You can learn from the ual, cal merger, thanks to jetz and his ual pilots. I hope the following questions will be helpful from the ual merger committee, for Usairways pilots.
The following are from the ""ual merger committee q and a's, 2011""
My F/O keeps telling me the junior Captains at CAL were hired in 2005 and since he was hired in 1996 he views that as a disaster for him.
I talked to friends at CAL and they seem to think that their junior Captains in the domestic system are 1998 hires. Apparently Guam has a couple of Captains that are way out of seniority due to the nature/demands of Guam.
Is the 1998 junior Captain information correct in the domestic CAL system?
Answer from the UAL-MEC Merger Committee: CAL pilot data shows that as of May 3, 2010, all but one of the CAL captains have dates of hire in 1998 or earlier. There is a chance that the data has changed based on the most recent CAL equipment bids.
Putting this information to one side, we must address the premise of the original question. The problem with the premise, i.e. that it would be a “disaster” if a pilot hired by one carrier in 2005 was integrated ahead of a pilot hired in 1998 by the other, is that it has been many years since ALPA Merger Policy specifically incorporated “date of hire” as a determining factor to be considered by arbitration boards. Instead, current policy identifies “longevity” as a relevant factor to be considered. Thus, for either the CAL or the UAL pilot group to focus so intently on date of hire sends the wrong message about what pilots’ expectations should be.
Can the Company (the new United Airlines) get a Single Operating Certificate without a JCBA and/or an ISL?
Answer: Yes, the company can get a single operating certificate without a JCBA or ISL. US Airways does have an SOC. The benefits to the company of complete operational integration are the motivation for achieving a JCBA (followed by an ISL), and are not dependent on an SOC. Both the SOC and ISL are separate, independent processes.
Those who were wrongfully terminated have been reinstated, so why is there still an injunction?
Answer: The Federal judge's decision was that the injunction remains in place till we have signed a new contract or till we have reached the end of a 30-day cooling-off period and are free to engage in self help. The reinstatement of Captain Tamkin was as a result of the System Board decision and is independent of and a separate and distinct process from the court injunction decision.
We are one year out of a contract and the current CEO appears to be no different than Glenn Tilton, so why is there no discernible action?
Answer: Although it may appear that there is no discernible action, actually a lot is taking place. Both ALPA and UAL have passed complete contract proposals across the table, we have settled some sections of the contract (of course, not the main ones), a Federal mediator has been appointed, and the company has agreed to continue negotiations prior to the Federal mediator's first meeting with us. Members of the JNC have been meeting with the company this week.
Why is there an easing into this merger when we, as the stronger carrier, seem to be getting the short end of things already? As an example, flying shifting to Houston, although flown by us for now.
Answer: Under the terms of the merger agreed to by the boards of directors of United and Continental, Continental CEO Jeffrey Smisek was appointed CEO of the new United Airlines. In the United States (in contrast to Germany, for example) management has free rein to make all decisions except those that are explicitly defined in labor agreements.
We want details! Exactly what offer is on management’s desk. I've been an ALPA member for 20 years, 3 airlines, 13 years at United. We never know what is going on until the contract gets signed! Or so it seems ...
Answer: We get asked this question all the time, and our answer is always the same: It is MEC policy not to negotiate in public, because this MEC (and all preceding MECs) have made the decision that broadcasting our negotiating positions is counterproductive towards our goal of getting an industry-leading contract.
Imagine you are on a layover someplace in Asia, Beijing for example. It's right before Christmas and you've been given a long list of things to buy for family and friends. Along with some other pilots and flight attendants, you go into one of the endless warren-like bazaars full of stalls selling the usual knock-off crap. At a stall recommended by everybody else you see something that's on your list, something you're prepared to pay $5 for. You ask the merchant how much, and the merchant responds: "Ah! You are United pilot! For you, best price! $40!" Do you then run back to your crew and say "That nasty man wants to charge me $40 for something that's only worth $5!"? No, you merely laugh and say, "You must be joking! I was thinking more like 50 cents!" Eventually you settle on a price, or not, but the key to success is that you MUST be prepared to walk away. The more the merchant senses that you want something, the higher the price will be.
Of course, our negotiations are much more complicated than that, but the process is essentially the same. At the moment we have made our initial offers to each other ("50 cents!" "40 dollars!"). But how close will the result of the negotiations be to our initial "ask" or the company's initial "ask" is impossible to say.
However, unlike in the Asian bazaar example, exactly HOW our ALPA-UAL negotiations take place is strictly governed by the RLA, and it's the NMB who will say when we can walk away. So it's a very delicate process with many nuances that cannot be shared without damaging the process.
People always get mad at us when we say that we all must understand the RLA in order to gain insight into the process. And here's why: The RLA was enacted by the Congress in 1926 in an effort to end the constant labor strife in the railway industry, and the RLA's primary purpose is to minimize disruptions to the nation's commerce by making it very difficult for transportation unions to go on strike. But, recognizing that some method of dispute resolution is necessary, the RLA set up a framework for negotiating disputes (e.g. contract negotiations). That is the framework that we must follow, but it is the reason that, so often, contract negotiations drag on for years. In contrast, countries that are more labor-union-friendly than the United States do permit legal strikes to occur much more easily, and, in my opinion, union members in those countries generally have relatively better contracts as a result.
In our specific case, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that our negotiations will drag out for years. There is a lot of incentive to expeditiously negotiate a new contract, and management has acknowledged this. Management has the positive example of the success of Delta Airlines and the negative example of the mess at US Airways as signposts. We will continue to negotiate per the RLA procedures, but we don't know how long the process will take, and we have to let it unfold.
It's the three people that make up the NMB (two from the party in the White House, one not) who have the legal authority to release the parties into a 30-day cooling off period. Their decision must be done in accordance with the RLA, of which its primary purpose is to minimize disruptions to commerce. At the moment the two Democratic members of the NMB are former TWA-ALPA MEC Chairman Harry Hoglander and former AFA President Linda Puchala. We couldn't ask for a more sympathetic NMB, but regardless of how sympathetic they may be, they are bound by the rules of the RLA. It's the job of our ALPA negotiators to make the best, most reasoned, most disciplined case possible to the NMB mediator, because he reports to the NMB. Since Obama took office Alaska and Hawaiian have both negotiated good contracts, and Spirit was permitted to go on strike, also achieving a good contract. So there are a lot of positive signs for us to get an excellent contract sooner rather than later.
