Usapa has to go.

[Taco Rocket]

I'd say DCA is more vulnerable than PHX. Virtually any DCA pairings could be rebuilt as PHL or CLT based. Closing PHX would require every pairing to have at least 2 hub-to-hub legs. The airline would shrink so much that it could never cover the higher costs.

You forgot the Shuttle.

 

[Taco Rocket]

If you were running the airline - what would you do?

Status quo, saving more money with this mess than we would earn with crew "synergies."

Keep everyone fighting for another 5 years or so until the pilots most involved either retire or medical out.

Move a "west" domicile to the "east" to stir the pot and cause even more mayhem and disintegrate whatever "unity" is left. Perhaps use the slot swap in DCA as cover and move 20 west Buses to DCA and create a co-domicile with both pilot groups.

Call AWA founding fathers like Bill Franke and ask for advice on how to further screw pilots, perhaps emulating successes at Spirit. Mesa's Mike Lotz is also on the board: he and J.O. could also serve as subject matter experts.

Sit back and laugh at everyone.

 

[cactusboy53]

I'd say DCA is more vulnerable than PHX. Virtually any DCA pairings could be rebuilt as PHL or CLT based. Closing PHX would require every pairing to have at least 2 hub-to-hub legs. The airline would shrink so much that it could never cover the higher costs.

After all the slot swapping we did with DAL for LGA? Nah. I would say that LCC is "right sized" at this time (generally speaking). When a new contract is voted in, it will take a year to allow crews to move from one base to another. I would presume it will take marketing and planning that long to draw down PHX aircraft / pilots to other bases (BIG IF THEY DO THAT, IMHO).

If the economy continues to improve AND the onset of age 65......it may not be that big of a deal.

Keeping us separate operations because of the Ghost of LCC Future (and at the personal cost of at least $45,000 a year for an Eastie Captain) seems pretty short sighted.

 

[B-atch]

ok. try and keep emotion out of this for a minute but I would like to get your fiews on what you would propose as an ideal solution where neither side is disadvantaged? Demerger? A second binding arbitration?

If you were running the airline - what would you do?

Compromise. Both sides need to dress this PIG in a way that both parties feel fairly treated. The how, when, and why, is up to OUR negotiators.
The status quo WILL NOT WORK!! 6 years already. The east suffers under loa93, but advances on attrition. The West stagnates with no progression, or CBA improvement.
Remember east has been under loa93 pay for a LOONG time. We have made life adjustments to survive. With attrition, things can only get better!!
Convincing the east to accept the NIC will require ALOT of money, and contractual guarantees to offset the loss in seniority.

 

[Taco Rocket]

Convincing the east to accept the NIC will require ALOT of money, and contractual guarantees to offset the loss in seniority.

That's the bottom line, and the money just isn't there. It never was. Study the history: with this management team, it will probably never be. And if the money materialized, some would argue it would be a windfall for the east and attempt to put a stop to it.

In this debate some assume management wants or needs to get to a joint contract. I disagree and wonder where this assumption was made.

 

[ultrarunner]

Compromise. Both sides need to dress this PIG in a way that both parties feel fairly treated. The how, when, and why, is up to OUR negotiators....

They tried that, right? And it didn't work, right? That is the reason both sides agreed to binding-arbitration, right?

My sense is that USAPA is now perfectly happy with LOA 93, their current contract, and supporting their legal team till the death to avoid a single CBA that includes Nic. And that's fine, if it works for 'em, press on!

America West, they want a single CBA that includes Nic, and they're willing to fight till that happens. And that's working for them....

The two sides are just way to far apart. That's the reason they went to binding in the first place!, RIGHT? GOT IT NOW!

Practically speaking, IMHO, had they sat down and bargained a single CBA the day after binding arbitration, I think this would be a pretty strong carrier. Instead, I'm curious who would even sit down and even attempt to talk to USAPA in the even Doug tries another merger....

 

[B-atch]

Everything up to your last sentence is your amateur hour analysis and conjecture. Regarding the last sentence, it has nothing to do with said amateur hour analysis, and everything to do with simply not rolling over for a bunch of bullies.

The fact that the east is unable to get the job done is not the west's problem.

I do not claim to be a professional analyst nor am I an amateur, as you suggest. All I have is history and past mergers to gage and speculate on possible future scenarios. Ask yourself this question: What has Airways, among others, done with West operations subsequent to mergers?
Were are the highest YIELD margins found? East or West. I made this easy for ya. You have a 50/50 chance.

 

[Taco Rocket]

They tried that, right? And it didn't work, right? That is the reason both sides agreed to binding-arbitration, right?

I think the genesis of this problem is that ALPA-ALPA negotiation process.

This process, in my opinion, doesn't encourage a mediated solution. Instead it encourages infighting within your own MEC just to get to a "unified" position BEFORE presenting that position to the opposing MEC. That leaves no room to truly negotiate.

Should you attempt to negotiate with the other MEC you quickly find your own support eroding (possibly with a recall). Witness today's United/CAL negotiations.

The end result is a "take it or leave it" ultimatum -- which, by its very nature is doomed to fail. Rejecting this ultimatum begets a "see you arbitration" slinging of mud. Finally, this "professional arbitrator" who is less interested in the dispute than in retaining his future employability in retaining future lucrative arbitration work issues a decision which takes on a carnival or casino-like proposition. Spin the wheel and see where the ball lands.

Is this representation? Is this a loss? Who loses? Everyone.

 

[ultrarunner]

In this debate some assume management wants or needs to get to a joint contract. I disagree and wonder where this assumption was made.

I agree with that statement. USAPA's stances gives management WAY more options to split up this abortion, etc... that will ultimately benefit management and shareholders.

USAPA and AWA, IMHO is going to wake up one morning and say "holy $hit".

But, as I said in a previous post, USAPA has taken a stance that they support, and I'm sure they'll be just fine with it....

 

[flygirlqt]

In this debate some assume management wants or needs to get to a joint contract. I disagree and wonder where this assumption was made.

That is exactly right, +1. There is not a financial incentive for the company to change their ways. The assumptions are being made out of ignorance as a wet dream type effort to undo a binding arbitration. More wishful thinking by those that think any contract negotiations will contain language or stipulations for a do over and/or adjusting of the Nic.