ALPA/USAPA topic of the week 2/13-2/19

[Edward]

Continue here the other thread is closed.

 

[end_of_alpa]

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=572033

Aquagreen said:

The transition agreement survives, as does the arbitration. The issue is successorship under the RLA versus the NLRA. Burns is an NLRA case and was subsequently distinguished in later RLA cases, all of which had the opposite holding of Burns. Why? Because the RLA has different concerns and requires a contrary holding to Burns. That's not my opinion, but comes from the post-Burns cases themselves. One case in particular has a detailed discussion as to the policy reasons for the the RLA law to be contrapositive with NLRA law when it comes to CBA successorship. However, the u-sap plan might work if this were an NLRA matter, but then again Burns comes from a different era and I would bet that should that issue arise again, the Supreme Court would reverse it. Burns arguably puts managements at a disadvantage. Putting management at a disadvantage is not necessarily a bad thing IMO, but the current Court is not exactly labor friendly and a management-appellant would certainly have the ears of four justices. Interestingly, the issue of successorship rarely arises in either the NLRA or under the RLA but I suppose that is not surprising given the fact that CBAs don't change very often and when they do, they don't try to repudiate agreements. In any case, whether Burns would be reversed nowadays is immaterial. Heck, this probably won't even reach a vote given the toal screw-up and last minute mea culpa to the NMB last week. In any case, the worst for the West would have been a cave and fortunately the line held. Henceforth there won't be any time nor any reasonable excuses for another steering committee where the West could once again be laid on pretty heavily to cave. If there is an election and if usapa becomes the CBA, then they have the impossible task of literally rewriting RLA case law. Don't believe me, then just go to your local law library, log on to Westlaw, and keycite Burns. You'll see a number of yellow flags pop up which means the case has been distinguished. Scroll through some of those yellow flags and you'll see for yourself - the RLA and the NLRA are very different when it comes to successorship.

Provide the citation. If that is too secret what court?

 

[tripnic1]

This is from a closed thread, and WAS generating some discussion so I moved it here. First part is my post but the majority of it was given to me by a friend that CLAIMS to have some insight into things. If you worked under parity plus, sit down and take a nitro pill before you read it.

TripNic

his is from my friend "The Fence Sitter." Interesting read, if you can keep your blood pressure from skyrocketing too high. I can't vouch for it's origin, but I can say that USAPA can handle the critisim.

-TripNic-


HR Bill 2764

Just as the change to age 60 retirements totally changed the attrition landscape, a recent bill that was signed into law has further eroded any support for changing unions in attempt to change history. H.R. 2764 which was signed into law by the President on December 26th, 2007 is now Public Law No: 110-161. The bill is 613 pages long, but I have done you the favor of pasting the relevant portion for you below:

SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION. (a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With
respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered
air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes
that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.),
sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by
the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as
published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered
employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the
combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers,
that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding
integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede
the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement
that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving
covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected
by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered
by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-
Mohawk provisions.



Oops! There’s that dag-burn Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protection Provisions ( AMLPPs) thing again! But wait, let’s first take a look at the new law above and digest what it means. First, it says if there’s an airline merger, then the seniority lists should be combined using AM LPPs, UNLESS the same collective bargaining agent represents the affected groups. The law then says that if the employee groups ARE represented by the same collective bargaining agents, that those agent’s merger policies shall be follow so long as they allow for the same protections afforded by AMLPPs. In other words, the new law states: Merged seniority lists shall at a minimum seek to provide AMLPPs, but may be subject to collective bargaining policies that add additional goals & protections.

USAPA MERGER POLICY (OR THE LACK THEREOF)

Let’s take a look at the Merger policy from the USAPA Constitution and By-Laws (downloaded from their web-site on January 25th, 2007). Ready…here it is: [ ]. Did you blink? You could weld your eyelids open and that still would not increase your chances of seeing it. THEY DON’T HAVE ONE. Please, pick up the USAPA Constitution and By-Laws and turn to the Merger section. Ooops…did you get to the back cover without finding anything? Yes, yes, there’s some vauge reference in Section 8. Objectives of the USAPA to provide “seniroity based on date of hire with reasonable conditions and restrictions…, but that HARDLY amounts to a merger policy.

Take another look at the new law above, the authors anticipated that collective bargaining agents would have merger policies in place. Even the three-paragraph legislation is a better merger policy that what is contained in thirdy-odd pages of the USAPA CB&Ls. The lawmakers at least considered who’d share the cost of determining the seniority list --half of the cost is born by the merger parties and the other half by the pilots. Under USAPA’s lack- of-policy it looks like the pilots will have to cover all the expenses. Great plan.

Next up for your consideration is USAPA’s assertion that you have to leave ALPA in order to take advantage of the AMLPPs. WRONG! Read the LAW again…AMLPPs are the bare minimum that must be achieved. So, in effect you start with AMLPPs and add on any of the policies that your collective bargaining agent have in place. You don’t have to leave USAPA to take advantage of the new law. Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions are the now baseline protections for all mergers.

ALLEGHENY-MOHAWK LABOR PROTECTION PROVISIONS

So, just what are the AMLPPS? . As you are (hopefully) aware; The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) routinely imposed LPPs in the 1950s and 60s in airline mergers and, in its 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk decision, formalized a standard set of LPPs granting specific forms of financial aid and other rights to employees affected by a CAB-approved merger. There are 13 sections in the provisions which cover things such as severance pay, relocation cost, and so forth. However, only sections 3 and 13 are germane to our discusssion today. After deregulation, the CAB announced that it would no longer require LPPs as a matter of course, but only under special circumstances. When the Department of Transportation (DOT) acquired jurisdiction over the airline mergers in 1985, it reiterated the policy against LPPs and consistently rejected requests for their imposition. The DOT has repeatedly stated that mandatory LPPs are inconsistent with deregulation and that if employees want merger protections they should obtain them through collective bargaining. Accordingly, airline unions have routinely negotiated merger and succession provisions into their labor contracts.

Much has been written about the AMLPPS, and a lot has been said about what they mean. I’ve quoted them for you below, try not to be disappointed in how little they really say!

Section 3. Insofar as the acquisition or merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers’ employees, provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the carriers and representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section 13.

Section 13 (a). In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing the employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.
(cool.gif The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method for dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selecting of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all the parties.

So, there you have them, in all of their (lacking) glory. Bored once you get to cruise? Try finding a definition of “Fair & Equitable†in the above provisions. That should last you from Philadelphia to San Francisco. For your return trip, try finding the same thing in the USAPA CB&Ls. The only thing that comes close is the ALPA Merger and Fragmentation policy which states in it’s Preamble:
“It must be understood that what appears to be truly “fair and equitable†often differs depending upon the eyes of the beholder and that there may be no consensus of what is “fair and equitable.â€

I guess if there is any common ground between us and the Phoenican Phlyers it’s that we can agree that we can’t agree on what is fair and equitable.

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN

Anybody else see an erie similarity between Section 13 of the AMLPPS and what we’ve had take place at US Airways? Tick…tick…tick…tick. So, please tell me how using AMLPPS would result in a list any different than the one ALPA came up with? It’s virtually the SAME policy, except that ALPA’s merger policy has quite a few more goals in it. So what about USAPA’s Merger policy? Oh yeah, THERE ISN’T ONE! And even if they come up with one, it is now subject to Public LAW 110-161…which says (in effect) you gotta at least provice AMLPPS. I think you can start to see how riduculously circular and self-serving the USAPA argument is! It can’t promise anything that is appreciably different than the present ALPA Merger and Fragmentation policy! In fact, as we will see below in the side by side comparison, USAPA represents even less than the bare mimimun that is required by LAW!

SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON

Finally, why don’t we do a side by side comparison of the merger policies: ALPA, Allegheny-Mohawk, and USAPA.
ALPA Merger & Fragementation Policy Allegheny-Mohawk Sections 3 & 13 USAPA Consitution and By-Laws
“Fair and Equitableâ€
Integration as a goal? YES YES NO
Attempts to avoid windfalls? YES NO NO
Attempts to account for Pre-merger Career Expectations? YES NO YES
Attempts to Maintain Pre-merger pay and standard of living? YES NO NO
Attempts to Maintain Pre-merger Pilot Status? YES NO NO
Establishes timeline and process for seniority integration? YES YES NO
Establishes Mediation and Arbitration process in the event of stalled negotiations? YES YES NO
Dictates how cost of seniority integration process will be paid for? YES YES NO
Final and Binding? YES YES NO

THE UNITERESTED PARTY TEST

Here’s an idea. I call it the Uninterested Party Test. Grab your buddy from high school that never had the poor judgment to become and airline pilot and hand him this document. Ask him to look over the table above. Tell him he get’s to choose one of the policies…just like he were picking his medical plan. Don’t confuse the issue with how OUR list ended up, or obsfucate the issue with USAPA or ALPA rhetoric. Just have him read, and then ask him what his choice would be. I think his answer will be enlightening.

We’re so pissed off about Nicolau, ALPA National, and Douggie that we’re about to cut off our noses to spite our face: AGAIN. Take a step back from the edge. Compare your options side by side. Talk to your spouse. Talk to your friends at other airlines, talk to your friends that have NOTHING to do with airlines.

So what is a 20 year FO to do in times like these? Vote ALPA off the property because they SUCK?!? Yeah, that would sure make us feel good; for about the next four months. Then, we’ll realize we just voted the largest pilot’s union in the world off the property. The emotion will have died down to just below a fever pitch and we’ll all realize that nothing has changed…and in fact it will probably be WORSE, since Delta will have teamed up with Northwest ,and US Airways will once again be looking to merge in order to survive. So, we’ll grab our USAPA CB&L’s to look over the Merger section and then remember: WE DON’T HAVE ONE. Ouch.

Signed,
Your Beacon of Truth
(with a little help from my friends)

 

[sharktooth]

Signed,
Your Beacon of Truth
(with a little help from my friends)

Your "Beacon of Truth" needs a lot of help from his one or two friends (He has that many?)

USAPA has proposed the language you have read. Until USAPA is voted in, then the C&BLs are voted on, what you quoted has as much relevance as any general guideline.

Your friend needs a history lesson of ALPA on the US property over the last eight years. At no time did the pilot group ever cut off their noses to spit their faces because 57% of them were too damn busy burying their heads in the sand or cleaning the bottom parts of their trousers while running away. It would be an indication of change if the pilot group finally did get to that point where they could. It seems, with USAPA, that the pilot group is willing to try something different, finally.

Your "Beacon of Truth" sets up an "Uninterested Party Test", as if all things are equal when, in fact, they are not. There is a lot of dirty baggage that must accompany ALPA's story as well as the fact that you are treating this issue as caused by Merger Policy, when the unresolved dirty baggage is the reason ALPA, "the biggest union on the planet", I guess, is about to be dumped.

Tell your friend to look around before pontificating again. Reality may well be hard work but is so much more satisfying in the end.

 

[end_of_alpa]

USAPA "merger" policy is negotiated in the contract. ALPA merger policy is negotiated in ALPA, between ALPA represented carriers. IF ONE carrier is NOT ALPA then A-M LPP's apply. The REASON A-M LPP's are better is because an NMB "ruling" looks like this: http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2008/35n020.pdf. They use the same methods that NORMAL COURTS OF LAW USE..."Stare Decisis". It looks like a court ruling, it smells like one, it sounds like one, it tastes like one and it feels like one. These are often called COMMON LAW COURTS. However, the NMB acts as a court of equity but their descisions have the "feel" of common law in their rulings. They MAKE SENSE.

Now COMPARE this ruling to the Nicolau ruling: "That each case turns on its OWN facts" Thie is Judge Roy Bean LAW!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean

An arbitrator ruling with UNLIMITED, FINAL power and NO STANDARD of review has NO PLACE IN ANY COURT OF LAW. These are most commonly known as "equitable" decisions. "....where plaintiff requests an injunction, declaratory judgment, specific performance or modification of contract, or other non-monetary relief, the claim would usually be one in equity."

The best comparison between "common law courts" and "equitable" courts can be found here, if your interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29

Look, we're having a vote, and the reason we are is because of ONE THING....THERE IS NO MINIMUM STANDARD the arbitrator used to protect the jobs brought by East pilots. This "ruling" cuts across the grain of fundamental union principle. SLOTTING is NOT UNIONISM....it carries the SAME effect on length of service that age sixty does. Years of service are AGE correlative. The MAJORITY has a RIGHT to protect IT'S MAJORITY of AGE over the WANTS of the MINORITY of those with LESSER years of service. IT is only NATURAL! It is AGE discriminatory...and the ONLY reason to have a union is to preserve THEIR (EMPLOYEES) INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO VOTE under Title VII Civil Rights Act...THE RIGHT TO VOTE. VOTING TRUMPS ARBITRATION CLAIMS...as follows:

"In Gardner-Denver , the Supreme Court considered whether an employee who had pursued arbitration of a racial discrimination claim under a CBA was thereby precluded from later asserting a Title VII claim based upon the same facts. The Supreme Court held that "there can be no prospective waiver of an employee's rights under Title VII." Because Title VII provides each individual with the right to be free of invidious discrimination (AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE), "the rights conferred can form no part of the collective bargaining process since waiver of these rights would defeat the paramount congressional purpose behind Title VII." Therefore, although the union could and did prospectively waive the employee's right to sue upon (rather than arbitrate) his claim of discrimination in violation of the CBA, the employee's resort to arbitration of this claim did not preclude him from suing upon his statutory claim of discrimination.

The Supreme Court also rejected the suggestion that a court should dismiss a Title VII claim if the facts underlying it had already been the subject of arbitration under a CBA that prohibited, and provided a remedy for, the discrimination. According to the Court, arbitral processes were inferior to judicial processes for protecting statutory rights, and the Congress intended the federal courts to exercise final responsibility over Title VII claims. The Court was particularly concerned that a union, which ordinarily controls the arbitration of an employee's claim, might, if allowed, compromise the would-be Title VII plaintiff's statutory rights: "In arbitration, as in the collective-bargaining process, the interests of the individual employee may be subordinated to the collective interests of all employees in the bargaining unit."

In short, the "final and binding" arbitration that so often gets bantered about here does NOT PRECLUDE the STATUTORY right to HAVE A DEMOCRATIC VOTE to accept or reject a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The courts will NOT RULE against the FUNDAMENTAL TITLE VII RIGHT TO A UNION VOTE over an Arbitrative claim of minority interests unless that minority can also claim an argument under the same Act as a discriminatory claim based on "color, sex, age, infirmity, religion, etc." This WILL BE A LITMUS TEST CASE for ALPA and I, for one, AM GLAD USAPA IS LEADING THE CHARGE!

ALPA has, for TOO LONG, allowed discrimination based on age and years of service to go on for TOO LONG. It's about time someone stood for PRINCIPLE....and USAPA IS DOING JUST THAT!

 

[Leonidas]

USAPA has proposed the language you have read. Until USAPA is voted in, then the C&BLs are voted on, what you quoted has as much relevance as any general guideline.

Your friend needs a history lesson of ALPA on the US property over the last eight years. At no time did the pilot group ever cut off their noses to spit their faces because 57% of them were too damn busy burying their heads in the sand or cleaning the bottom parts of their trousers while running away. It would be an indication of change if the pilot group finally did get to that point where they could. It seems, with USAPA, that the pilot group is willing to try something different, finally.

Your "Beacon of Truth" sets up an "Uninterested Party Test", as if all things are equal when, in fact, they are not. There is a lot of dirty baggage that must accompany ALPA's story as well as the fact that you are treating this issue as caused by Merger Policy, when the unresolved dirty baggage is the reason ALPA, "the biggest union on the planet", I guess, is about to be dumped.

Tell your friend to look around before pontificating again. Reality may well be hard work but is so much more satisfying in the end.
[/quote]

Hmm so you have no response, so you attack the messenger instead of rebuffing the message with fact, typical zealot.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Hmm so you have no response, so you attack the messenger instead of rebuffing the message with fact, typical zealot.

I think he did respond to the message. You just chose to ignore it. To sling an insult serves what purpose? What's your point?

 

[Leonidas]

I think he did respond to the message. You just chose to ignore it. To sling an insult serves what purpose? What's your point?

My point is that you guys can't make a cohesive argument to defend your position, the new law on mergers doesn't specify doh/los, yet usapa has you convinced that it does, the bottom line is under A+M you have to live with what an arbitrator rules, and los/doh is not mentioned anywhere under section 13. Show me where it says doh/los will be a determing factor?

"Section 13 (a). In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing the employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties."

 

[tripnic1]

Just looking for perspective. Thanks for the post end_of_alpa, there's at least some stuff for me to consider instead of the typical insults.

-Tripnic-

 

[end_of_alpa]

This is from a closed thread, and WAS generating some discussion so I moved it here. First part is my post but the majority of it was given to me by a friend that CLAIMS to have some insight into things. If you worked under parity plus, sit down and take a nitro pill before you read it.

TripNic

his is from my friend "The Fence Sitter." Interesting read, if you can keep your blood pressure from skyrocketing too high. I can't vouch for it's origin, but I can say that USAPA can handle the critisim.

-TripNic-


HR Bill 2764

Just as the change to age 60 retirements totally changed the attrition landscape, a recent bill that was signed into law has further eroded any support for changing unions in attempt to change history. H.R. 2764 which was signed into law by the President on December 26th, 2007 is now Public Law No: 110-161. The bill is 613 pages long, but I have done you the favor of pasting the relevant portion for you below:

SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION. (a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With
respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered
air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes
that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.),
sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by
the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as
published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered
employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the
combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers,
that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding
integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede
the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement
that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving
covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected
by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered
by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-
Mohawk provisions.



Oops! There’s that dag-burn Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protection Provisions ( AMLPPs) thing again! But wait, let’s first take a look at the new law above and digest what it means. First, it says if there’s an airline merger, then the seniority lists should be combined using AM LPPs, UNLESS the same collective bargaining agent represents the affected groups. The law then says that if the employee groups ARE represented by the same collective bargaining agents, that those agent’s merger policies shall be follow so long as they allow for the same protections afforded by AMLPPs. In other words, the new law states: Merged seniority lists shall at a minimum seek to provide AMLPPs, but may be subject to collective bargaining policies that add additional goals & protections.

USAPA merger policy is printed the answer in your post:

"The DOT has repeatedly stated that mandatory LPPs are inconsistent with deregulation and that if employees want merger protections they should obtain them through collective bargaining. Accordingly, airline unions have routinely negotiated merger and succession provisions into their labor contracts."

A-M LPP is also currently found in our current agreement...when ALPA merger policy is not used.

USAPA MERGER POLICY (OR THE LACK THEREOF)

Let’s take a look at the Merger policy from the USAPA Constitution and By-Laws (downloaded from their web-site on January 25th, 2007). Ready…here it is: [ ]. Did you blink? You could weld your eyelids open and that still would not increase your chances of seeing it. THEY DON’T HAVE ONE. Please, pick up the USAPA Constitution and By-Laws and turn to the Merger section. Ooops…did you get to the back cover without finding anything? Yes, yes, there’s some vauge reference in Section 8. Objectives of the USAPA to provide “seniroity based on date of hire with reasonable conditions and restrictions…, but that HARDLY amounts to a merger policy.

Take another look at the new law above, the authors anticipated that collective bargaining agents would have merger policies in place. Even the three-paragraph legislation is a better merger policy that what is contained in thirdy-odd pages of the USAPA CB&Ls. The lawmakers at least considered who’d share the cost of determining the seniority list --half of the cost is born by the merger parties and the other half by the pilots. Under USAPA’s lack- of-policy it looks like the pilots will have to cover all the expenses. Great plan.

Next up for your consideration is USAPA’s assertion that you have to leave ALPA in order to take advantage of the AMLPPs. WRONG! Read the LAW again…AMLPPs are the bare minimum that must be achieved. So, in effect you start with AMLPPs and add on any of the policies that your collective bargaining agent have in place. You don’t have to leave USAPA to take advantage of the new law. Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions are the now baseline protections for all mergers.

ALLEGHENY-MOHAWK LABOR PROTECTION PROVISIONS

So, just what are the AMLPPS? . As you are (hopefully) aware; The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) routinely imposed LPPs in the 1950s and 60s in airline mergers and, in its 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk decision, formalized a standard set of LPPs granting specific forms of financial aid and other rights to employees affected by a CAB-approved merger. There are 13 sections in the provisions which cover things such as severance pay, relocation cost, and so forth. However, only sections 3 and 13 are germane to our discusssion today. After deregulation, the CAB announced that it would no longer require LPPs as a matter of course, but only under special circumstances. When the Department of Transportation (DOT) acquired jurisdiction over the airline mergers in 1985, it reiterated the policy against LPPs and consistently rejected requests for their imposition. The DOT has repeatedly stated that mandatory LPPs are inconsistent with deregulation and that if employees want merger protections they should obtain them through collective bargaining. Accordingly, airline unions have routinely negotiated merger and succession provisions into their labor contracts.

Much has been written about the AMLPPS, and a lot has been said about what they mean. I’ve quoted them for you below, try not to be disappointed in how little they really say!

Section 3. Insofar as the acquisition or merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers’ employees, provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the carriers and representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section 13.

Section 13 (a). In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing the employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.
(cool.gif The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method for dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selecting of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all the parties.

So far, so good.

So, there you have them, in all of their (lacking) glory. Bored once you get to cruise? Try finding a definition of “Fair & Equitable†in the above provisions. That should last you from Philadelphia to San Francisco. For your return trip, try finding the same thing in the USAPA CB&Ls. The only thing that comes close is the ALPA Merger and Fragmentation policy which states in it’s Preamble:
“It must be understood that what appears to be truly “fair and equitable†often differs depending upon the eyes of the beholder and that there may be no consensus of what is “fair and equitable.â€

I guess if there is any common ground between us and the Phoenican Phlyers it’s that we can agree that we can’t agree on what is fair and equitable.

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN

Anybody else see an erie similarity between Section 13 of the AMLPPS and what we’ve had take place at US Airways? Tick…tick…tick…tick. So, please tell me how using AMLPPS would result in a list any different than the one ALPA came up with? It’s virtually the SAME policy, except that ALPA’s merger policy has quite a few more goals in it. So what about USAPA’s Merger policy? Oh yeah, THERE ISN’T ONE! And even if they come up with one, it is now subject to Public LAW 110-161…which says (in effect) you gotta at least provice AMLPPS. I think you can start to see how riduculously circular and self-serving the USAPA argument is! It can’t promise anything that is appreciably different than the present ALPA Merger and Fragmentation policy! In fact, as we will see below in the side by side comparison, USAPA represents even less than the bare mimimun that is required by LAW!

SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON

Finally, why don’t we do a side by side comparison of the merger policies: ALPA, Allegheny-Mohawk, and USAPA.
ALPA Merger & Fragementation Policy Allegheny-Mohawk Sections 3 & 13 USAPA Consitution and By-Laws
“Fair and Equitableâ€
Integration as a goal? YES YES NO
Attempts to avoid windfalls? YES NO NO
Attempts to account for Pre-merger Career Expectations? YES NO YES
Attempts to Maintain Pre-merger pay and standard of living? YES NO NO
Attempts to Maintain Pre-merger Pilot Status? YES NO NO
Establishes timeline and process for seniority integration? YES YES NO
Establishes Mediation and Arbitration process in the event of stalled negotiations? YES YES NO
Dictates how cost of seniority integration process will be paid for? YES YES NO
Final and Binding? YES YES NO

As far as the "assertions" in the side by side comparison...these "goals" have nothing to do with how the Arbitrator decides...PERIOD. The Arbitrator HAS NO GOALS other than what he THINKS.

ALPA Merger Policy Section 45, Part 1, G, 5 states:

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.

The Arbitrator has nothing to do with these items. the Arbitrator HAS NO LIMITS. Hecould have just as easily STAPLED ALL PILOTS FROM ONE GROUP AS HE COULD OF ANOTHER. PERIOD. THE TERMS OF THE MERGER POLICY WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN MET.

THE UNITERESTED PARTY TEST

Here’s an idea. I call it the Uninterested Party Test. Grab your buddy from high school that never had the poor judgment to become and airline pilot and hand him this document. Ask him to look over the table above. Tell him he get’s to choose one of the policies…just like he were picking his medical plan. Don’t confuse the issue with how OUR list ended up, or obsfucate the issue with USAPA or ALPA rhetoric. Just have him read, and then ask him what his choice would be. I think his answer will be enlightening.

We’re so pissed off about Nicolau, ALPA National, and Douggie that we’re about to cut off our noses to spite our face: AGAIN. Take a step back from the edge. Compare your options side by side. Talk to your spouse. Talk to your friends at other airlines, talk to your friends that have NOTHING to do with airlines.

So what is a 20 year FO to do in times like these? Vote ALPA off the property because they SUCK?!? Yeah, that would sure make us feel good; for about the next four months. Then, we’ll realize we just voted the largest pilot’s union in the world off the property. The emotion will have died down to just below a fever pitch and we’ll all realize that nothing has changed…and in fact it will probably be WORSE, since Delta will have teamed up with Northwest ,and US Airways will once again be looking to merge in order to survive. So, we’ll grab our USAPA CB&L’s to look over the Merger section and then remember: WE DON’T HAVE ONE. Ouch.

Signed,
Your Beacon of Truth
(with a little help from my friends)

A "policy" with no guidelines for the Arbitrator to apply is JUST LIKE GOING TO LAS VEGAS TO GAMBLE. The odds are weighted as much for as against. The largest pilots union has nothing to do with the "power" to negotiate a contract anymore than the smaller. The reason to belong to a large union is simply "purchacing power" or the "pooling" of resourses...aka MONEY. A national union self-insures...that self-insurance is called STRIKE BENEFITS. Everyone pools money and "hopefully" any one group going on strike won't drain the kitty and/or it gets replenished sufficiently for the next one...PERIOD.

The "assertion" that we HAVE no merger policy is flat out WRONG...it's found where it ALWAYS IS FOUND...in the CONTRACT! Only ALPA merger policy applies bettween two ALPA carriers...nothing more. The problem is that the difference is just as I stated in my prior post....the unlimited power of an Arbitrator UNCHECKED BY PRIOR DECISIONS!!

 

[sharktooth]

My point is that you guys can't make a cohesive argument to defend your position, the new law on mergers doesn't specify doh/los, yet usapa has you convinced that it does, the bottom line is under A+M you have to live with what an arbitrator rules, and los/doh is not mentioned anywhere under section 13. Show me where it says doh/los will be a determing factor?

USAPA has not "convinced" me of anything. History, something the west pilots seem, collectively, rather short on, has.

Every company uses DOH to order lists, even pre-merger A&W. As I said, I think rough guidelines are the way to do this, at least until everyone gets a chance to chime in.

Frankly, many of us wish for local control which excludes ALPA. Why don't you do some work and provide alternatives? Are you just a "no go showboat", all talk and no action or what?

 

[end_of_alpa]

"Our goal is to fight for our pilots, especially when it comes to our seniority and job protection."

NWA has 4,800 pilots while DL has more than 6,000. Getting the pilot groups to agree on a merger and then combining the workforces is "not easy," Avitas Senior VP Adam Pilarski told ATWOnline. "Where do the MD-80 pilots at Delta fit in? What about the DC-9 pilots at Northwest? Do you sacrifice them because you're going to get rid of those planes? There isn't a good solution. These are both very old companies with a lot of history and it's not so easy to forget all that and reach an agreement."

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=11719

Let the ALPA games begin....every group for themselves!!!

You think USAPA is BAD! Just wait!

 

[nostradamus]

Look at the pay tables provided in the link below. America West Pilots are pushing negotiations so their ""brothers and sisters"" in the rest of the alpa community can make more money. The America West pilots and alpa realize that a merger is imminent. They are pushing for an agreement so they can retain the seniority from a fossilized arbitrator that was fired by major league baseball and paid off. They brag about their pay vs US Airways pilots, but they undercut them for years. Their pilots tried to fly drunk and their ceo drove drunk.

Look at the pay tables for 2006. Who are the plots that worked for the best airlines, and which pilots are paid the most. There are two. Are these two companies pilots represented by alpa, no.

American Airlines and South West Airlines are working for the best companies and are paid the most.

Facts. What has alpa done for you lately, nothing. The pay graph proves that you are far better off to undercut the other pilots in the industry, and you will be compensated for it.

American, South West and america west pilots undercut other pilots for years. They were given more pay and seniority for their efforts.

Thank you for your time, brothers and sisters, I have to make a decision whether to vote for USAPA or alpa, thanks for the help with my decision by your example.

Airline pilot pay, previous 10 years.

 

[CactusFlyr]

Look at the pay tables provided in the link below. America West Pilots are pushing negotiations so their ""brothers and sisters"" in the rest of the alpa community can make more money. The America West pilots and alpa realize that a merger is imminent. They are pushing for an agreement so they can retain the seniority from a fossilized arbitrator that was fired by major league baseball and paid off. They brag about their pay vs US Airways pilots, but they undercut them for years. Their pilots tried to fly drunk and their ceo drove drunk.

Look at the pay tables for 2006. Who are the plots that worked for the best airlines, and which pilots are paid the most. There are two. Are these two companies pilots represented by alpa, no.

American Airlines and South West Airlines are working for the best companies and are paid the most.

Facts. What has alpa done for you lately, nothing. The pay graph proves that you are far better off to undercut the other pilots in the industry, and you will be compensated for it.

American, South West and america west pilots undercut other pilots for years. They were given more pay and seniority for their efforts.

Thank you for your time, brothers and sisters, I have to make a decision whether to vote for USAPA or alpa, thanks for the help with my decision by your example.

Airline pilot pay, previous 10 years.

Vote how you wish, but don't even start bagging on AW and their pilots. Anyone from a company with your safety record has NO room to talk.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Vote how you wish, but don't even start bagging on AW and their pilots. Anyone from a company with your safety record has NO room to talk.

First you say "Don't even start bagging" then turn around and do exactly that. Your point?