Search

Notices

Nic ...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-18-2014, 03:28 PM
  #411  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Default

Originally Posted by SewerPipeDvr
So how did I do on my predictions? I believe I said APA would become the BA. Correct there no vote. I said the DC lawsuit was a legal strategy (fancy term for bargaining chip or leverage). I heard they dropped it. Correct there. I said APA would not let USAPA on property. Wrong, but they are severely limited to MC work ONLY, so partial credit there. Lastly, I said APA would allow the West a seat. They did in a round about way. What APA really managed was to shift liability off of themselves from both East or West. Who are you going to sue if either side does not like the results? Not APA, they did not make the decision. I would not have thought USAPA would agree to that. I am sure it was under threat of APA giving the West a seat in MB after they became BA. APA has managed to keep the East/West fight off the property, as I noted they wanted (per several friends with direct knowledge). Right again. Not bad for someone who does not know anything about the law.
My predictions for what is coming up next. I don't think the West will get NIC. This is not for "punishing" the East. What the East did was legal. As was the West keeping the East on regional wages for years. I suspect the West will get a seat, especially in light of the recent DJ that the East filed IN STATE COURT. That is a flag this is to delay the West from getting that money to use for MB. It will get kicked for jurisdiction to Federal Court causing more delay. I suspect the West to file in Federal Court to block or freeze to keep the East from using that money. In my opinion, USAPA made a big mistake. As a part of the MOU, they should have insisted the only monies to be used for MB is the money provided by the company. APA is much bigger and RICHER. They can outspend USAPA or the West three to one. Money wins. Finally, MB outcome. Key is to study the RECENT work of the arbitrators. It will come down much like UAL/CAL. Call it 2/3s of APA will be happy. 1/4 of USAPA will be happy. The rest not so happy. Fences for APAs WB aircraft. I do NOT think the arbitrators will fence the West from USAir WBs. That will be the "little jab" to USAPA. I also think the company might make the APA happy by moving native AA metal onto your routes, and retiring/ selling off the small number of WBs you currently have. Course, I might be all wrong. Just have to wait and see.
Will have to go back and look. I was thinking that you said the APA would dictate all the terms, and that hasn't happened. Compromise was reached.

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.
R57 relay is offline  
Old 09-18-2014, 06:32 PM
  #412  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Frisco727's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 147
Default

Originally Posted by R57 relay
They have clearly stated that they have no role as CBA except the merger committee. They are staying in business(trying) to finish the lawsuits. AOL is appealing their loss. Shouldn't USAPA be able to answer that?
Yes, USAPA should be able to answer for that.

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?
Frisco727 is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 12:45 AM
  #413  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Default

Originally Posted by Frisco727
Yes, USAPA should be able to answer for that.

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?
I'm not sure what bothers you about that. Usapa was the CBA of US pilots and a party to the PA(logical under MB ). All parties agreed to USAPAs place at the table, not so with AOL. But a compromise was reached to let a 3rd party decide the question of AOL participation. What's your issue?
R57 relay is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 01:17 AM
  #414  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 34
Default

Enter Content
CMFT is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 05:08 AM
  #415  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Default

Originally Posted by SewerPipeDvr
Fences for APAs WB aircraft. I do NOT think the arbitrators will fence the West from USAir WBs.
Either widebody pilots are protected or they are not - regardless of the domicile.
FreighterGuyNow is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 07:49 AM
  #416  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by DCA A321 FO
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.
Well, they'd be included, but slotted differently. Pilots added to any seniority list (new-hire & Flow thru not yet transferred) after whatever snapshot date is used (most likely the date of "constructive notice") will likely be considered "constructive notice" pilots and their slotting with similar pilots on the other lists will most likely go DOH. It has been understood in other SLI's that these pilots career expectations were based on the combined entity and not each carriers pre-merger condition or future. Constructive notice pilots on each of the 3 lists will maintain pre-merger relative seniority but likely be slotted based on DOH (class) and then by age.

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.

Last edited by eaglefly; 09-19-2014 at 08:10 AM.
eaglefly is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 08:06 AM
  #417  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by FreighterGuyNow
Either widebody pilots are protected or they are not - regardless of the domicile.
No bump, no flush, but the traditional concept of "wide body" is likely to be changed in this SLI. 767's and A330's are held by VERY junior pilots (even new-hires in some cases) and do a good bit of flying that isn't true long haul, so protections there may be blurred. On the other hand, 777 and 787 on the AA side is very senior and thus "size" may not be the future litmus, but "long haul" flying typically done by 777, 787 and perhaps a portion of A330 on the East. If fences occur (protections), I'd expect them to be for Group IV 777, 787 and perhaps a portion of East A330 depending on future usage of that aircraft. 767 (757) won't likely have any fences (nor will A330 F/O), of course 757/767 aircraft is likely to have only 5-7 years left or so and ultimately replaced by A319's and A321's which are no different then the 737 pay-wise.

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.
eaglefly is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 08:44 AM
  #418  
You scratched my anchor
 
Al Czervik's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,967
Default

Originally Posted by eaglefly
Well, they'd be included, but slotted differently. Pilots added to any seniority list (new-hire & Flow thru not yet transferred) after whatever snapshot date is used (most likely the date of "constructive notice") will likely be considered "constructive notice" pilots and their slotting with similar pilots on the other lists will most likely go DOH. It has been understood in other SLI's that these pilots career expectations were based on the combined entity and not each carriers pre-merger condition or future. Constructive notice pilots on each of the 3 lists will maintain pre-merger relative seniority but likely be slotted based on DOH (class) and then by age.

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.
How many AA guys are constructive notice? I only see a few hired between 2001 and the merger approval date.
Al Czervik is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 08:51 AM
  #419  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Frisco727's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 147
Default

Originally Posted by R57 relay
I'm not sure what bothers you about that. Usapa was the CBA of US pilots and a party to the PA(logical under MB ). All parties agreed to USAPAs place at the table, not so with AOL. But a compromise was reached to let a 3rd party decide the question of AOL participation. What's your issue?
Liability primarily. Do all parties include the West pilots? Was the West included in the compromise? Initially, the APA was opposed to USAPA continuing as an entity. Now they are free to take all dues money under protest from the West pilots and continue business as usual?

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.
Frisco727 is offline  
Old 09-19-2014, 09:37 AM
  #420  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Default

Originally Posted by Al Czervik
How many AA guys are constructive notice? I only see a few hired between 2001 and the merger approval date.
Constructive Notice pilots would be those hired (or in the case of flows, activated their seniority by training) AFTER the constructive notice date, not before. According to APA, no relative seniority on the AA list (and thus ANY of the lists) will be altered as a result of the ISL, but those Eagle flows who did transfer post merger with more senior OCC dates like 2001 (of which there were relatively few) may be slotted in (along with everyone junior to them on the AA list) more junior to East/West pilots then those who were on AA property at Constructive Notice they might normally would have had they been on property at CN.....or it may just modify that concept to protect the most senior native above the most junior CN flow to ensure his pre-merger career expectations are not dragged down by the presence of a more senior Eagle flow who didn't come across till post Constructive Notice. This scenario would actually likely elevate a block of very junior AA pilots HIGHER then they normally would be because of the seniority (2001) of that particular flow.

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.
eaglefly is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TWA4ME
American
44
07-22-2014 06:37 PM
algflyr
American
108
06-25-2014 11:03 AM
Errbus
American
233
01-30-2014 10:44 AM
R57 relay
American
222
01-17-2014 02:17 PM
cactiboss
Major
447
01-09-2012 07:57 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices