Mda To Republic

[USA320Pilot]

Fr8tmastr:

It's not a loophole...it's ALPA Policy. The problem here is that the MDA pilots are furloughed from the mainline, they cannot bid a mainline position, they will likely not bring a "job or position" position to the merger because MDA assets will likely be sold before the end of September, and MDA is a different "class or craft."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

Fr8tmastr:
MDA is a different "class or craft."
Regards,
USA320Pilot

[post="277042"][/post]​

Let me post this again since you did not understand it the first time:

First of all the National Mediation Board determines "Class and Craft", not ALPA or any other union.

Second if they were a differant class and craft, they would have a seperate agreement, possibly a seperate union and only the members that work at MDA would be on the negotiating committee, they would have their own MEC officers and have nothing to do with Mainline pilots representing them.

But once again, don't let the facts get in your way.

For example, Pilots are one class and craft, Mechanic and Related are another as are flight attendants, that is why they are on seperate contracts.

Once again, don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[USA320Pilot]

In not an expert in this, but my pilot different "class and craft" comment came from information I obtained from a very knowledgeable union source.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[fr8tmastr]

320,
I just cut and pasted the policy about the PID date, it can be set when a reasonable probability exists. That is not what you stated in your origional reply to me.

QUOTE(USA320Pilot @ Jun 13 2005, 10:10 PM)
Fr8tmastr:

With all due respect, per ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy, Section 45 of the ALPA Administrative Manual, the Seniority List Integration Policy Initiation Date (PID) or so called “snapshotâ€￾ cannot be legally taken until after the proposed merger officially closes.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

The union, if it really cared about the junior pilots would set a path towards the merger as it is, not what they think might happen in Sept. As of now the 170 pilots are here and the MEC should move forward as such. This is why my origonal comment about putting off the snapshot is relevant. The MEC should be trying to protect the maximum number of slots they can for the good of ALL AIRWAYS PILOTS. Instead some of them and yourself seem to be finding every excuse in the book not to do this.

 

[700UW]

In not an expert in this, but my pilot different "class and craft" comment came from information I obtained from a very knowledgeable union source.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="277044"][/post]​

Well apparantly this person is not as knowledgeable as you think.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Fr8tmastr:

I gave you the intent of the Administrative Manual and then the definition. The issue is that there is no certainty that the merger will proceed or for that matter that US Airways will emerge from bankruptcy. In my opinion, US Airways will emerge from its formal reorganization, the America West deal will proceed, and this will become the basis of the Arlington-based company's POR.

ALPA president Duane Woerth will lead the Executive Council in the PID determination, which to my knowledge occurs after the merger financial transaction closes. In the case of the US Airways – United merger attempt a few year’s ago, a PID was never established. Why? Because there was uncertainty that the merger would proceed and that occurs with the current proposal between US Airways and America West.

From ALPA’s perspective, the union will likely not declare a PID until they know for sure that the M&A deal and bankruptcy emergence will proceed.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

The problem here is that the MDA pilots are furloughed from the mainline, they cannot bid a mainline position, they will likely not bring a "job or position" position to the merger because MDA assets will likely be sold before the end of September, and MDA is a different "class or craft."

[post="277042"][/post]​

In all of that, only one thing is possibly right - the Emb-170's may be sold and make the situation moot.

The rest is utter nonsense, and I suspect reflects the thinking of some on the MEC who would rather see the problem they've allowed to be created simply go away.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

With all due respect, would you answer the following questions?

1. Are the MDA pilots furloughed from the mainline and what is the status of the CEL pilots?

2. Can the MDA pilots bid a mainline position?

3. If the EMB-170s are sold, the MDA pilots are furloughed (because they do not accept a Republic J4J position) and MDA ceases to exist, can you tell me what "job or position" they would bring to the merger?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

With all due respect, would you answer the following questions?

1. Are the MDA pilots furloughed from the mainline that are not CEL pilots?

[post="277052"][/post]​

Well, since "MDA" is only a conversational convenience to distinguish those who fly the Emb-170 from the rest of the "mainline" pilots, my considered opinion is that they are no longer furloughed. The merger last July took care of that.

2. Can the MDA pilots bid a mainline position?

[post="277052"][/post]​

Sure they can - just as soon as there are "mainline" openings that their seniority can hold.

3. If the EMB-170s are sold and the MDA pilots are furloughed (because they do not accept a Republic J4J position) and MDA ceases to exist, can you tell me what "job or position" they would bring to the merger if they're furloughed from MDA?

[post="277052"][/post]​

Like I said in a previous post, the situation post-Emb170 sale is the only thing you got right. It that occurs before a snapshot is taken, then the Emb-170 pilots will not bring a "job or position" to the merger, and the MEC is off the hook.

One other thing - MDA has already ceased to exist as a corporation, division, or airline. It happened last July when it was merged into US Airways, Inc (the so-called "mainline").

So now let me ask you a question. When employees of the same company (US Airways, Inc) and of the same "class & craft" (pilots) are represented by the same MEC, how can you justify segregating them from the rest of the pilots that work for that company?

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

1. The MDA pilots, excluding the the CEL pilots, are furloughed mainline pilots.

2. The MDA pilots cannot bid a mainline job until they're recalled and the mainline pilots cannot bid a MDA job. The only way a person can be a MDA pilot is to be furloughed from mainline, then hired to MDA from a wholly owned carrier via the CEL list, or hired off the street. MDA is not open to active US Airways pilots.

3. MDA has not merged into US Airways and is a separate division with much of its own structure, like I indicated in a previous post.

In regard to your question, contractually, the MDA pilots have a distinct separate working agreement. The only CBA exceptions are for Sections 1, 19, 20, 25 and the accelerated arbitration side letter. MDA scope gives MDA pilots the exclusive right to fly the EMB-170170/175 and as such keeps them and that flying separate from mainline pilots.

The pilots flying the EMB-170 aircraft at US Airway's MDA Division are considered active AAA union pilots, but they are not active US Airways mainline pilots because they're furloughed. Yes, I know that they're dues paying members of the AAA chapter of ALPA.

But, here’s the problem. It is my understanding that MDA pilot representation is a function of “class and craftâ€￾ (which is defined as the scope of people who can be represented by the union) and ALPA National has agreed that "class and craft" for the AAA chapter includes both active mainline pilots and active MDA division pilots, which are separate entities.

I have been told that this is very important point because “class and craftâ€￾ does not mean that people are employed by US Airways mainline. “Class and craftâ€￾ means that a person works somewhere that allows them to be represented by the ALPA AAA Chapter.

Accordingly, MDA pilots are identified as AAA Chapter members by ALPA National.

If you disagree with this logic, I suggest you take up your position with the ALPA Legal Department as a member in good standing.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

It seems that you and your friends on the MEC have been caught in a time warp and are stuck in June 2004. All your arguments were valid as late as June 30 of last year. Unfortunately, time passed you by and a singular event occured on July 1, 2004 that made all your arguments invalid.

Let's start with this list of divisions - in the company's words:

"On the date hereof, the following affiliated entities filed petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division:"
"1. US Airways, Inc."
"2. US Airways Group, Inc."
"3. PSA Airlines, Inc."
"4. Piedmont Airlines, Inc."
"5. Material Services Company, Inc."

Try as you might (and as much as you'd like to), you won't find MDA on that list.

Now let's move on to this, also the comany's words:

"The Debtors’ corporate structure consists of US Airways Group, Inc. (“Groupâ€), its wholly owned subsidiary US Airways, Inc. (“USAIâ€), three other wholly owned debtor subsidiaries, Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (“Piedmontâ€), PSA Airlines, Inc. (“PSAâ€), and Material Services Company, Inc. (“MSCâ€), and one non-debtor foreign insurance subsidiary."

Care to point out MDA in that statement listing all the divisions?

Finally, there's this, also in the company's words:

"As of July 1, 2004, three mergers took place among Group’s subsidiaries. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. was merged into Piedmont, and US Airways Services Corporation Inc. (f/k/a MidAtlantic Airways, Inc.) and US Airways Leasing and Sales Inc. were both merged into USAI."

Now, do you still insist that the following is a true statement?

3. MDA has not merged into US Airways and is a separate division with much of its own structure, like I indicated in a previous post.

[post="277059"][/post]​

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

You did a great job of cut and pasting bankruptcy court documents, but I suggest you contact ALPA's Legal Department and Cowen, Weiss, and Simon and get their opinion on the subject.

I prefer to take the opinions of attorney's who understand the proceeding versus a disgruntled line pilot.

Again, if you disagree with this logic, I suggest you take up your position with the ALPA Legal Department or the MEC as a member in good standing. In fact, today, June 14, the schedule includes the period for pilots in good standing to address the MEC on issues of their own choosing at 9:30 a.m. The meeting is being held at the Crowne Plaza located at 1160 Thorn Run Road in Coraopolis, PA. The telephone number for transportation information to the hotel is 412-262-2400.

See Story

Assuming you're going to address the MEC on this matter, would you report on this website your findings?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

"I prefer to take the opinions of attorney's who understand the proceeding versus a pilot."

That's just it - as much as you'd like not to be. It's not my opinion at all. It's the company's statement of fact as indicated by their filings in their words.

Perhaps ALPA's legal department should contact the company for facts instead of just forming opinions.....

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

Why don't you attend the MEC meeting in the morning and discuss the issue with the MEC Officers, MEC Reps, and its Advisors. Then report back to us tomorrow night with your findings.

Instead of opinion, why don't you go to the meeting and provide your information to ALPA's leadership? I'm sure ALPA's leaders and the unions bankruptcy counsel Richard Seltzer would love to listen to your analysis.

By the way, the jump seat is currently available for you to reserve on B737 flight number 474 that leaves Charlotte at 7:55 am and arrives in PIT at 9:10 am.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

PineyBob:

There are two sides to every story and what I do not like is people being a chameleon on two different message boards and purposely misrepresenting information. In regard to being an “Officer & a Gentlemenâ€￾, you of all people should question that type of decorum. By the way, I was commissioned from Navy AOCS, which is the program that movie was based on.

Regards,

USA320Pilot