New ALPA Message to USAirways Pilots pt 3

[Soulfly]

Occam,

I guess maybe I should have worded it differntly in making my point.
By "retrabution" I meant the lawsuit that was filed against our MEC Chairman by their MEC over the decision. I believe that was completely uncalled for, IMHO.

Anyhow, It's really too bad we are spending energy fighting each other. Really...

 

[PCL_128]

Now you have Prater running around saying the arbitrator doesn't have to follow ALPA merger policy.

I've heard Prater say that, and I completely disagree with him. However, he should just keep his mouth shut with that comment anyway, because it isn't even relevant in this case. In this case, the Executive Council looked at the integration and at the policy, and they determined that the arbitrator did follow the policy!

 

[johnnyb]

Not quite. The Transition Agreement, agreed to by ALL sides, is what lumps them together. The East side is trying to rewrite the rules to suit their desires. And it isn't working.

I know that TWA. What I'm speaking of is an attitude that the East "HAS" to vote yes on a new contract because we agreed to this process.

I will vote "NO" to any concessionary (for me ) contract. I will continue to vote "NO" on concessions until someone shows me a deal that is better than the one I currently have.

Regrettably, that deal is LOA 93 however, it is still better than even the ALPA asking rates + the Nic.

Still holding out hope the Rice Committee can work a deal for us all.

 

[TWA Dude]

What I mean when I say ALPA policy is flawed, is the fact it contains nebulous wording in its policy...wording that cannot possibly be nailed down with any certainty.

I hate to tell you this but having arbitration as the last step is not nebulous; it's what an arbitrator's job is. It's simply not possible to craft policy language covering every possible contingency. The ALPA Merger Policy guidelines are subjective and barring a mutual agreement a neutral party is the only fair way to rule on them. And BTW, nobody from the East was complaining about how "flawed" ALPA Policy was before Nicolau ruled.

Now you have Prater running around saying the arbitrator doesn't have to follow ALPA merger policy. I call BS on that one.

Read Section 45 of the policy manual. It doesn't explicitly say the arbitrator is bound by the five tenets that the merger committees are. Your point is moot, however, since Nicolau clearly stated he felt bound by ALPA Merger Policy and believed he ruled within it.

How can he run around saying that, when the expectation of all involved was that policy was followed.

Because the ALPA lawyers explained it to him.

I believe DOS or years of service is the only way. Someday, you may feel that way when you are merging with a younger pilot group.

I appreciate you admitting to what we've known all along: you favor a method of integration that benefits YOU. This is why I feel ALPA Policy is as fair as can be. It prevents "older" pilot groups from taking advantage of "younger" pilot groups.

 

[TWA Dude]

What I'm speaking of is an attitude that the East "HAS" to vote yes on a new contract because we agreed to this process.

I've never heard of that attitude. I think the AAA MEC is (once again) doing it's pilots a disservice by not even allowing a TA to be negotiated. I won't vote for a concessionary contract either.

Still holding out hope the Rice Committee can work a deal for us all.

Hope is nice, but what the East is demanding is unilateral concessions from the West. I've seen nothing to indicate that Rice is capable of convincing the East to give up this tact. The current stalemate is the East saying it can live with LOA 93 indefinately and the West saying it can live with stagnation indefinately. As usual the biggest winner is: Doug Parker.

 

[A350]

Fast:

Thanks, but I think my employer is plenty happy about where I work. Further, I am glad you feel the BK's that USAir went through were the fault of the union, not $hitty management....

The East pilots aren't asking the West pilots to bear any burden at all.....just to keep what they had. Which was massive attrition and a shot at salvaging their careers. If the integration had gone DOH or DOS with the appropriate fences around each operation, what would I have received that wasn't mine in the first place? Nothing.

If AWA didn't need an East coast presence and the international flying to survive, are you telling me Doogie wouldn't have come knocking at USAirs door with or without the second BK?

TWA: A DOS service merger at my present employer would be a disaster for me and many, if done just DOH. But I think it still is the best way to put lists together, especially when you place the appropriate fences around bases, equipment, and seats. Exactly how it should have been done here, and many times before.

PCL: What did you expect from the Rice committee, that they would say anything any different and open the Association up to massive litigation?

A350

 

[PCL_128]

PCL: What did you expect from the Rice committee, that they would say anything any different and open the Association up to massive litigation?

That decision did not come from the Rice Committee. That decision came from the Executive Council. The Rice Committee acts only as an adviser. It has no authority to interpret policy or the Bylaws. I know several members of the EC very well, and I can tell you that none of them would purposefully lie about their interpretation of policy just to keep the Association from having any further liability.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Occam: Katz? They guy they gave $1 mil for helping the U pilots negotiate their first BK offering? You're kidding, right?

Yup...that's the Katz.

Can you tell me exactly WHO hired Katz to be the AAA merger counsel?

Was it "ALPA"...or was it AAA pilots, as elected by AAA pilots? Katz's record as counsel to pilots is lousy. The NWA Merger Committee Chairman wants to hire that clown to be our merger counsel...but the MEC won't do it.

Apparently, that didn't happen at AAA.

I keep reading about how "ALPA" screwed AAA pilots. I think AAA pilots screwed AAA pilots.

My outsider's analysis of the sequence of events that led to the Award shows plenty of occasions where savvy advisors told the AAA MEC the Award would not be a good to them as a negotiated agreement.

In the aftermath, it appears to me the AAA MEC is trying to keep the masses agitated. I think they are identifying "villians" to keep AAA pilots from holding the truly guilty numbskulls accountable.

 

[A350]

Occam:

The MEC isn't doing anything.....the pilot group is the group that is agitated and the group that must be dealt with. The MEC, IMO, is doing what is best under the circumstances. The minute the MEC tries to tow the National line here, they will get recalled or worse in a heartbeat. If they aren't in there, who gets in there could be worse for Prater....and then the receivership will happen. After that, the East guys will be even less happy about their situation than they are now.

PCL:

While you may know these individuals, the idea that they wouldn't interpret the result in a complimentary way when it comes to "merger policy" comes as no surprise to me. they, like you, speak the party line. Not a cut, just facts.

A350

 

[TWA Dude]

But I think it still is the best way to put lists together, especially when you place the appropriate fences around bases, equipment, and seats.

There's a reason the policy was changed: in the post-Deregulation era the demographic differences between merging carriers means DOH might or might not be fair and equitable. The current policy allows for consideration of the vagaries of each merger. Your DOS one-size-fits-all method is inherently unfair.