Alpa

[charlie2]

That makes no sense whatsoever. ALPA's merger policy is negotiate->mediate->arbitrate. No promises since going to arbitration is always a crapshoot. What possible other methodology could ensure one side doesn't take advantage of the other?

Pilots have proven over and over that given the chance they'll craft an integrated seniority list that "protects" their own and screws the others. Witness AA/TWA and what USAPA is trying to do. You don't want to be compared to either of those scoundrels, do you?

Has there ever been a merger where it didn't go to arbitration? If not than why the first two steps? I think most arbitrators will go the non DOH route so why aren't we smart enough to just do it ourselves? Oh ya that silly little thing called a DFR lawsuit that makes the union "protect their own".

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba:

I guess I'm missing your point. Obviously each side will propose something that benefits them. The arbitrator knows very well what all the issues are affecting each individual merger.

Since you find fault with ALPA's way of integrating what do you propose as a more fair way?

Every case is different. I have no problem with negotiating, mediation, etc. What I AM proposing is that a carrier's pilot union NOT to agree ahead of time (as required by membership in ALPA) that it'll use Relative or DOH no matter what the case is. Since every case is different, agreeing to this long before any specific merger is even announced considered, is unfair. Not only that, but it gives a legal boost to whomever can pick one of those criteria to favor themselves ("hey, your honor, they already agreed to use this criteria!")

See what I'm getting at?

Bubba

 

[TWA Dude]

What I AM proposing is that a carrier's pilot union NOT to agree ahead of time (as required by membership in ALPA) that it'll use Relative or DOH no matter what the case is.

First of all, with the exception of USAPA I'm not aware of any predetermined SLI method. ALPA has certain guidelines spelled out but they aren't actually binding.

Second, I don't see the efficacy of your idea. Either both pilot groups will come to an agreement or they won't. Chances are they won't and will end up making their case in front of the arbitrator who's heard it all before.

 

[TWA Dude]

Has there ever been a merger where it didn't go to arbitration?

TWA/AA.

...so why aren't we smart enough to just do it ourselves?

Don't ask me, ask the former East MEC.

 

[charlie2]

TWA/AA.

I guess I should have asked if there was any good new list after a merger without an arbitrator.

 

[TWA Dude]

Depends on your definition of "good".

 

[charlie2]

Depends on your definition of "good".

Was the TWA merger list good?

 

[TWA Dude]

Nope. Without getting into an irrelevant discussion of the details suffice it to say the APA got to impose the list they wanted. That ain't fair no matter how you slice it.

 

[charlie2]

Nope. Without getting into an irrelevant discussion of the details suffice it to say the APA got to impose the list they wanted. That ain't fair no matter how you slice it.

I know so my question still is...is there a "good" list resulting from a merger?

 

[Fubijaakr]

SWA was everybody's last stop for a job....Now? Top of the heap....and they let everybody know it. Thanks to the undercutting SWAPA, Pensions and pay are gone and my management pointed at them as a good example of "productivity". I can't wait for the day when we all have to pay for our ratings......

It is laughable how some on FI forget the history.

Well said. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.