ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[767jetz]

2 : a privileged status attained by length of service (as in a company or craft)

Notice the word " a " in the sentence. The definition pertains to a company. I believe Boeingboy was first to point out that this is not the case when dealing with 2 separate airlines being merged.

The changes were made because the UAL MEC was afraid of how a DOH merger would affect their seniority
You may wish to read up on the notes from the 1992 BOD, if still available.

Oh... I see! I suppose you wouldn't mind posting the exact paragraph that said "the UAL MEC is afraid of DOH, therefore..."

 

[N924PS]

From the latest USAPA communication, "The Myth of Separate Operations:"

"The transition agreement ALPA is party to requires that the process lead to merged operations. In summary, separate operations can only be offered temporarily, and can only lead to either the implementation of the Nicolau Award (which is not likely to be ratified), or ‘stalemate’ that will result in aggressive legal action by ALPA, leading, again, to implementation of the Award. (Remember that, no matter what you hear, ALPA is required to defend the Award, so any solution under ALPA always leads to the Award.) Either way, a quality contract will be hopelessly delayed, and the US Airways pilots will be stymied under ALPA’s legal framework. "

"USAPA on the other hand, offers all the US Airways pilots a better path. Seniority issues will be quickly settled per the USAPA Constitution based on established union tenants, with protections built into the Constitution that will benefit West and East pilots alike. USAPA’s professional negotiators can engage in contract negotiations with the company in short order as per the Transition Agreement that USAPA will inherit. "


USAPA types, please explain to me your strategy for achieving this quick settlement and what benefits the West pilots will be afforded under this scenario.

Also, I thought USAPA has said the Transition Agreement dies on 17 April if USAPA prevails.

I really would like to know so I may cast my vote based on correct information.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I think Section 6 negotiations for the west is a great idea. No doubt they will work on getting a sizeable increase in the compensation package, which they (and we, BTW) thoroughly deserve.

Then, once a nice contract is ironed out, USAPA can ink it on the condition that it applies to the entire group. Of course, the west contract states that seniority is based on DOH, and all the problems are then solved.

It's all so easy!

 

[sharktooth]

Notice the word " a " in the sentence. The definition pertains to a company. I believe Boeingboy was first to point out that this is not the case when dealing with 2 separate airlines being merged.

You forgot "craft", as in, profession. Nice try.

Oh... I see! I suppose you wouldn't mind posting the exact paragraph that said "the UAL MEC is afraid of DOH, therefore..."

I said DOH "merger". I did not say they were afraid of DOH, per se. After all, they used DOH to determine seniority position within UAL, didn't they? Don't they?

COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR

 

[exB717Flyer]

Please...Please..Please Tell Us On The East What "Contributions and Sacrifices" Your group Has Endured?

We've had to endure working at the same company as people like you.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

FYI:

The Myth of Separate Operations
"How Am I Affected By Who Wins?"

March 13, 2008

Fellow Pilots,

The current bargaining agent has settled upon the myth of separate operations as its most recent theme. This issue of “Separate Operations†is vitally important as it brings together the two main issues of Contract and Seniority, which are essential to understand in order to successfully answer the all-important question, “How am I effected by who wins the NMB election, USAPA or ALPA.â€

Even more important to the US Airways pilots is that a thorough understanding of separate operations will clearly demonstrate how only USAPA can successfully meet the needs of both our more senior pilots (right up to #1 on the list) who may be more interested in a quality contract, and our junior pilots who are keenly interested in preserving their pre-merged career expectations.

A brief history into separate operations will help lay the groundwork. Recall that the Rice Committee was tasked with exploring solutions involving the US Airways and America West pilot issues. Separate operations as a permanent solution never got off the ground in committee discussions, as the committee quickly noted that the concept of ‘Separate Operations’ did not comply with either the Transition Agreement or ALPA National’s Constitution. More recently when the AAA AWA steering committees met, union officials were briefed on separate operations, and although the Transition Agreement can be amended, the permanent concept does not comply with ALPA’s Constitution. Simply put, ALPA could not accept ‘Separate Operations’ as a solution to the issues facing the US Airways and America West pilots.

Another concerned party involving separate operations is the Company as they bear an increased cost of operation due to separate fleets and crews. If it were not for the upcoming NMB election and their neutral role, management would not tolerate ALPA’s recent assertions regarding separate operations. The benefits the Company realizes from depressed pay rates are short-term; the synergies available from merged operations are significant and long-term. In addition, separate operations would conflict with the Company’s strategic planning, whether it is consolidation or internal expansion, international or otherwise.

All this brings us to the meat of the topic. Anytime ALPA brings up ‘Separate Operations,†it is followed by the need for dual negotiations.

First there is the need to negotiate seniority issues with the AWA MEC which will be incorporated into the ‘Comprehensive Counter Proposal.’ This negotiation is of particular interest to our less senior pilots.
Secondly, the Joint Negotiating Committee has to present the proposal to management and negotiate the terms of the agreement. After an agreement is reached, both pilot groups, separately, are required to ratify the Tentative Agreement. If the pilots are unable to ratify, the process will most likely start over. This negotiation, although important to all, is of particular interest to our more senior pilots.

USAPA Support for our less senior pilots:

Let’s look at negotiation #1, and why our less senior pilots benefit with USAPA. In ten months, throughout ALPA’s entire attempt to find solutions for the AAA/AWA pilots, the West strategy has been unwavering and it’s been successful. Their position with ALPA is, “Enforce ALPA policy or we will file a Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit (DFR) against you.†ALPA has yielded time and again under this pressure. A successful outcome for the East pilots under ALPA will be more than difficult, if not impossible. The AWA position can be characterized by a recent statement from AWA’s Merger Committee Chairman, "Make it crystal clear to ALPA, that should they win the election, there will be NO MORE ad-hoc committees to discuss seniority issues. Those days are over. The Nicolau Award stands untouched!" We believe though, that pilots in the West will quietly tolerate the fiction of durable separate operations during the election process, but only to the extent that this fiction might improve ALPA’s odds in the upcoming NMB election.

The US Airline Pilots Association has a better path. USAPA’s Constitution calls for a date of hire seniority integration with reasonable conditions and restrictions in order to protect one’s pre-merged career expectations. West pilots will fully realize the protections that the Constitution offers. Durability is not an issue as USAPA’s Constitution will be the controlling document, and USAPA is fully prepared to defend that position in any litigation. The pilot seniority integration will be almost identical to all the other unions who merged during the US Airways/America West merger.


USAPA Support for our more senior pilots:

Now let’s look at negotiation #2 and see why our senior pilots have a long wait for a quality contract under ALPA’s plan. The second negotiation is between the joint MECs and management and is dependent upon the unlikely completion of the seniority negotiations reviewed in #1. But even if a tentative agreement was reached with management, each pilot group is required to ratify the tentative agreement separately.

If only slight changes were made to the Nicolau award, East ratification would not be likely. Concurrently, if significant changes were made to the Award, West ratification would not be likely. Within ALPA, we remain in a stalemate and all of our pilots, East and West, will be denied a quality contract into the foreseeable future.

The US Airline Pilots association again has a better path. The USAPA Constitution requires combining the AAA and AWA MECs into a single Pilot Board which represents all the pilots. The East and West pilots will vote together on a Tentative Agreement with the Company which dramatically increases the likelihood of ratification. Without question, USAPA offers all of our pilots the quickest route to a quality contract.

The transition agreement ALPA is party to requires that the process lead to merged operations. In summary, separate operations can only be offered temporarily, and can only lead to either the implementation of the Nicolau Award (which is not likely to be ratified), or ‘stalemate’ that will result in aggressive legal action by ALPA, leading, again, to implementation of the Award. (Remember that, no matter what you hear, ALPA is required to defend the Award, so any solution under ALPA always leads to the Award.) Either way, a quality contract will be hopelessly delayed, and the US Airways pilots will be stymied under ALPA’s legal framework.

USAPA on the other hand, offers all the US Airways pilots a better path. Seniority issues will be quickly settled per the USAPA Constitution based on established union tenants, with protections built into the Constitution that will benefit West and East pilots alike. USAPA’s professional negotiators can engage in contract negotiations with the company in short order as per the Transition Agreement that USAPA will inherit.

It’s important that all of us are able to make an informed decision beginning March 20. The fiction of separate operations as promoted by ALPA has not promoted intelligent discourse on this critical decision.

We have built a better union for the US Airways pilots. We look forward to serving all of you beginning in mid-April.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

We've had to endure working at the same company as people like you.

Only with you.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Excerpted from a USAPA Letter dated March 6, 2008:

With regard to the protections ncessary to preserve the West pilots pre-merged career expectations we, the leadership of USAPA will, at a minimum, promote for inclusion in Section 22 of the proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement with US Airways the following Conditions and Restrictions, to be applied to the integration of a single seniority list for the former America West and US Airways pilots.:

1. Fences to protect all C/O jobs, East and West; no bump, no flush.
2. Lifetime base fence for West (i.e. PHX and LAS are grouped). West pilot can move back and forth between PHX and LAS without limitation. This
fence sunsets on a per-pilot basis if a pilots bids East
3. Relative position protection for the West

The proper application of Conditions, Restrictions and fences would produce an outcome where pre-merged career expectations of each group and individual are, to the greatest degree possible, protected. Fluctuations, rises and falls, and changes in volume or character of employment brought about by other causes are not covered or intended to be covered by these provisions.

Our goal is that, ideally, one year after the complete integration of this merger, no pilot (East or West) would be able to tell based upon his/her working conditions and status, that a merger had taken place.

We anticipate that additional Conditions and Restrictions will be included to protect East pilots' pre-merged career expectations, in much the same way as the West.

Stephen H. Bradford - Interim President

Mark Thorpe - Interim Vice-President

Mark King - Interim Secretary/Treasurer

 

[BoeingBoy]

Interesting.....

I see "reasonable conditions/restrictions will take care of everything" thrown around frequently. Since few East and no West pilots have worked with implementing conditions/restrictions - as opposed to working under them - let me put my old bid closing hat back on and take a look at these from the "how to implement them" perspective.....

1. Fences to protect all C/O jobs, East and West; no bump, no flush.

Is this meant as the fences will be no bump/no flush, or in addition to no bump/no flush - it makes a huge difference. If the first, it's no protection at all. If the second, what C/O jobs - the one's that exist at some point in the future, the one's that exist today? Are the ex-ATA 757/E-190 C/O jobs due the West pilots by virtue of previous agreements/arbitrations included or have they morphed into East C/O jobs to be fenced off for East pilots only? How about C/O jobs on other new deliveries neither side had coming at merger time?

2. Lifetime base fence for West (i.e. PHX and LAS are grouped). West pilot can move back and forth between PHX and LAS without limitation. This fence sunsets on a per-pilot basis if a pilots bids East

Define "per-pilot basis". Does it mean that pilot loses the protection of the fence if he/she subsequently bids back West? Or does it mean the fence on a West slot sunsets for each West pilot that bids east, and if so, is it the slot the pilot left or any open slot? Again, huge difference.

3. Relative position protection for the West

What does this really mean? That West pilots in West bases will have relative position in reference to each other? Then it means nothing unless USAPA intends to scramble the West seniority list. That West bases will operate with relative position? Depending on the interpretation of #2, this could mean nothing unless, again, it's the intent to scramble the West list. That West pilots will have relative position protection where-ever they bid? Unlikely since that would mean relative position if they bid an East base. That West bases will operate with relative position? The best interpretation for West pilots, since it puts East pilots bidding West bases in their relative position - but relative position where? In the base, the seat/equipment, where?

Finally, this:

we, the leadership of USAPA will, at a minimum, promote for inclusion

So none of this may end up the the C&BL's and that won't be known until sometime after the election ends.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

It's pretty obvious that you choose to defend ALPA, even at the expense of your own credibility, but..
I believe the letter was addressed toward the West pilots, and mainly looking at some concepts for consideration as a method of addressing the differences between East and West. It appears now that ALPA's only idea at this point is separate operations, something that the company is sure to resist.

The arguments you made addressing each point would, of course need to be spelled out in detail to become viable options. As for question number 3, the Nic award is essentially "relative position", except for the top 500 on the East side. So, it actually sounds like BETTER protection than the Nic award for the West.

A new idea that addresses the differences is the only way to fix this broken merger of the pilot groups. The points made in the letter concerning ratification and what will or won't be necessary to get a combined contract passed are true enough.

In as much as some key members of the East NC saw the futility of the ALPA position and resigned, I don't see ALPA coming up with anything nearly as comprehensive as even these three basic points anytime soon.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's pretty obvious that you choose to defend ALPA, even at the expense of your own credibility, but..

Believe whatever you wish, oldie. I was merely pointing out the questions that I would ask if tasked with implementing those conditions/restrictions as written - and whatever they end up being someone will have to implement them in the software that does the bid awards and maybe even block awards. So either pin everything down so every circumstance imaginable is covered or be prepared for the "what does this mean" and "how is this supposed to work" questions.

It's child's play to throw out "feel-good" condition/restriction verbiage - as happens on this board all the time. It's extremely complex to precisely define what they mean and write into them.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Yeah!!!!! I never miss a C. Thomas Howell movie! And Patrick Swayze? Like wow, man, did he give you a woody?


You guys have really got the East scared now. Don't think too many of them actually saw the flick, since it was marketed to teenagers and most of that group of meanies was already on the line. But I'm a huge fan and I'll talk it up. When the culturally illiterate Easties get their first look at good cinema, and see Jennifer Grey locked and loaded and ready to blow away some Russkies, they'll know you mean business.


Wolverines!!!!!!

Actually...I felt it very appropriate that a west fellow/gal would choose that particular movie. What better choice than an absurd fantasy wherein untrained and undisciplined (but waay cool Dude) high school kids magically rise up as ferocious "solidiers", to suit their "Army" " of Leonidas" motiff? Cut 'em some slack: These are almost exclusively people that have never actually worn any Uniform. Be gentle to them.

 

[N924PS]

Believe whatever you wish, oldie. I was merely pointing out the questions that I would ask if tasked with implementing those conditions/restrictions as written - and whatever they end up being someone will have to implement them in the software that does the bid awards and maybe even block awards. So either pin everything down so every circumstance imaginable is covered or be prepared for the "what does this mean" and "how is this supposed to work" questions.

It's child's play to throw out "feel-good" condition/restriction verbiage - as happens on this board all the time. It's extremely complex to precisely define what they mean and write into them.

Jim

As far as I have read, that's all that USAPA has offered thus far. If's, and plenty of them.

And among the myriad of contract sections that need to be negotiated, add SENIORITY to that list.

What will the merged pilot group have to "pay" to keep the East pilots seniority from being sold?

Parker/Kirby have already been operating the airline quite nicely under separate contracts for close to 3 years now. What is the dollar value of a joint contract to them? Is it enough that they would actually agree to a seniority list crafted by USAPA?

The Seham law firm will be earning a rather handsome sum of monies going forward as they write the language that makes real contractual language from the "feel-good" verbiage being floated on the USAPA website.

 

[nycbusdriver]

BB simply needs to have everything totally disclosed before he can give his blessing and vote.

Oh...wait...he has no dog in this fight, so he can't vote. But continues to weigh in on things that are not his business AS IF IT REALLY WERE!

He expects that an informational letter from USAPA should have full, legal language with every jot and tittle completed and written in stone. He's unable to think in terms of "concepts," so he must tear it apart as inadequate, as if he knows what he is talking about.

I imagine it knots his knickers to not be a full-fledged ACPC member with flight pay loss to push the ALPA agenda, or jump up to be a PHL trustee.

 

[EastUS]

Oh... I see! I suppose you wouldn't mind posting the exact paragraph that said "the UAL MEC is afraid of DOH, therefore..."

What would the possible point be? You, yourself make that exact case=UAL's terrrified of DOH, through your collective postings FAR better than ANY single example would ever serve to do.