Nic ...
09-19-2014, 11:52 AM
#422
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
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)?
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)?
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.
09-19-2014, 01:26 PM
#423
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by Frisco727
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.
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.
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.
09-19-2014, 06:49 PM
#424
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
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.
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.
Great post SewerPipeDvr, I'm impressed that you have integrity to look back and own your content in such a forward manor.
Impressive.
Last edited by flybywire44; 09-19-2014 at 07:03 PM.
09-19-2014, 07:11 PM
#425
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Dana Eischen says
So you think Dana is just going to abandon the Nic or forget when east west merged?
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.
The evolution of ALPA Merger Policy including, most importantly, the modifications following George Nicolau’s Award in the America West-US Airways case, is central to the resolution of this case.
That Award, by an experienced impartial arbitrator, was plainly based on the facts in that case record and the terms of the Merger Policy then in effect[
That Award, by an experienced impartial arbitrator, was plainly based on the facts in that case record and the terms of the Merger Policy then in effect[
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.
Last edited by cactiboss; 09-19-2014 at 07:31 PM.
09-19-2014, 07:58 PM
#428
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by cactiboss
Dana Eischen says
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.
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.
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.
09-19-2014, 08:11 PM
#429
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by cactiboss
Page 4, paragraph B
09-19-2014, 08:15 PM
#430
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by eaglefly
... the West can negotiate from any position it sees fit
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
