This is starting to remind me of the fallout from the AA/TWA integration. No, there aren't a whole lot of similarities in the process, but what I find amazing is how genuinely hard it is to see the other side's point when you are involved in the fight.
I have good friends on both sides of the AA/TWA merger/acquisition/whatever, and on any other subject they are pretty much rational and open-minded. But bring up that integration, and all the AA guys can spout off is how lucky the TWA group was to be saved by them, and they should be grateful for a staple job, yada yada. Likewise, my TWA buds remain in complete denial over the state of their airline pre-merger, and cast all AA pilots as greedy bastards. The wounds are deep, and I don't see this getting much better with the passage of time.
Now that I am part of my own integration debacle (and they are ALL debacles!), I see myself falling into the same trap. For every east guy that cries about his 18 years of service and how can he be junior to some snot-nosed AWA new hire, I just want to scream Because that's where you would be after your airline liquidated and you came to AWA as a new hire! Likewise, I'm seeing zero open-mindedness from east to west. We're all just too close to the fight to be objective.
This brings me to my point. Love or loathe ALPA, they represent us all, and we live under their bylaws (voluntarily, I might add). We all had the choice of negotiating a integrated list outside of arbitration, but emotions ruled the day, and we all sent this to binding arbitration. At that point we gave up control of the process, knowing that favorable or not, we would have to live with the outcome. For months, our merger committees and the arbitrator did nothing but chew on this case, trying to adhere to ALPA merger policy. Finally, an outcome emerges, and the uproar begins. Where do we get off, as the peanut gallery on FI.com, calling this fair or unfair? Unless you sat in that room every day and listened to the case, or at a minimum read the entire report, you are just ranting emotions.
I know I am too close to this to be objective. If you have a dog in this fight, you are, too. I'm most interested in the take of those that have no stake either way.
Finally, we have to move forward somehow. I know from history that moving forward usually means entrenching ourselves in our respective positions and begrudging each other for the next 20 years. That is why I wanted no part of this merger in the first place. All of this talk about shutting down the negotiations, burning down the place, etc....WTF is the point? You've got your relative seniority, same seat, no bump/flush, and your widebody fences. Without a joint contract, you've got LOA 93 for another 3 or so years, and I would have to think that with retirement looming, you'd rather spend those 3 years earning decent money. Oh, and just to let a little secret out--there's not exactly a stampede of guys out here ready to go bid your system.
If it will make you feel better listening, I will tell you that I don't have a dog in this fight. That said, I have done a fair amount of consulting work, writte, researched and know that industry quite well.
The problem that I have with most of the postings/info on this board is that I deal pretty much in just 'factual' information. On this subject, when people say that the old US Air was going to 'liquidate, go out of business, or AWA saved US Air, or AWA bought US Air, etc, and so on' and all of this is just "rhetorical babble." Just like this was all Doug Parker's idea. The truth is the idea/plan for this merger came from the then CFO of the old US Air, who took the idea to Lakefield, then to Parker and the outside investors. The planning started well over six months before this merger was consummated. Yet the rhetoric is that US Air was just 'days' away from liquidating. Do you realize how much time it takes to put together a deal like this? I do. AWA did Not 'buy' US Air, as I don't think that they had $1.6B in the bank to write a check. All of the money people were in place long before this deal ever took place, and these money people knew exactly what the situation was. Most of the talk of US Air's imminent dismise was more designed to 'sell the merger' to the regulators, gov't, etc. I suppose you also believe that Parker (and Goldman Sachs, of course) were just going to 'save Delta' a few months ago??? Well, enough about that whole financial thing, on to the Arbitrator.
I have read the transcripts of the hearings and also the Arbritation ruling/findings; and the Arbritator seem to place some significance on the financial plight of the old US Air and also the possible financial future of AWA. None of this is (or should be), within the scope of his arbritation, the so called, 'failing carrier doctrine.' There were those who wanted to bring this issue up in the FedEx/Flying Tiger arbritation; that Flying Tigers was failing and needed to merge. That issue was set aside as not appropriate for an arbritator to decide, as he should not 'guess' or try to predict what might have occurred in the future, rightfully so.
No where that I know of in ALPA merger policy does it call for an examination or prediction of the financial future of a carrier. However, once the arbitrator in this case took a 'strange detour' into this area, didn't he have an obligation to examine, as people often say in merger times, "what you have brought to the table"?? Fact, over 2/3ths of the revenue of the New US Airways (LCC) is generated from the old US Air (East), also a higher yield (leading the the Net$$), comes from the East system. Have you read the financials?? Yes, LCC was very profitale last year, and that was due, in a Very Very large part, from the East, the old US Air. But, again, ALPA merger policy does not call for this evaluation, as the arbitrator make a 'guess' or prediction as to what would have happen to a carrier had a merger not taken place. The Arbritator has an obligation to do no more than take the status quo, and take into account 'planned growth' (a/c orders), or reasonable growth or contraction, when figuring progression/movement and 'career expectations.'
With the number of retirements on the old US Air (East) side, even accounting for little or not growth, even some contraction, US Air would have needed to recall approximately 180-250 pilots/yr. And, with the retirements there would have been normal upgrades and movement from narrow-wide body progression. Had the Arbritator figured the 'retirements' into his calculation, and placed a 5-7 yr (maybe less) 'base fence' (and probably an 7-8 yr fence on the wide-body flying, as AWA has pretty much NO career expectation of flying a wide-body), and even given that probably only 50-60% of the furloughees would ever return; all of the furloughees would have returned due to retirements in probably less than 4 yrs. and there still would have been some 'windfall' to the AWA guys, due to the future retirees. And, I looked over both of the seniority proposals, and with the above stated fences, looking out about 5yrs. things would have looked about like the East proposal would have predicted, and everyone would have benefited. Well? Instead, it seems that he gave, all of the windfall of the retirements on the East side to the West side, and created little or NO career progression on the East side.
Ergo, the Arbritator did not follow ALPA merger policy, NOT even close, and futhermore, went beyond his scope in attempting to make future financial predictions and assumptions about the carriers involved; again, Not part of ALPA merger policy. And, to tell you the truth, I have been in this business for over 25yrs. (cargo, passenger, etc), consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the business/industry, and even I would not want to make any predictions about where any one carrier will be financially, six months or a year from now, as that is the nature of the business. Not sure why he (the Arbitrator) wanted to stray into that area.
That said, I will repeat what I said in my previous post; all this ruling/finding did is basically insure that these two carriers will NEVER be integrated. Now there is no incentive for the East guys to ever agree to a 'joint contract' as they would be taking money (maybe a little money), and losing seniority and career progression. And, as I stated before, how many times has Parker said that he has no problem with continuing to operate as two separate carriers with two separate contracts?? Also, stated before, with domestic demand weakening, and the potential of 'open skies with Europe' next year, any possible growth would have to come from U.S. to Europe (with 757/767s, and additional A330, probably next year); and most (if not all) of this growth would more than likely go to the East. So, the East not agreeing to any contract/integration, means "all" of the windfall of retirements benefiting the East (none going to the West) and the possibility of added Int'l flying to Europe. So again, tell me, as a AWA pilot, exactly how does this ruling benefit you??
And, all because the arbritator did not follow ALPA merger policy. As a 'fair' integration, as the policy calls for, would have meant everyone, (East, West, furloughees, etc) move ahead, benefited.
My guess/prediction; I see further stagnation on the West side, small growth/progression on the East, and little liklihood of any pay increase for anyone.
For what its worth, but you did ask for view from the 'outside'
Sorry to go on so long, but this should have the morons plenty to 'rant' about. Have fun, but remember,
I really don't give a rat's a$$ what any of you think. That's why I lead a totally 'stress-free' life; that and the fact that I invested my money well (meaning somewhere other than aviation).
DA
