NWA's MEC describes present position

[PlaneDrvr]

It's my understanding that if prior to the merger, NWA votes out ALPA, then according to the new law the merger goes by seniority. Didn't USAir and AW prove that...

Close,

In such a case alpa merger policy is taken completely out of the situation.

The new law specifies with companies with different union representation; then A-M LPP applies, which requires arbitration.

And, consider that NO arbitrator is under any obligation to follow any 'past precedent' (prior mergers/integrations); however, most past integrations that have follow A-M, have gone along the lines of LOS (length of service, DOH adjusted for leaves, etc).

Also, keep in mind that the new law has not been 'tested' yet. Remains to be seen.

DA

 

[GogglesPisano]

It's my understanding that if prior to the merger, NWA votes out ALPA, then according to the new law the merger goes by seniority. Didn't USAir and AW prove that...

Not neci-cellery ...

From an ALPA fast-read:
Law Signed on Seniority Integration
ALPA-backed Seniority Integration Legislation Protects Pilots, Contracts, and ALPA Merger Policy
ALPA, along with the Association of Flight Attendants and the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department, worked closely with labor’s allies on Capitol Hill to enact seniority integration legislation that protects U.S. ALPA pilots’ career interests, the Association’s merger policies, and ALPA labor agreements in future merger integrations.
Signed by the president into law in late December 2007, this legislation ensures that if two ALPA pilot groups merge, the Association’s internal Merger Policy and the pilots’ collectively bargained merger-integration protections will continue to govern as before. If an ALPA pilot group merges with a non-ALPA pilot group, the ALPA pilots involved will also retain the hard-won labor protective merger provisions of their collective bargaining agreements.
However, the legislation goes further and also guarantees ALPA pilots involved in a non-ALPA merger, and all unionized employees under the Railway Labor Act, at least a minimum standard of protection in future transactions with merging employee groups outside of their union by ensuring a “fair and equitable” seniority integration process under the Allegheny-Mohawk merger provisions, which are incorporated in this law.These provisions, like ALPA Merger Policy, provide a process that includes negotiation, and if necessary, arbitration concerning seniority integration. The required integration procedures of the new law, like ALPA Merger Policy, do not provide for, or guarantee, any specific standard of integration in seniority integration arbitrations, which in the absence of an agreement would be decided by an arbitrator. The standards applied by arbitrators under both ALPA Merger Policy and the seniority integration procedures included in this legislation have typically included consideration of career expectations for the pilots at the two airlines at the time of the merger, and have been implemented through various methodologies.
This legislation, which applies to covered mergers that occur after Dec. 26, 2007, was originally proposed by AFA and supported by ALPA. It stems from the inequities that arose when the independent unions that represent the flight attendants and pilots of American Airlines forced the flight attendants and pilots of the former TWA to forgo a merger seniority arbitration process and suffer imposed seniority terms that disfavored these groups. This legislation corrects that situation and will prevent outside groups from simply dictating seniority terms to ALPA pilots.
In addition to securing this important new protection for ALPA pilots in the law, ALPA insisted upon legislative provisions for protection of ALPA Merger Policy in an ALPA-ALPA merger and for retention of any additional protections for ALPA pilots beyond Allegheny-Mohawk procedures that may exist in ALPA labor agreements. The ALPA-drafted language on these key provisions accomplishes all of these goals and was adopted by Congress and signed by the president. This important legislative success demonstrates ALPA’s leadership role on Capitol Hill.

 

[GogglesPisano]

It will be interesting to see how this could or could not help the USAir east guys. I don't see how it could.

From Forbes

Congress Fuels Airline Merger Madness
Evan Sparks 01.29.08, 6:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Merger mania has struck the airlines once again. A year after US Airways failed to buy Delta Air Lines in a hostile takeover (then, pundits heralded the long-awaited industry consolidation), the buzz is back.

Not long ago, a hedge fund with stakes in both Delta and United Airlines spun a rumor about a merger, causing the stock price to soar. Now, Delta's board has decided to examine mergers with other airlines, principally United and Northwest Airlines (nyse: NWA - news - people ). Northwest's CEO announced that merger proposals would be weighed carefully, and United has made no secret of its desire in recent months to merge with another airline. And now may be just the right time to merge, thanks to a provision in the 2007 appropriations act requiring "fair and equitable" handling of labor issues during a merger.

While merger rumors tend to send an airline's stock price soaring--Delta's went from $12 to $16 on news that its management was considering a merger--actually making a merger happen is more like threading a needle. From antitrust regulation and scheduling to logistics and systems integration, a merger meets countless challenges.

But the biggest challenge is merging two workforces. Airline employees are organized on the basis of seniority. Senior pilots, for example, are first in line for promotion from first officer to captain, fly the largest aircraft, choose the plum routes and are paid the most. These are all assigned on the basis of a sacrosanct "master seniority list," with the longest-serving employees at the top and new hires at the bottom.

This is the stickiest wicket in an airline merger. The employees of the purchasing carrier see the merger date as the "date of hire" at their airline and argue that the other airlines' employees should be tacked on to the bottom of the seniority list, as even a little interference with the list can make a difference in hundreds of thousands in career earnings. The employees of the bought-out carrier want to be integrated into the seniority list.

How weighty is this issue? Look at US Airways: More than two years since America West (nyse: LCC - news - people ) took it over, its two pilot groups are still haggling over the seniority lists. The former America West pilots like the plan put forward by the airline, but the US Airways crew are unwilling to ratify the new list, which would make less experienced American West pilots more senior than their Eastern counterparts.

This is hardly the first time this has happened. In 1988, when FedEx (nyse: FDX - news - people ) bought the Flying Tiger Line (to get access to the Tigers' Asian routes), they merged the seniority lists, spawning over a decade of litigation. In 2001, American Airlines (nyse: AMR - news - people ) bought struggling TWA. More than 50% of TWA's pilots and all its cabin crew were tacked on to the bottom of the American Airlines seniority list, causing widespread resentment. During the post-Sept. 11 aviation downturn, the former TWA flight attendants were the first to be furloughed.

TWA's main base in 2001 was in St. Louis, where American retains a "focus city" operation. Missouri's senators, Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Kit Bond, unhappy with the way TWA workers fared in the buyout, offered a little-noticed amendment to the omnibus spending bill that brings back a regulation-era worker-protection policy. The law subjects mergers and buyouts to Sections 3 and 13 of the Civil Aeronautics Board's decision in the 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk merger. Prior to deregulation in 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board (the primary airline regulator) required merged airlines to include some onerous "labor protection provisions" in the terms of the merger, many of which were negotiated into collective bargaining agreements after deregulation.

The McCaskill-Bond amendment requires just two of the labor protections: that "provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner" and that disputes over seniority be submitted to binding arbitration.
"Fair and equitable" is thought to mean that seniority lists would be merged, as McCaskill and Bond thought should have happened with TWA's workers. Binding arbitration speeds up the process, forestalling the endless negotiations over new lists currently bedeviling US Airways. Furthermore, past airline mergers--including FedEx's acquisition of the Flying Tigers--would probably not have happened without a merged seniority list for pilots. The Tigers merger fueled FedEx's international expansion, demonstrating the remarkable added value that a merger can offer.

With congressional guidance on integrating employee seniority lists, airlines face one less roadblock to their desired mergers. Of course, "fair and equitable" cuts both ways, and many employees who face being bumped down in seniority will be unhappy with this turn of events. Employee-management relations at most major airlines are already sour, and long-term employee resistance to mergers may erode the merger's benefits. US Airways is a case in point: After its stock rose to $40 post-merger, and eventually $60 by the end of 2006, the airline had a bad 2007 and has seen its stock price fall to less than $12. Air-traffic delays and $100-per-barrel oil have affected all airlines, but low morale and vanishing esprit among crew do nothing to improve performance.

Thanks to the McCaskill-Bond amendment, mergers that produce value and create synergies have one less hurdle to leap.

Evan Sparks, an editorial assistant at the American Enterprise Institute , blogs about aviation policy at evansparks.wordpress.com .

 

[FDJ2]

Close,


The new law specifies with companies with different union representation; then A-M LPP applies, which requires arbitration.

You are correct that A-M does not contain DOH. That is an urban myth. However, A-M does not require arbitration any more than ALPA merger policy does. Both A-M and ALPA merger policy have negotiations, if negotiations fail to result in a SLI, then it moves on to mediation, and if mediation fails then both systems have arbitration.

 

[Raskal]

Sooo, since this thing seems to be headed for an eventual arbitration (assuming merger is successful) then looking to the past what can the two sides expect out of arbitration? Is this something that tends to follow past rulings, or is it a completely random 'shot in the dark' ruling process?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Sooo, since this thing seems to be headed for an eventual arbitration (assuming merger is successful) then looking to the past what can the two sides expect out of arbitration? Is this something that tends to follow past rulings, or is it a completely random 'shot in the dark' ruling process?

There is no official methodology but past practice has been relative seniority by equipment type and paycheck.

With no doubt that fact will bring out a barrage of poo; so let me say Delta will be stapled below Comair just to make everyone happy and not offend the sensibilities of the irrational.

 

[aircowboy]

I thought Marines never left a brother on the battle field. So much for Lee making a back door deal and then sticking a K-bar in our backs.

 

[~~~^~~~]

There is no official methodology but past practice has been relative seniority by equipment type and paycheck.

Ohhhh, the light just went on in the room.

Those Northwest pilots who benefitted by getting to the big equipment out of seniority probably figure they can gain advantage in an arbitration.

I've been looking for logic and why some would be against "relative seniority." Is this the reason, that the NWA list has people out of position for their relative seniority?

Discuss....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Ohhhh, the light just went on in the room.

Those Northwest pilots who benefitted by getting to the big equipment out of seniority probably figure they can gain advantage in an arbitration.

I've been looking for logic and why some would be against "relative seniority." Is this the reason, that the NWA list has people out of position for their relative seniority?

Discuss....

....relative seniority based on paycheck sounds great to me....:laugh:

 

[n6604f]

I think our (NWA) MEC should do some research as to the way Delta has treated their employees....There is a reason why Delta is the most Non Unionized airline. Maybe if the Management at NWA was not so busy destroying any trust between labor and the work groups they would be able to see the true benefit of this merger.....But NALPA are going to stomp their feet like a angry 2 year old by justifying every reason why this merger does not make sense.

HMMM...Let me think! $115 a barrel, recession, over capacity and a route structure that compliments eachother. We may have the most money in the bank but unless you invest in the future the money will slowly wither away.

Let me state some facts about the Delta way of business. They value thier employees and customers as much as any major corpopration who is very successful. For all you that don't think Delta is doing this to better our future as one company, you are sorely mistaken.

As for the trust issue....I have been with both companies and know the cultures of both. NWA is one of mistrust and hatred towards management. And I don't disagree with why the employee groups feel this way. However, I also know Delta is very fair and equitable towards it's employees. I was involved with decertifying a union at Delta and no sooner did we vote out the union when we recieved almost a 15% pay raise. So for you that think they are purposely setting us up for a "B" scale you are WRONG. That is not the way Delta operates.

We really need to join forces on this one for the benefit of our future in this industry which change is now certain for the very survival. I am in a rare position to appreciate the opportunity we have as NW pilot's to finally work for a company who values it's pilots.

 

[Fly4hire]

Do you know that the NW negotiators wanted lots of fences at the merged company but Moak said no. Day one of the integration all pilots would be Delta. No more segregation. Doesn't sound like NW/rep to me.

The fences would have been a compromise to the overall ratio DALPA insisted on. Fair and equitable? I'm sure some saw the Warsaw Ghetto as fair and equitable.

"No furlough clause". Again the day you come over as a delta pilot which takes legally some amount of time to get the single operating certificate, you are under that protection.

Disingenuous. DALPA is going to drag their feet and stall a PID as long as possible, and hope all the bleeding is already done on our side before the deal consummates, thereby having a smaller group of NW pilots to factor into the SLI.

"The RA meeting" It contradicts everything that Moak has been saying about his vision for the integrated pilot group. Think about it.

It is counter intuitive, but I have spoken to several Reps who were there and it is true. Probably because he thinks he can get away with it now that he knows the DAL pilots come dirt cheap.

Moak talks of integrated pilot groups, however his feet are not moving in the same direction as his lips.
For all the Marine fighter pilot stuff, he has left men in the field.

DAL pilots are not the evil people we are being portrayed as

Of course you are not, but your MEC has embarked on a dangerous path that is divisive, and while may yield short term gain will poison the well for decades.

What truly saddens me is that had we locked arms and resisted management as a combined group despite the fact they were going to announce the merger, it would have provided the leverage to get the deal done both parties satisfaction in due course.

With both MEC resisting the deal there would have been infinitely more pressure to negotiate, but as I said at the beginning of this post, what DAL wanted was never fair, which is why it was so easy for Moak to sell out to help lock in ill gotten gains.

You guys still have a chance to shoot this down, and put the train back on the tracks.

 

[Blade Runner]

I thought Marines never left a brother on the battle field. So much for Lee making a back door deal and then sticking a K-bar in our backs.

More Like an E-Tool to the head.:smash: The Battle lines have been drawn in the sand, and I fear a very long protracted war is rapidly approaching.
ALPA will not survive this.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

I agree. This has been a long term operation by the ATA/airline mgts to erode our power/contracts. Started with b scale, then that was traded for rjs which sold out the 100 seat market for some scraps further dividing ALPA, then using 9/11 and ch11 to send us back to the 80s in pay and worse workrules, the awa/usair debacle and now the soon to be nwa/dal debacle followed closely by cal/ual with a pullout of alpa from one each of the above. That leaves alpa with a bunch of regional/small lift providers who don't own any code, thus unable to lift the bar due to the threat/ability to pull their agreements for the next compass/republic you name it who is more jr/cheaper. Feel free to add anything I may have missed.

More Like an E-Tool to the head.:smash: The Battle lines have been drawn in the sand, and I fear a very long protracted war is rapidly approaching.
ALPA will not survive this.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I agree. This has been a long term operation by the ATA/airline mgts to erode our power/contracts. Started with b scale, then that was traded for rjs which sold out the 100 seat market for some scraps further dividing ALPA, then using 9/11 and ch11 to send us back to the 80s in pay and worse workrules, the awa/usair debacle and now the soon to be nwa/dal debacle followed closely by cal/ual with a pullout of alpa from one each of the above. That leaves alpa with a bunch of regional/small lift providers who don't own any code, thus unable to lift the bar due to the threat/ability to pull their agreements for the next compass/republic you name it who is more jr/cheaper. Feel free to add anything I may have missed.

...that about sums it up....In short the ATA had a unified long term battle plan, while ALPA had a bunch of renegade individual groups looking at short term gain....The ATA plays chess, while ALPA plays checkers.....

 

[PlaneDrvr]

I agree. This has been a long term operation by the ATA/airline mgts to erode our power/contracts. Started with b scale, then that was traded for rjs which sold out the 100 seat market for some scraps further dividing ALPA, then using 9/11 and ch11 to send us back to the 80s in pay and worse workrules, the awa/usair debacle and now the soon to be nwa/dal debacle followed closely by cal/ual with a pullout of alpa from one each of the above. That leaves alpa with a bunch of regional/small lift providers who don't own any code, thus unable to lift the bar due to the threat/ability to pull their agreements for the next compass/republic you name it who is more jr/cheaper. Feel free to add anything I may have missed.

I agree, Totally, and don't think you missed a thing.

And, most of what you pointed out could have been prevented by 'strong National leadership' which has Never been there.

DA