Originally Posted by
aa73
R57,
I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"
The single element of the APA proposal that gives me pause, and that I would consider "controlling the situation," is paragraph 16:
16. Further elements of the seniority integration protocol may be established by written agreement of the parties (American, US Airways, USAPA and APA until NMB certification of a single bargaining representative; American, US Airways, and the Organization following NMB certification of a single bargaining representative); provided, that no modification shall be made in the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
This provision, it seems to me, gives APA wide latitude to modify almost everything being agreed to without input/approval/consent of the USAPA side of the house. In the US/HP merger, there was a provision for separate ratification of the JCBA, and, I believe, for changes to the transition agreement. That is, even after SCS was declared, the TA could not be changed without agreement of both east and west. I would be very comfortable with this proposal if paragraph 16 were changed to require consent of both sides of the house to agree to changes after SCS. For example:
16. Further elements of the seniority integration protocol may be established by written agreement of the parties (American, US Airways, USAPA and APA until NMB certification of a single bargaining representative; American, US Airways, and each Merger Committee following NMB certification of a single bargaining representative); provided, that no modification shall be made in the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 above.