This 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:
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.
(B) 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)
-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.
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.
(B) 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)
