US pilot labor thread 6/28-7/4

[AAA73Pilot]

Maybe I didn't make my reason for asking clear enough. I ask because DAL and NWA may find themselves in a binding arbitration stuation, and I'd like to gain as much knowledge of the process as possible. I'm looking for answers, not rebuttals or diatribes.

While I do belong to ALPA, I don't work for them. Thanks for your (non) answer.

Actually he did give you an answer. The problem is, this is still ongoing to interpretation until we have a joint contract. Plus being debated ad nauseum. If you want answers try reading through some closed threads and you will find as many opinions as there are posters. You on the other hand (DAL/NWA) have already preempted the seniority merger by agreeing to a joint contract. Subject to seniority integration timeline I would guess. If you should go to arbitration, once a decision is rendered it should become part of the joint contract immediately. Of course, one side could try to decertify ALPA before an award is rendered. In which case the new law will take precedence in determining an integration. Right now it's ALPA vs. ALPA and their internal merger policies er..... now "Guidelines".

We still have no joint contract, not yet anyway. Some believe while in negotiations our Sec 29 seniority is closed because of the arbitration award. Others believe since it has not been implemented it can be renegotiated. There will be a joint contract without the award in it. It may pass, it may not. If it does pass, the west will sue and thats that. The courts will decide the validity of a list that has not been implemented.

While others have disagreed with him,(Not surprisingly) try searching for End_of_Alpa and his posts. Some are very well written concerning the current and pending legal responses. So, we will never really know 'til it plays out.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I've not seen your paycheck and it may very well say AWA on it. In time that too will change.

I think the paychecks should say "Cactus" on them.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

I think the paychecks should say "Cactus" on them.

It doesn't matter to me, so long as they don't bounce.

 

[exB717Flyer]

The Herndon role is to provide tools to resolve conflict. They did not.

This is part of your problem: unrealistic expectations. You created an insurmountable problem and then blamed Herndon for being unable to solve it. Arbitration is the tool most unions use to solve conflicts and there's no higher authority. The fact that you didn't like the result doesn't mean the process was flawed. The flaw is the East doing everything they can to advantage themselves at the West's expense. You've won just about every battle so far but that's only fed into your desire for more. It's looking more and more like the negotiating table at the Tempe Tombstone is where your luck will run out.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It's looking more and more like the negotiating table at the Tempe Tombstone is where your luck will run out.

Like it or not, if what you say is true, OUR luck will run out at the Tempe Tombstone.

(As of April 18, at the very least, you're along for the ride.)

 

[captain tom]

Thanks for your answers.

Tom

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Thanks for your answers.

Tom

No problem. Good Luck!

 

[tazz]

Hey, I'm a long time watcher of these boards. I'm a pilot at DAL, and majored in labor relations in college. I've had a lot of classes in arbitration and mediation, mostly taught by guys who were actually arbitrators and mediators. I've been watching your situation because my understanding of binding arbitration is that it is, in fact, binding.

Your MEC, I'm assuming, signed an agreement to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. USAPA inherited that deal from ALPA, and is still bound by it. While it's possible that anything can be set aside by a judge, I'm curious as to what argument your counsel will use.

I've been watching your situation not because I enjoy watching a train wreck, but because this situation has some relevance and lessons to be learned. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Oh my gosh! Someone on this board actually gets it! Quick, Eastus, Sharktooth, pontificate some BS to try to make this guy look dumb. Tell him to elaborate, tell him he is not qualified enough for his opinion. Tell him that he wasn't smart enough to get hired at AAA so he went off to a lesser carrier. Or admit that he is right and move forward.

 

[Phoenix]

This is part of your problem: unrealistic expectations. You created an insurmountable problem and then blamed Herndon for being unable to solve it. ...

ALPA's irretractable premise that they could manage expectations in leu of performance is exactly why they got their a $ $ handed to them.

 

[tazz]

Capt Tom: you won't learn anything here. Consult with former Merger Committe members for real answers. You will just find a few myopic bitter welfare mentality types on this board. I do appreciate your concern because your merger can possibly make our abortion look like a food fight. One really good source would be the former AWA vice chairman who has been recalled to American. Great guy. Any and all former MC members can enlighten you on the process and all ramifications. Godspeed to all of you.

 

[sharktooth]

This is part of your problem: unrealistic expectations. You created an insurmountable problem and then blamed Herndon for being unable to solve it.

No, son, ALPA is the franchisor and as a part of the franchise the pilots bought through their dues, ALPA National is to provide tools to solve the problem. Since, once again, they could not, the pilots seemed to have collectively felt they had failed too many times.

ALPA National created the "insurmountable problem", then, tried to lay it off on an arbitrator. As long as the arbitrated rulings were not too far out of whack, with a lot of grumbling, pilots moved on.

Unfortunately, with the "nic", incorrect documentation was the least of the problems and, while I would think that "binding" would be binding were there no, um improprieties, in this case there was so much wrong the east pilots could not let it stand, and, using perfectly legal actions, called BS and fired the sponsoring union.

 

[sharktooth]

Quick, Eastus, Sharktooth, pontificate some BS to try to make this guy look dumb. Tell him to elaborate, tell him he is not qualified enough for his opinion. Tell him that he wasn't smart enough to get hired at AAA so he went off to a lesser carrier.

You are doing the digging, all by yourself. You want to "make this guy look dumb", that would be your call. Have a good day.

As far as "looking dumb", I would say you do that quite well, again, all by yourself.

 

[767jetz]

Maybe I didn't make my reason for asking clear enough. I ask because DAL and NWA may find themselves in a binding arbitration stuation, and I'd like to gain as much knowledge of the process as possible. I'm looking for answers, not rebuttals or diatribes.

While I do belong to ALPA, I don't work for them. Thanks for your (non) answer.

Unfortunately you won't find any answers here. I too was/am interested as well since these cases tend to set precedents for future consolidation, and since UAL and US were courting (again) recently. (There is also the "train wreck" factor. ) But as soon you start to ask questions that even imply that you hold a different view, the attack squad will go to work on you, just as tazz said above, and as you have already experienced first hand on only your 3rd post at the hands of the notorious "oldie."

What DL & NW did correctly was to negotiate a tentative joint contract BEFORE seniority integration. That way the legal process can not be hijacked by any self righteous, self entitled, angry men who may feel somehow cheated by a process they willingly submitted to. You guys are doing it right, and it will certainly make any disputes you have look like a food fight compared to the US/AW merger. And you are correct that binding arbitration is in fact binding and does not go away. That's why it is best to actually negotiate and know when to yield a little, rather than toss your fate into the hands of a third party. The biggest problem with the East's approach from day one was unreasonable expectations. Something they will never admit to, and will rebut and expel diatribes on endlessly. It is everyone else's fault in their eyes.

If the DL and NW pilots are anything like your counterparts at UA and CO, you will probably find more common ground than not, and quite possibly could find a workable seniority integration in the negotiating or mediating phase of ALPA merger policy, and it may never get to arbitration. I know that during the last talks between CO and UA, we had a tentative seniority integration already worked out before any merger was even announced.

Good luck to you, captain tom. And beware while swimming in these shark infested waters! 😉

 

[checksix]

Capt Tom: you won't learn anything here.

Your advice seems a bit tardy, in fact, maybe Tom will learn a lot here. That being said, perhaps you should let Tom decide whether or not any information was of value?

 

[checksix]

Unfortunately you won't find any answers here. I too was/am interested as well since these cases tend to set precedents for future consolidation, and since UAL and US were courting (again) recently. (There is also the "train wreck" factor. ) \

767, you seem a bit biased. The US/UAL courtship is behind us. So why the continued participation? Is there some other motivating factor here that escapes me? One cannot help but note that you always preface your subjective comments with some potential historic involvement that has nothing to do with today. My apologies, but I fail to see why someone who claims to fly for another carrier is so interested in US Airways??? Do you really fly for UAL or perhaps you are a pilot or F/A for a US/UAL express carrier? I fail to see the motivation???