App window possibly opening in August
05-27-2013, 08:54 AM
#41
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: CE680
Posts: 13
AA73-
Nice post. Good substance, no unnecessary jabs.
I don't agree with this statement, however:
"However, in all fairness to APA, they were fed up at that point by the unrealistic demands - and boycotted meetings - by TWALPA, which finally led to the crafting of Supp CC between APA and AA."
Having read reports from the TWA negotiators they very much attempted to negotiate in good faith. And their "unrealistic demands" were simply an attempt to avoid a staple job on the TWA pilots. They put forth A proposal developed by a 3rd party called the Tanen proposal that suggested a methodology referencing relative position/ seniority among fleet types. You make sound as if they were trying for a windfall or pursuing (gasp) DOH. I would say that it was the APA side that truly did not negotiate in good faith. I would submit Ed Whites infamous statement as further proof "we Fu--ed you because we could". Is this the good faith you speak of?
Course here we are a decade later. About the only thing I can say looking back on the last decade is that "fair" is truly in the eye of the beholder. The APA hardliner who says that he was screwed by my sweetheart deal I got in the integration will probably not see eye to eye with me and my view influenced by my 10 years on furlough.
So I would assert on this message board facts are important, but arguments of fair are pointless. Fair depends where you sit.
I recently accepted recall because my flying gig disintegrated and started furloughing. So far being back at AA has been a good experience. Interesting thing about people, they are way more welcoming in person than on anonymous message boards. Many of the folks I fly with probably can't relate to what I or many of the recallees have gone through over the last decade, but truly they don't need to. I am happy to be back, and therefore my responsibility is check to any baggage I have at the door. With that in mind I have been able to enjoy the flying and experience for what it is: A pretty good job.
My hope is that we can re-craft it back to what it used to be: A great career.
Maybe I'll see you on the road. I'll bet we could solve all AA's problems over a couple beers!
Nice post. Good substance, no unnecessary jabs.
I don't agree with this statement, however:
"However, in all fairness to APA, they were fed up at that point by the unrealistic demands - and boycotted meetings - by TWALPA, which finally led to the crafting of Supp CC between APA and AA."
Having read reports from the TWA negotiators they very much attempted to negotiate in good faith. And their "unrealistic demands" were simply an attempt to avoid a staple job on the TWA pilots. They put forth A proposal developed by a 3rd party called the Tanen proposal that suggested a methodology referencing relative position/ seniority among fleet types. You make sound as if they were trying for a windfall or pursuing (gasp) DOH. I would say that it was the APA side that truly did not negotiate in good faith. I would submit Ed Whites infamous statement as further proof "we Fu--ed you because we could". Is this the good faith you speak of?
Course here we are a decade later. About the only thing I can say looking back on the last decade is that "fair" is truly in the eye of the beholder. The APA hardliner who says that he was screwed by my sweetheart deal I got in the integration will probably not see eye to eye with me and my view influenced by my 10 years on furlough.
So I would assert on this message board facts are important, but arguments of fair are pointless. Fair depends where you sit.
I recently accepted recall because my flying gig disintegrated and started furloughing. So far being back at AA has been a good experience. Interesting thing about people, they are way more welcoming in person than on anonymous message boards. Many of the folks I fly with probably can't relate to what I or many of the recallees have gone through over the last decade, but truly they don't need to. I am happy to be back, and therefore my responsibility is check to any baggage I have at the door. With that in mind I have been able to enjoy the flying and experience for what it is: A pretty good job.
My hope is that we can re-craft it back to what it used to be: A great career.
Maybe I'll see you on the road. I'll bet we could solve all AA's problems over a couple beers!
Last edited by Cipollini; 05-27-2013 at 09:24 AM.
05-27-2013, 11:45 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,890
Thx Cipollini.
I am fully aware of the Tannen proposal. As I recall it integrated far more (around 70%) but still had around a 30% staple. Still a much better deal than CC. APA rejected the Tannen proposal, insisting that it was too lopsided towards the TWA side (again, fair or not? completely in the eye of the beholder.) Up until the Tannen proposal, TWALPA was insisting on a much harder line, up to an including full DOH. They started ratcheting it down with the Tannen. I believe that after the Tannen was rejected, they started boycotting meetings (APA was also known to boycott a few as well.) At that point APA, sensing that the whole deal would be scratched, crafted CC with AMR.
It is not a very well known fact, but it must be stated here in all truthfulness: Supp CC was crafted after 9/11, not before: APA knew that the furlough gauntlet was going to fall hard, and strove to protect as many native AA jobs as it could. I believe CC was crafted in early November '01.
Please note: these are details as explained to me by pilots on BOTH sides who were present during the whole deal. If they are inaccurate I would appreciate any corrections.
Again - I'm not an advocate of the process APA used: after the Tannen was rejected and both sides couldn't come to an agreement, the next step should have been submission to binding neutral arbitration. At least, with an arbitrator's ruling, one side wouldn't have been able to blame the other.
It is my opinion that an arbitrator would have crafted something similar along the lines of CC. This was revealed to me by someone who partook in the proceedings, claiming that APA had solicited the opinions of more than one respected arbitrator, before crafting CC. They wanted a deal that could stand up in court. Hence Supp CC, with the help of arbitrators. In fact I believe they used the same lawyer that was used with the TW/OZ merger.
Beers on the road... I'm in. Not one furloughed pilot will ever buy one on my watch in my presence. Welcome back!
73
I am fully aware of the Tannen proposal. As I recall it integrated far more (around 70%) but still had around a 30% staple. Still a much better deal than CC. APA rejected the Tannen proposal, insisting that it was too lopsided towards the TWA side (again, fair or not? completely in the eye of the beholder.) Up until the Tannen proposal, TWALPA was insisting on a much harder line, up to an including full DOH. They started ratcheting it down with the Tannen. I believe that after the Tannen was rejected, they started boycotting meetings (APA was also known to boycott a few as well.) At that point APA, sensing that the whole deal would be scratched, crafted CC with AMR.
It is not a very well known fact, but it must be stated here in all truthfulness: Supp CC was crafted after 9/11, not before: APA knew that the furlough gauntlet was going to fall hard, and strove to protect as many native AA jobs as it could. I believe CC was crafted in early November '01.
Please note: these are details as explained to me by pilots on BOTH sides who were present during the whole deal. If they are inaccurate I would appreciate any corrections.
Again - I'm not an advocate of the process APA used: after the Tannen was rejected and both sides couldn't come to an agreement, the next step should have been submission to binding neutral arbitration. At least, with an arbitrator's ruling, one side wouldn't have been able to blame the other.
It is my opinion that an arbitrator would have crafted something similar along the lines of CC. This was revealed to me by someone who partook in the proceedings, claiming that APA had solicited the opinions of more than one respected arbitrator, before crafting CC. They wanted a deal that could stand up in court. Hence Supp CC, with the help of arbitrators. In fact I believe they used the same lawyer that was used with the TW/OZ merger.
Beers on the road... I'm in. Not one furloughed pilot will ever buy one on my watch in my presence. Welcome back!
73
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
