August 2013 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
end_of_alpa said:
Here is what the MOU II says. Given the time frame for the Nmb petition for single carrier status that process will take quite a while. Oh and while I'm on it if the former TWA pilots, East pilots and other screwed pilots from APA want to petition for another entrant like USAPA or teamsters or whatever we could really be in for a while ride. Well, here it is:

A seniority integration process consistent with McCaskill-Bond shall begin as soon as possible after the Effective Date. (ED = POR)


If, on the date ninety (90) days following the Effective Date, direct negotiations have failed to result in a merged seniority list acceptable to the pilots at both airlines, a panel of three neutral arbitrators will be designated within fifteen (15) days to resolve the dispute, pursuant to the authority and requirements of McCaskill-Bond.

POR + 90 = arbitrators chosen.
POR + 105 = arbitrators.


That arbitration proceeding will commence no later than 60 days after the designation of the arbitrators, or as soon thereafter as practicable given the availability of the designated arbitrators, provided that it is understood that, in no event, shall the seniority integration arbitration proceeding commence prior to final approval of the JCBA pursuant to the deadlines and procedures in Paragraph 27 below.

POR + 165 but no less than JCBA first.

The panel of arbitrators will render its award within six (6) months of the commencement of the arbitration, and in any event not later than 24 months after the Effective Date.

POR + 2 years = SLI.

You guys somehow want to believe that USAPA somehow looses the right to represent the US Airways pilots even if APA becomes the representative. That is 100% untrue.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don't see USAPA referenced in the excerpt you cited. Where's that section which defines USAPA's roles and responsibilities in a post CBA status? Where does USAPA get the funding? Do they charge dues in addition to the APA dues? Do they have a DFR statutorily controlled by the NMB? Does the APA have any liability if certain LCC pilots feel they haven't been represented fairly or does that fall to USAPA even though they have no members and not viable means of funding a liability awarded by the courts?
 
end_of_alpa said:
There is speculation that even if APA agrees to DOH they will still want to go to arbitration to avoid any DFR issues. Isn't it funny how unions can't really run themselves no matter who they are? ALPA, USAPA, APA, Teamsters, AFL/CIO...whatever. In Europe there is a glut of pilots. That should balance out our "shortage" here . You know, the shortage the airlines are doom and glooming about. Bidding isn't going to be to the highest seniority anymore....it's going to be the lowest bidder in price.
Click to expand...

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49374
 
CallawayGolf said:
Sorry but I don't see USAPA referenced in the excerpt you cited. Where's that section which defines USAPA's roles and responsibilities in a post CBA status? Where does USAPA get the funding? Do they charge dues in addition to the APA dues? Do they have a DFR statutorily controlled by the NMB? Does the APA have any liability if certain LCC pilots feel they haven't been represented fairly or does that fall to USAPA even though they have no members and not viable means of funding a liability awarded by the courts?
Click to expand...
Really?
You know, I really don't think you're stupid. But I do think you're just trying to pick a fight. USAPA is a party under the MOU II and doesn't loose party status until the whole enchilada is baked. And you mean a post JCBA according to the MOU II. Several million dollars in the bank. You can spin it all you want but the reality is USAPA a party at the table.

Beginning of MOU II:

"Pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement (this “Memorandum”), US Airways, Inc. and any successor (collectively, "US Airways"), American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), and US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA”, and with US Airways, American, and APA, the “Parties”), hereby agree as follows: (etc., etc.)
 
end_of_alpa said:
Really?
You know, I really don't think you're stupid. But I do think you're just trying to pick a fight. USAPA is a party under the MOU II and doesn't loose party status until the whole enchilada is baked. And you mean a post JCBA according to the MOU II. Several million dollars in the bank. You can spin it all you want but the reality is USAPA a party at the table.

Beginning of MOU II:

"Pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement (this “Memorandum”), US Airways, Inc. and any successor (collectively, "US Airways"), American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), and US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA”, and with US Airways, American, and APA, the “Parties”), hereby agree as follows: (etc., etc.)
Click to expand...
You got me all wrong. I'm not trying to pick a fight at all. I've just never heard of a CBA surviving to continue representing a labor group once another CBA is certified by the NMB. Has this happened before? Then, I said I did not see USAPA referenced in your excerpt
The AWA pilots were one of the parties to the TA. Are they still an active pseudo CBA for west pilots now that USAPA is the CBA instilled to ensure that the AWA pilots are fairly represented in the US/AWA SLI process? I don't think they are so what's the difference? If you could explain this without assuming I'm picking a fight, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
 
CallawayGolf said:
You got me all wrong. I'm not trying to pick a fight at all. I've just never heard of a CBA surviving to continue representing a labor group once another CBA is certified by the NMB. Has this happened before? Then, I said I did not see USAPA referenced in your excerpt
The AWA pilots were one of the parties to the TA. Are they still an active pseudo CBA for west pilots now that USAPA is the CBA instilled to ensure that the AWA pilots are fairly represented in the US/AWA SLI process? I don't think they are so what's the difference? If you could explain this without assuming I'm picking a fight, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Click to expand...



End of ALPA laid it out for you, spot on. USAPA will survive as an entity (and not necessarily a bargaining agent) through the entire M/B process. This scenario was discussed among the parties even prior to MOU ratification. Note the language does NOT say USAPA "the bargaining agent." (note also it does not say Leo, AWA, or even the West Class.) It just says USAPA. USAPA does NOT go away. When LOA 96 was negotiated, it was three legged stool... East, West, and US Airways. When USAPA took over, there were only two parties necessary to amend the T/A, and the MOU vote did just that. The West was NEVER a party to the MOU. They are now part of USAPA.

And it is humorous you are trying to flip our arguments about "who sues who" following the arbitration. USAPA starts (and probably indeed finishes) the M/B process as the bargaining agent. Maybe not, but the language is clear, as to ONLY the seniority USAPA represents. I had some M/B language to quote you, but will substitute some simple logic. What the AMR F/As did to the TWA F/As was the actual genesis of M/B, although what APA did to the TWA pilots was a recruitment poster for bad behavior. Do you think the intent of M/B was to allow the surviving agent to circumvent the process? I say no.

I have to thank you once again Callaway, at least you present logical legal arguments and not so much just taunts and slams (as we all do now and then.) I don’t have to agree with your outlook to appreciate you actually have thought it out and done a good job at debating. RR
 
CallawayGolf said:
You got me all wrong. I'm not trying to pick a fight at all. I've just never heard of a CBA surviving to continue representing a labor group once another CBA is certified by the NMB. Has this happened before? Then, I said I did not see USAPA referenced in your excerpt
The AWA pilots were one of the parties to the TA. Are they still an active pseudo CBA for west pilots now that USAPA is the CBA instilled to ensure that the AWA pilots are fairly represented in the US/AWA SLI process? I don't think they are so what's the difference? If you could explain this without assuming I'm picking a fight, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it. You're making a point.

The AWA pilots were not a party. The US Airways pilots were not a party. ALPA, the AWA MEC, the US Airways MEC WERE parties. Not labor. ALPA is a lawyer. USAPA is a lawyer. APA is a lawyer. All labor unions are lawyers. Their "contract" with the membership is whatever their constitution and Bylaws are. We collective vote for them or we don't. Then we are employment at will. That is the law.

I believe the real question should be "Can a prior unions policy negotiated with the company be enforceable and not collectively bargained away by the next union?
 
Reed Richards said:
End of ALPA laid it out for you, spot on. USAPA will survive as an entity (and not necessarily a bargaining agent) through the entire M/B process. This scenario was discussed among the parties even prior to MOU ratification. Note the language does NOT say USAPA "the bargaining agent." (note also it does not say Leo, AWA, or even the West Class.) It just says USAPA. USAPA does NOT go away. When LOA 96 was negotiated, it was three legged stool... East, West, and US Airways. When USAPA took over, there were only two parties necessary to amend the T/A, and the MOU vote did just that. The West was NEVER a party to the MOU. They are now part of USAPA.

And it is humorous you are trying to flip our arguments about "who sues who" following the arbitration. USAPA starts (and probably indeed finishes) the M/B process as the bargaining agent. Maybe not, but the language is clear, as to ONLY the seniority USAPA represents. I had some M/B language to quote you, but will substitute some simple logic. What the AMR F/As did to the TWA F/As was the actual genesis of M/B, although what APA did to the TWA pilots was a recruitment poster for bad behavior. Do you think the intent of M/B was to allow the surviving agent to circumvent the process? I say no.

I have to thank you once again Callaway, at least you present logical legal arguments and not so much just taunts and slams (as we all do now and then.) I don’t have to agree with your outlook to appreciate you actually have thought it out and done a good job at debating. RR
Click to expand...
Give it time. Oh, I forgot....time doesn't mean anything to West pilots. That's why labor can't be trusted to play nice anymore with each other and we now have M/B. American labor taught us that.
 
On a slightly different tack, here is why the pilot profession will continue to debase its ranks because the air in Germany and China is the same as in the US (not quality, just physics) yet pilots like all other forms of labor are controlled by government political bodies and not forming a collective body that has standard measures by which they objectively produce together, much like a guild.

It's happening in the US some with Delta/NW and United/Continental. But there are still cracks in those mergers and only time will answer the question of survivability.

If anyone believes the MYTH that pilot wages will increase with time then wait until the New American is formed. Our cost structure both domestic and international will be competitively below the others that they will have to repeat what US Airways pilots had to do to survive into the future or collapse. You know, supply and demand.

Here are two YouTube videos that are very well produced and worth a look. Also included is the downsizing of operations in Europe. Swiss pilot union mergers and Lufthansa dumping 80 planes is making a pilot glut overthrew yet people still need jobs and being a pilot after spending €70,000 to train is still happening.

http://youtu.be/4kN4XyVTW4Y

http://youtu.be/wdfCQiMq0xw

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-22/german-pilots-grounded-as-92-000-tuition-can-t-buy-cockpit-seat.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion
99 100 101
Replies
2K
Views
141K
700UW
700UW
BoeingBoy
Unisys August Scorecard
Replies
5
Views
997
funguy2
F
F
  • Locked
April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion
359 360 361
Replies
5K
Views
508K
Falcon
F
700UW
Us Airways Reports August Traffic
Replies
0
Views
878
700UW
700UW
U
Important American Airlines-US Airways Merger Dates: July 1, 2013
Replies
1
Views
1K
fatherabraham
fatherabraham

Latest posts

Back
Top