How to remove ALPA from both the East & West property
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
LCC_#1
Veteran
- Nov 16, 2005
- 1,771
- 0
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Hypothetical question.
Can anyone keep a straight face and tell me that if Nicolau had ruled that DOH was the way he was making his award and that ALPA then issued a resolution for the parties to meet and discuss the situation, that East would have effectively done anything but tell the West guys "it sucks to be you"?
Can anyone keep a straight face and tell me that if Nicolau had ruled that DOH was the way he was making his award and that ALPA then issued a resolution for the parties to meet and discuss the situation, that East would have effectively done anything but tell the West guys "it sucks to be you"?
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
Well, this sums up the attitude of these self serving puds. There true colors are on display for all to see.
767 your statement reeks of hypocrisy.
United pilots self serving past
LCC_#1
Veteran
- Nov 16, 2005
- 1,771
- 0
To answer your question...HELL NO!! Kind of like the West pilots are doing now!!
Bottom line is they are pilots and have alot more to give up than you and I and they...like the West f/a's DID...will fight for what THEY think is fair.
It's interesting that you complain about the East pilots when your own AFA Mec and CEO tried to undermine the East f/a's by whining to the National AFA about a DECISION made years ago. And while not a "binding" situation, you guys were no better than the current East pilots.
Unfortunately the majority in life DOES dictate what happens in life. In the current situation of going completely by the book, the majority pilot group is simply showing their dissatisfaction. There is nothing illegal about going by the book, but it IS costing the company alot of money. Parker WILL have to solve this problem no matter what or he will have alot more to drink about.
So you and others can talk about whining, entitlemant, binding arbitration , or anything else, but those guys are mad and have the potential of putting the airline out of business .
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Without the directive mentioned, there is no point to be read.....
Jim
I think you have the point now. You've pointed out at least twice now that ALPA either abdicated their responsibility or you can’t find where they accomplished it, or you give them a pass.
I am disappointed that ALPA didn't provide protection for you in your merger in your day. You are not the only ALPA pilot that has had an axe to grind ever since because of it. I am also disappointed that your pension was not protected by ALAP either. I really am.
ALPA policies have birthed fights among pilots for decades (that ALPA so sanctimoniously decries) and your resentment and that of many more pilots. Just ask Comair pilots about their “brothers†at ALPA and Delta. The result is a mindset of, “Its OK for pilots today to get screwed, while ALPA stands by, because they screwed me and I will always have an axe to grind with them.â€
CaptainZitface
Advanced
- May 8, 2007
- 133
- 0
Might want to read the Transition Agreement a little closer. Although both ALPA, the individual AAA and AWA "shops" will be separate until AFTER several conditions are met (see below). Until then, AAA pilots can only decertify / replace ALPA on the East side, and AWA pilots can only do so on the West side.
Also, according to the NMB Representation Manual, furloughed employees CANNOT vote unless certain conditions are met
http://www.nmb.gov/representation/representation-manual.gov
I. Continued Representation of the America West and US Airways Pilots
A. The Airline Parties and the Single Carrier, as defined in Section III. A. below, will continue to recognize the Association as the collective bargaining representative
of the America West and US Airways pilots under the Act following the consummation of the Merger Agreement.
B. The Parties will continue to recognize each of the America West and US Airways MECs as to their authority and responsibility with respect to their respective collective bargaining agreements until the merger of the two MECs.
II. Period of Separate Operations
A. The pilot workforces of America West and US Airways will remain separate and covered by their respective collective bargaining agreements (the “Separate Operationsâ€) until Operational Pilot Integration as provided in Section VI. A.
III. Single Carrier
A. No later than the Operational Pilot Integration, as defined in Section VI.A. below, America West and US Airways will operate as a single carrier with a single FAA air carrier operating certificate employing pilots of America West and US Airways (the “Single Carrierâ€). The carrier holding such operating certificate will be one corporation.
B. The Airline Parties will support the Association’s application to the National Mediation Board for recognition of a single transportation system and single pilot craft or class of the Single Carrier.
C. The combining of the America West and US Airways MECs will be governed by the Association’s Constitution and By-Laws and its Merger and Fragmentation Policy (“ALPA Merger Policyâ€).
VI. Operational Pilot Integration
A. Except as provided in paragraph B. below, the airline operations of America West and US Airways, with respect to pilots, shall be merged no later than twelve (12)
months following the later of (i) completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and (ii) negotiation of the Single Agreement provided that if by that date a single
FAA operating certificate has not been issued, the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30)
days after the issuance of such certificate. The Airline Parties will make every reasonable effort in good faith to secure a single FAA operating certificate for America West and US Airways as promptly as practicable. The merger of the airline operations, with respect to pilots, under this paragraph A. is defined as the “Operational Pilot Integration.â€
B. The Airline Parties then in existence and the America West and US Airways MECs may jointly agree to implement one or more selected provisions of the Single Agreement prior to Operational Pilot Integration as defined in paragraph
A. and apply such provision or provisions to America West, US Airways, or the Single Carrier as the Airline Parties collectively and both MECs may agree.
From the NMB Representation Manual:
9.2. Eligibility.
All individuals working regularly in the craft or class on and after the cut-off date are eligible to vote in an NMB representation election. Employees may not vote in more than one election at the same time
9.204 Furloughed Employees
Furloughed employees are eligible to vote in the craft or class in which they last worked if they retain an employee-employer relationship and have a reasonable expectation of returning to work. Furloughed employees regularly working in another craft or class are ineligible to vote in the craft or class from which the employees are furloughed.
CaptainZitface
Advanced
- May 8, 2007
- 133
- 0
Jim,
Sorry, no direct link. But during a meeting on June 6, 2007, Captain Prater issued a directive to both the AAA and the AWA MEC to "explore consensual approaches that promote career protection and mutual success, and achieve an acceptable single collective bargaining agreement that improves pay, benefits, work rules and job security for both pilot groups."
The AWA MEC answered: "We will respectfully decline Captain Prater's immediate request. Our MEC is quite willing to engage in any process that gets our pilots closer to a joint contract, but only after ALPA has made it clear that it will not set aside or review the Nicolau award.The AWA MEC is unwilling to enter into those discussions while there remains any threat that ALPA will do anything other than comply fully and properly with it sobligations under Merger Policy - namely defend the Award and present it to management."
I don't know what the answer of the AAA MEC was.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #26
Thanks, but I was looking for the directive that the EC is said to have issued the West MEC. Just curious since it's been mentioned a few times.
It seems that neither Prater or the EC is overly concerned about West's acquiesce or lack thereof to whatever Prater may have directed.
Jim
ps - by the way, if a new union replaces ALPA they will be obligated to enforce the 2 separate contracts until a joint contract is negotiated. That should take care of the transition language you quoted, although obviously I'm not a labor lawyer.
There is another little fly in ointment for the "dump ALPA and the award is toast" folks, but I'll wait a while to see if any of the vocal proponents figure it out for themselves in the next couple of weeks.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Prater came so close to mentioning what I think you are talking about, but he stopped short. When he spoke of how the ALPA replacement CBA would be bound to the previous contractual obligations of ALPA, what he was really saying was that the new collective bargaining agent would be an assignee of ALPA's prior contractual agreements with the company and the West. ALPA would be the assignor and the new CBA (call is US Airways Pilots Association - USAPA)would be the assignee. In layman's terms, USAPA would step into the shoes of ALPA and could not unilaterally alter its contractual obligations any more than ALPA could. A particularly important contractual obligation for ALPA is to defend and present the arbitration award. USAPA would therefore inherit that obligation and failure to honor the Nic award would amount to a breach of contract. What's more, it would not only be a contractual breach, but a breach of their DFR to both West and East. In other words, failure to act in good faith on the contractual obligation inherited from the pervious CBA (ALPA) would subject USAPA to a DFR liability from the West.
step into the shoes of ALPA. A particularly important contractual obligation for ALPA is to defend and present the arbitration award. USAPA would therefore inherit that obligation and failure to honor the Nic award would amount to a breach of contract. What's more, it would not only be a contractual breach, but a breach of their DFR to both West and East. In other words, failure to act in good faith of the contractual obligation inherited from the pervious CBA (ALPA) would subject USAPA to a DFR liability from the West.
[/quote]
If it's an in house union, maybe they would take that legal risk.
What's the worse case? Union insolvency and reordering the list to Nicalou. That would be the same outcome as now, except they might buy 10 years, as DFR lawsuits tend to go on and on forever. Another 10 years is a lot of attrition, but that attrition thing is over blown anyway, right? How many DFRs does ALPA have filed against it at present? I think it is in the neighborhood of 6 or 7.
You may think it illogical that the effort spent fighting this, isn't used in getting a better contract but to them, seniority is everything as it is to all of us. Sometimes money isn't everything, and you stand and fight on principle. I think you are seeing that with your East cohorts. You can argue who has the moral high ground and they can also, all though I think they are right when it comes to integration methodology. The bottom line that you seem to miss and it is written all over this mess, is ALPA's failure. If it was a real national union and they had done their job right, there would be nothing to argue with at all. It would have been out of the pilot's hands and it wouldn't have pitted group against group.
Best case, a DFR goes now where and Nicalou is never used.
The added benefit is no ALPA, which by this board , no East pilot seems to want either way. For a lot of us it was a disgrace to wear the same uniform as Dwayne Worthless and now it appears we have another sneering, sniveling fop, no difference, only a different set of wings and hat brass. If he thinks that video helped, he is sadly mistaken. I can only imagine that it just stirred the hornets nest more.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Bud8ee, I don't mean this as a slam on you personally, but the ideas you express are undocumented migrants in the land of jurisprudence. First of all, provisional remedies are immediate. They exist to afford a plaintiff immediate relief and protection. Common provisional remedies include injunctions (both prohibatory and mandatory), restraining orders (temporary and permanent), and declaratory judgments. Although full litigation of claims can take years, the West would have immediate recourse against USAPA such that the new union would be forced to honor the contractual obligations inherited from ALPA. That's what a mandatory injunction is all about; it's a court's equitable power to "force" a party to do something. We saw this power at work in the APA fiasco about a decade ago when the Fed District Judge ordered the pilots to stop calling in sick. Now, that's just the first part of the equation. What makes a federal judge (and state judges for that matter) so powerful is their ability to enforce their judgments. In the APA fiasco, the enforcement power was a contempt decree. A judge can imprison, fine, suspend property rights, etc. What's really interesting about the notion that USAPA (assuming that is what the replacement union would be called) could refuse to honor the Nic award is that not only could the West claim breaches of contract, tort duties and DFR, but so could an East pilot! Yes, they too have an expectancy in this award and all it would take would be for one pilot to step forward as a plaintiff. Then, there would be suits from both sides of the fence. Gotta love the irony.
Hmmm..Jim was it what I just mentioned to Bud8ee..that an east pilot could step forward and assert a DFR claim against the new union for denying him or her their expected benefit of the Nic award? Not knowing the East like you do, I would nevertheless suspect that several dozen East pilots would be willing to step forward and sign their John Hancock as a plaintiff. Is several dozen a low estimate?
Hmmm..Jim was it what I just mentioned to Bud8ee..that an east pilot could step forward and assert a DFR claim against the new union for denying him or her their expected benefit of the Nic award? Not knowing the East like you do, I would nevertheless suspect that several dozen East pilots would be willing to step forward and sign their John Hancock as a plaintiff. Is several dozen a low estimate?
