![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know that APA has one list. They don't have a AA list and an Eagle List, a third or fourth list etc.... they have one list that they are going to present to the arbitrator. We have how many???? |
Quote:
Why would you bring up an eagle list? Those guys have their own separate seniority list and company. Eagle isn't being merged here. |
He is talking about Eagle flows to AA.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Obviously the Eagle flows on property at whatever snapshot date is set, guys at Eagle prior to that date, even if scheduled to flow, would not be included on a list up to that date.
|
Quote:
I also know the term 3rd list is internal, but the understanding was that those hired after the US/AW merger would all go below hired prior to the merger, from both sides. Will the MOU and PA change all that? Is that null and void too? I don't know. Did you see my post where I asked west pilots if they saw any pitfalls going into this separately? That's the main one I was wondering about. |
I'm thinking the "3rd list" from the US/AWA merger may not be taken into consideration as 3rd listers. I believe that they will be considered part of the list they are on. I know that's not how it was supposed to happen, but it's really kinda tied to the Nic. The TA that created the Nic also defined how the "3rd listers" would be dealt with. Well, that TA is null. That nullifies the Nic as well as the 3rd list provisions.
When the East presents their singular list, it will contain a tremendous number of 3rd listers in EVERY aircraft type from 190 Captain to 330 FO. Those pilots, and the positions they occupy, are needed on the East list during integration. I think the real "3rd list" pilots will be defined once the merger committees decide on a "constructive notice" date. Those pilots hired after that date will go in their proper order regardless whether they are at AA or the East or the West. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't think I said you didn't know anything about the law, I asked if you were really a lawyer. :-) That was when you said Silver said it wasn't ripe and I still don't get that point. Not sure what you mean about the money. Are you taking about above the amount allocated by the company? "17. Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the MOU, American shall reimburse the Merger Committees for expenses in an aggregate not less than $4 million to be shared equally by the Merger Committees." Rest I pretty much agree with. 767s are gone, but A330s are relatively young. I think all aircraft will be redeployed. |
Quote:
I'd say let USAPA and Leonidas battle it out. There is only one union, the APA. Updates such as these are troubling: Seniority Arbitration Board Members In accordance with the terms of the seniority integration protocol agreement between APA, the US Airlines Pilots Association, American Airlines and US Airways, three arbitrators have been selected for the seniority arbitration board: Dana Eischen, Ira Jaffe and David Vaughn. If negotiations do not produce an integrated seniority list, the protocol agreement stipulates that the arbitration board "shall have the authority to establish a fair and equitable integrated seniority list as required by the McCaskill-Bond Act." USAPA is a LLC, Leonidas is a LLC. Should Leonidas be allowed a seat at the table? |
Quote:
|
Enter Content
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It must be noted that prior to USAPA's dissolution...well, supposed dissolution, they participated in the JCBA negotiations and are listed jointly in the initial JCBA proposal recently sent to management. Regarding seniority, it seeks to define seniority for all pilots based on "occupational date" and any future references to seniority will be based on OCC date for all pilots. The East and West lists use DOH, so it would appear both APA and USAPA agree that that date will be converted to an OCC date (but still the same date). Of course, USAPA is seeking to still remain relevant in yet another one of its endless attempts to reneg on an agreement, so until the JCBA is ratified, anything could change. As far as Eagle flows though, any future flow isn't on any AA seniority list and doesn't get on that list until first day of new-hire class. |
Quote:
The majority of our future fleet will be Group II compensation (737, Airbus variants) with Group IV the long-haul "pinnacle" for pay. Group I is a wild card. Right now with only 20 aircraft in a 900+ aircraft fleet, that wouldn't seem to be a sustainable fleet and unless expanded significantly would likely be eliminated. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've spent time reading the updates on the Leonidas site. Click on those links: September 2014. Today, the NMB certified the Allied Pilots Association as the exclusive bargaining agent for all flight deck crewmembers of US Airways. You can read the NMB determination here. Effective immediately, USAPA no longer has the legal status of a collective bargaining agent. USAPA is still in possession of a substantial amount of dues monies, collected from US Airways pilots for the purpose of collective bargaining - a purpose which they cannot fulfill anymore. A demand letter was sent on Friday September 12th to USAPA officers and counsel which notices USAPA for the remittance of all funds in excess to concluding USAPA's business as a exclusive bargaining agent required under the law. You can read the demand letter here. Additionally, a Litigation Hold Letter was sent to USAPA attorney Brian O’Dwyer for the retention of all USAPA records. Finally, we encourage all West pilots to apply for membership to our new collective bargaining agent. The APA has a convenient online application, which you can access here. Thank you all for your continued support. The APA has a DFR obligation to the West pilots as well. There are a lot of lawsuits, hold letters, demand letters and trouble in general I don't want to see the APA a part. |
Quote:
That's where the longevity argument comes in, but unlike ALPA merger policy for UAL-CAL, that factor isn't required to be part of this SLI and in reading the joint APA/USAPA JCBA proposal, the definition of future seniority for the combined group will be the traditional OCC date presently used at AA assuming East/West modification of their DOH's to that definition. If the new contract for all pilots (which must be in place FIRST, before any SLI negotiating) defines all pilots based on their present OCC date (presently DOH at East/West), it would seem to be another roadblock for arbitrators to consider any other date in their determination of how to dovetail pilots from the 3 carriers together or 2 in the unlikely case (my opinion) the Nic is ultimately adopted by the final arbitration panel. |
Eagle..
Where are you saying these 2001 occ date guys (those not on AA property until after merger approval 12/13) fit in with respect to airways constructive notice pilots (hired between feb and dec 2013)? |
Quote:
Everyone pre 12/9/13 would have a pre-merger career expectation based on their separate carriers as opposed to the combined entity. That expectation would include the aircraft they would have the opportunity to fly, the routes they would have the opportunity to fly, the timeline (if any) they'd have those opportunities based on their seniority and known retirements and their expected pay based on their then CBA, etc.......among other things. It would be the pre-merger pilots that will require the arbitrators to fairly dovetail together (some in blocks, others individually), but again, the complication is to benefit one group, you'll hurt another. For example, if the arbitrators were to slot a 2005 East "third-lister" ahead of a 2001 AA flow ostensibly because they didn't activate their training (time-in-seat longevity) until 2013, it hoses any legacy AA non-flow junior to him (remember he has a 2001 OCC date) as the separate lists will not be reordered and will maintain present relativity. So in that example, do they hose the legacy AA F/O (in fact, ALL legacy AA pilots junior to Eagle flow X by applying Eagle flow longevity to the factors in the integration or protect legacy AA pilot pre-merger career expectations by minimizing or even eliminating it. Same could be argued for furloughees on all sides. That's why I think a hybrid list that maximizes pre-merger career expectations will have the most weight above other factors in constructing the ISL. If they adopted "leapfrogging" (rearrainging seniority lists), then I could see all kinds of whacky outcomes, but that would nullify the concept of pre-merger career expectations and essentially put a "DOH" model (by another method) in the drivers seat. It would also be the most likely to provide windfalls for some at the expense of others and if there's two concepts this final ISL will have (again, in my opinion) and SHOULD have is maintaining pre-merger career expectations and avoidance of windfalls. |
:)
Quote:
First off, until SCS they had no DFR to east or west, right? USAPA was the legally elected CBA of US pilots and they carried that burden. After SCS they do, and they wanted to give the west a seat. Here's the problem with that. They were negotiating with a group that didn't want to, and apparently wasn't going to. So they could wait untilt SCS and do what they wanted, but then the east pilots would have a good claim against them as there is a standing ruling from a federal judge saying that the west pilots didn't have the right to separate status, and that it would cause chaos if they got it. So that would have been a pretty bold step, opening up DFR liablity to the east. Now, Silver also said that the east wouldn't have a right to it either, but the difference is that all parties AGREED to that(It think all parties recognized that was nuts with MB). So, they compromised with the arbitration. Now they can say "We wanted to give them their own committee, but their CBA wouldn't agree to it, so we settled." I think this keeps their hands clean. I think you said that you are fairly new to the east/west fight, but I will give you some advice. Take any AOL update with a grain of salt. They like to write these flowing diatribes, but they are almost always wrong. AOL wants USAPA to shut down so they cannot speak for east pilots in the AII appeal, pure and simple. They threatened to sue, so USAPA asked for a DC. We'll see what the courts say. |
Quote:
Great post SewerPipeDvr, I'm impressed that you have integrity to look back and own your content in such a forward manor. Impressive. |
Dana Eischen says
Quote:
The Mou doesn't abandon the Nic. The mou simply moves the Nic. QUestion from the courts to the arbitrators. The PA doesn't say that only the existing lists of December 2013 are allowed, the PA specifically says that the merger committees are free to put forth to the arbitrators any list they desire. The lists of 2013 mentioned by the PA are simply lists to list pilots on property at that time. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Again, IMO, use of the Nic will require an extensive and lengthy fence construction or a massive chunk of the Nic list going surprisingly junior on the ISL. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
We're not even a week from APA's new status as CBA, and AOL has already popped this off to USAPA? This is not realistic. USAPA has long running financial agreements, which it must fulfill. There is also a continuity of civil matters, which USAPA may continue to oppose. I'm afraid for West Pilots. This letter strikes me more as a targeted marketing campaign for fundraising monies, than it is an effective threat. West pilots may face more exposure in this integration than just losing Nic. I do highly encourage the West Pilot Class to settle with USAPA, APA, and American in exchange for a SLI pre-agreement that guarantees, among other things, that third-list pilots will not be placed above west pilots in this integration. Such an settlement could also vacate the Nicolau award, and establish a West Class Merger Committee. Please note that I do not advocate that third-list plots should go ahead of any West pilots, but we are getting down to the 11th hour, and everything is on the table. ie. AOL wants Nic, and USAPA may go to great lengths to represent all of the pilots on the "status quo lists." Quote:
That being said, lets zoom out, and get away from this minutia. The ultimate customer of SLI is American Airlines. The arbitrators would provide a very poor product if upset the majority of pilots (AA+East) by awarding Nic... Don't you think? Is it reasonable to assume that West pilots would be harmed by the Nicolai award is East+AA pilots collectively burned the house down? Obviously, this would never happen, but arbitrators and company will seek the most mutually beneficial solution. Quote:
I believe you suppose that AE flows with relatively less sweat equity, and who did not hold a recall right may devalue the SLI value of legacy AA non-flow thru pilots who did/do hold a recall right. Is this correct? AE flows, and any relatively junior AA native recalls will surely be credited their sweat equity, but at this most bottom portion of the seniority list what value did either group's longevity represent? Regardless of longevity, both demographics have the same net bidding power, and I believe arbitrators will take note of this. How much percentage based movement was there between February 14th, 2013, and December 9th, 2013? Given this question, I am confident that the arbitrators won't devalue AAnatives relative seniority to their more senior AE flows. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last AA native recall class prior to December 9th, 2013 was November 20th, 2013? This illustrates the net value of these group's seniority value. I also must point out, as I have in the past, that the Merger Announcement Date is the typical litmus test for delineating Conditional Notice pilots. If this applies to this merger, than the majority of the people you're writing about need not worry about these things. Furthermore, if West Pilots (against all odds) gain representation they will assuredly demand a Merger Announcement Date Conditional Notice Snapshot for delineating pre/post merger pilots. This method was used in the UAL, DAL, and Nic SLI awards. So for all the arguments AA pilots may have made advocating west pilot representation...you may have devalued a MOU effective date method for inflating system-wide AA pilot relative seniority. It's ironic, but it's out of our hands, and as a third list pilot I don't really care which snapshot is used as I personally feel that it makes no difference for junior AA/East pilots. The net value of bidding seniority is equally inflated on both sides during the February 14th, 2014 to December 9th, 2013 time frame. Assuming relative seniority inflation between the AA & East groups is constant between MAD, and MOU Effective days than what are we worried about? I hope my late night thoughts prove constructive. Respectfully, FBW |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
USAPA agreed with him. That was one of their big selling points during the CBA election, that the Nic was a product of the ever changing ALPA merger policy. What will be in front of this panel? If you guys get a seat and propose the Nic, that's not the status quo. It's never been used, and I don't see how you can miss Eagle Flys point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Cacti, you stated: "what was the "intent" of the contracts that were made?" We live in a world where sometimes contracts are meant to be broken. Sometimes groups of people sign things they will make every effort to eventually renege on. Social security is a great example. Yes, the airlines US Airways merged with American in 2005. But the then technically controlling US/AMWest TA evaporated with the AA/US MOU. But what's more important than that may be the idea that arbitrators respond to incentive. (Hang on, we're zooming out again.) There are relatively fewer airlines remaining. It's more important than ever that arbitrators, who are chosen based on prior rulings, be considerate to the fact that companies, and unions often hire them with preference to past performance. Beyond this merger American, and APA will shop for arbitrators again. It would be out side of an arbitrators best interests to upset American and APA with the Nicolau award. Does this make sense? Incentives are a fairly simple concept. Ie. you love Nic because it incentives you, not because it was an "agreement." If you were a mid seniority East pilot who has ridden the coat tails of USAPA to fly the a330, and then upgrade on the a319 you'd be anti-Nic too! It's all incentives baby! Lets hope for a mutually beneficial outcome. We need West, East, and AA pilots to all come out ahead on this one. You hoping for anything else may be more self serving here than you realize. We need a socialized arbitration award, and I full believe we will get one because arbitrators may be incentivized by AMR and APA's desires for social harmonization of labor. Okay, I'm off to accomplish something tangible! God bless you Cacti. Hang in there everyone! |
The NIC would absolutely have an impact on the AA pilots. Using any method of integration with and without the NIC would show the impact.
|
Quote:
The West will only recognize the Nic (they're committed to that as to inject optionability now is to essentially admit THEY believe the Nic isn't a requirement) and so any integration position with AA pilots will be based on that list. The East will never recognize the Nic and so their integration position with AA and the West will be based on some other ideal. APA will likely propose a pre-merger career expectation list that minimizes windfalls to any subgroup of pilots at the expense of others. The beauty is that any positions discussed in negotiations between themselves are confidential. The award will be final and binding on ALL pilots. I think the only guarantee of the Nic NOT reaching arbitral consideration is if the West is not granted a merger committee. |
Quote:
In simpler terms, the Nic benefits the most 1700 pilots that pre-merger (like it or not) were flying for essentially a one domicile LCC operation with top pay substantially below that of AA and whose order/option/retirement schedule in conjunction with the likely reality of remaining in that situation for many years to come would arguably produce a windfall for those 1700 at the expense the other 13,500 and most certainly the 10,000 at AA. Will the arbitrators put the interests of this 1700 as a top priority at the expense of the massive majority ? That is the question. Again, personally, I don't think so. Quote:
I dunno, perhaps by agreeing to the consummation date, it minimizes this issue ? Remember, my statements are based on the apparent reality that none of the 3 seniority lists (or 2 in the case of the Nic being applied) will be reordered and so as one of the complexities in this SLI, one pilot's relativity at AA (or US Airways) could theoretically lift the tides of some of those presently junior below him (to varying degrees depending on the dovetailing of blocks of pilots or a finer individual dovetailing) or likewise that pilot could sink those presently below him should his longevity (time in seat) be heavily weighed. Since leapfrogging won't occur, groups of junior pilots at all of the carriers may win or lose depending on how this factor is applied. Looking at the lists, this issue doesn't seem to apply to pilots senior to about '98 at AA, in other words it will be an F/O issue for all groups. This is where incorporation of the Nic really seems to foul things up. If the Nic is used, a narrowbody West F/O could really elevate those junior to him against AA pilots unless they where blocked very junior to AA pilots which would then harm East captains or very senior F/O's junior to him. It's another reason I think the Nic might be more obtainable hadn't this merger occurred, but since it never was implemented (right or wrong) and the REALITY is the consideration now IS relevant to THIS merger/SLI where each pilot group was and not where one group (and extreme minority) SHOULD have been, the dynamics are altered to force the arbitrators to either uphold the Nic for the benefit of this 11% minority whose pre-merger career expectations couldn't hold a candle to those at AA or weigh the interests of the 89% majority (65% @AA) and use a different model more in line with the avoidance of such a windfall. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:56 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons
Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands