ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[exB717Flyer]

Why?

My speculation on why ALPA Merger Policy was changed in the early '90s to remove DOH as the recommended integration strategy: because of deregulation realities, bankruptcies, and upstarts. The demographics of different airlines now vary so much it's obvious that straight DOH will clearly favor one pilot group at the other's expense. The clear solution, as demonstrated by one of the most experienced arbitrators (yes, I mean Nicolau), is something resembling Relative Seniority whereby both pilot groups maintain premerger status. Also, long-term fences have proven to be poisonous to good relations so short-term fences will be the future norm. This will be the case regardless of USAPA's nefarious attempts to re-write the rules to favor the East.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Petty ironic don’t you think giving the present situation

I guess it depends on your feelings about the present situation, and I've made no secret of mine.

Personally, I think exB717Flyer summed it up pretty well - the industry changed after dereglation. No longer did similarly sized carriers (which usually were the ones to merge when the CAB organized a shotgun wedding) move pretty much in lockstep as they were affected by the economy. For the first time in any working pilot's memory, the fortunes of different carriers (and the advancement/demotion of their pilots) diverged - some improving (bring advancement to it's pilots) while other's declined (bringingf furloughs/demotions to those pilots). So the "DOH is basically equal to relative position" that had existed across similiar carriers under regulation no longer applied.

Jim

 

[john john]

I guess it depends on your feelings about the present situation, and I've made no secret of mine.

Personally, I think exB717Flyer summed it up pretty well - the industry changed after dereglation. No longer did similarly sized carriers (which usually were the ones to merge when the CAB organized a shotgun wedding) move pretty much in lockstep as they were affected by the economy. For the first time in any working pilot's memory, the fortunes of different carriers (and the advancement/demotion of their pilots) diverged - some improving (bring advancement to it's pilots) while other's declined (bringingf furloughs/demotions to those pilots). So the "DOH is basically equal to relative position" that had existed across similiar carriers under regulation no longer applied.

Jim

Well ALPA is the only union on the property that has a problem with DOH I thing a very smart and highly pay executive and consultant had it all figure out $MONEY$
"I'm not surprised," says Jerry Glass, who was once US Airways' top labor relations officer and now runs consulting firm F&H Solutions. There's no other business where the difference between a
$40,000 entry job and a $200,000-plus senior job depends on seniority, he says. "Seniority in the airline industry is as complex as anything in American industry."

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Forget ALPA. It's DONE! Now, let's come up with a REAL merger policy. It needs to be legal, following the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions, and FAIR, with protections for careers. Some issues will need to go DOH, some may not. Seniority is a huge part of the fairness formula, but it's not everything.

 

[BoeingBoy]

"There's no other business where the difference between a $40,000 entry job and a $200,000-plus senior job depends on seniority, he says."

You could expand that - it applies to not just other businesses but to other union jobs at any airline. Pilots are the only group where seniority makes such a drastic difference in pay, lifestyle, and retirement (with some exception for carriers with only one size airplane - the difference between top and bottom at either WN or Republic is not as great as at a legacy).

The problem is defining seniority in mergers - is it what you can hold regardless of how long you've been with one of the the companies (a 15 year 757 Capt has more "seniority" than a 20 year 737 F/O) or how long you've been with one of the companies regardless of what you can hold (a 20 year F/O has more "seniority" than a 15 year 757 Capt)?

Jim

 

[AAA73Pilot]

And didnt PI get slotted?

No we didn't.

 

[767jetz]

BoeingBoy and exB717Flyer have the hit the nail on the head.

This dispute between East and West is not about seniority. It is about the definition of seniority.

ALPA's merger policy was changed long ago to reflect the fundamental changes in the industry caused by deregulation. As BoeingBoy points out, from that point forward, some airlines progressed while others declined. (We could go on for days discussing why deregulation was ultimately a failure.) Most pilots recognized that seniority was no longer consistent across the industry, but was now directly proportional to where you worked. So the merger policy was altered to keep up with the reality of deregulation that was forced upon us. And it was done through a democratic process.

What we have with some in the East is a group of pilots, many of whom were hired during or shortly after the regulated era, who have held on dearly to the "good old days" of regulation, and have refused to accept that the world around them has changed. Now when they are force to deal with reality, they chose to stay in denial, blame the rest of the world, and attack anyone who challenges their notion that nothing has changed since October 24, 1978. (That's almost 30 years folks!)

Not one person disputes the sacred importance of seniority. We only dispute how seniority is defined. A person can claim "hidden agendas" and "conspiracies" all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that an overwhelming majority of pilots in the industry and arbitrators believe that in mergers, seniority means what position you hold, not how many years it took you to get there.

 

[P51Pilot]

You could expand that - it applies to not just other businesses but to other union jobs at any airline. Pilots are the only group where seniority makes such a drastic difference in pay, lifestyle, and retirement (with some exception for carriers with only one size airplane - the difference between top and bottom at either WN or Republic is not as great as at a legacy).

The problem is defining seniority in mergers - is it what you can hold regardless of how long you've been with one of the the companies (a 15 year 757 Capt has more "seniority" than a 20 year 737 F/O) or how long you've been with one of the companies regardless of what you can hold (a 20 year F/O has more "seniority" than a 15 year 757 Capt)?

Jim

What you can hold today is only a snap shot that does not take the next year or 5, 10, 15 years into account. The demographics of a particular airline, its fleet and flying makeup can cause the ability to hold something today that will be entirely different 10 years from now.

This is further compounded when engaging in more than one merger as career progression can be dramatically affected by factors including, the demographics of the other airlines, timing in relation to hiring bubbles or stagnation. The potential to have 35 years of service creating no forward career progression becomes a real possibility and potentially outside of extreme fences prevent progression in flying a particular carrier brought to the merger.

If NWA were to have successive mergers with Jetblue and Airtran under rleative seniority in the absence of stiff fences, every A320 and DC9 pilot at NWA would have any future career progression ended as the age disparagement of the merging airline would transfer future benefits from one group to another. The Asian heavy flying would be eliminated from their career track, even though their airline brought the flying to the merger.

DOH with fences and conditions is the only methodology of addressing both the short term and the long term. Fences and conditions protect relative position and create ratio upgrades or downgrades for that matter in case of downturns. DOH protects the long term by preventing differing age demographics from transferring the career progression, airline specific flying, and the affects of retirement attrition from one group to another going forward. Attrition, upgrades, widebody/international, earnings potential are all tangible items and benefits brought by a group to a merger. In the case of airlines with vast differences in age or hiring cycles, it protects everyone in their current position and can provide conditions for future upgrades and ensure all enjoy the benefit of their time invested with no transfer of career progression or the benefits of longevity from on group to another.

 

[BoeingBoy]

....

That's one opinion.....and experience should have shown you that the "tangible items" you listed can be very fleeting. How many East pilots when hired in 1989 expected to be furloughed in 1991, again in 2001, and still be junior in 2008? Was that growth/attrition provided upward movement they expected when hired "tangible" or illusory? Pick 1989, 2005, or 2007 - expectations based on any of those "snapshots in time" are very intangible indeed.

Jim

 

[ClueByFour]

But your FUD problem is the Shuttle and Empire seniority lived/lives in the current contract.

As does the Transition Agreement, which outlines how seniority between AWA and AAA will be integrated. You cannot have one without the other.

You guys are going to get massacred (again) by whatever lawyers the West guys hire.

As I said--can't fix stupid.

 

[P51Pilot]

expectations based on any of those "snapshots in time" are very intangible indeed.

Jim

Which is why relative position doesn't work. It is based entirely on a snapshot. Fences and conditions can protect the "snapshot" and DOH takes care of the rest.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

As does the Transition Agreement, which outlines how seniority between AWA and AAA will be integrated. You cannot have one without the other.

You guys are going to get massacred (again) by whatever lawyers the West guys hire.

As I said--can't fix stupid.

I'd take that bet.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

BoeingBoy and exB717Flyer have the hit the nail on the head.


Not one person disputes the sacred importance of seniority. We only dispute how seniority is defined. A person can claim "hidden agendas" and "conspiracies" all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that an overwhelming majority of pilots in the industry and arbitrators believe that in mergers, seniority means what position you hold, not how many years it took you to get there.

Can't dispute the meaning of "seniority". Look it up at Dictionary.com (from Meriam Webster's Dictionary):

Main Entry: se·nior·i·ty
Pronunciation: sEn-'yor-&-tE
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being senior
2 : the senior status attained by length of continuous service (as in a company); also : the length of such continuous service


You either believe in it or not. If not, you try to change the definition, which is what the West folks and their supporters are attempting to do.

Go ahead, take it to court. I don't see how this can be argued at all. There is absolutely no ambiguity as to the definition, except by a few in the airline industry.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

FYI:

Gentlemen,

I am viewing the increasing rhetoric of some current and former reps clamoring for “separate operations†as the path to follow for our pilots with increasing dismay. They know better. Something is not right.

Some background may be helpful. In mid-July the two MEC’s were brought together with the Executive Council in DC. From that meeting the “Rice Committee†(RC) was formed. Paul Rice is the First Vice-President of ALPA. One week later our MEC met in DC and passed resolutions to engage in RC discussions and pursue a path of “permanent separate operations†with the West. The resolution for “permanent and separate†was written by Kim Snider and moved by Garland Jones. It passed unanimously.

At our first RC meeting I informed Paul Rice and Bruce York (Director of Representation) of the MEC resolution. Paul said it would not work. Why, I asked? It is against ALPA policy was his reply. Bruce York went so far as to call the resolution “dumbâ€. I dutifully reported their comments back to the MEC. Throughout the two months of RC activity we were constantly being pushed toward a short transition period with an eventual implementation of the Nicolau award. The period favored by those from ALPA appeared to be two years as that number was constantly used in their examples and questions.

Eventually the RC died a quiet death, but many of our reps began to come around to an attempt at a “joint†solution. They began to move away from “permanent and separateâ€. This impetus led to the 10 day lock down at Wye River, MD.

I will not discuss specifics of proposals at Wye River, as that was agreed to be confidential, however, there was a telling moment, unrelated to the proposals, that is germane to the current “separate†debate. At one point during East internal discussions we were briefing Bruce York and Mike Abram. (For those that do not know Mike Abram, he is the General Counsel for ALPA and works for the law firm of Cohen, Weiss and Simon in NY. He is “the man†that all go to when they seek a legal clarification of ALPA policy. And I do mean all, as in Prater, the Executive Council, etc).

During this discussion, Kim Snider mentioned “separate operations†as an option. As I had been through this drill already during RC talks 5 months earlier, I turned to Mike Abram and asked if this was truly an option. Initially, he artfully evaded answering my question directly, so I persisted. On my second attempt Mike admitted that it was “against policyâ€.

Most of the people espousing “separate operations†are aware of this. Many were in that room at Wye river when I asked the question. They know separate operations is against ALPA policy, therefore, I am at a loss to understand their current insistence on taking this path and advocating that we stay in ALPA at the same time! It is an incompatible position and only serves to mislead the uninformed into thinking we can “have our cake and eat it too†by still staying with ALPA. You can’t. Period. If you stay in ALPA you will be eating the “Nicâ€, and not cake, in short order.

Throughout the entire process, the West has run the same play over and over with great success----enforce ALPA policy or we will file a DFR suit! When the East asked the Executive Council to throw out the Nicolau award, the West quoted ALPA policy (“final and bindingâ€) and threatened to sue ALPA. The Executive Council ruled for the West. When ALPA failed to pass the list for months after that ruling, the West again quoted ALPA policy (“defend the awardâ€) and threatened to sue. In December ALPA passed the list.

Gentlemen, “separate operations†is a smoke screen. It is snake oil. If ALPA wins the representational election, the West will run that same play of enforcing ALPA policy and force ALPA to terminate separate operations. ALPA will eventually comply as both Paul Rice, and the ultimate arbiter of ALPA policy, Mike Abram, have admitted that separate operations is against ALPA policy. Once again, the West will threaten to sue unless policy is followed. The heat will be on. Our MEC will be forced to comply or placed in trusteeship (see PHL last week). They will cave before they allow that, and tell you they did the best they could, but the game is now over.

That is how separate operations will play out, in my opinion, from my insider’s perspective of the last several months. I won’t even go into the flaws of the strategy from aâ€whipsawing†point of view that will cost us dearly in economics over time.

“Separate Operations†is not possible if we stick with ALPA. If we vote ALPA in, we will be forced to eat the Nicolau award in the not too distant future.

ALPA=Nicolau.


Doug
06Mar08

 

[exB717Flyer]

Can't dispute the meaning of "seniority".

Okay, so in early 2005 when a USAirways pilot with eighteen years of "seniority" could only hold the bottom FO position was that pilot junior or senior? You yourself are redefining seniority to suit your purpose. Words have differnent meanings in different contexts. But hey, I think it would be fun for some USAPA hack to go into a courtroom trying to explain that the bottom FO at your airline is actually really senior.