Those Silly Pilots

[cactusboy53]

USA;
I'm having some difficulty finding the part of the ALPA merger policy that states that they can "overturn" a binding arbitration.

In fact the following is directly from the ALPA Merger policy:

5. Opinion and Award
a. The opinion and Award....
b. The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.

I'll keep reading.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Vote to not send the list to the company was 14-1.

Go figure. Other than the one AWA EVP vote, do you think ANYTHING has changed that would reverse these votes? This list will be history in 3-4 weeks.

Greeter.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I'm really not interested in getting into this again but these are my perspectives. To begin, this is the first application of current ALPA merger policy in a major merger. The ALPA merger policy is relatively short, vague and subjective. There are no clear guidelines on how to apply the policy just some bullet points that can be interpreted in ten different ways depending on your stance.

Since date of hire is no longer part of ALPA merger policy I fail to see the rationale for that argument. The arbitrator, lacking a date of hire mandate, did probably the only thing he could do. He placed everyone in a relative position. A junior pilot on both sides is still a junior pilot even though an east junior pilot may have 18 years of service while a west may have two. A senior pilot with a diminishing hope of an upgrade is still in that position. There are some slight movements up and down the list by many but in total everyone on both sides is in the same relative position now that they were before.

I understand the outrage of some on the east with years of service being junior to a west pilot with much less time but legal reasoning and ALPA merger policy does not respect that argument. Windfall could play in here but the two pilots are still in the same relative position now as they were pre-merger so an effective argument could be made that there was no windfall. Without a date of hire discussion in ALPA policy how is an arbitrator able to resolve that dichotomy? Attrition is not mentioned in the policy so how could that be written into the award and applied?

Despite all the rhetoric on this board no one, having talked with people on both sides, believes that the uproar is as really loud and indignant as it would appear to be.

The executive council as a whole, notwithstanding any one member of that council that you may talk to, seems to be saying with their actions that people need to step back, cool off, analyze the award and come back and finish things up. Despite the statements of some the council does not have the authority to vacate the award or force the parties back into a negotiated or arbitrated settlement. ALPA has never in their history touched an arbitration award and I am confident they won't do it this time as it would violate so many of the basic foundations of a union.

The award took into account the history and condition of both airlines based on testimony and not on how you may want to view them. It took into account the vagaries and subjectiveness of the ALPA merger policy, it gave every opportunity for both sides to reconsider what they were doing and then it ultimately delivered a solution that for all intents and purposes keeps everyone on both sides in the position that they occupied before the merger.

To ask either side to add or take away from the award dismisses the sanctity of the process and puts each MEC in a position of self destruction. The time to advocate more complicated fences and protections was during the mediation process itself. Neither side did that to the extent that some are calling for now. To ask the mediator to do something that neither side was willing to do is naive in my opinion.

To ask the east leadership for a chance to go back and negotiate for some more and to ask the west leadership to voluntarily give back is a fact of life that is never going to happen for valid reasons on both sides no matter how sensible an argument could be made for doing so.

There are only two ways the award can be approached for revision or rescission; both sides could reject it and then re-negotiate a list on their own (astronomically improbable) or it can be challenged in court. Even if you feel the award is unjust and unfair there must be a clearly defined legal basis upon which to challenge the award and from all that I and others have researched there is no basis. A legal basis is not the senility or age of the mediator, a perceived unfairness, a lack of attention to service or date of hire or the abject horror of either side in reading the results of the decision.

I understand the arguments and emotion of both sides in these debates. But neither side has yet hit upon any way within the bounds of ALPA policy or the law to change the substance of the award.

If, by some chance, the case was referred to another arbitrator don't think that one of the other few arbitrators in this business would reach much of a different conclusion based on the same testimony given by both sides and the positions taken by both sides.

Bob

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cactusboy53,

According to member of the ALPA Executive Council (EC) I have spoken with the Opinion & Award is binding if it does not violate the Merger Policy.

Apparently by a 14-1 vote the has not seen it fit to forward the list to the company, they have elected to intervenem and they want a consensual agreement. After speaking to a number of EVP's there are some who want the award thrown out, some who want a fence agreement, and some who want new ratios.

Regardless, the EC indicted it is acutely aware of the negative consequences that may result if the MECs fail to come together to explore consensual approaches that promote career protection and mutual success. Additionally, the EC resolution directs the ALPA President to continue to employ all of the resources of the Association to assist the MECs in achieving these goals.

This will start tomorrow when John Prater, Jack Sephan, and John McIlvenna speak together via conference call. If not...there is a long list of negative scenarios that could happen, all of which are much more painful for the West pilots than the East pilots.

If this leads to the company failing the majority of the East pilots are comfortable with that because of the huge retirement numbers.

Do I want to see this happen? No, of course not, but if it does it does and the overwhelming majority of East pilots are willing to let the chips fall where they do.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[aquagreen73s]

Cactusboy53,

This will start tomorrow when John Prater, Jack Sephan, and John McIlvenna speak together via conference call. If not...there is a long list of negative scenarios that could happen, all of which are much more painful for the West pilots than the East pilots.

If this leads to the company failing the majority of the East pilots are comfortable with that because of the huge retirement numbers.

Do I want to see this happen?
Regards,

USA320Pilot

You have it all wrong, as usual. Your problem is that you've grown so used to throwing others under the bus, that you unwittingly threw yourself under the arbitration bus. Now your stuck. If you Easties cause problems and start affecting stockholder value, Parker will be auctioning the valuable pieces of the East, namely the shuttle and PHL, in an Arizona minute. The job losses will be on your side exclusively. AWA will go on, but you won't. Maybe you can get a SWA application going.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

If, by some chance, the case was referred to another arbitrator don't think that one of the other few arbitrators in this business would reach much of a different conclusion based on the same testimony given by both sides and the positions taken by both sides.

Bob, thanks for your thoughtful post. Let this be clear...the list will not stand or be fully implemented on the East side. Period. It simply cannot happen operationally, or for that matter on one of my flights.

ALPA merger policy WILL be made clear before this list is arbitrated again, as it will be.

Gut check for Alpa National coming up soon.

Greeter.

 

[Thankyou]

Greeter, Thanks for your post. All I can say is Binding Arbitration. Thankyou injoy Walmart.




If, by some chance, the case was referred to another arbitrator don't think that one of the other few arbitrators in this business would reach much of a different conclusion based on the same testimony given by both sides and the positions taken by both sides.

Bob, thanks for your thoughtful post. Let this be clear...the list will not stand or be fully implemented on the East side. Period. It simply cannot happen operationally, or for that matter on one of my flights.

ALPA merger policy WILL be made clear before this list is arbitrated again, as it will be.

Gut check for Alpa National coming up soon.

Greeter.
[/quote]

 

[FLYLOW22]

I continue to believe the best option is to let the Nicolau Award stand, create fences of maybe 12 to 15 years, share growth, and create Section 1 scope protections in the event of downsizing.

,

USA320Pilot

Just long enough for you to retire. Thanks Real nice idea.

Edited by moderator Edward, lets not use names.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Aquagreen,

There has never been more solidarity on the US Airways property than there is today.

What you do not get is that the majority of US Airways pilots now want the East MEC to do nothing. Why?

The pilots are content to live under LOA 93 for as long as possible, which could be at least 8 to 10 years. The company does not mind this at all and has indicated that ir is more than willing to operate the company without combining labor groups. The East pilots are too!

Furthermore, as Bill Glynn and others have indicated "The financial statistics that have since come out show that in 2005, AWA lost money while we in the East made a small profit. In 2006, the AWA side lost over 300 million dollars. The US Airways side made over $600 million, enough to make up for the AWA side and still give a profit of over $300 million dollars."

Sell East assets? Yea, right.

Meanwhile, Doug Parker loves this situation because he does not have to increase labor expense during a period of rising energy prices and flattening revenue.

Did you see that Scott Kirby is not going to JNC talks and neither is the East JNC members. I wonder why?

I believe you should read Bill Glynn's comments here because I guarantee you this is exactly how the overwhelming majority of East pilots feel.

Either the US Airways and AWA pilots reach a consensual seniority list agreement, per the Exeuctive Councils resolution, or I guarantee you the East pilots will never agree to a joint contract and there could be dire consequences, especially for the West pilots.

Why? Economics. The East pilots would make more money and have an improved quality of life without combining pilot groups.

Who will lose the most? The AWA pilots with no new contract, no ALPA East bargaining unit, uncertainty on what union would represent the East and then the West pilots, potential Section VI West pilot talks, a potential West 30-day cooling off period/strike with the majority of the East pilots flying right through it, West pilot stagnation, and possibly a failed company due to the toxic pilot relationship.

Why? The US Airways pilots are old and are more concerned about retiring. They're so disgusted with the state of affairs thye no longer care.

Moreover, if US Airways merges with another carrier like United I believe this same type of toxic or potentially lethal situation could occur again, without a reasonable seniority integration.

I have never been prouder of the US Airways East pilots and their solidarity.

__________

Flylow22 Deleted by moderator you are not to out some one using their name.

Wrong - I will retire in 7 years. But, how would you know what is happening as an uninformed, disgruntled furloughee with an "ax to grind". Since some ALPA EVP's suggested a 7 to 10 year fence last week while speaking to members of each parties Merger Committee and want that as the basis of a consensual agreement, I believe 12-15 years would protect the majority of the East pilots and a better option.

What would you suggest and what have you done to help the situation?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

You contradict yourself here moron. On one breath you proclaim the east pilots want the MEC to do nothing and are ok with separate operations and LOA 93. A few micro episodes later you so proudly reveal your true intentions to threaten, nay, extort the west into bowing down. Never gonna happen!

You are a corporate terrorist that is hell bent on self destruction. The best thing about it is we know who you are. :ninja:

Aquagreen,


What you do not get is that the majority of US Airways pilots now want the East MEC to do nothing. Why?

The pilots are content to live under LOA 93 for as long as possible, which could be at least 8 to 10 years. The company does not mind this at all and has indicated that ir is more than willing to operate the company without combining labor groups. The East pilots are too!

Either the US Airways and AWA pilots reach a consensual seniority list agreement, per the Exeuctive Councils resolution, or I guarantee you the East pilots will never agree to a joint contract and there could be dire consequences, especially for the West pilots.
__________

Flylow22

Wrong - I will retire in 7 years. But, how would you know what is happening as an uninformed, disgruntled furloughee with an "ax to grind". Since some ALPA EVP's suggested a 7 to 10 year fence last week while speaking to members of each parties Merger Committee and want that as the basis of a consensual agreement, I believe 12-15 years would protect the majority of the East pilots and a better option.

What would you suggest and what have you done to help the situation?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[isthisok]

I think it is ridiculous to have any integration of seniority other than DOH. I know that if the IAM does not go by date of hire that they can kiss it goodbye because the majority will get another union on the property. With that said wasn't the decision made recognizing what the pilots had agreed upon in their last concessionary contract. Weren't the guidelines they set written with the thought of a merger with United? If the decision that was made in arbitration was a direct result of the concessionary package that the East pilots agreed on than they don't have a ####. If they adjusted the seniority guidelines to be any other than strict DOH than shame on them.

 

[phasersonstun2]

...only that the attacks on the West Pilots are unjustified. In fact, we never wanted this merger to happen to begin with.... especially now, after our "windfall".

As it was in the beginning, now and ever shall be...

fence without end, Amen. :blink: <_<

 

[exB717Flyer]

I think it is ridiculous to have any integration of seniority other than DOH.

So you don't think it's ridiculous for one side to win a huge windfall from a DOH integration? You're entitled to your opinion but keep in mind that if Nicolau had felt a DOH integration was fair that's what he would've awarded.

 

[Busdrvr]

Aquagreen,

Flylow22,

Wrong - I will retire in 7 years. But, how would you know what is happening as an uninformed, disgruntled furloughee with an "ax to grind". Since some ALPA EVP's suggested a 7 to 10 year fence last week while speaking to members of each parties Merger Committee and want that as the basis of a consensual agreement, I believe 12-15 years would protect the majority of the East pilots and a better option.

What would you suggest and what have you done to help the situation?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

WTFAY? What gives you the right, in DIRECT violation of forum rules to "out" Flylow22? If he wants to publish his name, HE WILL! What a classless POS you are. :down:

 

[Edward]

Just a reminder to everyone here, posting names WILL get you time off.