additionally, the potential financial burden imposed by the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs would likely be so significant that most airline mergers would be economically untenable.

In Allegheny-Mohawk, a case that occurred prior to the Airline Deregulation Act, the CAB found the merger of the two airlines to be appropriate in part because it would resolve Mohawk's financial difficulties. Additionally, the CAB examiner found that the merger generally would not result in a reduction in employment because Allegheny would absorb most of the surplus employees
with the exception of five dispatchers who would likely be dismissed. Thus, the financial impact of the LLPs in the Allegheny-Mohawk case was limited due to the limited number of employees affected.

In today's economic environment, where airline mergers and acquisitions may affect hundreds or even thousands of employees, the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs are simply financially infeasible. Imposition of such requirements would not protect employees of financially struggling airlines. Instead, the ultimate impact of this amendment will likely be that many such airlines will go out of business and all of their employees will be unemployed.

In addition to the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP provision, the FAA Reauthorization Bill contains a number of other employment- elated provisions, including the following:

• a requirement that all flight attendants have a minimum level of English
language skills;
• authorization of a study of pilot fatigue and direction to the FAA to consider the study results in its rulemaking proceeding on flight time limitations and rest requirements;
• direction to the FAA to initiate a process to carry out the recommendations of the CAMI study on flight attendant fatigue;
• a provision requiring the administrator of the FAA to establish milestones for the completion of work began under the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and OSHA and requiring the FAA to develop a policy statement setting forth the circumstances in which the Occupational Safety and Health Act will apply to crew members while working in the aircraft cabin; and
• a provision modifying the FAA's age 60 rule for pilots.

The FAA Reauthorization Bill must still be approved by the full Senate and House and will not become law without the approval of President Bush. Airlines may want to consider contacting their senators or representatives to express their views on the Allegheny-Mohawk amendment.

If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact the Ford & Harrison attorney with whom you usually work.

 

[end_of_alpa]

How is being stapled, not junior?

DOH is not stapling, contrary to what "effect" it has on your position. Stapling puts one group AT THE END OF THE OTHER.

The EFFECT may seem like stapling to YOU, but DOH is NOT stapling.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Actually, it is "final and binding",and I don't negotiate at the point of a gun. Enjoy your job while it lasts.

Neither do I. That's why we'll vote and I'll see you in court!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Yes! Please send me all you have.

If you give me your address I will be glad to ship you some.

 

[end_of_alpa]

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.



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.




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

Actually, codifying A-M LPP's in federal law is EXACTLY an example of an ENFORCEMENT provision, unlike ALPA merger policy OR the contract. Remember contracts can be amended. (I guess so can laws, for that matter) The question we all have is what the effect of enforcement has on legal/contract law? But since the paragraph on enforcment was removed in the final bill, the question becomes does the bill have the desired EFFECT? To that I can only answer time will tell.

 

[700UW]

Do you realize Ford and Harrison consults for US Airways and none other then Jerry Glass.

 

[Mike]

If you give me your address I will be glad to ship you some.

Why ask when you can just track all the information down on Catcrew? Why heck,you might even show up on a jetway wearing a black suit and sunglasses. LOL..sorry, could not resist..

 

[sharktooth]

Here let me break it down for you since want to play all stupid! In the west if I had a list LIKE USAPA DID of pilots who had not submitted cards I could log on to maestro and see their entire line for the month and could have my people in place LIKE USAPA DID before or after their trip to guilt them into signing a card JUST LIKE USAPA DID!! Now one of you man up and say you didn't use this dirty tactic, put it in print PLEASE!!!

To do that in an efficient manner on the east side requires management access, something line pilots would not be able to do. As there are no management pilots, that I know of, working on/for USAPA, I would think it would be far easier to recruit the old fashioned way, meet and greet. As I said, "targeting" individuals as you say happened would take a tremendous amount of resources compared to what USAPA is doing now, especially if there are that many "undecideds" as you imply. I could see targeting as a tactic only useful for a small group, but then that would blow your arguments about pilot union preferences out of the water.

BTW, you are implying the east pilot group is composed of weak-minded individuals by implying they are subject to intimidation from fellow pilots. While you may be able to say that about the west pilots, presuming "experience" with them, you certainly do not have the experience to say that about the east pilots.

You "man up" sir, get a life, open your eyes and learn, grasshopper.

 

[sharktooth]

It’s interesting. Besides 5 people twisting and using misinformation to suit their point no one has had a rational, non-emotional argument....

Perhaps there is no "rational, non-emotional" argument. The very fact that you have experience will bias any argument, the emotional traces left in your mind from experience will certainly sway your perceptions, mostly for the good.

Corralling and understanding those traces can lead you to a greater truth, unfortunately, the quest for absolute truth will leave you like Zeno, swirling in a world of paradoxes.

Ultimately you will be left with answering questions about "what has ALPA done for you?" with, "is it possible things could be better and how would I go about making it so?". You have an opportunity to structure a pilot advocacy group based on your experiences. This group establishes a grounded framework that can be used to preserve career expectations in a way that ALPA cannot, simply by virtue of ALPA trying to be all things to all pilots.. At ALPA, you have little to no access to even daily decisions, many of those made from a framework woven across many different pilot groups. With USAPA, you will have direct access to strategic decisions as well as day to day directions.

Your decisions will come down to pleasing not just your head but your heart. If you can put fear of the unknown aside by assuring yourself active and direct participation in the outcome, your choice will be clear.

Just sayin'

 

[sharktooth]

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,

I have a different perception of TWA.

What were the outcome differences between PI/Empire and AA/TWA? Are you saying the Empire pilots were put "on the bottom of the list (or in the street)"?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Do you realize Ford and Harrison consults for US Airways and none other then Jerry Glass.

You did'nt read the FIRST LINE OF MY POST:

I SAY AGAIN......

"OK, Before everyone BUSTS MY BA11S, here is a piece from Ford and Harrison....a law firm that REPRESENTS MANAGEMENT!!"

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=567515

 

[end_of_alpa]

Why ask when you can just track all the information down on Catcrew? Why heck,you might even show up on a jetway wearing a black suit and sunglasses. LOL..sorry, could not resist..

You will now be "assimilated".

 

[PHLBUS]

End-of-ALPA you are right....I too could never get into a bar fight cause must of the guys were always bigger than I was...though just sitting on the sideline waiting for them to get kicked out always worked. AAA73Pilot, I was not trying to "get you." I used the words MITIGATE, PROCESS....ohhh....scary? I have read most everything from the company, the acpc, USAPA, ALPA, A/M so I am able to use any words in order to describe our situation....and believe me it is our situation....and its a very precarious one....if you think ALPA can't solve it...don't fool yourself....I don't think we know if USAPA or anyone can solve it. Remember whether we like it or not, this is not our last merger. Just like the West, maybe we also have to face reality one day...problem is, I don't think we know what that is....btw; no this is not Jack Stephen...ha.