Allegheny-Mohawk Merger

[Kharma Police]

I understand this will be the new employee blue print for future airline mergers or acquisitions. Could someone explain the pros vs. cons using this type of protocol?

 

[PCL_128]

My understanding of the bill is that Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs will only be applied if there aren't already contractual merger protections in place. In other words, if two ALPA carriers are merging, then ALPA merger policy is still used in lieu of ALG/Mohawk. The only time that ALG/Mohawk will be required is in the case of non-union airlines merging, or a case where union carriers without contractual merger protection are merging. At AAI, we already have contractual merger procedures, so ALG/Mohawk LPPs only come into play if we can't come to mutual agreement with management and the other carrier's pilots about how to merge on our own.

 

[radarlove]

so ALG/Mohawk LPPs only come into play if we can't come to mutual agreement with management and the other carrier's pilots about how to merge on our own.

Which will happen in 100% of the cases.

 

[PCL_128]

Which will happen in 100% of the cases.

Not really. I think many pilot groups will be cautious about arbitration after seeing how the AWA/AAA fiasco has gone down.

 

[FDJ2]

Not really. I think many pilot groups will be cautious about arbitration after seeing how the AWA/AAA fiasco has gone down.

Bingo!

 

[Deadalus]

Not really. I think many pilot groups will be cautious about arbitration after seeing how the AWA/AAA fiasco has gone down.

That would require both groups to be reasonable and not try and staple the other group. Highly unlikely when dealing with legacy arrogance. One can hope though.

 

[MCDU]

1/3 of USAIRS list got stapled. Guys with 17 years of straight service got stapled. They left out everyone flying the 170 at the time.

 

[TWA Dude]

Correction: all the furloughed East pilots were stapled. The rest were ratioed.

 

[Kharma Police]

Correction: all the furloughed East pilots were stapled. The rest were ratioed.

So, the arbitrators rationale was that the furloughed AAA pilots were not going to ever return to their jobs because UsAir was on the verge of liquidation? Hence the staple at the bottom of the combined lists?

 

[MCDU]

Many of those so called furloughed pilots had jobs flying the 170 at USAIR. The active list in 2005 went to the bottom. one of the reason for the lawsuit of which ALPA will be at fault of not representing all pilots at USAIR at the time. Just wait and see how big ALPO screwed up again. This is huge problem for ALPO, which once again did not fairly represent all of its pilots.

 

[Explosive]

Many of those so called furloughed pilots had jobs flying the 170 at USAIR. The active list in 2005 went to the bottom. one of the reason for the lawsuit of which ALPA will be at fault of not representing all pilots at USAIR at the time. Just wait and see how big ALPO screwed up again. This is huge problem for ALPO, which once again did not fairly represent all of its pilots.

That's funny, and here I thought it was a arbitrator who decided.

 

[Explosive]

1/3 of USAIRS list got stapled. Guys with 17 years of straight service got stapled. They left out everyone flying the 170 at the time.

While I agree that the 170 guys got screwed and there are other problems with the merged list, do you really think that a pilot who's pre-merged seniority could only hold "the street" (furlough) should have been placed above a pilot who's pre-merged seniority held PHX 737 FO?

The career expectations of a new hire are that pilots will be placed on the list beneath them, not above.

The career expectations of a furloughed pilot are that he will return to the list at or near the bottom, not leapfrog 1000's of others.

 

[stlflyguy]

one of the reason for the lawsuit of which ALPA will be at fault of not representing all pilots at USAIR at the time. Just wait and see how big ALPO screwed up again. This is huge problem for ALPO, which once again did not fairly represent all of its pilots.

Sorry...get in line behind those who are former TWA.

stlflyguy

 

[TWA Dude]

So, the arbitrators rationale was that the furloughed AAA pilots were not going to ever return to their jobs because UsAir was on the verge of liquidation? Hence the staple at the bottom of the combined lists?

Nicolau's thoughts can best be explained in his own words:

Of considerable importance is the question of career
expectations. As previously stated, America West argues that the
career expectations of the US Airways pilots were nil; that if the
airline was not a failing carrier saved from certain liquidation by its
purchase by America West, it was so close as to make little difference.
On the other hand, America West, in the view of its pilots, was robust
and on its way to sustained achievement. The US Airways pilots argue
that neither description fits the facts. In their view, US Airways,
though in bankruptcy for the second time, had lowered its costs and
secured additional investment capital ensuring its survival and
prospects of emerging from bankruptcy. Beyond this, as shown by
repeated post-merger statements by America West's CEO and by
expert analysis, that airline was also in poor financial condition.
Thus, both airlines needed each other and both have benefited from
the merger. The US Airways pilots assert that this, as well as cases it
cites as precedent, argue for the proposition that the financial picture of the two airlines was relatively the same and, as such, should not even be considered.
Our view is that neither picture is persuasive. The US Airways reliance on post-merger statements by America West's CEO, clearly made to assuage growing concerns of America West pilots who had seen a post-merger end to hiring, an increasing return of longfurloughed US Airways pilots and a flattening in their own advancement, 'is misplaced. Equally so is America West's insistence that US Airways was about to disappear. Yet, it cannot be disputed that there were differences in the financial condition of both carriers and that US Airways was the weaker. This necessarily means that career expectations differed and that US Airways pilots had more to gain from the merger than their new colleagues.

People like MCDU think Nicolau was off base yet by reading his decision one can only conclude that the guy knew what he was doing and unlike anybody at USAirways or AWA he was neutral. If you'd like to read the entire abritration decision (only 139k Word file) just PM me.

 

[get2flyin]

1/3 of USAIRS list got stapled. Guys with 17 years of straight service got stapled. They left out everyone flying the 170 at the time.

Wait...do you mean the elite "Embraer Division"? STILL funny!!! (sigh) You guys are awesome.

 

[Deadalus]

How do you even argue with someone so stupid. Mainline 170, oh give me a break.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

How do you even argue with someone so stupid. Mainline 170, oh give me a break.

Well, I didn't/don't work there, but have a few friends that did; those 170s were on the "US Airways" certificate, and the pilots received paychecks that said "US Airways" on them. So, what would you call it??

It is very, Very clear from looking at the situation that ALPA (and the Co. for that matter), really, really 'screwed the pooch' on that whole deal. And, that is why the guys that are probably going to win their lawsuit against ALPA. Why do you think that ALPA already offered to 'settle' the suit, but only offered a token amount of like $1mil. Even more, I guess the scary thing for the AW pilots, is that the judge may very well end up 'throwing out' that seniority integration award.

For what its worth.

DA

 

[Deadalus]

Well, I didn't/don't work there, but have a few friends that did; those 170s were on the "US Airways" certificate, and the pilots received paychecks that said "US Airways" on them. So, what would you call it??

It is very, Very clear from looking at the situation that ALPA (and the Co. for that matter), really, really 'screwed the pooch' on that whole deal. And, that is why the guys that are probably going to win their lawsuit against ALPA. Why do you think that ALPA already offered to 'settle' the suit, but only offered a token amount of like $1mil. Even more, I guess the scary thing for the AW pilots, is that the judge may very well end up 'throwing out' that seniority integration award.

For what its worth.

DA

That's impressive. You're post didn't have one accurate thing in it. I guess that's what second hand hearsay get's you.

 

[TWA Dude]

Well, I didn't/don't work there, but have a few friends that did; those 170s were on the "US Airways" certificate, and the pilots received paychecks that said "US Airways" on them. So, what would you call it??

That's not the whole story. In any case, arbitrator Nicolau was presented with the case and he did rule on it. Here's what he wrote of the CEL pilots:

Before turning to the building blocks of our decision and the reasons for those choices, a preliminary matter needs to be
addressed. That is the question of the CEL pilots. Some 105 such pilots (4993-5098) appear on the US Airways May 19, 2005 Certified Seniority List. However, none had flown for the mainline; all were pilots at Mid-Atlantic Airways, a regional carrier designed to be a USAirways wholly-owned subsidiary, but actually flown at all times duringits short existence on the mainline's operating certificate as a division of US Airways.

In other words, he was well aware that MDA was a "division" of USAIRways yet it wasn't mainline.

Why do you think that ALPA already offered to 'settle' the suit, but only offered a token amount of like $1mil.

Our reps told us this was an urban legend; that there was no settlement offer. I guess I don't know for sure. My guess is that as usual, the suit will take many years before resolution.

 

[Deadalus]

That's not the whole story. In any case, arbitrator Nicolau was presented with the case and he did rule on it. Here's what he wrote of the CEL pilots:

Before turning to the building blocks of our decision and the reasons for those choices, a preliminary matter needs to be
addressed. That is the question of the CEL pilots. Some 105 such pilots (4993-5098) appear on the US Airways May 19, 2005 Certified Seniority List. However, none had flown for the mainline; all were pilots at Mid-Atlantic Airways, a regional carrier designed to be a USAirways wholly-owned subsidiary, but actually flown at all times duringits short existence on the mainline's operating certificate as a division of US Airways.

In other words, he was well aware that MDA was a "division" of USAIRways yet it wasn't mainline.Our reps told us this was an urban legend; that there was no settlement offer. I guess I don't know for sure. My guess is that as usual, the suit will take many years before resolution.

You're a better person than I. I no longer have the patience to educate these morons.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

That's impressive. You're post didn't have one accurate thing in it. I guess that's what second hand hearsay get's you.

I am sorry, I guess I just wasted my time. That is why I don't post here that much, as there is just NO reasoning with an 'idiot.' I guess I will just come back here later, when they do in fact Win their suit, and simply say, "I told you so."

DA

 

[PlaneDrvr]

That's not the whole story. In any case, arbitrator Nicolau was presented with the case and he did rule on it. Here's what he wrote of the CEL pilots:

Before turning to the building blocks of our decision and the reasons for those choices, a preliminary matter needs to be
addressed. That is the question of the CEL pilots. Some 105 such pilots (4993-5098) appear on the US Airways May 19, 2005 Certified Seniority List. However, none had flown for the mainline; all were pilots at Mid-Atlantic Airways, a regional carrier designed to be a USAirways wholly-owned subsidiary, but actually flown at all times duringits short existence on the mainline's operating certificate as a division of US Airways.

In other words, he was well aware that MDA was a "division" of USAIRways yet it wasn't mainline.[/quote]

Maybe you can clarify this for me, what does this mean?? "a divison of US Airways"?? So, the pilots who work for the "TED division" of United are NOT United pilots, the pilots who worked for the "MetroJet division" of US Airways were NOT US Air pilots, the pilot who worked for the "Cal-Lite division" of CAL were NOT CAL pilots??? Well, I could go on and on, but maybe you should just answer this question; was there any such company as "MDA"??? If this answer is, NO, then clearly is was all, "US Airways" ergo, they all would be "US Airways pilots" And, if they win their suit, in court, then it would appear that the arbitrator was 'incorrect' in his assessment, which is a possibility.

Again, don't have a dog in this fight, and that is why, again, I don't post here very often, but did read what you stated, heard the 'whole story' and do believe that those guys with the lawsuit will probably win. As I said, it is clear that ALPA and the Co. 'screwed up' on this one, and that is why they will win.

For what its worth.

DA

P.S. If it was make you feel better, this is the last thing that I will say on this matter, as I will Not argue with morons. As I said earlier, I will simply come back on here, after they win their suit, and just say; "I told you so."

 

[Deadalus]

That's not the whole story. In any case, arbitrator Nicolau was presented with the case and he did rule on it. Here's what he wrote of the CEL pilots:

Before turning to the building blocks of our decision and the reasons for those choices, a preliminary matter needs to be
addressed. That is the question of the CEL pilots. Some 105 such pilots (4993-5098) appear on the US Airways May 19, 2005 Certified Seniority List. However, none had flown for the mainline; all were pilots at Mid-Atlantic Airways, a regional carrier designed to be a USAirways wholly-owned subsidiary, but actually flown at all times duringits short existence on the mainline's operating certificate as a division of US Airways.

In other words, he was well aware that MDA was a "division" of USAIRways yet it wasn't mainline.[/quote]

Maybe you can clarify this for me, what does this mean?? "a divison of US Airways"?? So, the pilots who work for the "TED division" of United are NOT United pilots, the pilots who worked for the "MetroJet division" of US Airways were NOT US Air pilots, the pilot who worked for the "Cal-Lite division" of CAL were NOT CAL pilots??? Well, I could go on and on, but maybe you should just answer this question; was there any such company as "MDA"??? If this answer is, NO, then clearly is was all, "US Airways" ergo, they all would be "US Airways pilots" And, if they win their suit, in court, then it would appear that the arbitrator was 'incorrect' in his assessment, which is a possibility.

Again, don't have a dog in this fight, and that is why, again, I don't post here very often, but did read what you stated, heard the 'whole story' and do believe that those guys with the lawsuit will probably win. As I said, it is clear that ALPA and the Co. 'screwed up' on this one, and that is why they will win.

For what its worth.

DA

P.S. If it was make you feel better, this is the last thing that I will say on this matter, as I will Not argue with morons. As I said earlier, I will simply come back on here, after they win their suit, and just say; "I told you so."

Excellent we'll never have to hear from you again.

 

[TWA Dude]

Maybe you can clarify this for me, what does this mean?? "a divison of US Airways"??

Look, there's no doubt it was an irregular, unprecedented situation. MDA differed from Ted, Song, and Metrojet, and Cal Lite because pilots were not allowed to inter-bid to the real mainline.

Your paycheck argument holds no water. My pay stub still reads "America West Airlines" yet no such airline exists anymore. Furthermore, during the TWA/AA integration my paystub started reading "American Airlines" while I still flew for TWA, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AA. Pilots often ask me if I flew for AA before I got furloughed. I reply it depends on what you mean. When furloughed my ID said AA, my paycheck said AA, my uniform was AA, my callsign was AA, but my FAA ops certificate was TWA and I didn't fly any AA metal or with nAAtive pilots. One could poke holes in either answer.

Finally, the FAA ops certificate argument holds no water. One day last September the AWA certificate was retired and we switched to USAirways. Did my employment status suddenly change? No. Just our W&B and performance procedures changed. Today, the "West" operation still uses "Cactus" and there's no intermixing of metal or pilots. Would I be wrong to still call myself an AWA pilot instead of a USAirways pilot? One could poke holes in either answer.

So your semantic arguments are irrelevent. MDA wasn't mainline because USAirways management didn't run it as such. Had ALPA "demanded" it be integrated into mainline management would've used the bankruptcy court hammer to prevent it. They obviously had no intention of MDA ever being mainline. The MDA pilots were screwed by USAirways management, not ALPA nor even Nicolau.

 

[MCDU]

Look, there's no doubt it was an irregular, unprecedented situation. MDA differed from Ted, Song, and Metrojet, and Cal Lite because pilots were not allowed to inter-bid to the real mainline.

That was the intial reason for the whole lawsuit.

 

[TWA Dude]

Then why didn't they sue Management?

 

[MCDU]

USAir admitted that MDA was part of mainline. All evidence is that MDA was USAIR which the courts will 100% see. Like Metrojet, MDA was staffed by USAIR pilots. ALPA did not represent them and they will have to pay dearly for their sell out of junior workers.

TWA Dude, when are you going back to American? Or are you still holding out for a seniority number you will never get to use. A JNC is impossible with the NIC award attached to it. Believe me, impossible as long as the EAST has the majority of pilots.

Marty

 

[MCDU]

Then why didn't they sue Management?

Management could care less. It was ALPA that did nothing about it, when MDA ended up being part of Mainline, instead of being separate.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Before the separation of Cont EXP from Continental the COEX pilots checks said CONTINENTAL AIRLINES on it and was signed by CONTINENTAL's CEO Gordon B. COEX was a division of CONTINENTAL Airlines. But was I a Continental pilot?

Everybody agreed to Arbitration and this is what you get. The Arbitrator had his reasons for doing what he did. How is it ALPA's fault? Sounds like it might be the MEC's fault for leading the pilot group in the wrong direction. And they are trying to blame everybody else because the whole thing blew up in their face. Just remember, BINDING ARBITRATION means just that. The ruling is not going to change.

 

[MCDU]

Diff. seniority list , Diff. lcl Union, different certificate