APA, USAPA and the Ghost of TWA

[snapthis]

Hey, maybe you could sell them one of those 675 dollar ties. APA pilots know you westies are the enemy, there will be no NIC so no need to get down on your knees.

Sure, I'm the bad guy who was willing to abide by an agreement and expected fair treatment by my so-called union.

Courtney Luv being hired in 1999, furloughed after 9/11 and returned in 2007. It seems you and Claxon/Cleary have your own objectives.

Carry on...

I, COURTNEY BORMAN, declare that the following is true and correct:
1. I make this declaration of my own free will, based on my personal, firsthand
knowledge, unless otherwise specifically indicated.
2. This declaration is made in support of USAPAs opposition to the
Addington defendants motion for class certification.
3. I am currently a First Officer and have been employed by US Airways as
a Pilot since 1999, furloughed in 2002 and resumed again in 2007. I am currently a
member in good standing with USAPA.
4. I am currently the Chairman of the USAPA Furlough Committee

 

[nycbusdriver]

You will not get West support for this so-called legal action (threat) against the APA.

 
And this is germane how?
 
When are you idiots (YOU, in particular) going to realize that your support is not necessary for anything?  You are as necessary as an appendix, or tonsils.

 

[eolesen]

I can hardly wait for the day when the issue of East vs. West is finally dead, and yes, it's somewhat irrelevant post single-carrier ruling, especially when the numbers are already 2:1 in APA's favor...

Even if every East/West/TWA pilot were to become a single block, it still wouldn't be close to a plurality.

 

[traderjake]

The majority of USAirways pilots, East and West, look forward to APA replacing USAPA.  

 

[FWAAA]

FWAAA,
 
Dunno.
 
The BK from our end looks more and more like a BK of conveniance.
 
Pay and bennies is another thing. Their narrow body pay goes from the low $120's to around $180 hour. Work rules are another story.
 
I have no idea what list they will use. I will describe current events from that group as,....well.............."charming".

No argument here.   From November 29, 2011, it was clear that the board had finally exhausted its patience with Arpey and his "bankruptcy is what failures do and we prefer to wait for the other airlines to be overly generous with their new contracts" strategy.   Instead, the board ordered him to cram new contracts down the throats of, primarily, the pilots and the flight attendants.   AA wanted to outsource 79-82 seat large RJs (finally agreed on the new industry-standard 76 seats).   From the pilots and the FAs, AA wanted to sweep away some of the "work rules" that management said were inefficient.   
 
AA wasn't broke and its business model wasn't broken as UA and DL had both merged and were showing promise of improvements with the same business model AA was using.   They had just become bigger than AA.   AA had amassed enough cash from various loans that it did not need to beg banks for debtor-in-possession financing.   
 
Of course, bankruptcy law requires that all work groups give up equal percentages and thus, the fleet service and mechanics (who were already poorly paid) had to give up the same 17% of their labor costs.    
 

True, but not the Nic list part.
The west pilots are going to push hard on the bankruptcy of AA. They fully expect a shot at the bigger equipment right off the bat.

If the SLI is handed to an arbitration panel, I don't see them trying to combine AA, US East and US West (America West).   Instead, I see them taking a shortcut and dusting off Nicolau's already-prepared list from 2007.   Nor do I see an arbitration panel starting from scratch and re-doing the US East and West integration all over again.   It's already done.   
 

 
I have heard that argument before....I looked for some information on that and found a credible source in the form of expert testimony in the case of Brady v. ALPA.  I believe it was testimony in the penalty phase of the TWA v. ALPA damages trial.  The testimony is from Richard. A Kasher, Esquire - A well known labor arbitrator.
 
<snip>
 
The AWA / US Aribitration was based on a PID (Policy Initiation Date) of May19, 2005. It is based on an entirely different set of facts from those that are now present.  It is likely that if APA / and USAPA in arbitration the former PID will be a decade old.  It is highly unlikely that an arbitrator will simply use the snapshot that formed the basis for the AWA / US merger.  This merger represents an entirely new set of facts.

You may be right, but I don't read those decisions as requiring that the 2007 list be ignored.   It was a snapshot, as you say, of the US pilots as of the merger.   
 
I'm not saying that the APA list and the NIC list will be combined just like the NIC list was created, only that they won't waste time and energy re-doing what Nicolau did in the last arbitration.   The facts and circumstances of this merger (AA and US) are different from the facts and circumstances of the last merger (US and HP).    The fact that a bunch of pilots tried to run away from an arbitration result with which they disagreed won't cause arbitrators to now ignore the existence of that list.   
 

 
You may make that argument....but the experts don't seem to agree.
 
<snip>
 
The honorable Judge Silver noted this in her commentary on Addington III.  She only considered the position of the parties Prospectively.  That is going forward.  In her decision she noted that this was not the same prior merger or condition but a new merger with a new specific set of facts.

Like I said - you may be right, but Judge Silver has no authority when it comes to SLI arbitration of the APA and USAPA pilots.   The Federal Arbitration Act declares arbitration off-limits to judicial interference.   Until over-ruled by higher courts, the Judge's opinions control the damages suit between the US East and US West pilot groups - nobody's disputing that.  
 
I merely predict that the APA list and the NIC list will be combined in a new arbitration later this year or next year.   And nobody's going to be particularly happy with the result, except perhaps the America West (US West) pilots.      

 

[700UW]

Bankruptcy law does not require each group to give up the same percentage.
 
That is totally false.

 

[eolesen]

Bankruptcy law does not require each group to give up the same percentage.
 
That is totally false.

Same percentages, perhaps not, but fair and equitable? Absolutely. You might want to brush up on §1113( B)(1)(a):
 

U.S. Code Title 11 Chapter 11 Subchapter I § 1113
11 U.S. Code § 1113 - Rejection of collective bargaining agreements

( B)

(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section trustee shall include a debtor in possession), shall

(A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably;

Perhaps if it's really false, you could show me where a judge applied § 1113 differently, and allowed one specific group to bear the brunt of the damage while other workgroups went relatively untouched.

 

[700UW]

I lived it, I was on the NC for the IAM during the second bankruptcy for mechanic and related, and spent many a day in the court.
 
The process wasnt fair and equitable at all, during either bankruptcy.
 
Case in point bankruptcy #1 pilots had their pension terminated and no other group did.
 
Bankruptcy #2, 46% of the mechanic and related workforce was cut, no other group had that happen.
 
Maybe you need to brush up on 1113, section c.

 

[snapthis]

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-01-22/news/fl-pilot-child-porn-plea-deal-20140122_1_american-airlines-pilot-wilton-manors-christopher-holmes. One sick AA pilot.

 
And this is germane how?
 
When are you idiots (YOU, in particular) going to realize that your support is not necessary for anything?  You are as necessary as an appendix, or tonsils.

Yea, I read Luv's post too..............he's not doing a very good job supporting U-saps' position with the folks at AA.

 

[MetalMover]

Same percentages, perhaps not, but fair and equitable? Absolutely. You might want to brush up on §1113( B)(1)(a):
 

Perhaps if it's really false, you could show me where a judge applied § 1113 differently, and allowed one specific group to bear the brunt of the damage while other workgroups went relatively untouched.

What do you call a huge increase in outsourcing OH work and jobs?
Why wash't the outsourcing of pilots and flight attendants an option?

 

[Mach85ER]

There isn't an option for using overseas pilots or even a large group of domestic contract pilots. They simply don't exist.
 
They would if they could.
 
IMHO, I don't know about all employee groups, but the pilots were already far behind in pay with other US pilot groups. Some AA groups were a few percentage points away from the industry leaders on pay. That should have been taken into account instead of the blanket 17%.

 

[AANOTOK]

There isn't an option for using overseas pilots or even a large group of domestic contract pilots. They simply don't exist.
 
They would if they could.
 
IMHO, I don't know about all employee groups, but the pilots were already far behind in pay with other US pilot groups. Some AA groups were a few percentage points away from the industry leaders on pay. That should have been taken into account instead of the blanket 17%.

Not sure what you mean by that Mach...are you saying that a work group who's closer to the top in industry pay should have taken a bigger hit than the pilots?

 

[Mach85ER]

Yup.

 

[AANOTOK]

Not surprised!

 

[Mach85ER]

What's the problem?
 
CHP11 is supposed to go across the board and clean up the balance sheet and costs. Some areas get cut more, some less.