Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Goodbye usapa!!!!!!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
However, as Judge Silver notes in her Jan. 10 decision in the Addington case, "when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."


 
Silver got it wrong. Shes a dingbat judge from the dessert. USAPA isnt going any where. Sorry to burst the westicles bubble
 
SWA Bubba said:
Whether you like it or not, in the Southwest/AirTran SLI, the written agreements were stuck to. There was "hardball" played by both sides, but all the written agreements were adhered to. The only pending legal/NMB action is against your union (ALPA), and no one else.

Some people on both sides are unhappy, and bitch about the result. However, if we had gotten to binding arbitration as per the agreements (which we did not), then we would have gone along with the results. And arguably, the exact same people would still be unhappy and bitching.

By the way, how did this suddenly morph into an AirTran/Southwest thing? I thought this thread was about USAPA. Back to East vs. West: "You suck!".... "Well, you suck more!"

Bubba
Click to expand...

Bubba,

You are forgetting a very significant part of that highlight. We were told "take the tird sandwich or you WILL ultimately lose your job"

Anywho I understand why the Southwest guys are unhappy....they didn't get their organic growth...I get that. Many of us at Airtran would have preferred to stay a stand alone airline and just swap out our CEO for someone with a set of balls.

What I don't understand.....is the collective inability of the Southwest Pilot to understand why many of us at AT are upset...losing 25%-33% of your seniority/quality of life/and Captani seat....and in many cases being to old to recapture it...in addition too that having ATL's base practically shut down forcing many of us to commute.
I don't know if it's denial, ignorance or arrogance but it has played a significant role in the anomosity between the 2 groups

buenes nachos
 
PCL_128 said:
Bubba (a fitting name), while what you say is technically true, the threat was that the agreements would not be adhered to. I didn't see you or waveflyer screaming about how that threat was dishonest or unfair. So you need to "own it." Chiming in on an Airways thread and taking USAPA to task for doing exactly what you threatened to do (not honor binding arbitration) is the height of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Union Thug (a very fitting moniker for you as well),

Nobody at Southwest ever threatened to "not honor binding arbitration." Ever. You're wrong about that, and it's nothing like USAir east, no matter how indignant you feel. Essentially, what Gary did was force you to put an agreement to a vote. And he did that only after ALPA made it clear that it had no intention of putting any agreement to a vote; its only desire was to wait it out until arbitration (ALPA: "the worst we'll get in arbitration is DOH."). And this was after all sides, including ALPA, agreed in the process agreement that they desired a negotiated settlement instead of arbitration, and after Gary made it clear that he wanted every pilot to vote. You played hardball; he responded in turn, forcing you to live up to what you agreed in the PA: Let the pilots vote.

If either agreement had been voted down by the pilots instead of just your gang of 7, then you would have gotten your precious arbitration, just as the agreement stipulated. In my opinion, it would have been similar to what was agreed upon, other than FAT guys who were senior enough to be captains on the overall list probably should be. Personally, I think they should have at transition, instead of waiting until Jan 2015.

Bubba
 
71driver said:
Bubba,

You are forgetting a very significant part of that highlight. We were told "take the tird sandwich or you WILL ultimately lose your job"

Anywho I understand why the Southwest guys are unhappy....they didn't get their organic growth...I get that. Many of us at Airtran would have preferred to stay a stand alone airline and just swap out our CEO for someone with a set of balls.

What I don't understand.....is the collective inability of the Southwest Pilot to understand why many of us at AT are upset...losing 25%-33% of your seniority/quality of life/and Captani seat....and in many cases being to old to recapture it...in addition too that having ATL's base practically shut down forcing many of us to commute.
I don't know if it's denial, ignorance or arrogance but it has played a significant role in the anomosity between the 2 groups

buenes nachos
Click to expand...

Hey, I get it. I know why a lot of you are upset. A lot of us are upset as well. I know that a lot of you would have preferred to stay a stand alone company; but I bet an even higher percentage of us (Southwest pilots, that is) would have preferred that as well. However, that wasn't up to us, anymore than it was up to you.

I'm ready to move on as well; I'm just sick of people like PCL mischaracterizing certain things, to rationalize one of the biggest fukc-ups ever perpetrated on a group of pilots by its "leadership."

Bubba
 
71driver said:
What I don't understand.....is the collective inability of the Southwest Pilot to understand why many of us at AT are upset...losing 25%-33% of your seniority/quality of life/and Captani seat....

buenes nachos
Click to expand...


And there's your problem 71driver.

Did you really think that you'd keep your 23-33% seniority coming across to a much larger carrier? Please. Your expectations were inflated if that's the case. A career at SW didn't equal a career at AirTran. I'm not saying AirTran wasn't a good gig for many, it just all changed when your CEO hit the cash register.
 
SWA Bubba said:
Union Thug (a very fitting moniker for you as well),
Click to expand...

Thank you! :)

Nobody at Southwest ever threatened to "not honor binding arbitration." Ever.
Click to expand...

You're either a bad liar or just really clueless. Not only did Gary threaten it, but your very own Steve Chase did as well. Hell, go back and look at the threads from 2010-2011 right here, and you'll see plenty of brethren threatening the same thing.

(ALPA: "the worst we'll get in arbitration is DOH.").
Click to expand...

ALPA never said that. More lies.

If either agreement had been voted down by the pilots instead of just your gang of 7, then you would have gotten your precious arbitration, just as the agreement stipulated.
Click to expand...

No, according to Gary, we would have been kept separate at best, or shut down and out of our jobs at worst. Not that I actually believe any of those crazy threats, but they were threats, and most of our pilots did believe them.
 
Guppiedriver said:
Unless your union appeals her decision and wins, what she wrote is the law.

It's desert, numbnuts.
Click to expand...

Not quite. That part of the ruling was just her discussion about how she reached her decision. The only part that is "law" is the part at the end. But she certainly handed the APA a great argument on a silver platter.
 
PCL_128 said:
Not quite. That part of the ruling was just her discussion about how she reached her decision. The only part that is "law" is the part at the end. But she certainly handed the APA a great argument on a silver platter.
Click to expand...

Apparently, the APA thinks it's the law.



Petition for Single-Carrier Status

Your APA leadership has received several inquiries from members regarding our filing of a petition for single-carrier status with the National Mediation Board (NMB) earlier this week. Some members have also read the update that the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) issued yesterday, which characterized the filing as "premature" and asserted that a single-carrier filing would be timely only after an integrated seniority list is completed.
To be clear, APA's filing complies with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) mutually agreed to by American Airlines, US Airways, APA and USAPA. The MOU stipulates the following:
APA shall file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, when APA determines that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition but in no event later than four months after the Effective Date.
​
The term "Effective Date" refers to the date of the merger between American Airlines and US Airways, which was Dec. 9, 2013.
Consistent with that provision of the MOU and based on information American Airlines filed with the NMB last week, APA determined that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition. The completion of an integrated seniority list is not a mandatory pre-condition for a single-carrier finding by the NMB. Actually, in the vast majority of significant airline mergers, the NMB has found a single carrier before the completion of seniority integration.

The USAPA update also asserted that "the McCaskill-Bond Amendment contemplates the continued independent representation of each pre-merger bargaining unit throughout the process of seniority integration." This statement suggests that USAPA would continue to serve in its current capacity even after the NMB certifies a single bargaining representative. However, as Judge Silver notes in her Jan. 10 decision in the Addington case, "when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."

The APA Seniority Integration Committee will continue to pursue the negotiation of a seniority integration protocol with USAPA and American Airlines, as required by the MOU. This protocol will establish the rules of engagement for APA and USAPA going forward.

APA will provide updates as appropriate during what will likely be a lengthy and complex seniority integration process.
 
Guppiedriver said:
Apparently, the APA thinks it's the law.
Click to expand...


I don't think the APA thinks it Law. But it is an interesting position for them to take. Silver obviously didn't understand the RLA, but she took a quick course and got her ruling right. I still think she is unclear on a few things. Anyway, allow me to highlight a part of your post you didn't put in bold:

"The APA Seniority Integration Committee will continue to pursue the negotiation of a seniority integration protocol with USAPA and American Airlines, as required by the MOU. This protocol will establish the rules of engagement for APA and USAPA going forward."

I think you will find the "protocol" established will remove USAPA from their representational role for the US Airways pilots in everything except the SLI once single carrier status is granted. That's why USAPA is in DFW as we speak...
 
ALGFLYR said:
I don't think the APA thinks it Law. But it is an interesting position for them to take. Silver obviously didn't understand the RLA, but she took a quick course and got her ruling right. I still think she is unclear on a few things. Anyway, allow me to highlight a part of your post you didn't put in bold:

"The APA Seniority Integration Committee will continue to pursue the negotiation of a seniority integration protocol with USAPA and American Airlines, as required by the MOU. This protocol will establish the rules of engagement for APA and USAPA going forward."

I think you will find the "protocol" established will remove USAPA from their representational role for the US Airways pilots in everything except the SLI once single carrier status is granted. That's why USAPA is in DFW as we speak...
Click to expand...

I agree that she seems confused on issues concerning RLA and McCaskill/Bond. I am not a lawyer, but it was explained to me by a lawyer that Judge Silver's opinion is the law in our case and that it will stand unless it is successfully appealed or overturned.

I didn't put it in bold because it's irrelevant. They are required to participate, so they are.
 
How did that meeting in DFW go, was it truly a meeting of equals as Hummel stated last week or more a sit down?
 
Guppiedriver said:
I am not a lawyer, but it was explained to me by a lawyer that Judge Silver's opinion is the law in our case and that it will stand unless it is successfully appealed or overturned.
Click to expand...

How much sense does it make that a judge would get to change the merger process laid out in the M/B act? An act passed by congress.
 
Andrew_VT said:
How much sense does it make that a judge would get to change the merger process laid out in the M/B act? An act passed by congress.
Click to expand...
Laws get challenged in court all the time. Her interpretation is that USAPA can not participate after APA takes over. This is now case law and will stand unless overturned on appeal. I don't agree with her interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Andrew_VT said:
How much sense does it make that a judge would get to change the merger process laid out in the M/B act? An act passed by congress.
Click to expand...

You mean like changing a BINDING arbitration award? The Easties changed the meaning of Binding forever. You Easties deserve dog poop.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Last edited:
What makes an arbitration "binding"... The contract that circumscribes it. Change unions, renegotiate the contract, have membership ratify the new contract that nullifies the previous contract.... No DFR.


Wye River... All the risk.... :D
 
Turtle21 said:
What makes an arbitration "binding"... The contract that circumscribes it. Change unions, renegotiate the contract, have membership ratify the new contract that nullifies the previous contract.... No DFR.


Wye River... All the risk.... :D
Click to expand...

Very well said! Who was that previous CBA? Lol. Alpo is goooooone. Along with the Nic. Dead dead dead

Really though it comes down to this. Usapa is the legal CBA for ALL usairways pilots and no dingbat desert judge can change that.
 
St. Nic said:
Very well said! Who was that previous CBA? Lol. Alpo is goooooone. Along with the Nic. Dead dead dead

Really though it comes down to this. Usapa is the legal CBA for ALL usairways pilots and no dingbat desert judge can change that.
Click to expand...
The MOU changed that. Not Silver.
 
Guppiedriver said:
Yep, you're right, but why would they quote Judge Silver if they didn't think her opinion was in fact the law in our case?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between an interpretation in discussion and "law." Judge Silver's ruling that the West pilots didn't have a right to participate in the SLI discussions with their own representatives is "law." It's part of the court order. Her discussion of how she reached that decision is not law. It's just discussion. And the part the APA quotes about how USAPA can't participate after a single carrier determination is just in the discussion section, not in the court order section.

Now, I'm not saying that the interpretation is wrong. It certainly seems correct to me. The MOU is very clear. Which I'm sure is why the APA is quoting her statement. It's a great argument for them. But as of today, it's not law. There has not been any judge that has issued a court order on that subject.
 
PCL_128 said:
There's a difference between an interpretation in discussion and "law." Judge Silver's ruling that the West pilots didn't have a right to participate in the SLI discussions with their own representatives is "law." It's part of the court order. Her discussion of how she reached that decision is not law. It's just discussion. And the part the APA quotes about how USAPA can't participate after a single carrier determination is just in the discussion section, not in the court order section.



Now, I'm not saying that the interpretation is wrong. It certainly seems correct to me. The MOU is very clear. Which I'm sure is why the APA is quoting her statement. It's a great argument for them. But as of today, it's not law. There has not been any judge that has issued a court order on that subject.
Click to expand...


It was dicta, used in a political rant.

MB is law. USAPA will represent all USAir pilots to completion of SLI.

APA is throwing out negotiating bluster.
 
While I agree with you that it was dicta, and doesn't carry the force of law, it was good dicta. The MOU is quite clear, and your representatives should have known better than to sign an MOU that left the APA this opportunity. But as usual, USAPA was incompetent. Enjoy your SLI. It has the potential to be even worse than ours.
 
PCL_128 said:
While I agree with you that it was dicta, and doesn't carry the force of law, it was good dicta. The MOU is quite clear, and your representatives should have known better than to sign an MOU that left the APA this opportunity. But as usual, USAPA was incompetent. Enjoy your SLI. It has the potential to be even worse than ours.
Click to expand...

It couldn't happen to a better group of jackholes...


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Turtle21 said:
It was dicta, used in a political rant.

MB is law. USAPA will represent all USAir pilots to completion of SLI.

APA is throwing out negotiating bluster.
Click to expand...

More to the point, APA cannot reach a negotiated SLI with itself. The concept makes the language of M-B and Allegheny nonsensical. I don't know the specific legal terms but it would be akin to entering into a contract with yourself. By definition it requires at least two parties, so I don't think the APA is even trying to do what some people think they are trying to do.

What I'm guessing they are probably trying to do, is get certified as the bargaining agent ahead of time. Then there would be elections for "MEC" type SLI negotiation committees from each side similar to ALPA merger policy. So, the US Air side would still have their own representation but the rules governing the elections and committee process would be APA bylaws. This may satisfy the requirements of M-B since each side would have their own representation, albeit under the same union umbrella.

In the TWA-AMR merger, my understanding is that the APA constitution mandated a staple as the only legitimate SLI method. However I believe that provision has been removed, a browsed through the APA contract and APA bylaws and could find no reference to any particular mandated SLI method.

Prior to Silver's ruling, I would have guessed the APA would have pushed for separate negotiating committees under the umbrella of APA for AMR, LCC, and AWA. Now, Judge Silver's ruling specifically excludes the West pilots from the M-B process. But it doesn't stop APA from setting up an election process for committee representation that enables West pilots to get a seat... for example, they could mandate that the process elects one representative from each domicile. Or something similar. They would control that election process and would naturally try to rig it to their advantage.

This is all speculation, and I am far from convinced that they will succeed in being granted Single Carrier in time. The SLI process is on an MOU mandated timeline and the NMB is not.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom