Dangerkitty, Machforest,
At ease, Gentlemen!
Here's a completely, objective fact, posted on C&R:
When AA/APA forced the TWA pilots to give up their rights to third party neutral arbitration as a condition of employment, the die was cast.
Very simply, in ANY merger/acquisition, if both parties cannot come to an agreement, the ONLY FAIR WAY is through neutral arbitration. AA/APA basically told TWA, "We're not interested in playing fair, and therefore we will not allow this to go to arbitration. We will impose whatever integration we want."
Now, the argument CAN be made that AA/APA did not have to play fair in the first place, because we were the buyers and we don't have the same union as TWA. But however you look at it, I smell a wee odor in the air when our own company and union forces the other party to waive their rights to neutral arbitration. It's kind of like arresting someone and forcing them to give up their rights to a lawyer so that there is no "interference" to whatever punishment will be imposed.
Had our integration gone to arbitration, maybe TWA would have gotten the same deal - and maybe not. Whatever the outcome would have been, at least we would have showed them that we respected the historical precedence in mergers/acquisitions by letting it go to neutral arbitration - and the AA/TWA pilots could only blame the arbitrator in the end.
Look at AWA/USAir: Almost the same exact scenario as ours - AWA is the healthier carrier, USAIr was in BK. However, that integration WILL be decided by neutral arbitration. Doesn't matter that the US pilots had very little career expectations. Doesn't matter that AWA was a healthier airline. Neutral arbitration is the only fair way. And that's what we should have done.
These, folks, are the facts. Both of you are right, and neither of you are right. TWA pilots were screwed for the above reasons, and the rank and file AA pilots are not scAAbs because of it.
v/r,
73
At ease, Gentlemen!
Here's a completely, objective fact, posted on C&R:
When AA/APA forced the TWA pilots to give up their rights to third party neutral arbitration as a condition of employment, the die was cast.
Very simply, in ANY merger/acquisition, if both parties cannot come to an agreement, the ONLY FAIR WAY is through neutral arbitration. AA/APA basically told TWA, "We're not interested in playing fair, and therefore we will not allow this to go to arbitration. We will impose whatever integration we want."
Now, the argument CAN be made that AA/APA did not have to play fair in the first place, because we were the buyers and we don't have the same union as TWA. But however you look at it, I smell a wee odor in the air when our own company and union forces the other party to waive their rights to neutral arbitration. It's kind of like arresting someone and forcing them to give up their rights to a lawyer so that there is no "interference" to whatever punishment will be imposed.
Had our integration gone to arbitration, maybe TWA would have gotten the same deal - and maybe not. Whatever the outcome would have been, at least we would have showed them that we respected the historical precedence in mergers/acquisitions by letting it go to neutral arbitration - and the AA/TWA pilots could only blame the arbitrator in the end.
Look at AWA/USAir: Almost the same exact scenario as ours - AWA is the healthier carrier, USAIr was in BK. However, that integration WILL be decided by neutral arbitration. Doesn't matter that the US pilots had very little career expectations. Doesn't matter that AWA was a healthier airline. Neutral arbitration is the only fair way. And that's what we should have done.
These, folks, are the facts. Both of you are right, and neither of you are right. TWA pilots were screwed for the above reasons, and the rank and file AA pilots are not scAAbs because of it.
v/r,
73