Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
They seemed to do ok in their "merger". Are you trying to set them up for their next one?
US Airways East ALPA MEC Conference Call Update
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
They seemed to do ok in their "merger". Are you trying to set them up for their next one?
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
Sounds like the West has a case for throwing out the award as being an East windfall. Good point
E
EastUS
Guest
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Well obviously yes.. if USAir was about to go bankrupt, then the planes would have been available sans pilots. It would have been USAir’s expectation to be replaced by newhires pilots. They would have been turning in apps with the rest. But even if true it would be just a little windfall. A real windfall is when the company gets the pilot pension handed to them on a silver platter. B)
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
Can you go bankrupt while in bankruptcy? I do know they were ripe for liquidation.
Jim,
"no windfall" or "career expectation" are meaningless terms, and using them to justify this integration is a sound bite. The only expectation one has when the get hired is their age , the age of the people in front of them and how many of those pilots hit the mandatory retirement age before they do. The size of the airline, the business model, or equipment being flown at the end of their career is as unpredictable as the second coming. A fact driven home by 9/11/2001. Unless someone has a crystal ball or is a diviner of the future, that is. If anyone argues differently, it is because they think they have an advantage that might benefit them in such an argument at a specific point and time. There is nothing consistent, uniform, or adhering to the concept of solidarity in such a policy. It doesn't say much when the concept of longevity(other wise a merit system would be in place) which is a pilot "sacred cow" is thrown to the wolves during a merger. DOH, with the appropriate conditions and restrictions is the only policy that truly adheres to the "union" concept ALPA is supposed to be all about.
It was one of your pilots, Roger Hall the PIT LEC Chair who pulled a coalition of airlines together at the 1986 ALPA BOD meeting and rewrote ALPA mergery policy to give preference to DOH, and rightfully so. At least it was a step in the right direction and having a consistent merger policy and was a move toward a National Seniority list, which is something ALPA screwed up in 1979 when the industry became competitive. At the time USAir had no incentive to offer that as next to Singapore Airlines, they were the most profitable airline in the world. He was one of the few "true union" pilots and visionaries in ALPA, and was one of the few USAir union types worth a damn in the last twenty 30 years. Unfortunately in 1991 UAL successfully lobied the ALPA BOD for a change, the national merger committee rewrote the policy and USAir's merger representative to National went right along with the change. So in essence you are correct that USAir's merger committee is to blame for the current integration, and responsible for the results but not because ALPA merger policy prevailed. These is no defined policy, just arguing points and the stupidity of said "policy's" results and the impact will prevent contractual improvements for years to come at USAir. With the bar lowered by USAir it will be felt everywhere and this is all because of the pathetic, "it's all about me crowd" that has dominated ALPA for the last 20 years and created a "dog eat dog" mentality that has unions competing with each other and being just as ruthless and cutthroat as present day airline managements.
Bud
AWA320
Veteran
What your people (EAST) keep missing is YOU requested to go to arb, YOU requested this arbitrator, YOU knew the rules prior to the game and YOU said nothing. Now YOU wish to get a second bite at the apple because you don't like the results as DOH was not in the mix. Did YOU somehow mis that DOH was NOT in the new merger policy???
Lets just assume for a moment that you were successful at the EC (which you will not) but let's suppose! Just where
does it end???
What you folks are suggesting will destablize not only ALPA but all labor unions as the CB&L's would be worthless. How can we trust a union when the union it'self violates it's own CB&L's? Section 45 was specifically put in place to remove ALPA for interfering with the merger process and outside of some criminal act they should remain neutral.
We have an opportunity to jam this company up compensation wise as they wish to really get their feet in the international markets. The ball is in all our courts and intelligence over emotion needs to prevail here...
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Bud,
You're right - one's perception colors pretty much everything about merging seniority lists. Plus human nature is to want to advance even at a cost to someone on the other side.
I do disagree with the "one size fits all", however. It may have worked back when the airline's fortunes rose and fell pretty much in unison, resulting in their pilots advancing and retreating also largely in unison. That is hardly the case now and hasn't been in some time. Absent a true national seniority list where pilots can leave one carrier and assume a position their original DOH will hold at another, such a solution guarantees that every merger will have a windfall for one side or the other. Unless anyone is foolish enough to believe that a given DOH guarantees a certain level of advancement in this industry. Anyone on the East side that believes that hasn't been paying attention - one merely has to look around the industry and notice that every other carrier's pilots have had faster advancement than East pilots.
Much better that the two sides work out a solution acceptable to both sides. Of course, that means that both sides have to compromise. If one side pins both it's hopes and fate on an uncompromising position, they are almost guaranteed to be disappointed in the end.
Jim
You're right - one's perception colors pretty much everything about merging seniority lists. Plus human nature is to want to advance even at a cost to someone on the other side.
I do disagree with the "one size fits all", however. It may have worked back when the airline's fortunes rose and fell pretty much in unison, resulting in their pilots advancing and retreating also largely in unison. That is hardly the case now and hasn't been in some time. Absent a true national seniority list where pilots can leave one carrier and assume a position their original DOH will hold at another, such a solution guarantees that every merger will have a windfall for one side or the other. Unless anyone is foolish enough to believe that a given DOH guarantees a certain level of advancement in this industry. Anyone on the East side that believes that hasn't been paying attention - one merely has to look around the industry and notice that every other carrier's pilots have had faster advancement than East pilots.
Much better that the two sides work out a solution acceptable to both sides. Of course, that means that both sides have to compromise. If one side pins both it's hopes and fate on an uncompromising position, they are almost guaranteed to be disappointed in the end.
Jim
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Bud your points are load and clear. ALPA has failed miserably as a union (and accommodating people are fond of saying, “It is an association, not a unionâ€). ALPA’s inability to provide unifying policies it would seem has been a big part of why so many have lost pensions, jobs, the left seat, or even the desire to return to a job were they have 15 years of service.
Let’s face it, anyone of those things all by itself could make a curmudgeon out of the best of us.
Phoenix
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
Can you paste and link where the Merger Policy saying DOH is required to be the number one preference in every merger of seniority lists and no other way will be accepted?
SECTION 45 – MERGER AND FRAGMENTATION POLICY
What Every Pilot Needs To Know About Mergers
And since we are posting facts how about posting what the Merger Policy says about binding Arbitration.
So Dave Odell can benefit from the International opportunities that the USAir's route system brought to the new airline instead of the guy who had spent 16 years there or the 1985 hire who went behind a 2000 hire that was 9 years old when he was landing DC9's in Ithica, NY in the winter. They are simply better of enjoying the 35% raises that come with upgrade, the raises that come with holding a line or moving up to higher paying equipment. USAir's(East) attrition will create 900 vacancies in the next 30 months and not working to a single contact only allows all that to happen. ALPA has proven it is nothing but disparate groups competing against each other for market share just like Airline Managements do with the corporations and they ought to be just as steadfast and ruthless in keeping "theirs". It is quite apparent that ALPA views the world in their is "mine" and "yours" and to compete against "i got mine", they should fight and look after "theirs."
If you cared to quote the entire post, it was a reference if the change to preference to DOH in 1986, before it was subsequently changed by the greedy "I got mine" crowd, led by UAL ALPA in 1991, and we see where that crowd has gotten the profession. Things are so much better off now, and the union is totally effective in preserving stability, career progression, wage and work rule progression, and able to withstand recessions, and tragedies like 9/11. Yeah, right!
lynyrdskynyrd
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,182
- Reaction score
- 558
The arguments have been made and the nuetral party has sorted through the data and come up with a solution. If fences were needed he would have put them there. I don't say that to throw in anyones face, I just see it as that simple.
We both agreed on binding arbitration. I think one crucial difference is that the west was not led to believe that things could only go their way. On the other hand, I think the east was led to believe that things could go no other way than their way.
East and West were both to close and to prejudiced before the arbirtrator ruled and we are both to close and to prejudiced now. We needed a neutral for a reason.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
The fact of the matter is that was then and this is now. You are stuck with the rules as they are today. You can change what happens in the future by changing the Policy but you can't change the USAirways/AWA Merger Policy award.
What everyone fails to realize is the respective Merger Representatives were bound by these rules (during merger negotiations) :
The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger
situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to
various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in
mind the following goals, in no particular order:
a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.
But the Arbitration process was bound by these rules:
d. The Arbitration Board shall do the following:
SOURCE - Executive Board October 1991
(1) Meet with the merger representatives to specify the scope of evidence to be
presented to the Board, in addition, if any, to evidence submitted at the mediation
step.
(2) Set the place and dates for hearings.
(3) Establish rules of procedure and time limits.
And all parties were bound by this:
b. The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the
arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA. The Award shall include any agreements
reached at the mediation step. The Arbitration Board will include in its Award a
provision retaining jurisdiction until all the provisions of the Award have been
satisfied for the limited purpose of resolving disputes which may arise between the
pilot groups with regard to the meaning or interpretation of the Award. (AMENDED -
Executive Board October 1991; Executive Board May 1998)
Now is so much better for the profession, and your group is going to get such a good deal from the company that the (East) pilots will just give up their seniority without a fight because of the generosity of it all.
Now for reality, they will probably stonewall integration by not rushing to a single contract or just voting it down. Who can blame them? I guess you guys can. 😀 They will likely organize to decertify ALPA as they fight through this. Maybe one day, several years from now, seniority integration will finally happen. If it does happen, the company will shove a "take it or leave" contract down your throat as they know that any threat of a strike or unified action is laughable. That's the rosy picture as it doesn't take into account, a recession, a major terrorist event or military deployment, or Southwest preying on your airlines dysfunction. This was a real win for "now" and the "new merger" policy and ALPA's ability to promote career stability and progression.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
To quote: "I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
