With all due respect, I'd argue it actually does say that. Why would that language be there ?

Because the JCBA is to be completed prior to the SLI. One would assume there was a reason for putting one before the other (probably several). At any rate, read the ENTIRE paragraph. It essentially states that the parties shall continue to "recognize" USAPA until another representative is certified by the NMB. In fact, if one truly reads what this paragraph is saying, it doesn't even guarantee USAPA won't be out of the picture PRIOR to JCBA completion let alone SLI. The sentence snippet you are interpreting does not appear to guarantee anything to USAPA even to JCBA, let alone SLI and in fact is more limiting to USAPA to ensure that paragraph is not intended to apply to SLI even if USAPA survives the full length of the JCBA process, which again in interpreting that paragraph isn't guaranteed.

In essence, the driver of the timeline for USAPA isn't the APA, but the NMB declaration of a single bargaining representative as per the MOU (to which USAPA agreed). Paragraph 27 reaffirms that USAPA could (but not necessarily will) be out of the picture prior to JCBA completion.

The NMB has the starters pistol. Of course in this case, it's actually loaded and pointed at USAPA's head.

 

I understand what the paragraph is saying, just thought it funny to add "with respect to the JCBA"

So let me ask you this:

If the new American were to buy say jetBlue tomorrow, who is now ALPA, and it somehow passed the DOJ and was approved. Do you think all that would have to happen is that the APA file for single carrier, and of course they would win due to their size and become the new CBA, and then the APA would be in charge of the SLI and also represent the jetBlue pilots in said SLI with American?

 

It's just my opinion, but again I think that was added as a clarifying statement to limit that paragraph, not to be interpreted as the opposite.

The only reason APA is getting the red carpet as the single bargaining agent is it is assumed they have the majority by a significant margin plus the MOU envisioned that and USAPA agreed with that vision. The MOU already has its signatories and so if AAG entered a transaction with Jet Blue tomorrow, none of its provisions would apply to such a merger or acquisition. This merger is already approved and in the process of completion. Any future transaction like that would almost certainly not be approved (if it even was) prior to completion of our SLI and thus our merger, so it would be a whole new deal. At that point (and again, it's only my opinion), the APA would be an even bigger majority then with 15,000 plus pilots instead of 10,000 presently. Jet Blue is smaller then US Airways is now, so that would essentially mean ALPA would go bye-bye, but SLI would still be an NMB arbitration with M-B in play (Allegheny-Mohawk sections 3/13).

 

Let's forget about our SLI and say it gets miraculously solved tomorrow and we're all one big happy family... Lol.

So we are one union (APA) with one seniority list. ALPA would certainly go away because a vote would not be needed due to the small size of jetBlue. So APA files single carrier. It's granted and APA becomes the new union for the new new American. lol

So you think it would go to NMB arbitration under M/B. Who do you think would represent the jetBlue pilots in the arbitration? ALPA or the APA?

 

Depends on what was agreed to. Even if it was APA, for the process to be fair, I'd think JB pilots would have their own pilots representing them and that they would be able to put forth whatever they want to the arbitrators, so the ARBITRATORS can make the decision.

 

There is nothing illegal as to the intent of the MOU or the motivations of the APA. Unions have a right to single carrier status and they enjoy a wide range of reasonableness in their conduct of business.
Usapa took away the west union and then denied the west pilots arbitration. So, ALG, the question you asked Eagle regarding the JetBlue hypothetical really needs to be answered by you first.

 

In that scenario, I feel that the jetBlue ALPA merger committee would be expected to represent the jetBlue pilots if there wasn't a SLI agreement before single carrier.

That just seems like the way it should always work. I think we will all find that is also the intent of the M/B statute...

 

So, you are disagreeing with Usapa's position?

 

We all speculate on what we think will or should happen. But the truth is, until the groups actually doing the work start talking, it's really anyone's guess.

I think USAPA and APA are still trying to figure this out and are working on a solution. What has been noticeably absent is any word from the APA. I think until they break their silence, we are all just guessing.

Some try to talk about the APA response in the court filings and think it means something about how they feel about USAPA. How could they react any other way? USAPA started the legal proceedings to protect their rights under the M/B. Even if they are talking to the APA, and the APA is actively working on a mutual solution, the APA would still have to respond in court. And they did. No matter what USAPA said or the APA said in court will matter at all if they both come out and say they solved their differences. The court cases will be withdrawn, and whatever either side said or did in court will not matter. I think we are all stuck waiting for the APA to break their silence. so... let's speculate...

 

Not at all. I think USAPA will and should represent the US Airways pilots in the SLI even if the APA is determined to be the CBA before the SLI is complete (which I think we all know will happen). Same as jetBlue ALPA should represent their pilots in our hypothetical scenario above...