US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/23- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Black Swan]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you would justify an extreme arbitration result on the proposal of the side that would appear to have been penalized by the arbitrator for failing to give a solution that he was supposed to divine. If the west would hate it, would you tell them it was their fault because they failed to give the arbitrator a workable solution?

Not that any of this discussion has any impact on the current reality, or the road ahead.

Nobody would need arbitration had ALPA lived up to their responsibilities and instituted a clearly defined merger policy. It is that simple. Each side paid dues money to an entity that became just like many other bloated institutions. The LOA 93 grievance is another example of a poorly written document that had no iron clad language that addressed the pay restoration. Now that ALPA document is subject to arbitration. What good are ALPA attorneys and paralegals? No good. They can't come up with a clear merger policy, and relegate their responsibilities to an arbitrator who is not an airline pilot. They can't write a clear and easily understood document that affects their members pay and working conditions, and that has to be arbitrated. I also blame the pilots that signed LOA 93 and put it out to vote. They bear the same responsibility as those who wrote it. Those who voted yes signed off on a document that was laden with loopholes share the blame also. How hard is it to put a date and language on a document with specifics as to pay restoration? Apparently very.

 

[Barrister]

Growth is irreverent. Look at the transition agreement attachment B and tell me how many airplanes pre-merger US planned to operate in 2010. Now pre-merger HP. You'll soon dicover which side has fewer airplanes than planned since the merger and which side hasn't. Here's a hint - the West is almost 30 planes under the fleet plan while the East is above fleet plan thanks to the E190's.

Now consider this: the TA requires that the two MEC's (that's USAPA now) determine which side flies which planes acquired post merger that aren't in the fleet plan, with the criteria being the fair and equitable division of the flying. If the company doesn't agree with the association's decision, arbitration is required with the standard being the fair and equitable division of the new flying. How has USAPA done at fulfilling that requirement?

Jim

Selective memory....the East had to give back 40-50
airframes just to get the merger done. Remember that????

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[BoeingBoy]

Under your reasoning, East would be under minimum fleet count with ANY division of deliveries. West continues to take delivery of A-320 family aircraft. Both sides are just trading one hull for another.

Except that the E190's aren't included in the minimum fleet count, so although both sides are basically at the minimum fleet count as defined by the TA the East has planes in excess of minimum fleet count - planes that also put it above the number of planes specified in attachment B of the TA. What does the TA say about that? That additional planes are to be split between the sides and if the company doesn't agree it goes to arbitration with the standard for the arbitrator being the fair and equitable division of the extra planes.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Selective memory....the East had to give back 40-50
airframes just to get the merger done. Remember that????

Nope, but I do remember the "old" US agreeing to give back airplanes to get temporarily reduced lease rates on the remaining airplanes. With the agreements made before the merger was a twinkle in Lakefield's eye. That's according to the PIT paper's timeline for the merger and more importantly in the BK court filings asking for approval of the agreement with the GECAS.

But if pretending something else helps you sleep at night, have at it.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Nobody would need arbitration had ALPA lived up to their responsibilities and instituted a clearly defined merger policy. It is that simple. Each side paid dues money to an entity that became just like many other bloated institutions. The LOA 93 grievance is another example of a poorly written document that had no iron clad language that addressed the pay restoration. Now that ALPA document is subject to arbitration. What good are ALPA attorneys and paralegals? No good. They can't come up with a clear merger policy, and relegate their responsibilities to an arbitrator who is not an airline pilot. They can't write a clear and easily understood document that affects their members pay and working conditions, and that has to be arbitrated. I also blame the pilots that signed LOA 93 and put it out to vote. They bear the same responsibility as those who wrote it. Those who voted yes signed off on a document that was laden with loopholes share the blame also. How hard is it to put a date and language on a document with specifics as to pay restoration? Apparently very.

So now that the perfectly formed union of usapa has come on the scene could you remind us all of usapa clearly defined merger policy?

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

If we go into a merger with AA what will those C&R say? Come on tell us exactly what the clearly defined usapa policy is? What enforcement method is there for usapa to impose your will on another airline in a merger? What is that you say, it would go to arbitration using A/M. What is the clearly defined merger policy written in A/M? DOH is not written into A/M policy. Excuse me you say there is no clearly defined merger policy but they are not ALPA. Interesting that you blame ALPA but nowhere in the pilot world are you going to get what you are looking for.

You blame the pilots that put LOA 93 out for a vote. Yet you all complaint that ALPA was not democratic. You guys say that majority rules yet you blame the MAJORITY for voting for LOA 93. Come on you are confusing me. Is the majority always right and get to do what they want or not. What it appears to me is that you only think it is right when what happens is what you want to happen. So in your mind it should have never been sent to the pilots because it should never have passed. Where have I heard that before? Oh yea, “the Nicolau will never pass”. No need to even send it to the pilots for their opinion. You know best.

Perhaps if you were the negotiator you would have dazzled the other side with brilliance and been able to put that little gem in the document. But since it was a negotiation that did not happen. Are you beginning to realize that usapa will not be able to just insert DOH with made up C&R into the next contract? How hard will it be, apparently very, I would say impossible.

 

[hp_fa]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you would justify an extreme arbitration result on the proposal of the side that would appear to have been penalized by the arbitrator for failing to give a solution that he was supposed to divine. If the west would hate it, would you tell them it was their fault because they failed to give the arbitrator a workable solution?

I answered your question in that I believe that had Nicolau ruled DOH that the question would have been resolved and that I believe the West would have lived with whatever results had come of the full and binding arbitration, including accepting any tactical or strategic mistakes that might have been made in presenting their case before the arbitrator. They would have moved forward. Also, accepting your hypothetical that Nicolau had ruled DOH, I also assume in my response that he would have erected suitable C&R's to protect the Phoenix and Las Vegas flying as it existed at the time of the Award.

Using words like "extreme" to characterize the Award fail to recognize that US Airways and its employees were in an extremely dire financial position at the time of the transaction and that one of ALPA's criteria for the merging of two ALPA airlines included a provision that addressed that as one of the criteria that the Arbitrator should consider when making his (or her) Award.

The East AAA, via its merger committee and AAA, failed to heed a clear warning from Mr. Nicolau and went all-in instead of giving him room to try and fashion something less extreme. IMO that was the moment that caused everything that followed. It wasn't and ALPA National failure. It was a failure of your elected reps and their appointed committees to deal with the reality of the situation as it existed. It was also the moment that eventually created the opportunity for SSM&P to fleece all of you. An opportunity it certainly hasn't wasted.

 

[Barrister]

Nope, but I do remember the "old" US agreeing to give back airplanes to get temporarily reduced lease rates on the remaining airplanes. With the agreements made before the merger was a twinkle in Lakefield's eye. That's according to the PIT paper's timeline for the merger and more importantly in the BK court filings asking for approval of the agreement with the GECAS.

But if pretending something else helps you sleep at night, have at it.

Jim

Your timeline is completely wrong....and you know it.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[oscarjazz]

None of this would have happened had the "association " taken a stand, made a policy, and kept it the same way instead of shifting to the whims of the majority rule at the time. The rest of the employee groups managed to integrate without bloodshed. All groups except the pilots. Both represented by ALPA. That speaks volumes.

That is pretty funny. The association did have a clearly defined merger policy, it is just you didn't like the outcome and refused to abide by the policy. The policy made it mandatory that each side accept the final and binding arbitration and the policy made it mandatory that each side continue to give their best efforts to reach a joint contract in an expeditious manner. The East pilots disregarded any aspect of the policy that they didn't like and then threw a hissy fit.

So the East pilots get to decide which parts of the policy they will follow and not follow, and then the problem is there wasn't a good enough policy. Ha! What you really mean to say is that ALPA Merger Policy didn't say "Whatever Airways pilots want."

 

[oscarjazz]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you would justify an extreme arbitration result on the proposal of the side that would appear to have been penalized by the arbitrator for failing to give a solution that he was supposed to divine. If the west would hate it, would you tell them it was their fault because they failed to give the arbitrator a workable solution?

Not that any of this discussion has any impact on the current reality, or the road ahead.

The problem is setting priorities. Basically, the East wanted to staple the West to the bottom of the list. That would solve every problem anyone could have with a seniority integration, at least on one side. What you didn't do was let the arbitrator know your priorities. For instance if you are going to dinner and you ask your kid what they want for dinner and they say "Italian, hamburgers, pizza, chinese, sushi, ........." At some point they have to pick what's important and not important.

The arbitrator was asking you to establish priorities for him to address. Was it the upgrades to captain, he could have made a quota for a number of years to ensure upgrades, was it the guys at the bottom of the list with 17 years, or whatever else you want. It was obvious that stapling the AWA pilots would solve your problems but that wasn't going to fly. Instead of establishing priorities for him, he had to do it himself. Now you don't like those priorities and blame Nicolau.

You were not going to be able to staple AWA to the bottom of your list. What was Plan B? I guess it was to throw a temper tantrum and commit career suicide. Great plan so far.

 

[Black Swan]

Growth is irreverent. Look at the transition agreement attachment B and tell me how many airplanes pre-merger US planned to operate in 2010. Now pre-merger HP. You'll soon dicover which side has fewer airplanes than planned since the merger and which side hasn't. Here's a hint - the West is almost 30 planes under the fleet plan while the East is above fleet plan thanks to the E190's.

Now consider this: the TA requires that the two MEC's (that's USAPA now) determine which side flies which planes acquired post merger that aren't in the fleet plan, with the criteria being the fair and equitable division of the flying. If the company doesn't agree with the association's decision, arbitration is required with the standard being the fair and equitable division of the new flying. How has USAPA done at fulfilling that requirement?

Jim

More arbitration. More ALPA failed language. The language should have been explicit and have no loopholes or gray areas to exploit. The fact each and every agreement signed between ALPA and the pilots needs to be interpreted and decided by a third party speaks volumes. Why keep ALPA around if this is the result each time?

 

[Black Swan]

That is pretty funny. The association did have a clearly defined merger policy, it is just you didn't like the outcome and refused to abide by the policy. The policy made it mandatory that each side accept the final and binding arbitration and the policy made it mandatory that each side continue to give their best efforts to reach a joint contract in an expeditious manner. The East pilots disregarded any aspect of the policy that they didn't like and then threw a hissy fit.

So the East pilots get to decide which parts of the policy they will follow and not follow, and then the problem is there wasn't a good enough policy. Ha! What you really mean to say is that ALPA Merger Policy didn't say "Whatever Airways pilots want."

Yes, really funny. The association has had numerous stances on mergers in the 27 yrs I was a member. It changed numerous times, and that is not funny at all. I am sure it is really funny in Herndon when they do the accounting and see the loss of USAirways pilots, and now Airtran coming next. HA HA HA! That must be a real laughfest! When Chris Beebe was our MEC leader, it got changed again, so seeing how I went through 3 mergers with NO hitch whatsoever, and the genius braintrust of Herndon changed it in the last one and it got ALPA thrown off the property, they must have gotten it right???? yes, I don't agree. In fact I disagreed so much I literally threw them off the property. So which clearly defined merger policy worked? Obviously not the last one. And that, is hilarious!!!!! How does ALPA expect to have any validity when they cannot decide on merger policy, and every document they have their fingerprints on is subject to question and arbitration?

 

[Black Swan]

I answered your question in that I believe that had Nicolau ruled DOH that the question would have been resolved and that I believe the West would have lived with whatever results had come of the full and binding arbitration, including accepting any tactical or strategic mistakes that might have been made in presenting their case before the arbitrator. They would have moved forward. Also, accepting your hypothetical that Nicolau had ruled DOH, I also assume in my response that he would have erected suitable C&R's to protect the Phoenix and Las Vegas flying as it existed at the time of the Award.

Using words like "extreme" to characterize the Award fail to recognize that US Airways and its employees were in an extremely dire financial position at the time of the transaction and that one of ALPA's criteria for the merging of two ALPA airlines included a provision that addressed that as one of the criteria that the Arbitrator should consider when making his (or her) Award.

The East AAA, via its merger committee and AAA, failed to heed a clear warning from Mr. Nicolau and went all-in instead of giving him room to try and fashion something less extreme. IMO that was the moment that caused everything that followed. It wasn't and ALPA National failure. It was a failure of your elected reps and their appointed committees to deal with the reality of the situation as it existed. It was also the moment that eventually created the opportunity for SSM&P to fleece all of you. An opportunity it certainly hasn't wasted.

Seham fleeced? Are you serious? Lets go over again what happened in the Desert Courtroom. Wake led Jacobs into the temple of doom, and emptied Leonidas of 2 Million for a case that wasn't ripe, and clearly may NEVER be ripe! Now THAT, is a fleecing!

 

[Ames]

I'm not talking about hard assets, I'm talking about bidding power that was shifted from the east to the west.

GMAFB! First of all, that isn't an asset. More importantly the west had disproportionately more furloughed post merger and over 100 downgraded - while the east upgrades. Bidding power? Maybe in usapa land....

 

[Black Swan]

I answered your question in that I believe that had Nicolau ruled DOH that the question would have been resolved and that I believe the West would have lived with whatever results had come of the full and binding arbitration, including accepting any tactical or strategic mistakes that might have been made in presenting their case before the arbitrator. They would have moved forward. Also, accepting your hypothetical that Nicolau had ruled DOH, I also assume in my response that he would have erected suitable C&R's to protect the Phoenix and Las Vegas flying as it existed at the time of the Award.

Using words like "extreme" to characterize the Award fail to recognize that US Airways and its employees were in an extremely dire financial position at the time of the transaction and that one of ALPA's criteria for the merging of two ALPA airlines included a provision that addressed that as one of the criteria that the Arbitrator should consider when making his (or her) Award.

The East AAA, via its merger committee and AAA, failed to heed a clear warning from Mr. Nicolau and went all-in instead of giving him room to try and fashion something less extreme. IMO that was the moment that caused everything that followed. It wasn't and ALPA National failure. It was a failure of your elected reps and their appointed committees to deal with the reality of the situation as it existed. It was also the moment that eventually created the opportunity for SSM&P to fleece all of you. An opportunity it certainly hasn't wasted.

You guys are going to get a real education shortly in INTERNAL UNION AFFAIRS. Baptiste and Wilder called this one long ago and they are going to be absolutely proven right. Wake was the first one to get his hand slapped, others coming soon.

 

[cleardirect]

Seham fleeced? Are you serious? Lets go over again what happened in the Desert Courtroom. Wake led Jacobs into the temple of doom, and emptied Leonidas of 2 Million for a case that wasn't ripe, and clearly may NEVER be ripe! Now THAT, is a fleecing!

Do you even understand what you wrote?

The addington case becomes ripe as soon as we get a new contract. By you saying that it may never become ripe means that usapa will never be able to get a contract. Meaning you guys will live with and retire under LOA 93. Also that the main purpose of a CBA to enforce and improve a contract usapa is unable to do either. 400 grievances guys. Not really enforcing the contract if all you can do is file and never settle or win a greivance.

What has usapa done for anyone lately?