US Pilot Labor Thread 11/3-11/9

[cleardirect]

Do I have to explain how to use "Google"? Put in "Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs" and see what you get.

In as much as the A/M LPPs are included in ALL ALPA contracts that I know of, then explain to me how it hasn't been an integral part of recent mergers already. I would even wager that it is in the old AWA pilot contract. The only issue with this one is that it was IGNORED.

Sorry oldie still can not find the actual real language. All I can find are the provisions.

“A requirement that provisions be made for the integration of seniority lists "in a fair and equitable manner," including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the airlines and the representatives of the employees affected. The LPPs did not define "fair and equitable."“

This is from the Minnesota house report on the NWA/DAL merger.

Labor Protective Provisions and the Allegheny-Mohawk
Merger
Labor Protective Provisions (LPPs) were routinely applied by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in the 1950s and 1960s in airline mergers. The LPPs were formalized as a set of standards in the board’s 1972 order in the merger of Allegheny and Mohawk airlines.5 That order granted several protections for employees adversely affected by an airline merger. The protections included a monthly displacement allowance for employees whose compensation was reduced, a dismissal allowance for employees who lost their job, reimbursement for relocation expenses, and compensation for other losses suffered as a direct result of the merger. In addition, the Allegheny-Mohawk order required that seniority systems be integrated in a “fair and equitable manner†and provided mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes over LPPs.
The LPPs, however, required that any adverse impact had to be the result of the merger. Further, the “fair and equitable†standard was generally regarded to have been met if the procedure (rather than the outcome) was fair.

The CAB retreated from LPPs in the early 1980s after the industry was deregulated and began using them on a selective rather than general basis. Since 1985, when the CAB expired and its jurisdiction was transferred to the Department of Transportation under the auspices of the Federal Aviation administration (FAA), LPPs have been generally rejected.

No where in there does it say DOH or LOS. The language used is “fair and equitable†Which is not defined. ALPA merger policy uses the language “fair and equitable†Does anyone wonder where that language came from?

This is the statement that I found the most interesting

“Further, the “fair and equitable†standard was generally regarded to have been met if the procedure (rather than the outcome) was fair. “

Does that sound familiar? ALPA national found the procedure to have been met. The rules were followed. Just because the east does not like the “outcome†does not define “unfairâ€. So this new federal is no different then what would have happened between AWA/AAA.

Go ahead put all of your hope in A/M. We get the exact same thing.

 

[nostradamus]

"Of course, there's parallel discussions that we could have concerning the type of airline mergers that occured before and after deregulation and the effects of the industry revolving around the economic cycle but that's fodder for another day."

Translation, the mergers I have benefited from are ok and the others are open to interpretation. NIMBY, hypocrisy.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I guess you can see which groups have the hardest times merging. The pilots, of course. The one group you cite as not using DOH/LOS as the basis for their mergers. Pretty telling, I'd say.

Yup, pretty telling indeed. It tells me that the pilots are the only group where pay and many benefits aren't based strictly on longevity but rather seniority.

Glad you agree...

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

That same poster is apparently STILL PO'd that he didn't get his windfall in the US/PI merger. Now that he's gone he can try for vindication that won't cost him anything.

It really is a shame that some are so emotionally driven that they can't even consider, much less accept, that someone may honestly disagree with their position. So they make up reasons to justify what really is their own insecurity.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

I know of no case where two pilot groups used the A-M LPPs in the post-deregulation world. That's not to say that there weren't any, but no one has come up with an example yet.

Jim

Okay, so the real point is that it has not been tested, rather than that none have gone DOH/LOS as your post implies.

So, I suppose we can also say none have gone by ZIP code.

None have gone by birth date.

None have gone alpha by middle name.

None have gone in reverse order of height or weight.

 

[cleardirect]

For all of you guys that lean on what the other labor groups did or how they did it.

Seham was before the judge arguing that DOH was fair and that USAPA had the right to rearrange the seniority list, because the F/A, dispatchers and mechanics were DOH.

The judges response was "that is irrelevant to this situation" So keep pointing to what someone else has. It means nothing to he guy that is going to make the decision.

 

[nostradamus]

That same poster is apparently STILL PO'd that he didn't get his windfall in the US/PI merger. Now that he's gone he can try for vindication that won't cost him anything. I'll bet if he were still on board, and about to be junior to some guy hired 15 years or more later, and would likely never again see a left seat, his tune would be different. That scenario will occur to many East folks if the Nic were implemented, even thought they would have upgraded and held left seats for 10 or more years if the merger hadn't occurred.

I agree with you oldie, obviously some posters emotions interfere with their judgment.

 

[BoeingBoy]

For whoever wanted the text of the A-M LPPs, here are the applicable sections cited in the new federal law.

3. Insofar as the 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 the 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.

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 refereed 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 be
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 selection 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 unless and until that
alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all the
parties.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Ergo, DOH with conditions and restrictions.

Perhaps you'd care to point out the conditions and restrictions incorporated in the A-M merger, which established the A-M LPPs...

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

In as much as the A/M LPPs are included in ALL ALPA contracts that I know of, then explain to me how it hasn't been an integral part of recent mergers already. I would even wager that it is in the old AWA pilot contract. The only issue with this one is that it was IGNORED.

Perhaps you'll notice the circumstances under which the contract includes the A-M LPPs - for mergers between an ALPA carrier and a non-ALPA carrier. I believe even USAPA has similiar language. So it was "ignored" in this merger because both carriers were ALPA and the A-M LPP language didn't apply - just like it wouldn't under USAPA if the merging carrier's pilots were somehow both represented by USAPA.

Jim

 

[nostradamus]

ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[BoeingBoy]

Darn...somebody left the door open and a gnat got in...

ZZZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ ZZZSplat.

Jim

 

[nowon]

I have been reading this site for years now and finally am going to jump in with my 2 cents. First i should start out by saying im not a pilot, and have been at Usairways since 1986. During the merger i was on furlough and have been back now for over 2 years.

The 2 bankruptcys and the many layoffs got me and of course the company cutting back to save any nickel they could so they could fatten their pockets and make us look very attractive for a merger or buyout didnt help much either . I even in a roundabout way fell for that jets for jobs nonsense and worked for Mid Atlantic.

My Usairways East thinking: (and this may make some angry)

My seniority is not for sale and i told our union president the same thing. I put my time in for this company and as far as i see it gave the greatest sacrafice of giving up my job for two years so this company could get on its feet. i would not have been happy if i was put below an employee with 10 years upon my return, and if we happen to merge again which im sure is likely i would even tell my union that it would not be fair for them to slot me in above a 30 year guy if thats how it worked out.

and yes when i use the word seniority i consider it the day i was hired .

i even went as far as to make a argument to our union while on layoff that any profit sharing checks that had been given out should have include those on furlough since we gave the most to help out the company. That didnt go over as well as i had hoped !!!!!!

 

[tazz]

That scenario will occur to many East folks if the Nic were implemented, even thought they would have upgraded and held left seats for 10 or more years if the merger hadn't occurred.

If the "merger" hadn't occurred he would be selling shoes, as would you.

 

[cubfan]

If the "merger" hadn't occurred he would be selling shoes, as would you.

If you keep an open mind, and are truely honest with yourself, If the "merger" hadn't occured, we may all be selling shoes.