Companies Role in integration matters

[Phoenix]

ClueByFour or should I say ClueLessBy Four

I'm shocked. You always berate people for not being respectful.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

That is my point, I think you are reading between the lines and making assumptions. The EC must remain neutral on the award so how could they possibly rule on the Policy as you stated? They clearly stated the individual MECs are responsible for the seniority integration and they are only responsible to ensure the process takes place according to ALPA merger policy.

You have missed what they have ruled on. ALPA EC is equivocating on what its role is, as you have indicated for its own survival.

ALPA has ruled on the Merger Policy Process. By inserting that qualifier (Process) they have pretended to have ruled on the Merger Policy and yet have denied the policy.

ALPA policy includes a 1. process and also 2. terms defining the resolution that will signify that the process has come to an end.
“fair and equitableâ€￾ is defined by ALPA Merger Policy.
The Council declared that no evidence had been presented to persuade them that any aspect of our Merger Policy process was not followed. They have yet to declare that a "fair and equitable resolution consistent with ALPA policy" has been attained. The EC has further stated, "It’s important to note that this does not constitute a ruling on the US Airways pilots’ request [to rule on the terms of "fair and equitable according to ALPA merger policy], but it does set forth the rules for deciding that request[rules which exclude the terms that define the policy]."
It appears that ALPA EC has every intent to shirk their responsibility to the terms of ALPA Merger Policy in favor of just an ALPA Merger "process". In doing so they have failed both the West and the East. They are their own agent and neither side should support ALPA regardless of what short term benefit it might appear to be.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Phoenix,

I do not believe my comment was disrespectful. I simply illustrated a point that I believe ClueByFour is Clue Less. Does that make sense?

Cactus,

True, but Paul Rice recently spoke to the East MEC and he indicated, with his direct quotes in quotation marks:

- There is no timetable as to when or if the EC will ever release the list to the Company.

- The EC Resolution states that the merger process was followed, that ALPA remains neutral, and the two MEC’s need to work in the "real world" to find "realistic solutions."

- The intent of the EC Resolution and the Rice Committee is to now move the process of "finding solutions" to this issue forward. And if any party is unwilling to engage in this process, then we'll move forward in negotiations "without them.'

- The JNC talks will go forward, but not in the "traditional sense," and may include many different variations that we have not yet even considered.

The Rice Committee has provided the parties 3 options for a settlement: separate contracts and separate operations, a joint contract and separate operations, or the AWA MEC entering into Section 6 negotiations.

Why? The US Airways ALPA MEC passed the following resolution, which is not the only options. The resolution indicated,

WHEREAS the Executive Council has established a committee called the “Rice Committeeâ€￾ chaired by First Vice President Paul Rice and including Executive Board member David Webb and Executive council member Ray Miller to work both with the US Airways MEC/JNC and the America West MEC/JNC to assist in finding practical solutions that promote mutual career protections and mutual success, with improved pay, benefits, work rules and job security for both US Airways and America West pilots, and

WHEREAS the US Airways MEC has discussed the Collective Bargaining Agreement options brought forward by the Rice Committee for consideration by the MECs,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the US Airways MEC endorses the concept of equivalent contracts (separate contracts of comparable value for US Airways and America West pilots), with separate operations, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such separate operations are to be permanent in nature and include preemptive contract language to assure their continued application during any future merger involving both the US Airways and America West pilots, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the US Airways MEC authorizes the US Airways members of the NC to pursue an equivalent contract utilizing all necessary ALPA resources, including the assistance of the Rice Committee.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Phoenix]

That is my point, I think you are reading between the lines and making assumptions. The EC must remain neutral on the award so how could they possibly rule on the Policy as you stated? They clearly stated the individual MECs are responsible for the seniority integration and they are only responsible to ensure the process takes place according to ALPA merger policy.

There is no assumption or reading between the lines. I quoted the policy. The EC is trying to have their cake and eat it too. You said so.

The terms "fair and equitable" as defined in ALPA Merger Policy are every bit a part of the policy as the process is. And I can assure you when Prater signs his name to the final list he better not pretend he is only attesting to the truth that the ALPA "process" was followed. It means that it is "fair and equitable resolution consistent with ALPA policy (not just a limited part of the policy embodied in only the process.) He can dance around it all he wants but the reason East is up in arms is that they believe the Nic award is way beyond any hope of being "fair and equitable", as explicitly defined in ALPA policy. Prater has to sign to the contrary opinion of the East in order to send in the list to the company. And by the way, the West is up in arms because Prater won't declare the list is "fair and equitable consistent with ALPA merger policy."

Prater and the EC are cheating both West and East by refusing to declare the list to be a "fair and equitable resolution consistent
with ALPA policy." That any would let them slither around and deny that Prater must sign to the whole truth of it is a shame.

I don't want a list delivered by a slithering equivocation. Sign it with full expression that it is true to a "fair and equitable resolution consistent with ALPA policy" (in both its processes and terms) and take your lumps. (Or declare that you can't sign it because it is'nt) But by all means quit taking pilot's money to string them along as if you were a leader.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

The EC must remain neutral, so I ask again, how can they rule if it's "fair and equitable" and still remain neutral? It is not their place, and have stated so in the resolution and several letters. Your views are very interesting though, such that if there is that much room for interpretation, ALPO should take a serious look at clarifying for all future mergers so pilots do not have to go through the same nightmare. Not that it will do any good for us now.

I think the only point we will agree on is the EC wants their cake and eat it too; just a different perspective and logical deduction with the same conclusion. Have a goodnight.

Prater and the EC are cheating both West and East by refusing to declare the list to be a "fair and equitable resolution consistent
with ALPA policy." That any would let them slither around and deny that Prater must sign to the whole truth of it is a shame.

I don't want a list delivered by a slithering equivocation. Sign it with full expression that it is true to a "fair and equitable resolution consistent with ALPA policy" (in both its processes and terms) and take your lumps. (Or declare that you can't sign it because it is'nt) But by all means quit taking pilot's money to string them along as if you were a leader.

 

[phasersonstun2]

There is no list? Then what have the East pilots getting so excited about the last couple of months?

Since you are so hung up on the signature thing, let me try this analogy. You and I enter an agreement. You agree to mow my lawn, and in exchange, I agree to pay you $30.

You mow my lawn. After you finish, I decide I don't like the deal. I realize I could have gotten the kid down the street to mow the lawn for $20. You knock on my door for payment. I answer and, now wanting out of the deal, say, "Ha ha, I never signed anything. Therefore we didn't really have an agreement and I don't owe you anything. See ya!" <SLAMS DOOR>

In that example, am I in the right?

A. Your lawn example is an oral contract. Just as binding as if you signed it in paper.

B. A better analogy is the lawn was mowed but so were azaleas and roses, which had been growing for twenty years. You must pay the agreed price for the lawn, but then there will be a separate action and settlement to cover the damage to a 20 yr. flower garden.

 

[electricjet98]

Phoenix,

I do not believe my comment was disrespectful. I simply illustrated a point that I believe ClueByFour is Clue Less. Does that make sense?

Cactus,

True, but Paul Rice recently spoke to the East MEC and he indicated, with his direct quotes in quotation marks:

- There is no timetable as to when or if the EC will ever release the list to the Company.

Well, if you say so, I'm sure it's fact! But it is interesting that while Prater states “The resolution also acknowledged that no timetable has been set under either the Merger Policy or the Transition Agreement regarding the handing over of a merged seniority list to US Airways managementâ€￾ , neither he nor Rice in their recent communications state the EC may never release the list to the Company. Furthermore, the recent EC resolution notes that ALPA Merger Policy provides that ALPA will defend and present to management "the list". In other words, it may not be immediate but it will happen.

- The EC Resolution states that the merger process was followed, that ALPA remains neutral, and the two MEC’s need to work in the "real world" to find "realistic solutions."

- The intent of the EC Resolution and the Rice Committee is to now move the process of "finding solutions" to this issue forward. And if any party is unwilling to engage in this process, then we'll move forward in negotiations "without them.'

- The JNC talks will go forward, but not in the "traditional sense," and may include many different variations that we have not yet even considered.

The Rice Committee has provided the parties 3 options for a settlement: separate contracts and separate operations, a joint contract and separate operations, or the AWA MEC entering into Section 6 negotiations.

Excuse me, but could you please post where Prater, Rice or the EC make any mention of "a joint contract and separate operations"? What I do see is “The result may lead to a merged agreement (notice singular verbage), umbrella agreements, or multiple agreements. That might be something that you and Jack overlooked!

Why? The US Airways ALPA MEC passed the following resolution, which is not the only options. The resolution indicated,

WHEREAS the Executive Council has established a committee called the “Rice Committeeâ€￾ chaired by First Vice President Paul Rice and including Executive Board member David Webb and Executive council member Ray Miller to work both with the US Airways MEC/JNC and the America West MEC/JNC to assist in finding practical solutions that promote mutual career protections and mutual success, with improved pay, benefits, work rules and job security for both US Airways and America West pilots, and

WHEREAS the US Airways MEC has discussed the Collective Bargaining Agreement options brought forward by the Rice Committee for consideration by the MECs,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the US Airways MEC endorses the concept of equivalent contracts (separate contracts of comparable value for US Airways and America West pilots), with separate operations, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such separate operations are to be permanent in nature and include preemptive contract language to assure their continued application during any future merger involving both the US Airways and America West pilots, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the US Airways MEC authorizes the US Airways members of the NC to pursue an equivalent contract utilizing all necessary ALPA resources, including the assistance of the Rice Committee.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

So now your saying the Prater, Rice and the EC are discussing the three options because the AAA MEC passed their resolution stating "US Airways MEC endorses the concept of equivalent contracts (separate contracts of comparable value for US Airways and America West pilots), with separate operations"? So like, Prater and Rice along with the whole EC are getting their marching orders from Jack?

 

[Bear96]

A. Your lawn example is an oral contract. Just as binding as if you signed it in paper.

That was my point. A contract does not have to be written or signed to be binding.

B. A better analogy is the lawn was mowed but so were azaleas and roses, which had been growing for twenty years. You must pay the agreed price for the lawn, but then there will be a separate action and settlement to cover the damage to a 20 yr. flower garden.

That is not a better analogy. Arbitrators have huge leeway to interpret contract terms, especially if the terms are vague. If you want to change the scenario to equate the lawn mower to Nicolau, it would need to be tweaked a bit: I tell him, "If you think the lawn would look better without the roses and azaleas, go ahead and do that. My wife and I have been bickering about that for a long time and we can't agree. We have seen other lawns you did in the neighborhood and like your landscaping ability, so we are going to let you decide whether the azaleas and roses should stay or go. Even though I personally prefer the roses and azaleas to stay, my wife doesn't, and we can't agree on what to do. So go ahead and use your discretion."

Then if he cut the roses and azaleas, too bad for me.

 

[767jetz]

If you want to change the scenario to equate the lawn mower to Nicolau, it would need to be tweaked a bit: I tell him, "If you think the lawn would look better without the roses and azaleas, go ahead and do that. My wife and I have been bickering about that for a long time and we can't agree. We have seen other lawns you did in the neighborhood and like your landscaping ability, so we are going to let you decide whether the azaleas and roses should stay or go. Even though I personally prefer the roses and azaleas to stay, my wife doesn't, and we can't agree on what to do. So go ahead and use your discretion."

Then if he cut the roses and azaleas, too bad for me.

Ouch!

Oh, you are good! Very good!

 

[767jetz]

I guarantee you that there is no person, none, nada, zip who understands the US Airways pilot's sentiment better than me and the US Airways pilots will do everything and anything to never let the Nicolau Award be implemented.

USA320Pilot

That's not what I heard on my jumpseat last week.

Looks like you are misrepresenting the truth again.

Keep up the spin though... it is entertaining.

 

[767jetz]

Excuse me, but could you please post where Prater, Rice or the EC make any mention of "a joint contract and separate operations"? What I do see is “The result may lead to a merged agreement (notice singular verbage), umbrella agreements, or multiple agreements. That might be something that you and Jack overlooked!

You took the words right out of my mouth. The East loves to modify the truth to fit their view of the world.

"Merged agreement" is particularly offensive to them, since it really means exactly what the West supports... ie: Joint contract with significant pay and work rule increases that would be sooner and greater than anything a majority of the East would ever see for many years under LOA 93, while still recognizing the legal and binding award.

It scares them because those who control the East MEC know that if such a proposal was ever forwarded to the membership for ratification, it would pass by a large majority. Therefore, they conveniently disregard that part of the EC resolution and come up with their own resolution that keeps such an idea from ever reaching the hands of the East pilots for consideration. Once again they trying to protect the pilots from themselves for their own selfish agenda.

 

[ClueByFour]

I'm shocked. You always berate people for not being respectful.

I invite you, and everyone else to go back and look who was much closer to the truth on what would happen with Nicolau. As a practical matter, I predicted the basic outcome and 320 called me names then, too.

This is what he does when he's faced with his spin being debunked--name calling. It's a long-standing pattern.

Go back and look at http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20919

I said:

AAA ALPA would be best to actually stand up this time. If the current crew on the MEC goes to war with the Amwest folks to obtain "windfall city," the arbitrator will end up killing AAA over it (those nasty career expectations).

320 said:

USA320Pilot comments: It's obvious you do not understand the ramifications of the Nicolau award, current discussions, or what is currently happening between the parties.

And the rest of the thread, where 320 thought that Nicolau's prior work would apply, and so forth. How could he be so wrong?

So when he calls me names, I'll quote his own statements versus mine. Every time.

So, 320--you never did address the thread in question. Care to start now, or will you come up with more earth-shatteringly creative nicknames or chest-puffing threats to the west?

 

[Phoenix]

That was my point. A contract does not have to be written or signed to be binding.
That is not a better analogy. Arbitrators have huge leeway to interpret contract terms, especially if the terms are vague. If you want to change the scenario to equate the lawn mower to Nicolau, it would need to be tweaked a bit: I tell him, "If you think the lawn would look better without the roses and azaleas, go ahead and do that. My wife and I have been bickering about that for a long time and we can't agree. We have seen other lawns you did in the neighborhood and like your landscaping ability, so we are going to let you decide whether the azaleas and roses should stay or go. Even though I personally prefer the roses and azaleas to stay, my wife doesn't, and we can't agree on what to do. So go ahead and use your discretion."

Then if he cut the roses and azaleas, too bad for me.

Yeah but the lawn boy also decided to sell the husbands $20K bass boat that was in the back yard (a boat that he had before he got married and was protected by a pre-nup). The Lawn boy hocked it for an awesome diamond necklace and gave it to the surprised wife who quickly became accustomed to this easy profit at the expense of her husband. Now the wife is running around with her friends who are oohing an ahhing over the glistening ice, and nobody can believe that the clueless husband can't own up to how "fair and equitable" this new arrangement is.

The marriage counselor doesn't hold out any hope for the marriage, but that suits him fine for his purposes. The lawyers are stirring it up to increase their profit opportunity.

And the wife is constantly nagging the husband... "Talk to the hand, gramps. Talk to the hand. Give it up already. You didn't like fishing anyway. You were never able to catch fish. And if it wasn't for me, you wouldn't even be able to go to Long John Silvers on the weekend. You don't know how lucky you are. And by the way... since I now have a diamond necklace, you better start showing your appreciation for me and kick it up a notch. You are taking me to Red Lobster so we can both appreciate a real fish meal. Get your wallet. NOW!"

 

[TheLarkAscending]

ClueByFour or should I say ClueLessBy Four

However, it might not matter to me much to me since I now have a vehicle to retire early before age 60.

I do not believe a public “mud slingingâ€￾ debate is positive or constructive, thus I do not want to enter into that type of debate because it serves no useful purpose.
If people want to take personal shots at me, be involved in mud sligning, insult me, or be a smart-aleck that is their choice, but I do not want to take that approach or be involved in that type of discussion, now or in the future.

We're all united in the happy anticipation, and the early arrival, of the alleged vehicle.

Note: Bold enhancements to quotes were added by TLA.

 

[Phoenix]

We're all united in the happy anticipation, and the early arrival, of the alleged vehicle.

Note: Bold enhancements to quotes were added by TLA.

I think you misunderstood. Vehicle was meant literally. Its a Yugo and the engine is gonna definitely go before he hits 60.