US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message

[Pi brat]

Sure. Think of any collective bargaining relationship -- under either the NLRA or the RLA -- where the two parties (employer and union/employees) have an obligation to bargain.

The union says, "Nope. Not gonna agree to ANYthing the employer proposes, unless it meets with my [unreasonable] precondition(s), and I will not budge one inch from my precondition(s). I will simply refuse to agree with anything the other side proposes, indefinitely, and hold up the progress of the company. I will stand here with my arms crossed and my eyes closed and not budge one inch, forever."

Guess what. At some point, an impasse is reached, and the company gets to impose terms. (Yes, it takes a little longer to get to that point under the RLA compared to the NLRA, but the basic principle is the same: a union cannot simply refuse to bargain indefinitely.) Part of those terms will undoubtedly include the Nicolau award because at some point the company will have to implement SOME sort of merged seniority list in order to completely merge operations. The only list they will dare to implement will be the Nicolau award because if anyone points to the company as "unfarily" implementing any sort of list as some sort of anti-union move, what better defense will it have than to point to the list that went all the way to arbitration pursuant to ALPA's merger policy and say, "Hey, we are only implementing the list THE UNION came up with."

It is even worse for the union in the current East pilot situation. There, you have a situation where the employer is not the cause of the East's problems. The East's union (whoever it is by then) can't say, "We're only being unreasonable because THE COMPANY is being unreasonable." It is purely an internal union issue of how two unionized parties will combine a seniority list. The employer has nothing to do with it. That will make it even less likely a court or administrative agency (NMB) will say it is "unfair" for the employer to implement its terms. This is especially so considering, ironically, the company will most likely be proposing and implementing IMPROVEMENTS to the current East / LOA93 contract.

Additionally, the company can point to commitments by East where that East has agreed to negotiate with the company in good faith to obtain a joint contract.

Let me anticipate your next argument: once the employer reaches the point where it has the right to impose terms, the union has the right to strike. Very true (outside of bankruptcy, as you mentioned). Here, though, ironically and as discussed above, the terms the company will be imposing will likely be BETTER than what East is currently working under. The question will then be, How many East pilots will be willing to strike if the company implements BETTER terms than what they already work under?

The East is truly delusional if it thinks it can hold up the operational merger and the implementation of the Nicolau list indefinitely under these facts.

The JNC met with company yesterday, don't think the union is holding up anything. Do believe everyone will get a vote though. Will ALPA make us vote yes?

 

[AAAPOS]

Wow. Another handsomely crafted feel good resolution.

Well that should do it then. I guess the game is over.

Congratulations Easties.

 

[PITbull]

Jack Stephan said: “The MEC and I have told you from the very first day we received the Nicolau award, that your seniority, and vacating the award, will be our main focus.â€￾


USA320Pilot

According to this missive and others conveyed by Jack Stephens, it appears that the ALPA East MEC is very focused and committed to resolving this issue. My hats off to Jack and the ALPA MEC for trying to keep the East together and not jumping ship unless they fail to resolve the issue.

This is a very honest, passionate message.

 

[supercruiser]

Sure. Think of any collective bargaining relationship -- under either the NLRA or the RLA -- where the two parties (employer and union/employees) have an obligation to bargain.

The union says, "Nope. Not gonna agree to ANYthing the employer proposes, unless it meets with my [unreasonable] precondition(s), and I will not budge one inch from my precondition(s). I will simply refuse to agree with anything the other side proposes, indefinitely, and hold up the progress of the company. I will stand here with my arms crossed and my eyes closed and not budge one inch, forever."

Guess what. At some point, an impasse is reached, and the company gets to impose terms. (Yes, it takes a little longer to get to that point under the RLA compared to the NLRA, but the basic principle is the same: a union cannot simply refuse to bargain indefinitely.)

You don't know what you're talking about. There is no such thing as an impasse, or imposing terms of a contract except in section 6 negotiations under the RLA, which are not taking place at the present time. (Ch 11 bankruptcy obviously somewhat of an exception, also not taking place at the present time). Even in section 6, after an impasse is reached, there is mediation, then a 30 day cooling off period, which can take several years after starting section 6 negotiations.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

Jack Stephan said: “’Equivalent Contract Negotiations," and endorses the concept of ‘equivalent contracts (separate contracts of comparable value for US Airways and America West pilots), but with separate operations. These separate operations are to be permanent and will include preemptive contract language to assure that they are used during any future merger involving both the US Airways and America West pilots.â€￾

USA320Pilot comments: I believe this approach outside of Section 6 negotiations is the only way the AWA pilots will see contract improvements. The benefits of this strategy, which is he only strategy now permitted by the US Airways MEC, maintains all of the pre-merger career expectation for both the East and West pilots, which I believe is fair, and provides for contract improvements.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

The east resolution for obtaining equivalent contracts and separate operations is a violation of the TA, and for the life of me I can't seem to comprehend the depths of stupidity the east MEC is willing to plunge. How in the hell do you think you guys are going to get away with something agreed to in the TA??? Do any of you honestly think the Company is just going to sit back and let the east MEC make up their own rules for merging the airline?? I guess you guys are just above the law, and certainly lacking of any integrity whatsoever.

 

[Pi brat]

The east resolution for obtaining equivalent contracts and separate operations is a violation of the TA, and for the life of me I can't seem to comprehend the depths of stupidity the east MEC is willing to plunge. How in the hell do you think you guys are going to get away with something agreed to in the TA??? Do any of you honestly think the Company is just going to sit back and let the east MEC make up their own rules for merging the airline?? I guess you guys are just above the law, and certainly lacking of any integrity whatsoever.


Wasn't this one of the ideas from the Rice committee? I looked at your profile and found this old post from June:

"Finally some leadership by ALPA!! I posted this in another thread but I think it is important enough to stand on its own because of the not so subtle message regarding the AWA-US seniority integration. If east is still in doubt as to the direction the EC will take next Tuesday, then I don't know what else to tell you other than wait till Tuesday"

Wrong about that, weren't you?

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

Wrong about what? If the award will stand? Or the resolution seeking mutually agreeable solutions?

Wasn't this one of the ideas from the Rice committee? I looked at your profile and found this old post from June:

"Finally some leadership by ALPA!! I posted this in another thread but I think it is important enough to stand on its own because of the not so subtle message regarding the AWA-US seniority integration. If east is still in doubt as to the direction the EC will take next Tuesday, then I don't know what else to tell you other than wait till Tuesday"

Wrong about that, weren't you?

 

[Pi brat]

Wrong about what? If the award will stand? Or the resolution seeking mutually agreeable solutions?

Maybe I misundertood your post. It seemed to say the the EC would wrap things up, now you don't seem too happy with one of their ideas.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Sure. Think of any collective bargaining relationship -- under either the NLRA or the RLA -- where the two parties (employer and union/employees) have an obligation to bargain.

The union says, "Nope. Not gonna agree to ANYthing the employer proposes, unless it meets with my [unreasonable] precondition(s), and I will not budge one inch from my precondition(s). I will simply refuse to agree with anything the other side proposes, indefinitely, and hold up the progress of the company. I will stand here with my arms crossed and my eyes closed and not budge one inch, forever."

Guess what. At some point, an impasse is reached, and the company gets to impose terms. (Yes, it takes a little longer to get to that point under the RLA compared to the NLRA, but the basic principle is the same: a union cannot simply refuse to bargain indefinitely.) Part of those terms will undoubtedly include the Nicolau award because at some point the company will have to implement SOME sort of merged seniority list in order to completely merge operations. The only list they will dare to implement will be the Nicolau award because if anyone points to the company as "unfarily" implementing any sort of list as some sort of anti-union move, what better defense will it have than to point to the list that went all the way to arbitration pursuant to ALPA's merger policy and say, "Hey, we are only implementing the list THE UNION came up with."

It is even worse for the union in the current East pilot situation. There, you have a situation where the employer is not the cause of the East's problems. The East's union (whoever it is by then) can't say, "We're only being unreasonable because THE COMPANY is being unreasonable." It is purely an internal union issue of how two unionized parties will combine a seniority list. The employer has nothing to do with it. That will make it even less likely a court or administrative agency (NMB) will say it is "unfair" for the employer to implement its terms. This is especially so considering, ironically, the company will most likely be proposing and implementing IMPROVEMENTS to the current East / LOA93 contract.

Additionally, the company can point to commitments by East where that East has agreed to negotiate with the company in good faith to obtain a joint contract.

Let me anticipate your next argument: once the employer reaches the point where it has the right to impose terms, the union has the right to strike. Very true (outside of bankruptcy, as you mentioned). Here, though, ironically and as discussed above, the terms the company will be imposing will likely be BETTER than what East is currently working under. The question will then be, How many East pilots will be willing to strike if the company implements BETTER terms than what they already work under?

The East is truly delusional if it thinks it can hold up the operational merger and the implementation of the Nicolau list indefinitely under these facts.

You just made the case for USAPA. If this is what we have to look forward to, then I'll take my chances with a new union. And new collective bargaining. But since we're not in section 6 negotiations it's a moot point.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

There are two parts to the resolution, one that addressed the award and the other spoke of finding solutions. It was the former I was alluding to in that post. The EC basically said the award will stand absent proof of fraud, etc., and I was applauding that leadership and decision. The EC is just playing games with the east by not forwarding the list to the Company, with the hope it may avoid "decertification."

If another merger was not likely on the horizon, I would have probably joined in the decert effort. IMO, we are much better off with ALPA if we merge with another ALPA carrier. Otherwise we could end up stapled or worse - AA/TWA. Think the Nic award was bad? If we do not have ALPA, another carrier’s Union group could have their way with us, and they would bring the KY.

Maybe I misundertood your post. It seemed to say the the EC would wrap things up, now you don't seem too happy with one of their ideas.

 

[ClueByFour]

Outside of bankruptcy, I've never heard of that. Could you give an example of how that might play out?
A320 Driver

Ask Hemmingway.

 

[Pi brat]

There are two parts to the resolution, one that addressed the award and the other spoke of finding solutions. It was the former I was alluding to in that post. The EC basically said the award will stand absent proof of fraud, etc., and I was applauding that leadership and decision. The EC is just playing games with the east by not forwarding the list to the Company, with the hope it may avoid "decertification."

If another merger was not likely on the horizon, I would have probably joined in the decert effort. IMO, we are much better off with ALPA if we merge with another ALPA carrier. Otherwise we could end up stapled or worse - AA/TWA. Think the Nic award was bad? If we do not have ALPA, another carrier’s Union group could have their way with us, and they would bring the KY.

ALPA didn't do much for TWA, did it? I do think about that, but at this point I feel like we don't have much to lose. ALPA has taken way too much of my money with way too little returns.

 

[EastUS]

You just made the case for USAPA. If this is what we have to look forward to, then I'll take my chances with a new union. And new collective bargaining. But since we're not in section 6 negotiations it's a moot point.

Indeed. Factor in the additional "reasonable period of time" required for a newly birthed union to properly set up for proceedings needed for contract negotiations, study the issues/etc....and the term "indefinately" becomes easilly quantifiable only in terms of years. Tack onto to that the fact that the east holds the numerical superiority for any eventual ratification, and the contract could be structured to maximize longevity benefits, as a starter.
The only possible argument I see for keeping Alpo is fear of some hideaous seniority integration in the event of merger...but that's already happened here, and it's fully clear that Alpo has no warranty against such, and is proven more likely to manufacture exactly that.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

You have a point, but I think the TWA guys got hosed because AA was not ALPA. Since it's highly unlikley we will merge with AA or SWA (the only two majors not ALPA)...I think we have hedged our bet.

ALPA didn't do much for TWA, did it? I do think about that, but at this point I feel like we don't have much to lose. ALPA has taken way too much of my money with way too little returns.

 

[Pi brat]

You have a point, but I think the TWA guys got hosed because AA was not ALPA. Since it's highly unlikley we will merge with AA or SWA (the only two majors not ALPA)...I think we have hedged our bet.

Remember the US/UA merger? The F100 fleet was going to be spun off to AA. I was a capt on it at the time and tried to figure out which was worse. You never know what will happen in this business and as one frequent poster shows, if you guess a lot , you're wrong a lot.