USAPA Board Approves MOU
#291
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
No! The reason for saying that is because the LCC pilots are immaterial to whether the merger goes through or not. Because the APA is so much larger the process is driven by their agreement with Parker and the UCC. We, being the smaller group, will just come under their contract once a merger is consummated.
All the MOU does is provide a bridge to a joint contract. It sets the framework for the integration process and modifies the existing contracts in certain respects to close the gap between what each side has in place.. As an example, pay was said to be the APA term sheet pay on the merger date and be retroactive to January 1st 2013. That would be a modification to both east and west contracts.
The MOU would also set out how the timeline and the process for watching a joint contract would be done. It would also set out the mechanism for the SLI. Since the APA has already agreed to this MOU then these details are set between the majority pilot group and the new company management. So USAPA is invited to the party, but the party will still go on even if they say no. And they will get dragged into the party in the end but they will not get to choose who they dance with.
All the MOU does is provide a bridge to a joint contract. It sets the framework for the integration process and modifies the existing contracts in certain respects to close the gap between what each side has in place.. As an example, pay was said to be the APA term sheet pay on the merger date and be retroactive to January 1st 2013. That would be a modification to both east and west contracts.
The MOU would also set out how the timeline and the process for watching a joint contract would be done. It would also set out the mechanism for the SLI. Since the APA has already agreed to this MOU then these details are set between the majority pilot group and the new company management. So USAPA is invited to the party, but the party will still go on even if they say no. And they will get dragged into the party in the end but they will not get to choose who they dance with.
#292
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
There was a copy of some notes taken during the December meetings. I do not have that copy. I don't know if it is true, if it made it into the final MOU, that's why I just cited that as an example of how the CBAs could be modified.
Be nice if it was true, right?
Be nice if it was true, right?
#293
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
There's that PESKY "change in control" language in the east cba...Although DP seems to think that his LAWYERS could circumvent that provision, it brings to light the specter of possible litigation by the east, that may gum-up the process. If DP and the UCC could consummate the merger without input from USAPA, they would have done it by now without the "dog and pony shop" called an MOU...Just my .02$
#295
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 262
That is a big question, isn't it? I have to believe that the MOU addresses that issue for the reasons you cite. There may be a workaround over the C of C issue but it would be faster and cheaper to buy off on it. Getting the merger done sooner rather than later benefits everyone other than Horton.
#296
I am ashamed at the pitiful weak position that Bradford and his followers have placed us in through his ill-conceived scheme called USAPA.
#299
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 581
Yes and it would explain a lot.
#300
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post