US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message

[Bear96]

I can't get the TA to open from the ALPA website, but I believe that both sides did agree to negotiate a joint contract. The thing is, Doug and the boys decided there was no need to hurry up and get a deal, and so THEY were dragging their feet, happy to leave the east making less than the west. He could have settled this thing before the award came out and it would of pretty much tied our hands. If we had a joint contract before May, I think you ALPA would have sent the list to the company. This list just made the price go way up and time line way out. We should negotiate in good faith, but the reality of the situation is that a TA anywhere near what the company's last offer would not pass a membership vote. I don't think anyone can force the membership to vote for something

That's a good point. If East can argue that *management* is not following the TA somehow, that would be helpful to the East's cause. But without further study I am certainly not familiar enough with these details the way you and others here are to say whether East can plausibly argue that. However I would be surprised if management is not making sure to dot all of its I's and cross all of its T's right now with regard to the TA to avoid just such an argument. It wants to be ready to look like a little angel who is just an innocent victim of crossfire from union infighting in front of the NMB or a court to show how patient and reasonable it has been with East should it become necessary to start imposing some terms.

 

[Pi brat]

That's a good point. If East can argue that *management* is not following the TA somehow, that would be helpful to the East's cause. But without further study I am certainly not familiar enough with these details the way you and others here are to say whether East can plausibly argue that. However I would be surprised if management is not making sure to dot all of its I's and cross all of its T's right now with regard to the TA to avoid just such an argument. It wants to be ready to look like a little angel who is just an innocent victim of crossfire from union infighting in front of the NMB or a court to show how patient and reasonable it has been with East should it become necessary to start imposing some terms.

You're giving our managment a lot of credit. Have you seen them dot any I's or cross any Ts lately? Of course I won't discount Jerry Glass, he is very smart, but is no longer a part of our management team.

They could have done one thing and saved a lot of fuel and bad will-bring east payrates up to west right away. They could of left the rest of LOA 93 in place to put pressure to continue talks. As we have seen with the b scale, there is something about someone doing the same job as you for more money that infuriates people.

I wouldn't bet a dollar on what might happen, I have no clue. I just know what I'm going to do.

 

[Bear96]

You're giving our managment a lot of credit.

What U management has been able to squeeze out of the East pilots (and the other ex-U work groups) over the past few years shows it is very good at what it does. I imagine at least a little bit of that talent made it from Crystal City to Tempe.

 

[JetMonkey]

AWA’s Results of Operations
For the second quarter of 2007, AWA’s operating revenues decreased to $902 million from $981 million in the same period in 2006. Operating loss was $25 million in the second quarter of 2007, compared to operating income of $61 million in the second quarter of 2006.

US Airways Group’s Results of Operations
In the three months ended June 30, 2007, we realized operating income of $289 million and income before income taxes of $271 million. Included in these results is $23 million of net gains associated with fuel hedging transactions.

This I copy/pasted from the 2nd quarter report.

A320 Driver

I need a link please. I've looked at every financial news article I could find and they all have the two sides combined.

 

[hp_fa]

Why don't you start posting in the fa's blog, forums, and keep out of pilots??? ! Considering you are an hpfa, what do you know about being a pilot, or what they are going thru?? Let them fight on there own ! JMHO

I'm sorry, I missed the portion that said only Part 121 pilots can post here. Of course, they always could move the entire discussion to some pilot-only website rather then asking the rest of us not to discuss and/or respond to a discussion taking place right under our noses on a public website.

BTW, did you have a response to my questions other then inferring I STFU?

 

[nycbusdriver]

That's exactly what I am talking about.

Yes, it will take some time.

At some point East will have an obligation under the RLA to bargain with management. I never said it was today. But once that point is reached, and after going through the procedural steps, at some point if East refuses to bargain, terms will be imposed.

And I doubt under these facts it will take "several years" after starting Section 6 negotiations. East is showing its intransigence several years before negotiations even begin. They are building up quite a history already of showing a long-term "strategy" of having no intention to bargain and of being unreasonable towards the company. I am sure management is documenting all of it, and I imagine it will be very persuasive to the NMB, which management will run to as soon as they can after the Section 6 process has begun to have an impasse declared.

BTW, I think the long Section 6 route may actually be the worst-case scenario for management. Another approach could be that because East agreed to bargain in good faith to reach a joint contract quickly, that may have also created an obligation to bargain much sooner than the contract's amendable date. I would have to read the TA more carefully to see what else management can argue East agreed to. I have not had time to research that angle so that may be a long shot. But you can bet management is looking into it.

No. It could easily, and legally, take several years. The east is only obligated to the LOA 93 terms of its present contract and that is not amendable until 2009. Only then will east Section 6 negotiations have to begin, and that process is notoriously slow...often taking well over two years.

The agreement among the three parties (company, AWA MEC and AAA MEC) to hash out a single contract is not an RLA protected document. The only thing the NMB is interested in are the collective bargaining agreements in place and that those agreements proceed with the RLA. Of course, the three-way agreement to negotiate a joint contract might end up in a federal court over a breach by the AAA MEC, but those courts are even slower than the NMB process.

Years. No question. It could easily be years.

 

[Bear96]

The agreement among the three parties (company, AWA MEC and AAA MEC) to hash out a single contract is not an RLA protected document. . . . The only thing the NMB is interested in are the collective bargaining agreements in place and that those agreements proceed with the RLA.

Not sure what you mean by "RLA protected document," and I don't agree that the only thing the NMB is interested in are CBAs. One of the RLA's main purposes is "to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions." 45 U.S.C. 152(4) (emphasis added). You may be correct if you mean that this particular agreement does not fall into that category, which is why I have been referring to the idea that the courts OR the NMB may ultimately resolve this. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Years. No question. It could easily be years.

Yes, it very well could be.

But it could also be resolved very quickly should management get tired of the drama.

If the underlying merits of a party's case are weak, courts do not look kindly to tactics that serve purely to delay, especially when those tactics end up financially hurting a party that has done nothing wrong. Here, it is clear that the East solely wants to delay for the sake of delaying.

 

[700UW]

Your transition agreement is a legal addition to both CBAs, therefore it falls under the RLA.

Also Jerry Glass is paid consultant for US Airways and he is leading the negotiations for ALPA, and his protege Al Hemenway is still the VP of Labor Relations, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

Also the company can file a grievance to enforce the terms of the CBA and the transition agreement.

If you don't believe me, the company is the one who filed the airbus grievance against the IAM and the IAM finally prevailed in arbitration.

 

[nycbusdriver]

One of the RLA's main purposes is "to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions." 45 U.S.C. 152(4) (emphasis added).

This is correct. But none of these is in dispute. No one's CBA is being violated by either side (at least as concerns the transition agreement, that is.) Hence, NMB is not interested in the negotiations for the joint contract. As far as they are concerned, the CBAs are doing just fine.

Your transition agreement is a legal addition to both CBAs, therefore it falls under the RLA.

This is wrong. See above.

Your airbus dispute was over a CBA violation by the company, so the NMB stepped in to settle it, as required by law.

 

[Bear96]

This is correct. But none of these is in dispute. No one's CBA is being violated by either side (at least as concerns the transition agreement, that is.) Hence, NMB is not interested in the negotiations for the joint contract.

Wouldn't the joint contract be between an employer and a union, and wouldn't it "concern rates of pay, rules or working conditions"?

 

[700UW]

Wrong, the NMB had nothing to do with the settlement of the airbus arbitration.

Read it again, the COMPANY filed the grievance against the union, not the union filing against the company.

The case went to federal courts then was remanded to arbitration, the NMB had NOTHING to do with the process.

And your T/A makes modifications to your CBA, therefore it is part of your CBA.

How many CBAs have you negotiated?

How many grievances have you represented?

 

[Phoenix]

This is wrong.

Uh, oh. You have done it now. I can't imagine how many posts this will generate from 700. :-D

I agree with your point that the NMB won't really find cause to involve itself with the Transition Agreement. It is being followed.

 

[700UW]

The only time the NMB would get involved is if either party requested it.

 

[A320 Driver]

Wrong, the NMB had nothing to do with the settlement of the airbus arbitration.

Read it again, the COMPANY filed the grievance against the union, not the union filing against the company.

The case went to federal courts then was remanded to arbitration, the NMB had NOTHING to do with the process.

And your T/A makes modifications to your CBA, therefore it is part of your CBA.

How many CBAs have you negotiated?

How many grievances have you represented?

How many houses have you painted?

How many dogs have you neutered?

How many lemons have you sucked?

How many driveways have you paved?

How many crawdads have you eaten?


Good Grief...I should have kept you on the iggy list!


A320 Driver

 

[AAA73Pilot]

That's fine, and is certainly your right.

Of course, it won't change the outcome. If East refuses to bargain, no matter who represents them, at some point terms including the Nicolau list will be imposed.

Forming a new union in the meantime just makes management's job even easier because it shows a hopelessly divided work group and a total lack of solidarity, making the chances almost nil that a strike will occur or be successful once terms are imposed.

Terms? Impositions? That would take a court to decide. But if you want to blend the negotiations, then by default we on the east side could seek self help. I don't think Doug would risk jeopardizing his cash cow, do you? If you're still blending, like section 6, there are many steps to go through before anything can be imposed or self help can be taken. But in my opinion these are not section 6 negotiations and Doug is already on record as not being in a hurry.

Please check out Russell v. NMB, 714 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1983), that decision deals with decertifying a union. As I read the case, after an election is held, if the challenger is elected, they can keep or negate any part of a current working agreement as they see fit. Then new negotiations can take place for either a new contract or no contract. The railway labor act only requires that someone must be elected to speak on behalf of the represented employees. How they speak is of no consequence under the act. So which part do you think will go first?


Does it really make managements job easier? IMO I doubt it. In fact it's just the opposite. Now you would have 2 unions to deal with. Your section 6 and ours. But what is really important about that case law is the ability to pick and choose by the new entity. Doug can either except it or not. We can seek self help or not. Somehow I don't think his ego could handle it. And right now I don't think he cares one way or the other. He's laughing all the way to the bank!

From what I see, we stand a better chance to be split and sold separately than as one entity anyway. Which side would you buy first? One that has the potential to make a lot on money. Or one that just gets by?