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

Looks like the Westies won't back down

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

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
US Airways West Pilots: We Won't Back Down on Seniority
by: Ted Reed
02/26/13

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (TheStreet) -- Despite widespread hopes that a merger with American would bring closure to a pilot seniority dispute at US Airways, it's not that simple.

A controversial 2007 seniority ruling by arbitrator George Nicolau followed the 2005 merger between US Airways and America West. The ruling, which resulted from binding arbitration, led to a bitter separation among pilots from the two airlines.

This month's American/US Airways merger will lead to another round of pilot seniority integration, this time under guidelines established by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment. The 2007 congressional legislation requires unions to resolve seniority disputes through negotiations and, if that doesn't work, through binding arbitration. Leaders of the Allied Pilots Association and the U.S. Airline Pilots Association seem hopeful that the process will go smoothly and resolve the simmering dispute at US Airways.

But another round of binding arbitration, if it is not based on the Nicolau list, isn't acceptable to former America West pilots. Their attorney said they will go to court if the ruling isn't part of the merged airlines' seniority list.

"We expect the parties to abide by the Nicolau list, which is the arbitrated joint seniority list accepted by the company in 2007," said Mark Burman, spokesman for Leonidas, a group of pilots who have supported the continuing court battle to have the ruling implemented.

On Feb. 7, US Airways pilots overwhelmingly approved a memorandum of understanding, setting temporary contract terms that would be implemented in the event of a merger. In a Feb. 18 letter to the labor attorneys for US Airways, Leonidas attorney Marty Harper referred to a 2010 finding by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the west pilots' claims regarding Nicolau implementation would be "ripe," or ready for a court's consideration, once a contract was signed.

"The time has come with ratification of the MOU and approval of the merger," Harper wrote.

Harper said west pilots have until early August to seek relief in their duty of fair representation case against USAPA. "They will do so, " seeking a temporary restraining order, if pilots have not agreed prior to that date to implement the Nicolau award, he said.

USAPA President Gary Hummel has said the west pilots are trying to delay the merger. But Harper wrote that "the west pilots supported this merger from the start, have no interest in delaying it now. (But) the west pilots must do whatever is needed to defend the Nicolau award."

In a Feb. 21 letter to USAPA members, Hummel declared the union continues to oppose the Nicolau ruling.

"This merger provides substantial and life changing benefits to all USAPA pilots, including those based in Phoenix," Hummel wrote. "USAPA will aggressively oppose any efforts to slow down or stop the merger process and will be equally vigilant in adhering to our constitutionally mandated principles that reject the Nicolau Award in its entirety."

In his letter, Hummel said USAPA has asked the Ninth Circuit for an expedited ruling on a pending appeal filed by US Airways. The airline, joined by west pilots, appealed an October ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver in its case seeking clarification of the necessity to adapt the Nicolau list. In her ruling, Silver said USAPA's seniority proposal could be acceptable "provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose."

USAPA wants an expedited ruling because "We want there to be no uncertainty about whether USAPA can pursue a different seniority proposal," Hummel said.

Follow @tedre

-- Written by Ted Reed in Charlotte, N.C




Interesting stuff.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Maybe their CEO will walk in with a list and threaten them with non-intergration if they vote it down.
 
You already posted this in another thread.


Many people may not want to go look for this in the middle of another thread. It warrants it's own thread, no doubt. Thanks for pointing it out, though.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
USAPA can do what ever it wants, but if it is not a LUP it will fail the legal bar set by the courts. APA and LCC/AMR will just wait till the POR and single carrier status by years end to show their cards and USAPA will fade like a bad fart into the wind...
 
Maybe their CEO will walk in with a list and threaten them with non-intergration if they vote it down.

That would NEVER happen! Say it aint so....


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Scumbag move would be furlough the 1000 AAI pilots without airplanes

There would have to be guarantees of that NOT happening, or the AAI pilots would have had their Congressmen block the deal. That's how it works.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
At/SWA crap is now as bad as east v west...

Do we have to have our own special FI rule to not talk our sh/t on other threads too?
 
Yes, which is ultimately a threat to avoid arbitration and McCaskill-Bond. How did SWA pull it off?

If this is a serious question, then I'll try to give you an answer as I understand it. SWA management "pulled it off" because they were more concerned with their lasting culture than they were about the synergies of merging the companies, and thought that their input would best affect the outcome they wanted. To the best of my knowledge, all other airline mergers/acquisitions/etc have occurred where management cared more about the results of the merger than they did about their current or new employees, and really didn't give a crap about who got screwed, who felt that they got screwed, or even whose rectum was still bleeding years later. In other words, in previous cases, they wouldn't risk the merger by taking sides or putting forth a solution that THEY thought was "fair." SWA management did. The SLI/Integration deal agreed to by both SWAPA and Airtran ALPA is essentially what amounted to what SWA management thought was a "fair deal."

SWA, having bough Airtran outright, was perfectly in their rights (from a legal standpoint) to not integrate, or to sell off assets, ro run seprately (within current CBA terms), or whatever else they wanted, with the "acquired property." M-B only applies if they merge the companies. If they choose not to, then M-B doesn't mean squat. (i.e. it doesn't apply).In the non-union world, this kind of crap happens all the time. In our industry, however, not so much. So far, no other airline has ever bought another airline and then even hinted that they would consider not merging the acquired company if it wasn't on the terms they thought was fair. They just bought/merged/whatever, and then just let the employees fend for themselves. Right or wrong, apparently SWA management didn't want to do that.

On the other hand, a bankruptcy merger (American/USAir) probably doesn't fall into the same category. I suspect that actually merging the airlines is a requirement of approbval and exiting bankruptcy. They can't change their mind later. Nor would Doug Parker do so anyway. He wants to be in charge of the world's biggest airline; he's already shown that he doesn't give a crap about any employee whatsoever.

Anyway, that's my view of what happened, and how SWA management "pulled it off."

Bubba
 
Isn't this thread about AA and usair?

Do you swa/at guys not get the irony in hijacking a westie thread to repeat your years old irrelevant opinion?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top