Fences...So how do we do it?

[AAA#6]

This is a conceptual thread only. Just figuring we can stop bikering and be a little more creative to solving the problems. No shouting. No BK talk. No Zanizbar talk. We have all talked about fair/no fair. How about a real thread to put our conceptual thoughts together?

Let's face it AAA wants an agreement that is more fair.
AWA believes they have a fair agreement. Since AWA would be the one to have to agree to any outside terms they are most likely gonna want some guarantees of their own. Both sides want to capture growth, and both sides deserve that growth. Both sides have given to the merger. Both sides have sacrificed in their own way. Both sides have excellent and talented pilots. We need to make it work.

My thoughts only (as flawed as they may be..and I am trying to filter out bias ):It's not realistic to figure that AWA would just capitulate to AAA demands. Business is business when it comes to this award. So if the two were to come to the table and you were tasked to solve it....what would your idea be?

1. What is AAA willing to give up? Guarantees?
2. What does AWA get in return?
3. How about an attrition ratio for future upgrades?
5. What about growth aircraft upgrade guarantees?
6. What about the furloughs? MDA pilots?
7. What about new future domicile staffings?
8. What about a settlement on a ratio to upgrades?
(ie.Upgrades are awarded on a ratio basis like the E190 agreement. You don't have to have fences if upgrades are awarded on a ratio basis. Because nobody knows where Scott and Doug will put the a/c.)

I think the whole problem with the fence idea is that nobody is addressing future growth aircraft 5-20 years out?

So is AAA/AWA willing to deal?

Signed
AWA Pilot
P#XXXX
2XXXXX
PHX

 

[AAA#6]

Sorry for #1 and #2. They basically ask the same thing. I am not trying to look like a double dipper here

I hope you get the jist.

 

[exB717Flyer]

First of all, great post! It's refreshing to see a pragmatic, realistic opinion. We will eventually be a combined group and need to start acting like it.

I posted this on another thead but it's relevent here. Bold print added by me.

From the AWA MEC Chairman:

June 7, 2007

Fellow pilots,

Last night, I sent out an autodialer message as a special update for all America West pilots and their families. It read as follows:

“This afternoon, MEC Vice Chairman Mitch Vasin and I met with ALPA President John Prater and the US Airways MEC leadership in Washington. Captain Prater delivered the message that he wants the MECs to immediately engage in a process to utilize the JNC and other parties to explore fences and other career progression provisions. I have discussed this with the MEC and we are unified in our message. No Thank you. We will respectfully decline Captain Prater’s immediate request. Our MEC is quite willing to engage in any process that gets our pilots closer to a joint contract, but only after ALPA has made it clear that it will not set aside or review the Nicolau Award. Your MEC is unwilling to enter into those discussions while there remains any threat that ALPA will do anything other than comply fully and properly with its obligations under Merger Policy – namely defend the Award and present it to management.

As always, please continue to fly safe and secure.â€

At the meeting, the message I delivered was the same that was delivered to ALPA’s Executive Council in May. ALPA’s merger policy is clear – the arbitration panel’s decision is final and binding on all parties and we expect ALPA to defend this award. We expect that ALPA’s Executive Council will reconvene at the end of June and we also expect ALPA to effect the presentation of this Award to US Airways CEO Doug Parker and defend this award using all available resources. I have also asked our outside merger counsel, Jeff Freund, to begin reviewing all our legal options to ensure we carefully protect the interests of the America West pilots. The letter I sent to Captain Prater this afternoon responding to his invitation is attached.

I am pleased to announce that the AAA MEC clearly expressed that they are willing to continue to address both our pilot groups mutual collective bargaining concerns and continue the JNC process. To that end, the east and west JNC members have secured additional dates for the JNC process starting July 10 and going through the remainder of the summer. Additionally, I remain hopeful that we can find additional dates. To that end, the AWA MEC has authorized me to continue in the JNC process with the goal being that we can achieve a ratifiable tentative agreement by the fall.

To me this means that we are open to discussions once the the Award is accepted by all. I would support such discussions. No idea what kind of deal could be reached but that's what our JNC is for.

 

[ussnark]

I think the whole problem with the fence idea is that nobody is addressing future growth aircraft 5-20 years out?

Future growth is not guaranteed, ever. In fact, the way Tempe is "managing", I would expect a reduction in headcount over and above normal attrition, soon.

What you should be addressing is the likelihood (certainty, the way the AAA MEC chairman and ALPA Natl are acting) of another merger. Can one say, UAL, CAL?

There is a darn good reason why a "break-from-ALPA" group at UAL is quickly gaining members. Some tell me they do not want what happened to US to happen to them. Not the DOH thing, they got that knocked, but a fence that seems to be virtually knocked down before implementation on the US property, indicating a major weakness on the part of ALPA.

The "award", as it stands, is so flawed that to talk compromise at this stage reveals really stupidly ignorant negotiating skills. Would that we had no kittens and cry-babies on the property, but, I guess it is something we must live with. There should be no talk of compromise, for years. If you accept the "award", then you do not understand the consequences of it.

ALPA support for the award undermines every established ALPA carrier who could merge with any number of startups. Perhaps a Virgin America. Mr. Branson/Mr. Allen could likely buy a merger with US with pocket change.

 

[Freighterguynow]

How about a 10 year fence on attrition just for the current equipment types and domiciles? AWA F/O captures AWA retirement - AAA same.

Growth and new equipment/ domiciles open to all from day 1.

 

[Crzipilot]

10 yrs??? How 'bout long enough for all on list to retire?

 

[Thankyou]

10 yrs??? How 'bout long enough for all on list to retire?

How about you fly your express plane, and feel lucky to have slipped in the back door?

 

[SkyRat]

How about a 10 year fence on attrition just for the current equipment types and domiciles? AWA F/O captures AWA retirement - AAA same.

Growth and new equipment/ domiciles open to all from day 1.

WOW! For 18 months both parties met, and all TRIPLE (bet) A could/would say was what? DOH.

They BOTH agree to go into binding arbitration, signed on the dotted line knowing that the Nic's award was BINDING and final!!

Period... Too late now. Don't wasted your resources.

AAA all or nothing SUCKS haaa? :rant:

 

[Bob Loblaw]

AAA#6,

Hopefully you will get some good suggestions. However, one thing wrong with your premise: the arbitration decision is not an agreement. Neither side agreed to the parameters of the decision but they did agree to submit their failure to negotiate an agreement to a third party for abjudication. The issue at hand is how do both sides determine the avenues to modify that decision?

If there is a legal avenue to modify the award with mutual consent then one of the first things I would like to see on the table is the dismissal of the top 517 AAA pilots having exclusive right to that seniority level of flying. I'll leave it to others to put a counterproposal on the table in order to start the discussions.

 

[AWA320]

AAA#6,

Hopefully you will get some good suggestions. However, one thing wrong with your premise: the arbitration decision is not an agreement. Neither side agreed to the parameters of the decision but they did agree to submit their failure to negotiate an agreement to a third party for abjudication. The issue at hand is how do both sides determine the avenues to modify that decision?

If there is a legal avenue to modify the award with mutual consent then one of the first things I would like to see on the table is the dismissal of the top 517 AAA pilots having exclusive right to that seniority level of flying. I'll leave it to others to put a counterproposal on the table in order to start the discussions.

Bob,

You are correct, there is no second bite at the apple. The parties agreed to this arb and it's being binding. The east has nothing to offer in the way of any after the fact deals and if they were serious about any deals it would have come in the beginning!!!

Let the truth come out here, they didn't want deals before and shouldn't come begging now. They have nothing at all of any value to the AWA pilots to offer in the way of deals now.

ALPA's handling of this up to now has shown a complete lack of leadership. There is nothing in section 45 that states after a BINDING arbitration we go back to the tables because one side, the bone headed side is not happy. This would not be happening if AWA had UNITED, NORTHWEST, DELTA or Continental written on the side of our a/c.

John Prater's handling of this is certain to ensure he is a one term president, or less!!!!

Let the biggest DFR case in alpa history begin...

 

[Hawkhunter]

Bob,

You are correct, there is no second bite at the apple. The parties agreed to this arb and it's being binding. The east has nothing to offer in the way of any after the fact deals and if they were serious about any deals it would have come in the beginning!!!

Let the truth come out here, they didn't want deals before and shouldn't come begging now. They have nothing at all of any value to the AWA pilots to offer in the way of deals now.

ALPA's handling of this up to now has shown a complete lack of leadership. There is nothing in section 45 that states after a BINDING arbitration we go back to the tables because one side, the bone headed side is not happy. This would not be happening if AWA had UNITED, NORTHWEST, DELTA or Continental written on the side of our a/c.

John Prater's handling of this is certain to ensure he is a one term president, or less!!!!

Let the biggest DFR case in alpa history begin...

Here we go again, the broken record man speaks. How about we not post any Ideas anymore since you wont budge and we wont budge either. In your eyes the windfall is fair and in ours it is totally unfair. It will be a long time bubba until you steal our seats. I hope ALPO agrees with the list then we can get out. I have been wanting to decertify for many years. Remember this bubba, you westies have a lot more to lose than we do. Are you calling us bone heads? I am so hurt.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

In your eyes the windfall is fair and in ours it is totally unfair.

Hawk,

The crux of the issue seems to be that the decision is invalid because it violated one of the merger policy tenets. That is a valid issue. That issue should be answered first before ALPA tries to open up the decision for modification. I'm totally OK with the fact that the east wants clarification and/or an appeal of the award. Are there provisions for that? Who holds that authority? Let's answer that first. It seems the EC is jumping ahead of itself by trying to get both sides to modify the decision before we have a hearing on the validity of the decision as it relates to the windfall issue first. I don't know the legal recourse to have a decision clarified or to appeal. Let's get through that issue first before we all agree that all of us are scumbags.

Bob

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

The way the EC and Prater are handling this isn't doing anyone any good. There are a hundred different ways to interpret darn near all of it. I don't think the EC or Prater even know what they are doing.

Step one should be deciding whether or not it can be thrown out. Period. Once that is figured out, we'll deal with it, all of us.

I agree with the West Mec's position, not to be cold hearted or in the East's face, but rather because this no mans land stuff is bogus.

On the thread topic specifically, put it on ice until step one is figured out.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Step one should be deciding whether or not it can be thrown out. Period. Once that is figured out, we'll deal with it, all of us.

I agree with the West Mec's position, not to be cold hearted or in the East's face, but rather because this no mans land stuff is bogus.

On the thread topic specifically, put it on ice until step one is figured out.

Step one is already clear: the Award cannot be thrown out unless there is some exceptional procedural defect, which in this case there wasn't. ALPA policy is clear that once the two parties themselves can't agree as to a fair integration, then the issue goes to the arbitrator and two neutrals to decide. There is no discretion reserved for ALPA to judge the substantive content of the Award. What's taken place over the last month is really a calculated effort to get past the hysteria stage and move into the the acceptance stage. I think Prater has done more to create a dangerous precedent for future integrations and at the same time did nothing to help the present situation, but the idea of waiting a month or so is probably not a fatal mistake for ALPA. It's more of problem for Prater himself and his diminishing credibility, but that is a different matter. As the cooling progresses and rationality begins to return, many will be able to see the cold legal reality that the time for negotiation has long passed; that a binding arbitration award under these circumstances could NEVER be overturned; and that whatever options are available, overturning the award is not one of them. If the East feels they're better off without ALPA, then call Johnny Mac - he has the decertification experience.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Aqua,

Step one should be clear, but it isn't. I agree with you. But who is to say that the EC won't throw it out and face whatever consequences that brings?

That is my point in saying "this no mans land." It truly is bogus.