MDA/CHQ Transition

[surplus1]

Boiler,
Loa 91 applies the same way that the J4J applies..

Why do you say that? Did Republic Holdings or Republic Airlines sign anything that requires them to recognize the provisions of LOA91? Did the CHQ pilots agree to modify the CBA in recognition of LOA91 at US Airways?

As far as I know, LOA91 is an agreement between USAirways and ALPA. If US Airways violates it, you can take it up with them. Exactly how do you plan to enforce it against a third party (if they did not sign it) who bought some airplanes from U with their own money?

I presume you think that you can prevent Republic from entering into an agreement with U, or U from entering into an agreement with Republic. Maybe you can. In that case what are you going to do when U is absorbed by AWA and AWA decides to sell those airplanes?

THe whole problem with agreements such as LOA91, is that ALPA and its mainline MECs assume that they can force any reginol carrier to comply with that nonsense. Well, they can if the regional carrier chooses to agree. If it doesn't, ALPA can pound sand.

In this case, ALPA can't coerce the CHQ pilots; it does not represent them. They have a contract in which Republic Holdings, parent of Republic, recognizes a single seniority list for all polits operating aircraft for any subsidiary of Republic Holdings.

Exactly how does ALPA propose to force them to give up that contract for the benefit of U/MDA pilots and to their own detriment? Is ALPA now in the business of attempting to break union contracts held by other unions?

If CHQ was my airline and ALPA treid to do that with success, I would hope they have a great deal of money for they would sure get sued.

I have no problem with ALPA trying to represent the interests of U/MDA pilots. BUT, when they want to do that on the backs and at the expense of CHQ pilots and steal their seniority without their consent, they need to be told where to go in no uncertain terms.

It is way past the time for ALPA to stop trying to railroad regional pilots on behalf of mainline pilots, and that is by no means limited to CHQ. It is also high time for U pilots to understand that their company is selling those airplanes because it is bankrupt. When you sell something in bankruptcy, the buyer calls the shots.

It works the same way that it worked when USAirways purchased 757's from bankrupt EAL. The very same principles that the U pilots did not hesitate to apply the rEAL pilots, now apply to them.

Unless LOA91 was agreed by Republic Holdings as a condition of this transaction, AND unless the CHQ pilots CBA was voluntarily modifed by them, the U/MDA pilots are in left field and should be.

Let me know if ALPA has the signature of Republic Holdings and the IBT on LOA91. If ALPA does, then I'll take back what I said.

 

[RP170]

It's called PFM (pure f'n magic). In fact the whole concept of the U/MDA pilots falls into that category.

Whatever agreement they have (LOA91) is with U, not with Republic. Is Republic one of the companies that signed LOA91? If it isn't, then the terms of LOA91 cannot be enforced against a 3rd party that did not agree to them, after the fact.

Perhaps the J4J agreement applies to this transaction but I doubt that it does. If it doesn't, the CHQ/REP pilots have no obligation whatever to apply it to this transaction and the U/MDA pilots have no rights to anything at CHQ/REP.

Why should CHQ/REP pilots agree to "super seniority" for U/MDA pilots? Because the U/MDA pilots want it? That makes no sense to me.

That whole J4J BS was imposed on the CHQ/REP pilots in the first place. They were coerced and forced into doing it because they did not have the contractual protection against the alter ego. The U pilots didn't give a da-mn about takeing captains slots from CHQ pilots or getting paid more for the same job, both out of seniority.

Well now the CHQ pilots have the contractual protection that they need and they do not owe the U/MDA pilots anything, period.

If the company (Republic Holdings) wants to hire U/MDA pilots there is nothing that prevents them from doing so. They get hired, the go to the bottom of the list, and that's it. They are not entitled to any captain positions out of seniority and they are not entitled to higher pay than mores senior pilots on the CHQ master list.

Every captain position that they are given in preference to a qualified CHQ F/O is the equivalent of the theft of that CHQ pilots seniority. Every dollar that they are paid, above what their seniority entitles them to, is a violation of the CHQ pilots contract.

Sure I'm sorry about what has happened to the U/MDA pilots; it is sad, but it does NOT entitle them to any "special rights" at Republic Holdings that violate the contract of the pilots on the CHQ master list, and the should not expect any. When they start demanding it, they should be told to put their "demands" where the sun doesn't shine.

If U/MDA had purchased any aircraft from CHQ/REP, there is no way in he11 that the U?MDA pilots would ever give any super seniority to even 1 CHQ/REP pilot and they would not hire one, until they had recalled all of their furloughed brothers, which translates to never.

There should be no "argument" about any of this and the CHQ/REP pilots should NOT relinquish their seniority to the pilots of any other airline.

Somebody should ask those U pilots how much of their seniority did they give up when their company bought the "assets" of bankrupt EAL. How many rEAL pilots did U hire with those 757's and how many did they give captain slots, higher pay and "super seniority"?

I don't have a personal dog in this fight, I don't work for CHQ. However, the whole idea of J4J and demands of super seniority on the part of mainline pilots over regional pilots is an ALPA crock of S, should never have been accepted by ANY regional pilot group, and it should not be accepted now by CHQ pilots.

The IBT, needs to represent the interests of CHQ pilots and protect them from the attempts of ALPA pilots to take their seniority. If they don't do that, the affected CHQ pilots should take them to court and force them to provide the representation they are paid to provide.

I hope the CHQ/REP pilots will be smart enough to protect their own seniority, 'cause nobody else will.

As for "proving runs", that's garbage. Republic Holdings already operates the EMB-170 under contract with another carrier. That means they do have pilots that are qualified to do proving runs for the Republic certificate; pilots that have already done that for the same airplane under the CHQ certificate. Use them.

Sorry for butting in, but enough is enough.

Excellent post. I agree 100%. I'm new to Republic Holdings but worked for 121 carriers prior to coming here. I agree that the J4J deal was a raw deal from the start, at least from what I know about it. Since when should a company agree to allowing pilots from another carrier to come over and occupy the left seat, taking away the opportunity for their own pilots to upgrade? Someone junior to me on the seniority list can be a captain and I can't? That's the most rediculous thing I think I've heard. And yes I know the J4J guys have been a great asset to CHQ, but the line needs to be drawn someplace. But as is common in today's industry, whenever shiny new aircraft are dangled in front of a pilot group they will agree to anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what has happened at CHQ up to this point.

 

[FlyingDawg]

Basically it comes down to ALPA rules. Any pilot working for US AIRWAYS has to be on the seniority list. the original plan was for MDA to be another WO and in that case we would not have had the numbers until we flowed all the way to Airways. We all know that did not happen. Because MDA does not really exist and the 170 division is US AIRWAYS, the WO pilots are now Airways pilots. I hope that made sense.

But I thought the J4J agreements only apply to pilots on the APL (Affected Pilot List). Because these pilots are now Airways does it also automatically put them on the APL. These list were handed over when J4J started and I didn't realize it was updated to add additional pilots.

 

[FR8mastr]

But I thought the J4J agreements only apply to pilots on the APL (Affected Pilot List). Because these pilots are now Airways does it also automatically put them on the APL. These list were handed over when J4J started and I didn't realize it was updated to add additional pilots.

they are not on the APL yet but in the event of a furlough then they are placed on the APL list. LOA 91 is different as it states in a change of control or sale of more than 36.5% of the AC all the pilots go with the change. only as it relates to LOA 91 and the 170 Division. remember MDA was a creation of the U mec to provide a "soft landing" to the furloughed Airways pilots and still allow the company to play their multiple company games.

Surplus

If this is a change of control or not will be decided by a judge and we will all have to live with it. You argue its not right, well maybe its not, but the language is there. Just because management has not tired of disregarding our contract and the CHQ pilots see a windfall of 170's coming does not change the facts. Wexford group and the brain trust at CCY know this but they are used to ramming whatever they want down the pilots throats, this time the 300 pilots have called rat. It will come down to the language and the judges decision. If we prevail in court and this is a change of control, you will see some serious backstepping by all kinds of management. Heck a senior officer at Airways has already stated such. If we lose than you can jump up and down and say I told you so. But please dont try and tell me the language is not there, it is.

 

[Strikefinder]

As far as I know, LOA91 is an agreement between USAirways and ALPA. If US Airways violates it, you can take it up with them. Exactly how do you plan to enforce it against a third party (if they did not sign it) who bought some airplanes from U with their own money?

I don't believe anybody actually calling the shots at ALPA believes that they can hold Republic or CHQ to LOA91. However, U can't sell the airplanes without complying with LOA91, since they do have an agreement with ALPA that they are bound to unless rejected by a bankruptcy judge. In other words, unless U ensures that LOA91 is complied with, there are no airplanes to sell to Republic. What Republic agrees to is irrelevant if there are no airplanes to sell to them.

Since the only way Bedford can get the airplanes is by enforcing a J4J type of deal, he opens up our contract at CHQ and sees if there is anything which would preclude him from doing so under the previously agreed to J4J deal. From looking through it, I don't see any reason why he can't. There's a 32 hull limit, but no size limit (only what is defined by LOA81, 83, or subsequent agreements, which outlines what a "small jet" is). I'm not a lawyer, and I'm often wrong, but I don't see any reason why Bedford can't stuff more J4J pilots on the CHQ list without the CHQ pilots' permission (up to 32 aircraft, anyhow).

I think what it comes down to is that the MDA pilots believe that they could negotiate DOH integration with the CHQ pilot group, and if so, they would drop their grievance with U. Otherwise, CHQ as a pilot group risks losing the growth of the MDA pilots (be it 50% staffing or otherwise) should ALPA win the grievance. Without making any statements about what should or should not happen, I don't believe from reading the respective contracts that ALPA has a case.

As far as buying simulator equipment or being in desparate need of staffing, I don't see what that has to do with anything. LOA91 makes no mention of simulator equipment being a prerequisite to consider a transaction a "change in control"; In fact, it clearly outlines what would have to take place to constitute such a change. I'm not saying this is inherantly fair or what was intended by the MDA pilots. In the legal world, there is no "fair". There is what has been agreed to, and I don't believe that this transaction meets any of the requirements to qualify as a "change in control". Perhaps that's not what you intended, or what you think is reasonable, but that's what's on paper, and that's what I believe a judge, if it comes to that, will rule.

Finally, as a CHQ pilot, I'm more than happy to welcome the MDA pilots to the pilot group, if any come. I understand the malcontent among them, and should they win their grievance (though I don't think it's likely), well, good for them. It's disheartening to be constantly painted as some ravenous animal who is salivating over the prospect of another aircraft, and like nearly any other regional airline, I'm certain there are people here who are excited about the expanded flying. I don't personally lose much sleep over it one way or another, particularly because I don't really have much of a say in the matter anyhow. Contrary to popular belief, Mr. Bedford did not contact me and ask my opinion on the possible aircraft acquisition, nor did the folks at the IBT. If you happen to be angry at me for showing up for work, well, I don't know what to tell you!

 

[FR8mastr]

Nevermiond

 

[Strikefinder]

LOA 91 is different as it states in a change of control or sale of more than 36.5% of the AC all the pilots go with the change. only as it relates to LOA 91 and the 170 Division.

I'm trying to find a reference to what you've outlined here in LOA91, and I can't.

Here's what LOA 91 says about change in control:

US Airways Group, Inc. shall be deemed to “Control” MDA if US Airways Group, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries: (a) owns 50.1% of MDA’s Denominator Common Stock, defined as MDA’s common stock then outstanding, voting securities that constitute or may at any time be exercised, exchanged or converted for or into MDA’s common stock, and the common stock issuable on exchange, exercise, and/or conversion of securities of MDA which are then currently exchangeable into, exercisable for, or convertible into such common stock; or (b) maintains the power, right or authority to appoint or prevent the appointment of a majority of MDA’s Board of Directors, or governing body having substantially the powers and duties of a board of directors, or similar governing body.

• If an entity other than US Airways Group acquires Control of MDA, it will:
• Maintain the MDA pilot agreement and recognition of ALPA (MDA Agreement) and
• If the acquirer of Control of MDA is an airline, or controls an airline, and decides to merge the seniority list of MDA pilots with the seniority list of its pilots, then such merger will be under ALPA merger policy if applicable or Sections 3 and 13 of Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs.
• The provisions of this “Change in Control of MDA and Fragmentation” section will not be applicable to an Aircraft Sale Event involving MDA Aircraft in which Control is not transferred from US Airways Group, Inc., nor will any acquirer of MDA aircraft pursuant to an Aircraft Sale Event be considered a Successor to MDA within the meaning of Section 1(C)1 of the Agreement.
• With respect to the “Other Protections” defined in Attachment F (“Fragmentation”) of the Restructuring Agreement effective July 1, 2002, the Company and the Association agree that an Aircraft Sale Event will not require: (a) an Offer of Employment to US Airways Pilots; or (b) a Seniority Integration, as such terms are defined within such Attachment F.

---

Again, I don't see that the CHQ/REP management has taken over control of the board of MDA or has executive ability over whatever entity you define as MDA. Though we may be purchasing, in effect, all of your useful assets, from a legal definition, this is not the same thing. If you go to Best Buy and purchase everything in the store (a dream, to be sure), you don't own Best Buy. You just happen to own everything that was at Best Buy that was worth having that day.

Perhaps I have an outdated copy of LOA91: Where precisely did you get the 36.5% number? I've run through the document several times and I can't find any reference to such a figure.

 

[FR8mastr]

I am trying to post it but having difficulty give me a minute

 

[FR8mastr]

· US Airways Group, Inc. shall be deemed to “Control” MDA if MDA is an internal operating division of US Airways Group, Inc. or of one or more of its subsidiaries, or if any of them (a) owns 37.5% or more of MDA’s Denominator Common Stock, defined as MDA’s common stock then outstanding, voting securities that constitute or may at any time be exercised, exchanged or converted for or into MDA’s common stock, and the common stock issuable on exchange, exercise, and/or conversion of securities of MDA which are then currently exchangeable into, exercisable for, or convertible into such common stock; or (b) maintains the power, right or authority to appoint or prevent the appointment of a majority of MDA’s Board of Directors, or governing body having substantially the powers and duties of a board of directors, or similar governing body.

 

[FR8mastr]

I think the rest was the same, this is valid as of May of 2004.

There is more supporting documentation for the MDA pilots position, but I dont have it. So sorry I can not win the case on the boards. Also I made a mistake on my percentage, it is 37 not 36.5%