Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

What in the world makes you think the APA will call an election before the McCaskill-Bond process is complete? Talk about lawsuits....

If there is to be an election, I doubt any east pilot will even bother to vote. I won't. What's the point? I am perfectly content to be represented by the APA, or USAPA, or the Teamsters. The only thing that would make me consider voting is if ALPA is on the ballot. Then I would DEFINITELY cast a ballot for APA.

You guys are over there doing your sick little dance on USAPA's grave to what end? Assuming the merger gets its government approvals, APA as bargaining agent is a done deal. But it won't happen until McCaskill-Bond is complete. If APA attempted to circumvent Mc-B, they would get sued. And the NMB has to abide by federal law also.

What makes me think the APA will call an election before M/B is complete?

The MOU.

26. APA shall file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective
Date, when APA determines that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition but
in no event later than four months after the Effective Date. If and when the NMB makes a singlecarrier
finding, the single carrier acknowledged by the NMB and the certified representative shall be
governed by this Memorandum.

You do see where it says as soon as practicable? No later than four months after the effective date?

As far as voting or not voting, you will not have to worry about that at all. There will not be a vote.The APA is greater than 65% of the total pilot group. No vote required.

What evidence do you what law are you citing that says usapa sticks around until M/B is complete? ALPA did not stick around until our merger was complete.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

I don't know what the USAPA C&B-Ls say, but the MC at the previous bargaining agent had autonomous power to negotiate and didn't necessarily need to take the MEC's advice. But, they did. There is politics involved, and that MC was under great pressure by the membership to argue DOH with C&Rs. We all know how that worked.

You are correct in that we have hard-liners on the BPR, and depending on tomorrow's PHL election, they may actually regain the majority. But, I think the president is responsible for appointing committee chairmen. It will be interesting.

But my point is that the MC could come off DOH and violate its own C&B-Ls with little long-term ramifications (other than having to go fly with us crew dogs.) But, in light of the last DOH demands, I doubt the rank-and-file (there would be exceptions) would have too much heartburn over "bending the rules."

I am sure they are thinking some strategy, at least I hope they are. Just saying, "DOH, now let's go have dinner and drinks courtesy of the dues money," may not be any more successful this time than it was last time. But, who really knows? Three arbitrators, none of whom will be "Slot-em" Nicolau?

You know, I'm surprised no union has ever looked at dynamic ratioing. IF DOH isn't usable, it would seem a reasonable solution to still reward union employees for their time in craft at the combined company. It would prevent the windfalls and distortion that exist from looking at one day in time to create something that spans a career and not rob employees of their contributions and sacrifices. Why not create at the date of SLI agreement 30 lists, one for each year? Looking at each airlines list independently recalculated for mandatory retirement attrition, an employee would not only capture the relative position they have at that moment in time but the relative position progression they would have had projected for the rest of their career on their respective list. No windfalls. Each year on a given date, the new attrition based lists agreed to as part of the SLI would take affect and each group would enjoy their natural progression. Throw in some reasonable fences and at the end of the day, one 30 year union represented employee would have the progression they always would have. With positions only awarded on vacancy bids and contractual training freezes, the company wouldn't bear any extra cost.

 

[dca319]

Can you not see that the game has changed? Are you living under a rock?

Our history hasn't.

 

[dca319]

dca...You really should just give it up. This is getting just plain sad to see.

Is that an order Commander?

 

[dca319]

Just calling it as I see it. I can't see the arbitrators signing off on DOH, but that is simply my own conjecture and nothing more. Although the Ninth did not foresee our current circumstances, this is exactly what they were getting at when they invoked ripeness. In the end, if this goes to arbitration, there may very well be a list that is not "harmful" to the west. The fact is, all the risk is now on the east side. The game is totally changed and I think the west pilots are bonkers by not letting it play out. Sure, it's a do-over of sorts, but it will probably resemble the Nic when the ink is dry. Again, MY slightly geriatric OPINION. If I'm losing my senses, then maybe I can qualify for arbitrator school to be ready to step in when Nicolau retires.

I call it like I see it as well but if Pi doesn't know you personally or you're not in Gunter's inner circle then they sick the Admiral after you. It was never going to be DOH because AoL alone kept that off that table. APA won't touch it either even with fences. And they're not goi g to inherit a DFR either. Nothing left bit Nicolau.

 

[mrbreeze]

Yes, they are really hard to spot when they drive up on their pink Vespas, with matching leather jackets and helmets.

We'll be careful. Don't you worry yourself one little bit.

 

[mrbreeze]

your flippant BS only serves to further blow

Dismissed....little "dire wolf".

agreed

 

[traderjake]

What makes YOU think USAPA is going to advocate DOH in front of he arbitrators?

History and the USAPA C&BLs.

You guys can't help yourselves.

......and Paul "DOH or death" Music on the BPR.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I don't know what the USAPA C&B-Ls say, but the MC at the previous bargaining agent had autonomous power to negotiate and didn't necessarily need to take the MEC's advice. But, they did. There is politics involved, and that MC was under great pressure by the membership to argue DOH with C&Rs. We all know how that worked.

You are correct in that we have hard-liners on the BPR, and depending on tomorrow's PHL election, they may actually regain the majority. But, I think the president is responsible for appointing committee chairmen. It will be interesting.

But my point is that the MC could come off DOH and violate its own C&B-Ls with little long-term ramifications (other than having to go fly with us crew dogs.) But, in light of the last DOH demands, I doubt the rank-and-file (there would be exceptions) would have too much heartburn over "bending the rules."

I am sure they are thinking some strategy, at least I hope they are. Just saying, "DOH, now let's go have dinner and drinks courtesy of the dues money," may not be any more successful this time than it was last time. But, who really knows? Three arbitrators, none of whom will be "Slot-em" Nicolau?

[font=Arial']No worries on the PHL election. Both guys are independent thinkers and all round good guys. And either will be independent enough to do exactly the opposite of anything the CLT reps want to do. I hope John Taylor wins, just because it will make going to BPR meetings fun, if that is even possible! But again, both reasonable guys. Other than my CLT reference, I have no real idea where their political alliances, if any, will fall.[/font]

[font=Arial']Even some of the so called "hard line" ALPA East reps you speak of were willing to compromise at Wye river. We know how that turned out. [/font]

[font=Arial']The TWA guys just got some of their issues moved to the AMR BK court. Hopefully the same will soon happen with Marty’s latest folly. The BK Court is given a pretty wide reach, and uses it accordingly to protect the interests of the employees, creditors, and stockholders. Could you imagine if twenty or thirty groups were all trying to tie up the merger (and BK exit) and were allowed to proceed with outside lawsuits? It would never get done, and 100k jobs might go poof! [/font]

[font=Arial']And by the way (and every time I say this here it brings a chorus of Westies screaming “DOH is your law.&rdquo there is plenty of room for reasonable compromise under the USAPA CBL. That compromise, fortunately, has never included a guy with 17 years unbroken service going behind a new hire.[/font]

[font=Arial']Greeter [/font]

 

[nycbusdriver]

What makes me think the APA will call an election before M/B is complete?

The MOU.



You do see where it says as soon as practicable? No later than four months after the effective date?

As far as voting or not voting, you will not have to worry about that at all. There will not be a vote.The APA is greater than 65% of the total pilot group. No vote required.

What evidence do you what law are you citing that says usapa sticks around until M/B is complete? ALPA did not stick around until our merger was complete.

I hate to burst your bubble...well, not really... but here is the information the US passenger service union posted on its thread for its membership. Same rules, remember? Not everything is germane to the pilots, but it gives insight into the operations of the NMB in determining single-carrier status. Note: they mention it can take upward of a year.

Also, your are wrong on the 65% rule meaning no election. See the quote from the AFA-CWA website (from the CAL/UAL merger, but still "same rules," remember). If at least 35% of the membership does not show interest in another union, the "big union doesn't automatically win. There has to be a balloting with APA, USAPA and "No Union" choices. Bingo! Given the time it will take to determine single-carrier AND the time to do the balloting, the SLI will be long over according to the MOU timeline.

What happens to our Union?

The National Mediation Board ("NMB") certified the Union as the representative of US Airways Passenger Service Employees during the merger with America West. That certification remains in effect following the recent US Airways-American Airlines merger announcement and will continue to remain in effect throughout the merger process. In other words, your Union will continue to represent you.

Assuming the merger proceeds as planned, there will come a point where the operations and business activities of US Airways and American are integrated to a sufficient extent that the Union will request the NMB to make a determination that the two airlines constitute a “single carrier.” Only the Union or another union with a sufficient showing of interest can ask the NMB to make a single carrier determination. If, after the Union makes the request, the NMB does determine that the operations and business activities of the two airlines have been sufficiently integrated and they are a single carrier, then there will be an election ordered to determine what union, if any, will be the representative of the combined US Airways and American Passenger Service Employees.


What happens to our current negotiations for a new contract?

Your Union bargaining team will continue to bargain with US Airways for a new contract. We currently have several weeks reserved in February, March, April and June for negotiations. We have worked hard thus far to achieve a new contract, and we will continue negotiations to improve wages, working conditions and benefits.

Will we keep our contract?

The merger announcement does not have any affect whatsoever on our current contract. Our contract stays in effect until the Union and Company come to terms on a new contract that is ratified by a vote of the membership. If you are scheduled for a pay raise you will receive it on your anniversary. To be clear, all the benefits and job protections we negotiated continue in full force and effect.

Once US Airways and American are determined to be a single carrier and the NMB orders an election, which may take a year or longer, then we will be voting not only to keep our Union but also our contract. If the Union wins the election among the combined group, then our contract will remain in place covering pre-merger US Airways employees just as it does today. The pre-merger American employees will be represented by the Union, but will remain without a contract until the Union and new American agree on a contract that covers the entire combined group and that contract is ratified by the combined group. In this scenario, no pre-merger US Airways Passenger Service Employee will ever be without the protection of your Union contract.

How does the NMB determine a carrier is a "single carrier"?

A "single carrier" determination by the National Mediation board (“NMB&rdquo under the Railway Labor Act recognizes the integration of several carriers to a single major carrier. The determination reclassifies previously separate employee groups from different carriers as a single unit on one larger carrier. For all practical purposes, only a union can initiate a "single carrier" determination proceeding before the NMB.

The two main criteria for the single carrier determination are whether the previously separate airlines have “substantial integration of operations, financial control, and labor and personnel functions,” and whether they have a substantial degree of “overlapping ownership, senior management, and boards of directors”. Factors the NMB reviews to make the determination of a “single carrier” transportation system include:

• is a combined schedule published?;
• how does the carrier advertise its services?;
• are reservation systems combined?;
• are tickets issued on one carriers' stock?;
• do signs, logos and other publicly visible indicia indicate one carrier or more?;
• are personnel with public contact held out as employees of a single carrier?;
• are there indications of separate existence on planes and equipment?;
• are labor relations and personnel functions handled by one carrier?;
• are there common management, common corporate officers, and interlocking Boards of Directors?; and
• are separate identities maintained for corporate and other purposes?

Trans World Airlines/Ozark Airlines, 14 N.M.B. 218, 236 (1987).

[quote name= http://www.unitedafa...b/default.aspx]


Parties on the Ballot – Voting Results

Once the NMB finds that a single carrier exists, it will allow 14 days for any other Union (other than AFA or the machinists’ union) to obtain a place on the election ballot. To do so, the other organization would need to show that 35% of the combined Flight Attendant group wants to be represented by that organization. If no other Union can satisfy the requisite 35% showing of interest, then AFA and the machinists’ union will be the only Unions on the election ballot. Under the new NMB election rules, the ballot will also now contain a selection for “No Union.”[/quote]

 

[A320 Driver]

I don't know what the USAPA C&B-Ls say, but the MC at the previous bargaining agent had autonomous power to negotiate and didn't necessarily need to take the MEC's advice. But, they did.

They had autonomous power right up to the point where the MEC, led by the ALPA PHL F/O rep (our current grievance Chairman) threatened a recall of one of the three members (B.K.) to bring them in line with what the hardliners wanted. Everyone involved with the MC including our merger council asked them not to do it, but they did it anyway. My personal belief is history is about to repeat itself. The difference is, there is no majority to elect a new union to further the cause. If they isolate themselves from the APA, we will all pay a price. Unfortunately, that is what most of this East pilot group wants. Otherwise, the elections and recall would not have turned out the way they did.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I hate to burst your bubble...well, not really... but here is the information the US passenger service union posted on its thread for its membership. Same rules, remember? Not everything is germane to the pilots, but it gives insight into the operations of the NMB in determining single-carrier status. Note: they mention it can take upward of a year.

Also, your are wrong on the 65% rule meaning no election. See the quote from the AFA-CWA website (from the CAL/UAL merger, but still "same rules," remember). If at least 35% of the membership does not show interest in another union, the "big union doesn't automatically win. There has to be a balloting with a "No Union" choice. Bingo! Given the time it will take to determine single-carrier AND the time to do the balloting, the SLI will be long over according to the MOU timeline.

[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Arial']The rules actually changed at the beginning of the year. If we desire, there indeed would be a representational election. I don't think it will even need to happen, but there are some interesting scenarios to consider in that regard.

That said, there is no concern that USAPA will somehow disappear during the M/B process, at least in terms of that single job. USAPA will represent US Airways pilots in M/B until there is a single list.

Greeter[/font]
[font=Arial'] [/font]

 

[nycbusdriver]

You know, I'm surprised no union has ever looked at dynamic ratioing. IF DOH isn't usable, it would seem a reasonable solution to still reward union employees for their time in craft at the combined company. It would prevent the windfalls and distortion that exist from looking at one day in time to create something that spans a career and not rob employees of their contributions and sacrifices. Why not create at the date of SLI agreement 30 lists, one for each year? Looking at each airlines list independently recalculated for mandatory retirement attrition, an employee would not only capture the relative position they have at that moment in time but the relative position progression they would have had projected for the rest of their career on their respective list. No windfalls. Each year on a given date, the new attrition based lists agreed to as part of the SLI would take affect and each group would enjoy their natural progression. Throw in some reasonable fences and at the end of the day, one 30 year union represented employee would have the progression they always would have. With positions only awarded on vacancy bids and contractual training freezes, the company wouldn't bear any extra cost.

Sounds like a great idea. Why not bring that to the APA or USAPA so that one, or both, can explore the possibilities? It may even allow a negotiated deal.

The only reason no one has tried it before is because no one has tried it before. "If not us, who? If not now, when? " --- Ronald Reagan, 1981 speech

 

[Walmartgreeter]

They had autonomous power right up to the point where the MEC, led by the ALPA PHL F/O rep (our current grievance Chairman) threatened a recall of one of the three members (B.K.) to bring them in line with what the hardliners wanted. Everyone involved with the MC including our merger council asked them not to do it, but they did it anyway. My personal belief is history is about to repeat itself. The difference is, there is no majority to elect a new union to further the cause. If they isolate themselves from the APA, we will all pay a price. Unfortunately, that is what most of this East pilot group wants. Otherwise, the elections and recall would not have turned out the way they did.

[font=Arial']I hear you, having had a front row seat on the previous affair. But I have a little more optimism this time. Funny you should mention Ciabattoni, he was the one advocating a hard line approach as opposed to the current MOU. He did NOT prevail this time. A more reasoned approach won out.[/font]

[font=Arial']Just as the BPR came around when they finally figured out what the MOU was all about, they will also adapt when shown some conditions and restrictions that will make most come out ok in the long run, and nobody get a true windfall. It is doable, even more so if the APA guys discuss ALL options (behind closed doors, of course!) Lots of work ahead, don't think the Merger committee is the place to be if you are timid![/font]

[font=Arial']Greeter[/font]

 

[nycbusdriver]

[font=Arial'][font=Arial']The rules actually changed at the beginning of the year. If we desire, there indeed would be a representational election. I don't think it will even need to happen, but there are some interesting scenarios to consider in that regard.

That said, there is no concern that USAPA will somehow disappear during the M/B process, at least in terms of that single job. USAPA will represent US Airways pilots in M/B until there is a single list.

Greeter[/font][/font]

What exactly changed at the beginning of the year?

Since there are two unions in the mix, isn't a ballot required at least for those unions? We all know the outcome, but USAPA could keep itself alive by demanding a ballot. That will take forever.