Transition Agreement, Addington litigation and arbitrations, and their possible effects on a US Airw

[Al Legheny]

The Transition Agreement, Addington litigation and arbitrations, and their possible effects on a US Airways / AA merger.
(All the data provided here is taken from documents on the USAPA web site filed in Federal Court, the Transaction agreement and grievance awards.)

The following are taken from the original Addington Complaint, the Transition agreement and the TA-9 arbitration
Transition Agreement:
37. On September 20, 2005, Defendant US Airways (as America West and US Airways), West and East Pilots entered into a multilateral contractual agreement entitled, the “Transition Agreement.”

LETTER OF AGREEMENT
between
AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC.,
US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC., and US AIRWAYS, INC.
and the
PILOTS
in the service of
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. AND US AIRWAYS, INC.
as represented by
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION​

THIS LETTER OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended (the “Act”), by and between AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION (“AWHC”), AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. (“AMERICA WEST”), US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. (“US AIRWAYS GROUP”), US AIRWAYS, INC. (“US AIRWAYS”), and the AIR LINE PILOTS in the service of AMERICA WEST and US AIRWAYS, respectively, as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”) by and through the Master Executive Councils of the America West and US Airways pilots (“America West MEC” and “US Airways MEC” respectively)(collectively referred to as the “Parties”).

(This agreement contains an addendum that lists all the tail-numbers of the aircraft involved in the AWA / US merger. It is too large to list here).

Question: Will this agreement even exist if the company announces and proceeds with a merger with American Airlines? How does this contract exist if there are now parties to a merger that are not included in said agreement? Note all the specific tail numbers attached to the transition agreement. Where are the American Airlines Tail numbers?

(Transition Agreement)
XII. Effective Date, Modification, Status of Letter of Agreement, and Duration
This Letter of Agreement:
C. Does not alter or modify any term of any agreement between the Association and an Airline Party, which remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms, except as set forth herein.
(The contracts of both pilot groups remain intact and unchanged.)

E. Will remain in effect in accordance with its terms until each of the provisions herein has been fulfilled, unless sooner terminated by
1. Written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addington Litigation: First Amended Complaint, December 1, 2008
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE (DEFENDANT US AIRWAYS)
Breach of CBA: Furlough Out Of Order
​

83. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
84. According to West CBA terms found in the Transition Agreement, Defendant US Airways must place all pilots newly hired since the effective date of the Transition Agreement on a third seniority list entitled “New Hire Seniority List.”
85. According to West CBA terms found in the Transition Agreement, Defendant US Airways must furlough all pilots on the New Hire Seniority List before it can furlough any West Pilot.
86. Since the effective date of the Transition Agreement, Defendant US Airways has hired approximately 100 new pilots to work as East Pilots.

Judge Wakes Analysis and Order:

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Claims Against US Airways (Counts One and Two)
Of course, no relief can be granted by this court in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that jurisdiction is lacking because the Plaintiff West Pilots failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Railway Labor Act provides that disputes between employees and their employers concerning the interpretation of labor agreements may be referred by petition of either party to the Board of Adjustment. 45 U.S.C. § 184 (airline industry); 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i) (railroad counterpart). Both of the claims against the airline arise under the operative terms of the Transition Agreement: the first alleges a violation of its substantive terms, and the second alleges a violation of the obligation imposed by that agreement to exert every reasonable effort in negotiations. These disputes are deemed “minor” in the Railway Labor Act parlance because they involve the “interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha
Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 1985).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant US Airways’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (docs. # 30) is granted.

This section was never taken to the grievance process after Wake dismissed it. The West is both time barred and locked out from raising it again in a new forum or for a new merger. Judge Wake ruled by his dismissal, not for ripeness but for subject matter jurisdiction. There is a difference, this issue has been decided and dismissed. The plaintiffs acknowledge that this is a minor dispute, and they didn’t show to the arbitration. West pilots have no rights to east metal absent a single collective bargaining agreement. They have screwed themselves from raising the issue again. They are dismissed from court and time-barred from the grievance process. There were offered a grievance date without the union present. They could have taken their case directly to an arbitrator for a decision without any involvement from the Union. They did not show at the grievance hearing. The West pilots seem to continually suffer from pre-mature adjudication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West pilots did grieve a situation where East new hire pilots remain on the list while pre-merger West pilots are furloughed. This was the TA- 9 dispute. This dispute considers the current situation where West pilots are on furlough and the East is hiring the following applies:

TA-9 Arbitration:
FACTS
Between October 2008 and May 2009, the US Airways furloughed 144 West pilots, 15 of whom were new hire pilots and the remaining 129 pre-merger West pilots. Between October 2008 and May 2009, the US Airways furloughed 86 East pilots, all of whom were new hire pilots. A grievance was filed under the Transition Agreement (TA-9) to determine whether or not the Company breached the terms of the Transition Agreement by furloughing pre-merger West pilots before furloughing all new hire East pilots. The Arbitrator rendered an Opinion in that matter deciding that the Company had not violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


Section II. B. 10. Addresses furloughs and new hires – it does not carve out an exception to fence agreement for recalls
Section II. B. 10. of the Transition Agreement states In the event of America West furloughs, furlough references in this Letter of Agreement will be modified to apply to both pilot groups. Section II. B. 6. of the Transition Agreement contains furlough provisions and states in pertinent part America West will not hire new pilots if pilots on the US Airways seniority list remain on furlough, provided that America West may hire a new pilot if all pilots on furlough have been offered recall to US Airways or have been offered positions by America West in the order of seniority. (Emphasis added)

While Section II.B.10. and II.B.6. address furloughees’ ability to fill vacancies before the Company can hire new pilots, there is no exception expressed in the Transition Agreement that would require the Company to cross the fence for recalls. Hence, in accordance with the TA-9 Opinion, the fence would apply for recalls. Section II.B. 10. only applies if the Company seeks to hire new pilots while there are West pilots on furlough.

CONCLUSION
The Company offering recall to new hire East pilots who are already on the East seniority list, before offering recall to those east positions to pre-merger West pilots on furlough, does not violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement/Transition Agreement. If after the Company offers recall to the new hire East pilots, there are still positions available, then the Company would, at that point, pursuant to Section II. B. 10., be required to offer those positions to West pilots before hiring any new pilots.


The situation of how West pilots gain access to East metal has been both adjudicated via Addington and arbitrated via the TA-9 dispute. Either there is a single collective bargaining agreement or there is a recall to the bottom of the East List until there is a single collective bargaining agreement.

What does all the gobble-de-gook mean? If the West is downsized, West pilots have the right of recall to the East on the bottom of the list, below new hires, until there is a single agreement.

In the event of a merger with American the following are likely….

1. There is no MEC, so only USAPA can file a grievance.
2. The West pilots already did not or show for a West grievance as described in Count 1 of Addington.
3. West pilots are time barred for a remedy to East metal in a court of law or arbitration. (Addington)
4. The East West transition agreement may not apply it doesn’t even mention American Airlines, AMR Group, or enumerate the American Tail numbers as does the AWA/ US agreement.
5. The parties USAPA and the company may modify the Transition agreement.
6. The Transition Agreement provides for employment opportunities for West pilots on the bottom of the East List. This is the mirror image of the transition agreement furlough language where East pilots could take recall to the West list.
7. In the event of a merger with American, the Transition agreement may become moot and or disappear entirely or be modified, in which case the minimum fleet and minimum block hour provisions for West metal would disappear.
8. Min Fleet and Min Block hour provisions for the East would remain as they are a part of LOA93



COUNT TWO (DEFENDANT US AIRWAYS)
(Breach of CBA): Failure To Negotiate In Good Faith

98. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
99. In November 2007, Defendant US Airways accepted the Nicolau List, as required by the Transition Agreement.
100. According to West CBA terms found in the Transition Agreement, after Defendant US Airways accepted the Nicolau List, it was obliged to negotiate with USAPA in good faith to institute Integrated Operations by adopting a single collective bargaining agreement that would implement the Nicolau List.

Judge Wake Answers:

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Claims Against US Airways (Counts One and Two)
Of course, no relief can be granted by this court in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that jurisdiction is lacking because the Plaintiff West Pilots failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Railway Labor Act provides that disputes between employees and their employers concerning the interpretation of labor agreements may be referred by petition of either party to the Board of Adjustment. 45 U.S.C. § 184 (airline industry); 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i) (railroad counterpart). Both of the claims against the airline arise under the operative terms of the ,Transition Agreement: the first alleges a violation of its substantive terms, and the second alleges a violation of the obligation imposed by that agreement to exert every reasonable effort in negotiations. These disputes are deemed “minor” in the Railway Labor Act parlance because they involve the “interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 1985). In minor disputes, the Board of Adjustment provides the exclusive remedy. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.
Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 310 (1989).

…..The Plaintiff West Pilots point to no specific instance where US Airways acted in concert with USAPA to thwart operational integration. There is no indication that US Airways intends to stall negotiations in order to avoid implementing the Nicolau Award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (doc. # 12) is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2008.


We are now under NMB mediation and it is highly doubtful that anyone can prove bad faith on the part of the Union. The Ninth has already said we are free to negotiate as we see fit, so there is no bad faith. The company has further muddied the water with their declaratory judgment suit. They do not allege bad faith.
So Addington bad faith count two is dismissed by Wake and it is not raised later by the company. How strong would a bad faith case be if brought today by the West? It would be non-existent, a snowball’s chance in hell.

COUNT THREE (USAPA)
Breach Of Duty Of Fair Representation

95. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
96. Since April 18, 2008, Defendant USAPA has owed Plaintiffs and all other West Pilots a duty of fair representation.
97. The duty of fair representation requires that USAPA give due consideration to West Pilot interests and to not harm those interests through conduct that is arbitrary, improper, or undertaken in bad faith.

Not Ripe…and the Ninth says we are free to negotiate in good faith for a seniority list other than the Nic.

Again it appears that Premature Adjudication is the method of choice for West pilots.

Good luck if there is a merger.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The Transition Agreement, Addington litigation and arbitrations, and their possible effects on a US Airways / AA merger.
(All the data provided here is taken from documents on the USAPA web site filed in Federal Court, the Transaction agreement and grievance awards.)

The following are taken from the original Addington Complaint, the Transition agreement and the TA-9 arbitration
Transition Agreement:
37. On September 20, 2005, Defendant US Airways (as America West and US Airways), West and East Pilots entered into a multilateral contractual agreement entitled, the “Transition Agreement.”

LETTER OF AGREEMENT
between
AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC.,
US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC., and US AIRWAYS, INC.
and the
PILOTS
in the service of
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. AND US AIRWAYS, INC.
as represented by
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION​

THIS LETTER OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended (the “Act”), by and between AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION (“AWHC”), AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. (“AMERICA WEST”), US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. (“US AIRWAYS GROUP”), US AIRWAYS, INC. (“US AIRWAYS”), and the AIR LINE PILOTS in the service of AMERICA WEST and US AIRWAYS, respectively, as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”) by and through the Master Executive Councils of the America West and US Airways pilots (“America West MEC” and “US Airways MEC” respectively)(collectively referred to as the “Parties”).

(This agreement contains an addendum that lists all the tail-numbers of the aircraft involved in the AWA / US merger. It is too large to list here).

Question: Will this agreement even exist if the company announces and proceeds with a merger with American Airlines? How does this contract exist if there are now parties to a merger that are not included in said agreement? Note all the specific tail numbers attached to the transition agreement. Where are the American Airlines Tail numbers?

(Transition Agreement)
XII. Effective Date, Modification, Status of Letter of Agreement, and Duration
This Letter of Agreement:
C. Does not alter or modify any term of any agreement between the Association and an Airline Party, which remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms, except as set forth herein.
(The contracts of both pilot groups remain intact and unchanged.)

E. Will remain in effect in accordance with its terms until each of the provisions herein has been fulfilled, unless sooner terminated by
1. Written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addington Litigation: First Amended Complaint, December 1, 2008
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE (DEFENDANT US AIRWAYS)
Breach of CBA: Furlough Out Of Order
​

83. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
84. According to West CBA terms found in the Transition Agreement, Defendant US Airways must place all pilots newly hired since the effective date of the Transition Agreement on a third seniority list entitled “New Hire Seniority List.”
85. According to West CBA terms found in the Transition Agreement, Defendant US Airways must furlough all pilots on the New Hire Seniority List before it can furlough any West Pilot.
86. Since the effective date of the Transition Agreement, Defendant US Airways has hired approximately 100 new pilots to work as East Pilots.

Judge Wakes Analysis and Order:

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Claims Against US Airways (Counts One and Two)
Of course, no relief can be granted by this court in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that jurisdiction is lacking because the Plaintiff West Pilots failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Railway Labor Act provides that disputes between employees and their employers concerning the interpretation of labor agreements may be referred by petition of either party to the Board of Adjustment. 45 U.S.C. § 184 (airline industry); 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i) (railroad counterpart). Both of the claims against the airline arise under the operative terms of the Transition Agreement: the first alleges a violation of its substantive terms, and the second alleges a violation of the obligation imposed by that agreement to exert every reasonable effort in negotiations. These disputes are deemed “minor” in the Railway Labor Act parlance because they involve the “interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha
Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 1985).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant US Airways’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (docs. # 30) is granted.

This section was never taken to the grievance process after Wake dismissed it. The West is both time barred and locked out from raising it again in a new forum or for a new merger. Judge Wake ruled by his dismissal, not for ripeness but for subject matter jurisdiction. There is a difference, this issue has been decided and dismissed. The plaintiffs acknowledge that this is a minor dispute, and they didn’t show to the arbitration. West pilots have no rights to east metal absent a single collective bargaining agreement. They have screwed themselves from raising the issue again. They are dismissed from court and time-barred from the grievance process. There were offered a grievance date without the union present. They could have taken their case directly to an arbitrator for a decision without any involvement from the Union. They did not show at the grievance hearing. The West pilots seem to continually suffer from pre-mature adjudication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West pilots did grieve a situation where East new hire pilots remain on the list while pre-merger West pilots are furloughed. This was the TA- 9 dispute. This dispute considers the current situation where West pilots are on furlough and the East is hiring the following applies:

TA-9 Arbitration:
FACTS
Between October 2008 and May 2009, the US Airways furloughed 144 West pilots, 15 of whom were new hire pilots and the remaining 129 pre-merger West pilots. Between October 2008 and May 2009, the US Airways furloughed 86 East pilots, all of whom were new hire pilots. A grievance was filed under the Transition Agreement (TA-9) to determine whether or not the Company breached the terms of the Transition Agreement by furloughing pre-merger West pilots before furloughing all new hire East pilots. The Arbitrator rendered an Opinion in that matter deciding that the Company had not violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


Section II. B. 10. Addresses furloughs and new hires – it does not carve out an exception to fence agreement for recalls
Section II. B. 10. of the Transition Agreement states In the event of America West furloughs, furlough references in this Letter of Agreement will be modified to apply to both pilot groups. Section II. B. 6. of the Transition Agreement contains furlough provisions and states in pertinent part America West will not hire new pilots if pilots on the US Airways seniority list remain on furlough, provided that America West may hire a new pilot if all pilots on furlough have been offered recall to US Airways or have been offered positions by America West in the order of seniority. (Emphasis added)

While Section II.B.10. and II.B.6. address furloughees’ ability to fill vacancies before the Company can hire new pilots, there is no exception expressed in the Transition Agreement that would require the Company to cross the fence for recalls. Hence, in accordance with the TA-9 Opinion, the fence would apply for recalls. Section II.B. 10. only applies if the Company seeks to hire new pilots while there are West pilots on furlough.

CONCLUSION
The Company offering recall to new hire East pilots who are already on the East seniority list, before offering recall to those east positions to pre-merger West pilots on furlough, does not violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement/Transition Agreement. If after the Company offers recall to the new hire East pilots, there are still positions available, then the Company would, at that point, pursuant to Section II. B. 10., be required to offer those positions to West pilots before hiring any new pilots.


The situation of how West pilots gain access to East metal has been both adjudicated via Addington and arbitrated via the TA-9 dispute. Either there is a single collective bargaining agreement or there is a recall to the bottom of the East List until there is a single collective bargaining agreement.

What does all the gobble-de-gook mean? If the West is downsized, West pilots have the right of recall to the East on the bottom of the list, below new hires, until there is a single agreement.

In the event of a merger with American the following are likely….

1. There is no MEC, so only USAPA can file a grievance.
2. The West pilots already did not or show for a West grievance as described in Count 1 of Addington.
3. West pilots are time barred for a remedy to East metal in a court of law or arbitration. (Addington)
4. The East West transition agreement may not apply it doesn’t even mention American Airlines, AMR Group, or enumerate the American Tail numbers as does the AWA/ US agreement.
5. The parties USAPA and the company may modify the Transition agreement.
6. The Transition Agreement provides for employment opportunities for West pilots on the bottom of the East List. This is the mirror image of the transition agreement furlough language where East pilots could take recall to the West list.
7. In the event of a merger with American, the Transition agreement may become moot and or disappear entirely or be modified, in which case the minimum fleet and minimum block hour provisions for West metal would disappear.
8. Min Fleet and Min Block hour provisions for the East would remain as they are a part of LOA93



COUNT TWO (DEFENDANT US AIRWAYS)
(Breach of CBA): Failure To Negotiate In Good Faith

98. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
99. In November 2007, Defendant US Airways accepted the Nicolau List, as required by the Transition Agreement.
100. According to West CBA terms found in the Transition Agreement, after Defendant US Airways accepted the Nicolau List, it was obliged to negotiate with USAPA in good faith to institute Integrated Operations by adopting a single collective bargaining agreement that would implement the Nicolau List.

Judge Wake Answers:

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Claims Against US Airways (Counts One and Two)
Of course, no relief can be granted by this court in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that jurisdiction is lacking because the Plaintiff West Pilots failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Railway Labor Act provides that disputes between employees and their employers concerning the interpretation of labor agreements may be referred by petition of either party to the Board of Adjustment. 45 U.S.C. § 184 (airline industry); 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i) (railroad counterpart). Both of the claims against the airline arise under the operative terms of the ,Transition Agreement: the first alleges a violation of its substantive terms, and the second alleges a violation of the obligation imposed by that agreement to exert every reasonable effort in negotiations. These disputes are deemed “minor” in the Railway Labor Act parlance because they involve the “interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 1985). In minor disputes, the Board of Adjustment provides the exclusive remedy. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.
Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 310 (1989).

…..The Plaintiff West Pilots point to no specific instance where US Airways acted in concert with USAPA to thwart operational integration. There is no indication that US Airways intends to stall negotiations in order to avoid implementing the Nicolau Award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (doc. # 12) is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2008.


We are now under NMB mediation and it is highly doubtful that anyone can prove bad faith on the part of the Union. The Ninth has already said we are free to negotiate as we see fit, so there is no bad faith. The company has further muddied the water with their declaratory judgment suit. They do not allege bad faith.
So Addington bad faith count two is dismissed by Wake and it is not raised later by the company. How strong would a bad faith case be if brought today by the West? It would be non-existent, a snowball’s chance in hell.

COUNT THREE (USAPA)
Breach Of Duty Of Fair Representation

95. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
96. Since April 18, 2008, Defendant USAPA has owed Plaintiffs and all other West Pilots a duty of fair representation.
97. The duty of fair representation requires that USAPA give due consideration to West Pilot interests and to not harm those interests through conduct that is arbitrary, improper, or undertaken in bad faith.

Not Ripe…and the Ninth says we are free to negotiate in good faith for a seniority list other than the Nic.

Again it appears that Premature Adjudication is the method of choice for West pilots.

Good luck if there is a merger.

BTW, SCOPE, FRAGMENTATION, Thank You AOL!

 

[Al Legheny]

BTW, SCOPE, FRAGMENTATION, Thank You AOL!

AWA Scope....

F. SUCCESSORSHIP AND MERGERS
2. In the event of a complete merger between the Company and another air carrier
(i.e., the combinationof all or substantially all the assets of the
two carriers) where the surviving carrier decides
to integrate the pre-merger operations, the following
procedures will apply: (1) if the Company is
the surviving carrier, the Company will integrate
the two Pilot groups in accordance with Association
Merger Policy if both groups are represented
by the Association, and in accordance with Sections
3 and 13 of the Allegheny Mohawk LPP’s if
pilots of the Company’s merger partner are not
represented by the Association, and (2) if the Company
is not the surviving carrier, the Company will
make reasonable efforts to have the surviving carrier
integrate the two pilot groups in the same
manner as stated in (1) of this paragraph.

What happens if the company decides not to merger substantially all the assets of the two carriers. What if they decide they don't want all of phoenix? Define substantially all? The West scope is very weak. How has it worked out so far with reagrds to counts one and TA-9.

There is nothing in this section that says the company can't simply part airplanes. Yes in the end you will get an Allegheny Mohawk arbitration but it will be a three way between East West and APA.

 

[Reed Richards]

What happens if the company decides not to merger substantially all the assets of the two carriers. What if they decide they don't want all of phoenix? Define substantially all? The West scope is very weak. How has it worked out so far with reagrds to counts one and TA-9.

There is nothing in this section that says the company can't simply part airplanes. Yes in the end you will get an Allegheny Mohawk arbitration but it will be a three way between East West and APA.

Nice work Al, I actually learned some things from your original post in this tread. I had no idea just how bad they dropped the ball out West on precedent setting legal issues. Just showing up is half the battle in any affair.

The biggest single failure of the West pilots will not be that they listened to ALPA and did not listen to their own lawyer. The biggest failure will be their lack of participation early on in this new (and soon to go away) union. They could have "been a contender," and instead chose to fight for something they not only ethically did not deserve, but could never have. Again, just showing up.........

RR

 

[Move2CLT]

Couple things Al,

First, don't post all the crap on a thread ever again. We're all familiar with it.

Second, why don't you post the words following "free to negotiate..."

You easties seem to selectively omit that part.

 

[Move2CLT]

Nice work Al, I actually learned some things from your original post in this tread. I had no idea just how bad they dropped the ball out West on precedent setting legal issues. Just showing up is half the battle in any affair.

The biggest single failure of the West pilots will not be that they listened to ALPA and did not listen to their own lawyer. The biggest failure will be their lack of participation early on in this new (and soon to go away) union. They could have "been a contender," and instead chose to fight for something they not only ethically did not deserve, but could never have. Again, just showing up.........

RR

Failure of the west? Really RR?

As far as I can tell, your majority is no where near their DOH fantasy. You control the BPR yet you can't even pass your list across the table. And how about that LOA93? Even one of your own pointed out that a won would mean little to the east.

So next time you speak of failure, look into your mirror and remember how the west shut you guys down.

 

[Reed Richards]

Couple things Al,

First, don't post all the crap on a thread ever again. We're all familiar with it.

Second, why don't you post the words following "free to negotiate..."

You easties seem to selectively omit that part.

You will indeed soon be "free to negotiate."

RR

 

[Move2CLT]

Nice reply Al. Bit too much NyQuil tonight?

 

[Bus Driver]

Nice reply Al. Bit too much NyQuil tonight?

Move 2 CLT,

You are dreaming, about a move to CLT, and about Al not having things right. he is right on!

Talk about integrity, get rid of the picture, just goes to show you about low life.

It is not necessary, and you don't need to hit below the belt to debate the issues, it does a disservice to you and all pilots here at LCC. Just my opinion. (Innocent until proven guilty . . . )

Hey Reed, the west has sure screwed things up, huh? They will be at the table before long. They could have had 75% of the lotto ticket if they hadn't been so greedy! ALPA would have made sure!

So, merger talk again, and no scope for the west, but good scope for the east.

Interesting times . . .

Thanks Al for the well researched info.

Bus Driver

 

[luvn737s]

Al- The New A320Pilot!! I bet your mom is so proud (and I bet she understands the issues far more thoroughly than you).

 

[Res Judicata]

If a Merger is announced between US Air and AA the very first thing the West is going to do is notify all parties of the multitude of impending lawsuits if they alter the Nic. Who's going to risk a multi billion dollar transaction by aiding and abetting the behavior of USAPA that was ALREADY PROVEN to be illegal by a Jury? Good Luck, Keep the Dream Alive!!

 

[Bus Driver]

If a Merger is announced between US Air and AA the very first thing the West is going to do is notify all parties of the multitude of impending lawsuits if they alter the Nic. Who's going to risk a multi billion dollar transaction by aiding and abetting the behavior of USAPA that was ALREADY PROVEN to be illegal by a Jury? Good Luck, Keep the Dream Alive!!

Yea, good luck.

Anybody can sue.

The bottom line is your contract.

The west has poor scope protections, and the pilots are still operating under separate contracts.

The transistion agreement can be modified by the parties.

Good luck to YOU!

Bus Driver

 

[Reed Richards]

Nice reply Al. Bit too much NyQuil tonight?

TOGA, you have never contributed a single thing of substance to this forum. Never.

Since you probably missed this with all your spew lately, once again:

Here are some of the key weaknesses to the Scope language in the West contract:

• The title of the West Contract Section 1 says it all; Recognition, Scope and MANAGEMENT Rights.

• The East Contract Section 1 says:
• RECOGNITION, SCOPE, SUCCESSORSHIP, AND LABOR PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS.

• In the event of a complete merger…. There is no language in the event of a partial merger or asset sales in the West section. East language has 20% of assets language, and does not differentiate between complete and incomplete merger.

• “Where the surviving carrier decides to integrate the pre-merger operations”…. What if the surviving carrier decides not to have a large hub in Phoenix
and substantially downsizes these from a Hub to a “Focus City” as they did with Pittsburgh? NO PROTECTION! It could be argued that this language then does not apply. If there is a substantial change to “pre-merger operations” then this language may not apply and not protect the pilots.

• …the Company will make reasonable efforts to have the surviving carrier integrate… the two pilot groups in the same manner as stated in (1) of this paragraph. This is a deal killer. Reasonable Efforts are a non-defined term. The company could ask the transferee to comply with the seniority provision and the transferee simply says no. So much for reasonable efforts ! There are no teeth in this agreement and no way to force the company to comply.

A deal could be easily structured to avoid any Scope obligation at all in the West language.

The East Language is much more concrete:

East language talks about asset transfers and sales not aircraft transfers only.
East language is binding on the successor with no “reasonable efforts” language.
East language does not require a complete merger, only a triggering event of 20%.
East language gives USAPA the right to re-enter section 6 or extend the contract.
East language does not depend on language regarding pre-merger operations integration.
East language gives CAR’s or contingent acquisition rights to the pilots.
East language has withstood several mergers and two bankruptcies and is still largely intact.

WEST SCOPE LANGUAGE IS ESSENTIALLY NON-EXISTANT

RR

 

[Move2CLT]

Move 2 CLT,

You are dreaming, about a move to CLT, and about Al not having things right. he is right on!

Talk about integrity, get rid of the picture, just goes to show you about low life.

It is not necessary, and you don't need to hit below the belt to debate the issues, it does a disservice to you and all pilots here at LCC. Just my opinion. (Innocent until proven guilty . . . )

Hey Reed, the west has sure screwed things up, huh? They will be at the table before long. They could have had 75% of the lotto ticket if they hadn't been so greedy! ALPA would have made sure!

So, merger talk again, and no scope for the west, but good scope for the east.

Interesting times . . .

Thanks Al for the well researched info.

Bus Driver

Nice work getting the second screen name up Al. Now you can pat yourself on the back for your own posts.

Now that's pathetic.

 

[Move2CLT]

TOGA, you have never contributed a single thing of substance to this forum. Never.

Since you probably missed this with all your spew lately, once again:

Here are some of the key weaknesses to the Scope language in the West contract:

• The title of the West Contract Section 1 says it all; Recognition, Scope and MANAGEMENT Rights.

• The East Contract Section 1 says:
• RECOGNITION, SCOPE, SUCCESSORSHIP, AND LABOR PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS.

• In the event of a complete merger…. There is no language in the event of a partial merger or asset sales in the West section. East language has 20% of assets language, and does not differentiate between complete and incomplete merger.

• “Where the surviving carrier decides to integrate the pre-merger operations”…. What if the surviving carrier decides not to have a large hub in Phoenix
and substantially downsizes these from a Hub to a “Focus City” as they did with Pittsburgh? NO PROTECTION! It could be argued that this language then does not apply. If there is a substantial change to “pre-merger operations” then this language may not apply and not protect the pilots.

• …the Company will make reasonable efforts to have the surviving carrier integrate… the two pilot groups in the same manner as stated in (1) of this paragraph. This is a deal killer. Reasonable Efforts are a non-defined term. The company could ask the transferee to comply with the seniority provision and the transferee simply says no. So much for reasonable efforts ! There are no teeth in this agreement and no way to force the company to comply.

A deal could be easily structured to avoid any Scope obligation at all in the West language.

The East Language is much more concrete:

East language talks about asset transfers and sales not aircraft transfers only.
East language is binding on the successor with no “reasonable efforts” language.
East language does not require a complete merger, only a triggering event of 20%.
East language gives USAPA the right to re-enter section 6 or extend the contract.
East language does not depend on language regarding pre-merger operations integration.
East language gives CAR’s or contingent acquisition rights to the pilots.
East language has withstood several mergers and two bankruptcies and is still largely intact.

WEST SCOPE LANGUAGE IS ESSENTIALLY NON-EXISTANT

RR

God damn it's funny watching you east guys get excited over little bits of trivia you find. It's obviously scope today.

I swear you guys act like toddlers that have found their peckers for the first time.

All I'm reading is blah blah blah here. The east has a right to this and that.

It's all crap! If it was doable, USAPA would have jumped all over it. Instead you have a union that does nothing but spew BS that you guys lap up. You'd think you guys never eat with the way you devour Cleary's ####.

Eat up boys, Cleary has got more coming your way. In the mean time enjoy LOA93.

Sail on USAPA with your ship of fools.