An Open Letter from Capt. Prater to all AAA and AWA Pilots

[nycbusdriver]

(I agree with you that the top east guys got a windfall)

For the life of me, I can't figure this one out. Pretty much ALL of those 517 were working at this airline before AWA hired their first pilot. I cannot fathom how having an extra 2000 pilots who were not even working at AWA come in behind me helps me in any way. What exactly is the windfall? I didn't get a payraise. I already make as much as anyone in the west, so they aren't bringing me any higher payscales. My career expectations are exactly what they were before Nicolau. My 3/5 of the company is making money hand over fist, and would have done exactly that even if the merger never took place. Please point out the windfall to me. Of course, I expect you to go to the dictionary and find out the definition of windfall before you attempt to answer that question.

I believe if they took that stance that both sides could then work for amendments that help everyone, like ratios for upgrades, fences for PHX, LAS, widebody protection,etc.

The problem with Nicolau has to do with the further consolidation of the industry. Even if the west were to agree to a ratioed upgrade program, that could very well tumble to the ground in a merger with yet another carrier (which is coming.) And then the east is left with the skewed Nicolau list.

 

[Pi brat]

For the life of me, I can't figure this one out. Pretty much ALL of those 517 were working at this airline before AWA hired their first pilot. I cannot fathom how having an extra 2000 pilots who were not even working at AWA come in behind me helps me in any way. What exactly is the windfall? I didn't get a payraise. I already make as much as anyone in the west, so they aren't bringing me any higher payscales. My career expectations are exactly what they were before Nicolau. My 3/5 of the company is making money hand over fist, and would have done exactly that even if the merger never took place. Please point out the windfall to me. Of course, I expect you to go to the dictionary and find out the definition of windfall before you attempt to answer that question.
The problem with Nicolau has to do with the further consolidation of the industry. Even if the west were to agree to a ratioed upgrade program, that could very well tumble to the ground in a merger with yet another carrier (which is coming.) And then the east is left with the skewed Nicolau list.

Let me re-phrase that. Potential windfall. If you have no desire to go west, you got no windfall. If a senior west guy has no desire to fly Int'l, he got no windfall. The Nic award left all vacancies in PHX open to anyone, so if a hundred or so very senior west coast commuters decide they want PHX, no west F/Os get to upgrade in their base, and the guy that was bidding number 1 is now not number 1. I think we both know a very senior AB capt. in PHL that lives in SAN. He had no chance of being based out west without this merger. This award was a windfall to him. We can't just look at their potential windfall and ignore ours. I really can't understand why the west guys aren't willing to talk and avoid this. I guess it is the junior guys that really did get a windfall, like AWA320, that are running the show.

I realize the damage Nic does in any future merger. Trust me, I'm in the seniority range to really get hosed, I just don't see it completely being thrown out. In a perfect world maybe our leaders would say "Hey, this thing bit us all in he rear. Let's throw out all the old terms and come up with something we can all live with." I just don't see that happening.

p.s. Their is no reason to be a smart A##. I don't think I need to look up windfall.

 

[L1011Ret]

I'm a lot older than most of you, age 68, and as I watch this endless arguing seemingly without resolution, I wonder how decertifying ALPA is going to result in any solution? It seems that decertifying ALPA is the only solution to one party's discontent. I worked for ALPA as MEC Aeromed rep for many years and was often quite unhappy with many things inside ALPA. Probably a hundred times I wanted to get rid of ALPA. Things worked pretty well in the long run but in the short run there were a lot of speed bumps in the road. So before you pass V1 on the way to decertifying ALPA I hope you give serious thought to a move that could possibly have giant repercussions. All I've heard so far is we are mad at ALPA and want to get rid of ALPA. Such thinking is out of anger, narrow and without any possibility of positive results. Hate to see this whole issue end up as a giant shoot yourself in the foot maneuver. Wishing you well...

 

[Phoenix]

I was taking a wait and see attiude on sending in my card. I have it filled out and it is sitting on my desk. This last love note from Prater has convinced me to mail it. I mean, what have we got to lose at this point. AWA 320 says the company is about to drop the hammer on us so we might as well get in the first lick. I don't know what he is alluding to with his posts, but I for one don't think the company would be wise to further provoke the East pilot group right now.

The West boys can't fly them all, even though they think they can.

A320 Driver <_<

As far as AWA320 thinking he knows something.. I think there is a "unique corprate similarity" (UCS) to posters that put their carrier's initials infront of "320".

I agree the company would not be wise to "drop a hammer". The death by a thousand papercuts is the way to success.

And congratulations on sending the card. Imagine.. an important vote where the membership actually has and is the vote! And irony of ironies it took someone other than an ALPA MEC to finally bring it.

I know USAPA won't be a utopia, but having an MEC that is elected by the members and subject to the members rather than the EC would be a good start. And I find it telling to observe who it is that "warn" us about a new union, or "changing horses in mid stream". Their motives are obvious, and it doesn't appear to be genuine concern, except for their own interests in pleasing Prater.

Ha! When the horse is dead it is ALWAYS the right time to change.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

That is exactly my sentiment as well - I'm very concerned all the ex PSA guys will flood PHX.

Trying to change the past or overturn the award will be disastrous both financially and emotionally. The only way out of this mess is through the JNC process; get a joint contract with protections from the Nic award. This is the quickest way to more $$$ and a better quality life.

Let me re-phrase that. Potential windfall. If you have no desire to go west, you got no windfall. If a senior west guy has no desire to fly Int'l, he got no windfall. The Nic award left all vacancies in PHX open to anyone, so if a hundred or so very senior west coast commuters decide they want PHX, no west F/Os get to upgrade in their base, and the guy that was bidding number 1 is now not number 1. I think we both know a very senior AB capt. in PHL that lives in SAN. He had no chance of being based out west without this merger. This award was a windfall to him. We can't just look at their potential windfall and ignore ours. I really can't understand why the west guys aren't willing to talk and avoid this. I guess it is the junior guys tahat really did get a windfall, like AWA320, that are running the show.

I realize the damage Nic does in any future merger. Trust me, I'm in the seniority range to really get hosed, I just don't see it completely being thrown out. In a perfect world maybe our leaders would say "Hey, this thing bit us all in he rear. Let's throw out all the old terms and come up with something we can all live with." I just don't see that happening.

p.s. Their is no reason to be a smart A##. I don't think I need to look up windfall.

 

[Phoenix]

I'm a lot older than most of you, age 68, and as I watch this endless arguing seemingly without resolution, I wonder how decertifying ALPA is going to result in any solution? It seems that decertifying ALPA is the only solution to one party's discontent. I worked for ALPA as MEC Aeromed rep for many years and was often quite unhappy with many things inside ALPA. Probably a hundred times I wanted to get rid of ALPA. Things worked pretty well in the long run but in the short run there were a lot of speed bumps in the road. So before you pass V1 on the way to decertifying ALPA I hope you give serious thought to a move that could possibly have giant repercussions. All I've heard so far is we are mad at ALPA and want to get rid of ALPA. Such thinking is out of anger, narrow and without any possibility of positive results. Hate to see this whole issue end up as a giant shoot yourself in the foot maneuver. Wishing you well...

Always appreciate a "been there, done that" perspective. I have to presume that retiring from a 1011, your gripes with ALPA, though real, were never over the elimination of you seniority.

The ALPA EC has taken the hardened position that AAA and AWA have to figure out their own seniority woes. The ALPA EC has no position on what seniority means. None. If a so called union justifies itself in "remaining neutral" about seniority then who are they representing? And at who's expense? If a so-called union refuses to define seniority then there is no union, regardless of how many happy pappy do good programs and publishings they have. The present disunity that will probably last for the next 30 years is all the proof necessary.

Decertifying ALPA won't result in a solution any more than keeping ALPA will result in a solution.

Seniority is the issue. Just dumping ALPA or just keeping ALPA doesn't provide seniority. But in agreeing to continue to embrace ALPA, one can be assured of the EC doing the same thing.

 

[N924PS]

That is exactly my sentiment as well - I'm very concerned all the ex PSA guys will flood PHX.

Trying to change the past or overturn the award will be disastrous both financially and emotionally. The only way out of this mess is through the JNC process; get a joint contract with protections from the Nic award. This is the quickest way to more $$$ and a better quality life.

I don't know an exact number, however, there are not that many ex PSA pilots that would be bidding into PHX/LAS.

Many will be retired before this mess is settled, and many more are content to fly their B757E/B767 or A330 to Europe. You know, the "premium" flying we brought to the merger.

My guess would be less than 50 West Coasters would migrate to Mecca West.

 

[Phoenix]

That is exactly my sentiment as well - I'm very concerned all the ex PSA guys will flood PHX.

Trying to change the past or overturn the award will be disastrous both financially and emotionally. The only way out of this mess is through the JNC process; get a joint contract with protections from the Nic award. This is the quickest way to more $$$ and a better quality life.

There is a necessity for protections from the Nic Award. Good observation.

The seniority is F'ed up. (Seniority that doesn't change and is about pilots and between pilots) So lets leave it that way? ..and use a contract to fix it? (A contract that is between the company and ALPA, and changes every couple of months with LOAs, and has over 300 grievences?)

Lets agree that the pilots are at war because ALPA has chosen to place them there. Now lets make peace for the pilots by having ALPA and the company settle their contract that neither of them will abide by for any significant period of time???

You are ALPA material! Prater better watch his back.

 

[Pi brat]

I don't know an exact number, however, there are not that many ex PSA pilots that would be bidding into PHX/LAS.

Many will be retired before this mess is settled, and many more are content to fly their B757E/B767 or A330 to Europe. You know, the "premium" flying we brought to the merger.

My guess would be less than 50 West Coasters would migrate to Mecca West.

I think you are under estimating a little. It is not just former PSA guys that would like to go west. I'm former PI and there are 2 of my classmates living in AZ. PIT is shrinking, I'm sure a few of them would like to ditch the snow blower. And, if they ever get widebodies in PHX, bar the door.

 

[Phoenix]

I think you are under estimating a little. It is not just former PSA guys that would like to go west. I'm former PI and there are 2 of my classmates living in AZ. PIT is shrinking, I'm sure a few of them would like to ditch the snow blower. And, if they ever get widebodies in PHX, bar the door.

If we had a DOH list with restrictions and protections then we could live with whatever the result was. But since Nicolau decided to rearrange the DOH and not provide any restrictions, we are now speculating on what might or might not happen as a result, and are trying to justify why it might or might not be relevant that he didn't bother to do his job, or that ALPA failed to do theirs.

The ship has no anchor or sails, and the sailors are trying to read the winds and currents to see if they will be mercilessly cast upon the rocky shoals, or end up in tranquil Zxanadoo.

 

[P51Pilot]

I believe this was generated in response to Praeters letter

August 20, 2007




Interim President
US Airline Pilots Association
McMurray, PA 15317

Re: Seniority Integration Issues

Dear :

You have asked us to provide our legal opinion concerning whether Arbitrator Nicolau’s seniority integration arbitration award could be overturned or otherwise modified via litigation or subsequent negotiation. Federal case law supports the conclusion that any effort to overturn the Nicolau award via litigation would be fruitless. By contrast, we believe that a successor union would be free to negotiate with US Airways concerning the terms of any seniority integration.

Litigation

With respect to the litigation strategy, your inquiry is prompted by AWA MEC Vice Chairman Ray Burkett’s published assertion that: “The federal courts are extremely reluctant to even hear arbitrated cases much less interfere [sic] or overturn them.†We agree with Mr. Burkett’s assessment.

The Supreme Court has held that the grounds are very narrow for vacating an arbitration award under federal labor law. United Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987). Although the Nicolau award was rendered pursuant to ALPA’s internal merger policy, we believe that any reviewing court will be mindful of the standard of review applied to Railway Labor Act arbitration cases, which has been characterized as “among the narrowest known to the law.†Union Pacific R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 91 (1978).

We have reviewed a copy of the complaint filed on behalf of the US Airways MEC in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. This litigation has virtually no chance of success.

Negotiations

The general rule is that seniority is a creature of contract, much like any other term or condition of employment:

Once a seniority position is in place, many employees come to think of their position in the pecking order as a form of property. … Yet seniority does not “belong†to an employee, any more than he “owns†the prospect of receiving a given wage next year or flying the St. Louis – Paris route rather than the leg from Minneapolis to Duluth. … Like wages and fringe benefits, seniority is a legitimate subject of discussion and compromise in collective bargaining. … “Forever†in labor relations means “until the next collective bargaining agreement.â€

Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1535 (7th Cir. 1992)(citations omitted).

Federal courts evaluate a union’s seniority-related bargaining objectives under the duty of fair representation (DFR) standard. It is notoriously difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in DFR litigation. The Supreme Court has held that the DFR standard requires the courts to be “highly deferential†to a labor union’s determinations. The final product of a bargaining process may constitute evidence of a DFR violation “only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’†ALPA v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991). In the O’Neill case, for example, the Supreme Court held that ALPA committed no DFR violation even if, in retrospect, the reinstatement agreement negotiated on behalf of striking Continental pilots left them in a worse position than if ALPA had simply surrendered and voluntarily terminated the strike. Id. at 79.

The Rakestraw decision referenced above is particularly instructive with respect to the application of DFR principles to seniority because it addresses both the impermanency of determinations related to contractual seniority as well as the right of a democratic majority to insist on dovetailing.

The Rakestraw decision actually consolidated disputes at two different carriers: the first involving the TWA/Ozark merger and the second the modification of a “permanent†seniority agreement between UAL and ALPA in the aftermath of the disastrous strike of 1985.

In the TWA case, Ozark pilots alleged that ALPA had caved in to the TWA pilots’ threat to secede from ALPA by collaborating in the implementation of a date of hire seniority integration instead of giving greater consideration to Ozark’s pre-merger status as the more dynamic, growing carrier. The court, however, found nothing wrong with ALPA’s acquiescence to the majority’s preference for a date of hire integration:

A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger … serves the interests of labor as a whole. … The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union’s leaders took account of the fact that workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority.

981 F.2d at 1533.

The UAL case concerned ALPA’s efforts to reverse its post-strike agreement that allocated a higher relative seniority to a group of scabs (the Group of 539) than to pilot trainees (the Group of 570) who had honored the picket line. The agreement was intended to be permanent, with ALPA expressly promising:

it will never seek to challenge [United’s] action … in court or before an arbitrator, nor will it seek to raise the issue of the “Group of 570†relative seniority position as part of any future negotiations … regarding any subject whatsoever.

Id. at 1528-29. When ALPA subsequently succeeded in negotiating a reversal of the two groups’ relative seniority positions, the district court found that ALPA had committed a DFR violation. The Seventh Circuit summed up the district court’s rationale in the following terms:

In other words, once union and management settle a dispute about seniority, the union’s duty of fair representation prevents reopening the issue – for the only outcome is to prefer one group of employees over another in a zero-sum game.

Id. at 1529. Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision.

The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that ALPA “detested†the scab pilots and “wanted revenge.†This hostility, however, did not invalidate the rational objective of addressing the harm suffered by the trainees who had been loyal to ALPA; much like the TWA pilots’ wielding of its majoritarian power did not detract from the legitimate goal of dovetailing as a means of serving “the interests of labor as a whole.â€

As to ALPA’s commitment to the permanency of the pre-existing seniority arrangement, the Seventh Circuit stated:

“Forever†in labor relations means “until the next collective bargaining agreement.†Excepting vested rights, a promise lasts only until renegotiation or the expiration of the agreement. Litton Financial Printing Division v. NLRB, 115 L. Ed. 2d 177, 111 S. Ct. 2215, 2226 (1991).

Id. at 1536.
Individual employees are represented in negotiations through their collective bargaining representative and are, therefore, not party to the collective bargaining agreement. By contrast, union members are considered to have a contractual relationship with their union pursuant to the union’s governing documents.

ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy provides that a seniority integration award “shall be defended by ALPA†and that “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.†ALPA Administrative Manual, § 45, Part I, §§ H.5.b and I.1. Consequently, ALPA may have a contractual obligation to its members to implement the Nicolau award. See Olsonoski v. ALPA, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8239 (N.D. Cal. 1994)(“ALPA must comply with its merger as a matter of law and as a matter of contract between ALPA and its members.â€).

A successor union, which codified in its own constitution a commitment to the rational goal of date of hire seniority integration, would not be constrained by the dictates of ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy.

Please advise us if you have any question concerning the issues discussed above.



Sincerely,

 

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways ALPA LEC Council 135 (LGA) Update - August 18, 2007

Fellow LGA pilots:

It has come to our attention that ALPA National Officers and members of the Rice Committee are going to pursue a campaign to communicate directly with you. We only became aware that such a "communication" session was scheduled for LGA the same way you did, on very short notice via a mass distributed Fast Read e-m.

As a matter of protocol and common courtesy, you would think that those who contrived such a communication session might have contacted the local Reps for their input on the proceedings prior to scheduling the event. This however was not the case. This lack of decorum gives the appearance of ALPA National intentionally circumventing proper protocol in an attempt to address pilots directly without their Representatives present. It is the sort of contemptible and irresponsible activity management would engage in during contentious contract negotiations. While we would expect such disrespectful action by management personnel, we would not expect it nor will we tolerate it from the leadership of our Association.

As Representatives it is our duty to provide opportunities for communication that are both open and safe from public scrutiny. Apparently it is the intention of the President of the Association and others within the ALPA National structure to spend time talking to pilots in the food court in the LGA Terminal. The session scheduled by ALPA National focuses on internal ALPA matters, yet the National Communications dpartment and apparently ALPA National Officers believe that it is perfectly fine to conduct internal ALPA communications sessions openly in public.

We as your Reps cannot fathom a much worse situation than to have pilots in uniform engage the Officers of the Association, the EC or the Rice Committee in an open public forum, especially during these times when emotions are running so high. There is too much exposure for any pilot to saying something in an open public forum which might cause negative attention to be focused on them individually. Such an occurrence might well be viewed by management as "conduct unbecoming" while "representing the crporation" in uniform, and could lead to disciplinary action. We find the notion of conducting open public meetings to be ill conceived and naive on the part of those who conjured up the idea, and poentially "dangerous" for our pilots.

While we appreciate the fact that Captain Prater members of the EC and the Rice Committee have made themselves available for direct communication with you, we do not appreciate the fact that we were neither notified of the event, nor invited to participate in it. We also object to it being held in the food court and will do what we can to ensure that forum is not utilized during this session. We strongly believe that NO pilot should engage the ALPA National personnel in a public venue. It is our intention to escort Captain Prater down to the Crew room, and provide an opportunity for you to speak with him out of ear shot of the public. Please do no place yourself in a jeopardy situation by engaging anyone from ALPA National in eyesight or earshot of the public. Save that for the private forum we intend to provide, as nothing good will likely come for an open of such an exchange in a public setting.

Fraternally,


Don & Sergio

 

[P51Pilot]

US Airways ALPA LEC Council 135 (LGA) Update - August 18, 2007

Fellow LGA pilots:

It has come to our attention that ALPA National Officers and members of the Rice Committee are going to pursue a campaign to communicate directly with you. We only became aware that such a "communication" session was scheduled for LGA the same way you did, on very short notice via a mass distributed Fast Read e-m.

As a matter of protocol and common courtesy, you would think that those who contrived such a communication session might have contacted the local Reps for their input on the proceedings prior to scheduling the event. This however was not the case. This lack of decorum gives the appearance of ALPA National intentionally circumventing proper protocol in an attempt to address pilots directly without their Representatives present. It is the sort of contemptible and irresponsible activity management would engage in during contentious contract negotiations. While we would expect such disrespectful action by management personnel, we would not expect it nor will we tolerate it from the leadership of our Association.

As Representatives it is our duty to provide opportunities for communication that are both open and safe from public scrutiny. Apparently it is the intention of the President of the Association and others within the ALPA National structure to spend time talking to pilots in the food court in the LGA Terminal. The session scheduled by ALPA National focuses on internal ALPA matters, yet the National Communications dpartment and apparently ALPA National Officers believe that it is perfectly fine to conduct internal ALPA communications sessions openly in public.

We as your Reps cannot fathom a much worse situation than to have pilots in uniform engage the Officers of the Association, the EC or the Rice Committee in an open public forum, especially during these times when emotions are running so high. There is too much exposure for any pilot to saying something in an open public forum which might cause negative attention to be focused on them individually. Such an occurrence might well be viewed by management as "conduct unbecoming" while "representing the crporation" in uniform, and could lead to disciplinary action. We find the notion of conducting open public meetings to be ill conceived and naive on the part of those who conjured up the idea, and poentially "dangerous" for our pilots.

While we appreciate the fact that Captain Prater members of the EC and the Rice Committee have made themselves available for direct communication with you, we do not appreciate the fact that we were neither notified of the event, nor invited to participate in it. We also object to it being held in the food court and will do what we can to ensure that forum is not utilized during this session. We strongly believe that NO pilot should engage the ALPA National personnel in a public venue. It is our intention to escort Captain Prater down to the Crew room, and provide an opportunity for you to speak with him out of ear shot of the public. Please do no place yourself in a jeopardy situation by engaging anyone from ALPA National in eyesight or earshot of the public. Save that for the private forum we intend to provide, as nothing good will likely come for an open of such an exchange in a public setting.

Fraternally,


Don & Sergio

It sort of sounds like the Al Quaeda terrorist in Iraq that hole up in Mosques or neighborhoods among women and children to avoid being in the line of fire.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

I'm going to vent here a little Phoenix, nothing personal and it's really not targeting you - just need to speak my mind.

No, we are at war because the east did not get their way in arbitration and are now wanting a redux - Not gonna happen, ever. DOH seniority is not part of ALPA merger policy - denial or wishful thinking will get you nowhere. I can stand right next to you, look you square in the eye, and tell you that west pilots were preparing for a staple/hose job because it went to ARBITRATION - you just never know what will happen. What could we have done then? NOTHING! Oh we might have cried fouled and stomped our feet loudly proclaiming the travesty of it all, but we would have accepted the inevitable and moved on. On the contrary, the east was expecting DOH - a warped sense of reality if you ask me- and SHOCKED they did not get it. Your DOH seniority is not righteous; it carries the same privileges on the AWA list of equivalent rank and vice-versa. You wanted to run over the west guys as if they did not exist and carry on the old legacy US tradition of screwing thy fellow aviator. Men of honor and integrity will honor agreements made with other men. That is the right thing to do, and the rule of law says it must be done. But you guys are above the law, and are now wallowing in self-pity because you feel disenfranchised by ALPA and/or the process/policy- boo who. Don't expect any sympathy here. Tell you what, stop paying the mortgage on your house because you think they are charging you too much interest. They will quickly send you a copy of the terms/agreement you signed with them and demand payment immediately. See what they say when you demand a new agreement, that you're not happy - can you say foreclosure. The same principles apply to the TA and binding arbitration we both agreed to.

We've come full circle now for the one hundredth time. My benevolence for the east is wearing thin. :angry:



I guess y

There is a necessity for protections from the Nic Award. Good observation.

Lets agree that the pilots are at war because ALPA has chosen to place them there. Now lets make peace for the pilots by having ALPA and the company settle their contract that neither of them will abide by for any significant period of time???

You are ALPA material! Prater better watch his back.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

That's a good point! If only 50 east guys will be moving to PHX and only 50 guys in the west will be going east, you mean to tell me we are holding the entire pilot group hostage for the benefit of 100 guys? This is why I think there can be a solution to the Nic list in conjuction with a joint contract. Fences, captain ratios, controlled domicile movement.

I don't know an exact number, however, there are not that many ex PSA pilots that would be bidding into PHX/LAS.

Many will be retired before this mess is settled, and many more are content to fly their B757E/B767 or A330 to Europe. You know, the "premium" flying we brought to the merger.

My guess would be less than 50 West Coasters would migrate to Mecca West.