aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
MERGER COMMITTEE UPDATE – MAY 29, 2007
On Thursday, May 24, the Merger Committee received the ALPA Executive Council’s Resolution postponing its decision on the US Airways MEC’s request that the Nicolau Panel’s Award be overturned. It is no overstatement to say that we are quite disturbed that the tactics employed by the US Airways pilots have prompted ALPA to hesitate for a moment – much less a month – in taking the only action it may take in connection with this Award; namely to “defend†it as “final and binding on all parties to the arbitration†(Merger Policy, Part 1, Section H.5 and to “present[] [it] to management and … use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.†Merger Policy, Part 1, Section I.1.
The time has come to bring the East’s unwarranted actions to a close. We understand that the Executive Council will resolve this matter once and for all sometime in June. Our Merger Counsel, on whom we have relied throughout this process and whose advice has served us so well over the past two years, has assured us that there is only one way it can be resolved – rejecting the East’s request to set aside the Award. Thus, while we are troubled by the delay, we remain certain that ALPA will not set aside the Award.
In the interim, the Resolution calls on ALPA President Prater to “employ all the resources of the Association to assist the MECs†in coming to a consensual agreement that puts this dispute behind us. We will wait to see what Captain Prater’s views are on how the dispute can be put behind us.
More than his views, however, we will be interested in the East MECs views on that subject. Throughout the entire Seniority Integration process, the East has shown a complete unwillingness to come to grips with the reality of their situation. Even when Mr. Nicolau made clear to them on the record that they simply would not be awarded a date-based list, they made no effort to modify their position. So you do not have any doubts about this history, we have pasted some relevant pages of the transcript to the end of this Update. The East leadership’s capitulation during the arbitration to demands of the extreme fringe of their pilot group who insisted that their Merger Committee pursue a date-based strategy that was entirely unsupportable (a capitulation that, we believe, actually undermined their case before the Panel) gives us little comfort that there is even now the political will on their part to make the hard decisions that these circumstances call for. Indeed, the East’s Hot line message to its pilots describing the Executive Council’s Resolution once again demonstrates that they are seriously misjudging the situation.
In contrast, as you know, the West Merger Committee from the outset took measured actions designed to accommodate the West’s position to the facts as they developed during the hearings and to Panel’s observations that we, like the East, were not going to be awarded the list and conditions we were arguing for. Unlike the East, however, we accommodated to that reality and ultimately gave the panel a roadmap that moved the process in the right direction.
In light of that history, both ALPA and the East MEC must understand that, at least from the West Merger Committee’s point of view, any willingness we might have to engage with the East during this short time period should not be interpreted to reflect any intention on our part to make any changes in the four corners of the Award.
As always, we will keep you advised as the process unfolds.
Transcript January 26, 2007 – Pages 2977-2979:
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: Not only does the Board want to see that exhibit but, you know, I think that my colleagues have indicated that it would be wise for both sides to sit down and consider their positions once again, and if they want to tell us anything about that, the next meeting would be the time to do that.
MR. FREUND: I understood what you said about that.
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: Okay. So there may be some specific things, and I don't know whether all of that was communicated in terms of what, some specific things that we want to see, but you know, I think it was clear from the beginning that the Board had some difficulty with both proposals. And, you know, the Board is ready to make a decision at some point in time after everything is in, including the briefs, but I have got to tell you it is always better if the parties do it, and I want you to give one more opportunity to come closer together if that is at all possible. If it isn't, we will take the data that we need, some of it we don't have yet, and craft a decision that will, you know, reach that level of mutual dissatisfaction that everybody tries to attain.
Transcript February 21, 2007 – Pages 3039-3041:
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: Yes. The last time we met, in a somewhat smaller room, where even if it was smaller we were trying to figure out a way how to negotiate a treaty in this room, and this room I guess is perfect for it. The board asked both sides to reflect and to consider what we have said and to come back to discuss any revised positions that they had, that they intended to make, and to present. We already have a document from the America West pilots. We would like to hear first, this morning, from the US Air pilots as to what their response is and then anything that America West wants to add, and then we are going to take it from there. So Dan, how do you want to proceed in that regard?
MR. KATZ: Well, I guess the first thing I would like to do is respond to the submission that we received electronically last night from the America West pilots, and just say a word or two about that. Number one –
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: That is a little backward, but I mean if you want to proceed that way.
MR. KATZ: I would prefer, unless there is a problem with that. I can start out by saying that we don't have a modification of our proposal in any respect that we are prepared to make at this time. And if it makes more sense logically to start from that I am happy to do that. We have considered fully the observations of the panel with regard to both side's proposals. We have given careful study to the issue. We have consulted with MEC and the advisors and done quite a bit of analysis, and we are comfortable with our proposal as it is. So I think that is probably a good place to start.
On Thursday, May 24, the Merger Committee received the ALPA Executive Council’s Resolution postponing its decision on the US Airways MEC’s request that the Nicolau Panel’s Award be overturned. It is no overstatement to say that we are quite disturbed that the tactics employed by the US Airways pilots have prompted ALPA to hesitate for a moment – much less a month – in taking the only action it may take in connection with this Award; namely to “defend†it as “final and binding on all parties to the arbitration†(Merger Policy, Part 1, Section H.5 and to “present[] [it] to management and … use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.†Merger Policy, Part 1, Section I.1.
The time has come to bring the East’s unwarranted actions to a close. We understand that the Executive Council will resolve this matter once and for all sometime in June. Our Merger Counsel, on whom we have relied throughout this process and whose advice has served us so well over the past two years, has assured us that there is only one way it can be resolved – rejecting the East’s request to set aside the Award. Thus, while we are troubled by the delay, we remain certain that ALPA will not set aside the Award.
In the interim, the Resolution calls on ALPA President Prater to “employ all the resources of the Association to assist the MECs†in coming to a consensual agreement that puts this dispute behind us. We will wait to see what Captain Prater’s views are on how the dispute can be put behind us.
More than his views, however, we will be interested in the East MECs views on that subject. Throughout the entire Seniority Integration process, the East has shown a complete unwillingness to come to grips with the reality of their situation. Even when Mr. Nicolau made clear to them on the record that they simply would not be awarded a date-based list, they made no effort to modify their position. So you do not have any doubts about this history, we have pasted some relevant pages of the transcript to the end of this Update. The East leadership’s capitulation during the arbitration to demands of the extreme fringe of their pilot group who insisted that their Merger Committee pursue a date-based strategy that was entirely unsupportable (a capitulation that, we believe, actually undermined their case before the Panel) gives us little comfort that there is even now the political will on their part to make the hard decisions that these circumstances call for. Indeed, the East’s Hot line message to its pilots describing the Executive Council’s Resolution once again demonstrates that they are seriously misjudging the situation.
In contrast, as you know, the West Merger Committee from the outset took measured actions designed to accommodate the West’s position to the facts as they developed during the hearings and to Panel’s observations that we, like the East, were not going to be awarded the list and conditions we were arguing for. Unlike the East, however, we accommodated to that reality and ultimately gave the panel a roadmap that moved the process in the right direction.
In light of that history, both ALPA and the East MEC must understand that, at least from the West Merger Committee’s point of view, any willingness we might have to engage with the East during this short time period should not be interpreted to reflect any intention on our part to make any changes in the four corners of the Award.
As always, we will keep you advised as the process unfolds.
Transcript January 26, 2007 – Pages 2977-2979:
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: Not only does the Board want to see that exhibit but, you know, I think that my colleagues have indicated that it would be wise for both sides to sit down and consider their positions once again, and if they want to tell us anything about that, the next meeting would be the time to do that.
MR. FREUND: I understood what you said about that.
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: Okay. So there may be some specific things, and I don't know whether all of that was communicated in terms of what, some specific things that we want to see, but you know, I think it was clear from the beginning that the Board had some difficulty with both proposals. And, you know, the Board is ready to make a decision at some point in time after everything is in, including the briefs, but I have got to tell you it is always better if the parties do it, and I want you to give one more opportunity to come closer together if that is at all possible. If it isn't, we will take the data that we need, some of it we don't have yet, and craft a decision that will, you know, reach that level of mutual dissatisfaction that everybody tries to attain.
Transcript February 21, 2007 – Pages 3039-3041:
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: Yes. The last time we met, in a somewhat smaller room, where even if it was smaller we were trying to figure out a way how to negotiate a treaty in this room, and this room I guess is perfect for it. The board asked both sides to reflect and to consider what we have said and to come back to discuss any revised positions that they had, that they intended to make, and to present. We already have a document from the America West pilots. We would like to hear first, this morning, from the US Air pilots as to what their response is and then anything that America West wants to add, and then we are going to take it from there. So Dan, how do you want to proceed in that regard?
MR. KATZ: Well, I guess the first thing I would like to do is respond to the submission that we received electronically last night from the America West pilots, and just say a word or two about that. Number one –
CHAIRMAN NICOLAU: That is a little backward, but I mean if you want to proceed that way.
MR. KATZ: I would prefer, unless there is a problem with that. I can start out by saying that we don't have a modification of our proposal in any respect that we are prepared to make at this time. And if it makes more sense logically to start from that I am happy to do that. We have considered fully the observations of the panel with regard to both side's proposals. We have given careful study to the issue. We have consulted with MEC and the advisors and done quite a bit of analysis, and we are comfortable with our proposal as it is. So I think that is probably a good place to start.
