Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Pages : [1] 2

View Full Version : USTUPID sues APA and AAL


Cactusone
02-28-2014, 11:15 AM
Late yesterday, February 27, USAPA filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for an injunction that would require the Company and APA to follow the provisions of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment (click here). In accord with Section 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, the suit alleges that more than 20 days have passed since the SLI dispute arose, that no agreement has been reached, that USAPA has requested a list of arbitrators, and that the parties disagree about the applicability of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment. The suit will be served today (February 28) on the Company (both American and US Airways) and APA. Under the federal rules of civil procedure, the defendants are required to “answer or otherwise plead” in 21 days.

The purpose of the suit is simple: to require the Company and APA to follow the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which requires a prompt “fair and equitable” resolution of the SLI dispute that arose when the two airlines merged. This has been carefully considered and is necessary to protect the seniority rights of our pilots. We will keep you informed of further developments.

USAPA Communications


Capt Hindsight
02-28-2014, 11:21 AM
C1, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend in this case.

Capt H

cactiboss
02-28-2014, 11:29 AM
C1, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend in this case.

Capt H

Idiot. Go get a clue.


texaspilot76
02-28-2014, 11:35 AM
Gee whiz. Here we go again. Same crap as the last 7 years.

A bunch of us have been excited about this merger and what it will do for our careers. Instead of being happy and looking to the future, we now have to look forward to endless court battles and appeals.

I pray the courts will strike down this crap once and for all so that USAPA will wither into dust and we can all get on with a promising career.

80ktsClamp
02-28-2014, 11:44 AM
...and so it begins.

aa73
02-28-2014, 11:47 AM
Really, USAPA??? I mean, come on... This smacks of nothing but delay tactics, knowing that the end is coming. You guys are gonna end up shooting yourselves in the foot!

EMBFlyer
02-28-2014, 11:51 AM
Yet the BPR wants to remain in place. I can't wait until we have a ballot come out on which one of the reps gets to turn the light switch off in CLT.

R57 relay
02-28-2014, 11:54 AM
Really, USAPA??? I mean, come on... This smacks of nothing but delay tactics, knowing that the end is coming. You guys are gonna end up shooting yourselves in the foot!

Can you give me the APA perspective, as I don't APA updates? It seems to me that the APA is overreaching, based on Judge Silver's dicta.

MB was set up to give both sides of a merger rights. How does taking over the process achieve that? There seems to be a lot missing here.

texaspilot76
02-28-2014, 12:00 PM
Really, USAPA??? I mean, come on... This smacks of nothing but delay tactics, knowing that the end is coming. You guys are gonna end up shooting yourselves in the foot!

AA73, a good portion of us are ready to get the operations integrated so that we may enjoy the benefits of the New American. It is select group of arrogant, self serving egoists that is dragging this out. I even heard a senior East Captain state that he is sick of USAPA and is ready for APA to take the reins and get this merger complete.

Just know that a good portion of us are happy with this merger and ready to see it completed.

flyinawa
02-28-2014, 12:03 PM
Just to be sure we all have this straight...

West pilots don't get independent representation because USAPA "fairly" represents *ALL* pilots....but APA can't be trusted to protect the interests of USAir pilots. OK. Got it.

Smoke Toliet
02-28-2014, 12:04 PM
Delay Delay Delay... so the angry FO mafia that runs USAPA can get a few more upgrades in. No need to represent anyone else on the east list.

The Drizzle
02-28-2014, 12:06 PM
Just to be sure we all have this straight...

West pilots don't get independent representation because USAPA "fairly" represents *ALL* pilots....but APA can't be trusted to protect the interests of USAir pilots. OK. Got it.

The even more delicious irony is that having three groups at the table allows for the Nic do-over they east has always wanted...right up until this minute.

EMBFlyer
02-28-2014, 12:09 PM
AA73, a good portion of us are ready to get the operations integrated so that we may enjoy the benefits of the New American. It is select group of arrogant, self serving egoists that is dragging this out. I even heard a senior East Captain state that he is sick of USAPA and is ready for APA to take the reins and get this merger complete.

Just know that a good portion of us are happy with this merger and ready to see it completed.

I haven't agreed with a lot of stuff you've posted on here, but this is 100% spot on!

Let's just get this done so we can realize the benefits of the merger and focus our efforts on getting the best contract of all the majors. We're the biggest airline, why not have the best contract?

Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

I'm also ready for a 1.45% instant pay raise!

eaglefly
02-28-2014, 12:38 PM
This should be of little surprise. :cool:

Clearly USAPA (actually its predecessors in the East) likes to agree to legal processes it has no intention of honoring. First it considered the term "binding" when they agreed to binding arbitration with the west for an SLI to subsequently be an optional concept and now they believe the same thing about the MOU process after they agreed to it. The MOU is a legally binding contract that they agreed to KNOWING both the timeline and planned order of events before they signed it. BOTH of those concepts are being followed to the letter, yet USAPA is alleging a conspiracy of deviation by the other 3 parties to supposedly undermine the rights of US Airways pilots.

This assertion is baseless in that the MOU itself requires the provisions of McCaskill-Bond (which is rooted in Allegheny-Mohawk 3 & 13). USAPA seems to want to essentially nullify the MOU provisions and redefine the process as going straight to immediate arbitration directly as per McCaskill-Bond on the SLI. This is clearly a desperate attempt to remain relevant beyond that which they agreed to using the subterfuge of claiming inequity in the SLI process for US Airways pilots. As I predicted, this will drag the SLI out for at least 2 years if not longer as I'm sure there is plenty more obstructionist intransigence coming from the bull, but that's probably one of the desires of USAPA. If they are granted this ability, it will essentially redefine the MOU and if USAPA can do that, what's to stop other parties from doing that until resolution as well ?

What's good for the bull should be good for the china shop owners.

Specifically, the MOU became the new contract for US Airways pilots on the date of POR acceptance. If USAPA can nullify the SLI provision of the MOU, why can't management nullify other provisions ? The MOU was a replacement of US Airways pilots CBA until JCBA and SLI completion. What's to stop management from essentially requesting both sides go back to their pre-merger contractual corners with AA pilots working under the CLA (the MOU currently replaced this) and US Airways pilots reverting back to their pre-merger CBA provisions ?

Parker's certainly used division to lower costs in the past. This time might save a lot of $$$ while this dispute and the ones to follow run their way through the court system. USAPA's suit basically questions the validity of the MOU itself, which is puzzling because their negotiators negotiated the damn thing and if it's under question, why not delay its implementation until it's validity is resolved ?

If USAPA is going to practice the game of selective reinterpretation post agreement (as they have repeatedly), why not the other parties ?

The bull only knows how to be a bull and cannot help trashing any china shop that presents itself. It'll be interesting to see if this time they inadvertently picked a china shop they should have passed on. The china shop owners this time (the creditors) aren't going to be happy as this will likely drive the stock price down and may even put AA pilots final claim payment in delay, so people may have a financial claim against USAPA for their frivolous persuits. This may be another reason SOME may want to reset the MOU clock to mitigate financial loss.

Going to be a lot of twists and turns folks and it will be interesting to see at what point USAPA went too far. Problem is, is that point may not be recognizable for them until AFTER they've gone over the cliff and they look longingly back at the broken guardrail on their way down. I also wonder what collateral damage will occur and who is part of that unfortunate group.

eaglefly
02-28-2014, 12:41 PM
I haven't agreed with a lot of stuff you've posted on here, but this is 100% spot on!

Let's just get this done so we can realize the benefits of the merger and focus our efforts on getting the best contract of all the majors. We're the biggest airline, why not have the best contract?

Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

I'm also ready for a 1.45% instant pay raise!

The hope for that is now all but dead. It may take a long time for this to wind its way through the courts. If USAPA loses, they'll almost certainly just reinvent a new tack for delay. Perhaps they are hoping that others capitulate so the process won't be delayed ?

Anything's possible, but I strongly doubt it.

Wiskey Driver
02-28-2014, 12:56 PM
Gee whiz. Here we go again. Same crap as the last 7 years.

A bunch of us have been excited about this merger and what it will do for our careers. Instead of being happy and looking to the future, we now have to look forward to endless court battles and appeals.

I pray the courts will strike down this crap once and for all so that USAPA will wither into dust and we can all get on with a promising career.

As a west pilot I am very happy about the merger and what it may bring. I am happy that it will end the rein of terror by the east that can not honor their word and now APA is getting a glimpse of just what usapa is.

WD at AWA

Wiskey Driver
02-28-2014, 01:00 PM
Really, USAPA??? I mean, come on... This smacks of nothing but delay tactics, knowing that the end is coming. You guys are gonna end up shooting yourselves in the foot!

Is it FINALLY sinking in what we in the west have had to deal with since we bought that broke down airline out of BK!

AA73 you are just now seeing what we have been trying to tell everyone for years and getting quotes like "can we not have another thread like this", "Oh not that again" "cant you guys just move on"! Now its hitting home with the American pilots just what kind scum we at AWA have been dealing with.

WD at AWA

Cactusone
02-28-2014, 01:22 PM
...going forward USAPA will be desolving into a new framework to better represent the most experience airline pilots in the world. This framework will require us to rename ourselves to easily disgregard previous agreements (nonbinding proposals entirely) that were made. We will be refered to the Former USAPA Coalition of Union Pilots, better know as FUCUP's. Join the new FUCUP's, demand the gold standard of DOH.


FUCUP's Communications

JetMonkey
02-28-2014, 02:58 PM
The tyranny we west pilots have had to endure these last 7 years since the Nic award was released has been immeasurable. EVERY west pilot has suffered and will most likely never be made whole again.

I will say it hasen't been all ucrapa's fault (age 65, fuel, mergers) but a LOT of it has.. And why? Because they couldn't live with a legal arbitration ruling that was agreed to by both sides. They saw a way using their superior numbers to take advantage over the smaller group…and they did. Disgusting.

aa73
02-28-2014, 03:05 PM
R57, APA hasn't out out too much other than to indicate that Usapa's allegations against APA were completely false... The last extension was not APA'S doing. No clue where we go from here but USAPA filing a lawsuit at this stage of the game has, as the Brits say, "a wee bit of an odor." Good luck to us all....

Dolphinflyer
02-28-2014, 03:41 PM
Anyone have a legal copy of the injunction request?

I'm just curious as to the verbaige used to reverse the recent pay raises along with the single carrier process, which of course, was the reason for the pay raises in the first place.

Thanks for the laughs fellas. And to think I referred to APA as the "Manson Family" before you guys showed up. ;)

R57 relay
02-28-2014, 04:06 PM
R57, APA hasn't out out too much other than to indicate that Usapa's allegations against APA were completely false... The last extension was not APA'S doing. No clue where we go from here but USAPA filing a lawsuit at this stage of the game has, as the Brits say, "a wee bit of an odor." Good luck to us all....

But in there previous updates they did say they would take over things at SCS and seemed to want to rush to it. Why? If we'd stayed on MOU timeline we could have been to the point of turning it over to the panel Before SCS. Why not keep their hands completely clean? Having the surviving CBA completely controlling the process doesn't make much sense to me-under MB.

That smells to me.

Van Dude
02-28-2014, 04:41 PM
Really? No one thinks a staple will happen the day after M-Bond is bypassed????

APA says, 'Trust Us."

Most people would say MB was made because of the TWA staple.

SewerPipeDvr
02-28-2014, 04:58 PM
But in there previous updates they did say they would take over things at SCS and seemed to want to rush to it. Why? If we'd stayed on MOU timeline we could have been to the point of turning it over to the panel Before SCS. Why not keep their hands completely clean? Having the surviving CBA completely controlling the process doesn't make much sense to me-under MB.

That smells to me.

R57, just a few thoughts to think about (before the tards show up). I think the APA do not want a fractured group like East and West, hence the desire to become the CBA sooner rather than later. During the MB process APA will not control anything. The power will lie with the Arbitrators. APA might "choose" the new MC members but I would bet they will ask the East and perhaps the West to give them the names. That might be called a defacto three way. But it should put the past seven years behind once and for all and shut down AOL. After the Arbitrators are named it would largely be out of the grip of APA's hands. They are just along for the ride and have to sell their position just like the USAPA pilots. MB results won't end up in court. That would be a real problem to even get past pre-trial much less win in open court (but I admit there are hungry lawyers that will promise they can beat it- for a fee). And just for a laugh maybe you guys could sue ALPA like the CAL guys just did! USAPA's problem is if APA is named CBA they cannot interfere. That is why they filed the injunction. The USAPA guys were big fish in a little pond. Now they are going to be little fish in a big pond. Hard for a person to give up their power. I still think all sides will turn out just fine in the long run.

cactiboss
02-28-2014, 05:36 PM
"The US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) filed a complaint late this week with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against US Airways, American Airlines and APA. This complaint represents an effort by USAPA to unilaterally abrogate the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the timing and process for integration of the pilot seniority lists. By filing the lawsuit in Washington, D.C., USAPA is attempting to evade the jurisdiction of Judge Silver in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, who previously weighed in regarding the issue of integrating USAPA's membership into one seniority list. While APA is not a party to that litigation, we will vigorously defend the language of the MOU that APA and USAPA agreed to previously."Well, well, the east pilots trying to evade agreements and rulings? Say it ain't so........

crzipilot
02-28-2014, 05:39 PM
I would imagine it would be ok if things happened that way. BUT what assurances was the APA giving to ensure that happened?

I think from the updates they were giving none. Wasn't the last item being, USAPA wanted their MC to continue after SC. APA said NOPE.

I wonder why APA would say no? Why would that be?

cactiboss
02-28-2014, 05:48 PM
I would imagine it would be ok if things happened that way. BUT what assurances was the APA giving to ensure that happened?

I think from the updates they were giving none. Wasn't the last item being, USAPA wanted their MC to continue after SC. APA said NOPE.

I wonder why APA would say no? Why would that be?

Because the apa becomes liable for anything the dumb beasties do after they take over. So if apa has dfr liability, why would they allow a group of scum to get them dfr'd?

eaglefly
02-28-2014, 07:38 PM
Because the apa becomes liable for anything the dumb beasties do after they take over. So if apa has dfr liability, why would they allow a group of scum to get them dfr'd?

In addition and to repeat ad nauseum, the MOU process already agreed upon by USAPA requires the SLI be in accordance with the provisions of McCaskill-Bond and ultimately neutral arbitrators will decide SLI. THAT is what the MOU provides for, but USAPA has always lived on its own planet where their baffling nonsensical logic is only understood by them. All they have done now, is baffle a wider audience.

Wiskey Driver
02-28-2014, 07:45 PM
In addition and to repeat ad nauseum, the MOU process already agreed upon by USAPA requires the SLI be in accordance with the provisions of McCaskill-Bond and ultimately neutral arbitrators will decide SLI. THAT is what the MOU provides for, but USAPA has always lived on its own planet where their baffling nonsensical logic is only understood by them. All they have done now, is baffle a wider audience.

Because they really didnt agree it was all just a proposal! This is really Karma about to take a huge bite out of that usapa a$$ end!

WD at AWA

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 12:15 AM
In addition and to repeat ad nauseum, the MOU process already agreed upon by USAPA requires the SLI be in accordance with the provisions of McCaskill-Bond and ultimately neutral arbitrators will decide SLI. THAT is what the MOU provides for, but USAPA has always lived on its own planet where their baffling nonsensical logic is only understood by them. All they have done now, is baffle a wider audience.
The planet's name is "MYOPIA", you can see it here

Internet Trash Talk News - Force of Evil - Part I - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIfKKw-kvPo&list=UUQiquxctfeecbzFQfxT_9pQ)

FreighterGuyNow
03-01-2014, 03:27 AM
This should be of little surprise. :cool:

Clearly USAPA (actually its predecessors in the East) likes to agree to legal processes it has no intention of honoring. First it considered the term "binding" when they agreed to binding arbitration with the west for an SLI to subsequently be an optional concept and now they believe the same thing about the MOU process after they agreed to it. The MOU is a legally binding contract that they agreed to KNOWING both the timeline and planned order of events before they signed it. BOTH of those concepts are being followed to the letter, yet USAPA is alleging a conspiracy of deviation by the other 3 parties to supposedly undermine the rights of US Airways pilots.

This assertion is baseless in that the MOU itself requires the provisions of McCaskill-Bond (which is rooted in Allegheny-Mohawk 3 & 13). USAPA seems to want to essentially nullify the MOU provisions and redefine the process as going straight to immediate arbitration directly as per McCaskill-Bond on the SLI. This is clearly a desperate attempt to remain relevant beyond that which they agreed to using the subterfuge of claiming inequity in the SLI process for US Airways pilots. As I predicted, this will drag the SLI out for at least 2 years if not longer as I'm sure there is plenty more obstructionist intransigence coming from the bull, but that's probably one of the desires of USAPA. If they are granted this ability, it will essentially redefine the MOU and if USAPA can do that, what's to stop other parties from doing that until resolution as well ?

What's good for the bull should be good for the china shop owners.

Specifically, the MOU became the new contract for US Airways pilots on the date of POR acceptance. If USAPA can nullify the SLI provision of the MOU, why can't management nullify other provisions ? The MOU was a replacement of US Airways pilots CBA until JCBA and SLI completion. What's to stop management from essentially requesting both sides go back to their pre-merger contractual corners with AA pilots working under the CLA (the MOU currently replaced this) and US Airways pilots reverting back to their pre-merger CBA provisions ?

Parker's certainly used division to lower costs in the past. This time might save a lot of $$$ while this dispute and the ones to follow run their way through the court system. USAPA's suit basically questions the validity of the MOU itself, which is puzzling because their negotiators negotiated the damn thing and if it's under question, why not delay its implementation until it's validity is resolved ?

If USAPA is going to practice the game of selective reinterpretation post agreement (as they have repeatedly), why not the other parties ?

The bull only knows how to be a bull and cannot help trashing any china shop that presents itself. It'll be interesting to see if this time they inadvertently picked a china shop they should have passed on. The china shop owners this time (the creditors) aren't going to be happy as this will likely drive the stock price down and may even put AA pilots final claim payment in delay, so people may have a financial claim against USAPA for their frivolous persuits. This may be another reason SOME may want to reset the MOU clock to mitigate financial loss.

Going to be a lot of twists and turns folks and it will be interesting to see at what point USAPA went too far. Problem is, is that point may not be recognizable for them until AFTER they've gone over the cliff and they look longingly back at the broken guardrail on their way down. I also wonder what collateral damage will occur and who is part of that unfortunate group.

Conveniently omitted in your post ( and the others in this thread ) is USAP was sued repeatedly by the America West pilots and won every single time.

USAPA won every single time.

Not only that, the attorneys representing USAPA are the ones that WROTE the MBond legislation in the first place.

I'm as disappointed as anyone but remember, it takes two to tango. As R57 said, there seems to be a lot of info we are not privy to.

Joint ops are not planned until summer of 2015 at the earliest - just what did anyone think was going to happen before then anyway?

Enterprise
03-01-2014, 05:39 AM
As R57 said, there seems to be a lot of info we are not privy to.

Actually, there isn't.

USAPA signed the MOU. It is very clear and unambiguous. I was hoping that cooler heads would prevail and we could move along and have a reasonable SLI. I admit I was wrong.


Daniel Rainey, Esq.
Chief of Staff
National Mediation Board
1301 I Street, NW, Suite 250 East
Washington, D.C. 20005-7011

Re: American Airlines, Inc., and US Airways, Inc.

Dear Mr. Rainey:

The USAPA sent you a request for the names of seven arbitrators pursuant to the McCaskill-Bond Amendment and Section 13 (a) of the Allegheny-Mohawk LLP's. What they have not disclosed to the NMB is that USAPA is party to a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement between US Airways, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., the Allied Pilots Association (" APA") and USAPA ("MOU") that provides very specific processes and time lines for creation of the integrated seniority list.

USAPA is attempting to repudiate the time lines and arbitration process set forth in the MOU by invoking Section 13(a) of Allegheny-Mohawk. McCaskill-Bond provides the parties to a "covered transaction" shall follow a collective bargaining agreement that incorporates the protections "afforded by section 3 and 13 ofthe Allegheny-Mohawk provisions." 49 U.S.C. 42112 (a)(2).1 The MOU incorporates those protections.

1 (a) LABOR INTEGRATION.-With respect to any covered transaction involving two or
more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to
the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective
provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as
published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered
air carriers; except that-

(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.

Daniel Rainey, Esq.

February 26, 2014
Page2

The MOU departs from Section 13(a) of Allegheny-Mohawk by providing for a very specific, but different, time line; requires a panel of three arbitrators, rather than a single arbitrator; and requires the parties to agree on a method of arbitrator selection rather than a unilateral request to the NMB. American, US Airways ("Carriers") and APA have filed a grievance under the MOU seeking USAPA's compliance with the very specific terms of that agreement, which was approved by USAPA's Board of Pilot Representatives, ratified by its members and approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Copies of the MOU and the grievance
are attached.

Accordingly, USAPA's request is contrary to the MOU and the subject of a pending minor dispute raising that issue that also raises a jurisdictional question for the NMB given the parties' compliance with the express provisions of McCaskill-Bond. APA asks that you decline USAP A's request, or defer any response to that request pending the resolution of the pending minor dispute.

eaglefly
03-01-2014, 05:42 AM
Conveniently omitted in your post ( and the others in this thread ) is USAP was sued repeatedly by the America West pilots and won every single time.

USAPA won every single time.

Not only that, the attorneys representing USAPA are the ones that WROTE the MBond legislation in the first place.

I'm as disappointed as anyone but remember, it takes two to tango. As R57 said, there seems to be a lot of info we are not privy to.

Joint ops are not planned until summer of 2015 at the earliest - just what did anyone think was going to happen before then anyway?

Nothing was "conveniently omitted" in my post. Your first point is more convenient then anything as in convenient interpretation. You seem to believe the fact Leo was not handed a victory is the same as USAPA being correct in what they did or how. It isn't. Trying to validate USAPA's former or especially present position on that basis is absurd. On the second point, if the attorney's that wrote M-B are the ones representing USAPA, then there is nothing to worry about regarding the process which maintains that the SLI be in accordance with that legislation. M-B provides for a "fair and equitable" SLI among 2 pilot groups, but alas that is a subjective standard difficult, if not impossible to quantify. Thus, if that cannot be achieved through negotiations, then NEUTRAL arbitrators will decide. It doesn't require two separate unions.

That is what M-B stipulates and is both EXACTLY what is presently occurring and EXACTLY what USAPA agreed to. The rest is smoke blown by those that are hell bent on reneging on what they agreed to by creating something that isn't there............a conflict between the MOU and McCaskill-Bond.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:31 AM
R57, just a few thoughts to think about (before the tards show up). I think the APA do not want a fractured group like East and West, hence the desire to become the CBA sooner rather than later. During the MB process APA will not control anything. The power will lie with the Arbitrators. APA might "choose" the new MC members but I would bet they will ask the East and perhaps the West to give them the names. That might be called a defacto three way. But it should put the past seven years behind once and for all and shut down AOL. After the Arbitrators are named it would largely be out of the grip of APA's hands. They are just along for the ride and have to sell their position just like the USAPA pilots. MB results won't end up in court. That would be a real problem to even get past pre-trial much less win in open court (but I admit there are hungry lawyers that will promise they can beat it- for a fee). And just for a laugh maybe you guys could sue ALPA like the CAL guys just did! USAPA's problem is if APA is named CBA they cannot interfere. That is why they filed the injunction. The USAPA guys were big fish in a little pond. Now they are going to be little fish in a big pond. Hard for a person to give up their power. I still think all sides will turn out just fine in the long run.

I think you might have called this one correctly months ago before you vacation.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the APA taking over the process meets the spirit of the law. It would be like the Vichy French. How can another group, the one we will be fighting (I've never seen a SLI that wasn't a fight) fairly appoint our merger committee. It just doesn't seem logical, but as the west has seen, the law isn't always to our logic.

The APA may not want a fractured group, or they may have realized there is no way around it and decided to try and control the situation. Just seems to me that they took Judge Silver's ruling and decided to use it to their advantage. We'll see.

Speaking of Judge Silver, what do you think of her ruling. It seems to be along they line you predicted, but a little different. What do you think of her dicta about USAPA not having a seat. A friend of a friend says that is a judges said that was just rambling. That it has no real bearing because the issue of whether USAPA had a seat was not in question in the original case. It is having a bearing with the APA.

Had the APA and company let this play out, none of the east/west mess would have been on their hands. Now they have put themselves square in the middle.

The west's reaction to all of this is hysterical. After all these years of screaming about USAPA's unfairness, they embrace what's happening. I hate to break it to you guys, but the APA's loyalties are where they should be-with the native AA pilots.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:34 AM
R57, APA hasn't out out too much other than to indicate that Usapa's allegations against APA were completely false... The last extension was not APA'S doing. No clue where we go from here but USAPA filing a lawsuit at this stage of the game has, as the Brits say, "a wee bit of an odor." Good luck to us all....

Yeah good luck to us all. Somebody is lying and both sides have a few skeletons in their closets. With the lack of information, the truth is hard to discern. I don't trust either of them.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:37 AM
Actually, there isn't.

USAPA signed the MOU. It is very clear and unambiguous. I was hoping that cooler heads would prevail and we could move along and have a reasonable SLI. I admit I was wrong.


What they have not disclosed to the NMB is that USAPA is party to a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement between US Airways, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., the Allied Pilots Association (" APA") and USAPA ("MOU") that provides very specific processes and time lines for creation of the integrated seniority list.



Yes, the MOU has a specific timeline, but the timeline failed. We were to reach a SLI protocol AGREEMENT, not a SLI protocol forced settlement.

What really happened? What did the APA want that USAPA couldn't agree to? USAPA says that the APA wanted the ability to change the MOU after SCS. What does the APA say? Been looking for answers, haven't found one.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:39 AM
Anyone have a legal copy of the injunction request?

I'm just curious as to the verbaige used to reverse the recent pay raises along with the single carrier process, which of course, was the reason for the pay raises in the first place.

Thanks for the laughs fellas. And to think I referred to APA as the "Manson Family" before you guys showed up. ;)

Are you advocating a change in the payrates? Just for US pilots?

texaspilot76
03-01-2014, 08:43 AM
Yeah good luck to us all. Somebody is lying and both sides have a few skeletons in their closets. With the lack of information, the truth is hard to discern. I don't trust either of them.

I don't see what USAPA's problem is. Even if APA took over today, the McKaskill Bond law will not allow a lopsided staple job to happen. That's why we have the law. APA is bound to it. The only reason I see these antics occuring is simply as a delay tactic. USAPA is afraid the arbitration will not go their way, and since the MB decision will be final, they will string this out as far as they can until its finally inevitable to swallow the pill.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:46 AM
I don't see what USAPA's problem is. Even if APA took over today, the McKaskill Bond law will not allow a lopsided staple job to happen. That's why we have the law. APA is bound to it. The only reason I see these antics occuring is simply as a delay tactic. USAPA is afraid the arbitration will not go their way, and since the MB decision will be final, they will string this out as far as they can until its finally inevitable to swallow the pill.

How long have you been flying here? From you posts you have already shown that you don't have a real grasp of things.

You are ok with letting the APA dictate your merger committee? I know most 3rd listers feel alienated by USAPA, but with the issues at hand do you really think the APA is really more concerned about you?

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 09:13 AM
Anyone have a legal copy of the injunction request?



Doesn't that APA make this available to you? It's on the USAPA website, but it's 13 pages long. The west pilots do a good job of making docs available, so check cactuspilot.com.

texaspilot76
03-01-2014, 09:16 AM
How long have you been flying here? From you posts you have already shown that you don't have a real grasp of things.

You are ok with letting the APA dictate your merger committee? I know most 3rd listers feel alienated by USAPA, but with the issues at hand do you really think the APA is really more concerned about you?

Yes, I don't care if APA leads the merger. Who cares? I just want this integration to happen quick so we can move on, i.e. bid other bases, etc.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 09:20 AM
Yes, I don't care if APA leads the merger. Who cares? I just want this integration to happen quick so we can move on, i.e. bid other bases, etc.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be blunt. That has to be one of the stupidest posts that I have ever read.

How many years do you have left at this company? Bases and bids will come and go, seniority is forever.

Enterprise
03-01-2014, 09:25 AM
What really happened? What did the APA want that USAPA couldn't agree to? USAPA says that the APA wanted the ability to change the MOU after SCS. What does the APA say? Been looking for answers, haven't found one.


???

I thought this was common knowledge.

Perhaps you missed this public blast?

Is there something in there you disagree with?


On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.

By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.

On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.

APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.

In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."

USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.

Single-Employer Proceeding
As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.

It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.

USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.

What's Next?
Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 09:58 AM
???

I thought this was common knowledge.

Perhaps you missed this public blast?

Is there something in there you disagree with?


On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.

By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.

On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.

APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.

In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."

USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.

Single-Employer Proceeding
As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.

It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.

USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.

What's Next?
Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.

Oh, I got that, I'm just not buying it.

USAPA's position in our SLI was not at question. I believe the APA is taking her dicta and running with it? Why? The company is asking her to remove that.

MB came about because of AA unions actions. Allowing the unions to control both sides of this isn't logical to me.

Let's look at one issue. US 3rd listers and Eagle flow throughs. Any chance for conflict there? I think so. Should the APA be able to pick a US merger committee that may not care about our 3rd listers? I'd say most 3rd listers think nobody at USAPA cares, but they do have access to USAPA hq, how APA's.

I don't see how the opposing team can have any influence in our matters and ut ve fair. Just ask the west pilots.

texaspilot76
03-01-2014, 10:08 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm going to be blunt. That has to be one of the stupidest posts that I have ever read.

How many years do you have left at this company? Bases and bids will come and go, seniority is forever.

Well, according to you and a few others, I will be towards the bottom of the list, so I don't guess it really matters anyway.

Enterprise
03-01-2014, 10:23 AM
Oh, I got that, I'm just not buying it.



That's fine, but the bottom line is, none of this should be a surprise to anyone. USAPA appears to have an incredibly incompetent legal team. These normal and expected moves by the APA should have been explained by legal long before USAirways pilots voted for the MOU. Was it explained, and everyone was just fixated on the new pay rates? Why did everyone vote for the MOU when they knew this was a possibility?

This injunction will go nowhere, for the reasons outlined in APA's response.

If USAPA doesn't get their (stuff) together and start worrying about more important things their membership is going to be steamrolled because of the actions of a few hotheads at HQ and an incompetent legal team.

flybywire44
03-01-2014, 10:32 AM
Quote:





Originally Posted by R57 relay


Yeah good luck to us all. Somebody is lying and both sides have a few skeletons in their closets. With the lack of information, the truth is hard to discern. I don't trust either of them.




I don't see what USAPA's problem is. Even if APA took over today, the McKaskill Bond law will not allow a lopsided staple job to happen. That's why we have the law. APA is bound to it. The only reason I see these antics occuring is simply as a delay tactic. USAPA is afraid the arbitration will not go their way, and since the MB decision will be final, they will string this out as far as they can until its finally inevitable to swallow the pill.

Here is USAPA's problem:

USAPA wants their current Merger Committee to operate independent of APA under the current USAPA officers and possibly the BPR as well. However, APA will not commit to this request.

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 10:46 AM
Here is USAPA's problem:

USAPA wants their current Merger Committee to operate independent of APA under the current USAPA officers and possibly the BPR as well. However, APA will not commit to this request.
Because the dfr lies with the apa not usapa at that point. Anyone would be crazy to allow the east scum to cause them liability.

Capt Hindsight
03-01-2014, 11:01 AM
Oh, I got that, I'm just not buying it.

USAPA's position in our SLI was not at question. I believe the APA is taking her dicta and running with it? Why? The company is asking her to remove that.

MB came about because of AA unions actions. Allowing the unions to control both sides of this isn't logical to me.

Let's look at one issue. US 3rd listers and Eagle flow throughs. Any chance for conflict there? I think so. Should the APA be able to pick a US merger committee that may not care about our 3rd listers? I'd say most 3rd listers think nobody at USAPA cares, but they do have access to USAPA hq, how APA's.

I don't see how the opposing team can have any influence in our matters and ut ve fair. Just ask the west pilots.

In the spirit of reading between the lines-

I find it telling that in their response to USAPA's walkout, APA never really refutes USAPA's claim that they came in with a last-minute add-on giving them authority to modify the protocol agreement as they and AAL see fit. They merely state their "position has remained consistent." Kinda make you go hmm.


Capt H

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 11:10 AM
I think you might have called this one correctly months ago before you vacation.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the APA taking over the process meets the spirit of the law. It would be like the Vichy French. How can another group, the one we will be fighting (I've never seen a SLI that wasn't a fight) fairly appoint our merger committee. It just doesn't seem logical, but as the west has seen, the law isn't always to our logic. APA might become CBA but they cannot control the MB arbitration. Arbitrators are a funny breed. Most don't remember they are attorneys and must maintain neutral logical opinions. It's what they "do". The opposing sides rarely agree with them but both sides have preconceived notions of "fairness". Rarely will they ever agree. It is quite logical if you don't have those preconceived ideas cemented in one's head. You must trust the arbitrators will try their best to be impartial.

The APA may not want a fractured group, or they may have realized there is no way around it and decided to try and control the situation. Just seems to me that they took Judge Silver's ruling and decided to use it to their advantage. We'll see. I think what they are trying to do is defuse this bad history and have a clean slate for the future. Fractured pilot groups are not a good thing for you, just for the company. I have written contracts to do just this. Believe me CEO's know about this and request just that, a way to divide a group of employees. Sucks but thats the way it is.

Speaking of Judge Silver, what do you think of her ruling. It seems to be along they line you predicted, but a little different. What do you think of her dicta about USAPA not having a seat. A friend of a friend says that is a judges said that was just rambling. That it has no real bearing because the issue of whether USAPA had a seat was not in question in the original case. It is having a bearing with the APA. Most of what she said has no bearing on this DIRECTLY. Trust me she does have an idea of what the MB law says (provided to her by her law clerks, they are usually very smart attorneys). If a Federal Judge tells you something, I promise you best listen and learn. Her "advice" was telling your side how a Judge thinks of what is going on and what will happen. Fight that at your own risk it is likely a loser. Your lawyer is betting against that BUT he is betting your money, for he will be paid well regardless of the outcome. As far as her findings, she was POed at Silverman baiting her court and not happy with PS. The seat deal was limited. The tards are out in force saying much more than what the finding said. Her ruling about the West was ONLY about their organic right to a seat. They did not. What she did NOT say was another party could not invite them to participate. Both the company and APA could invite them. I think Siegal's argument is why the finding language was so specific. Nothing the East can do but bluff a legal fight. It would lose quickly.
Had the APA and company let this play out, none of the east/west mess would have been on their hands. Now they have put themselves square in the middle. I have to disagree here. The East/West fight was never put to bed. Every court "win" was really only kicking the can down the road. Nothing terminally settled. The company was not the only one keeping you on LOA93- USAPA played an active part also. (BTW, I disagree with USAPA that they did not "inherit" the NIC- if their position was correct why did they never get to move on?) So the fight never finished. The shadow lingers. The Company and APA, as the new CBA would inherit the fight. Both are responsible for seeing a "fair SLI". The MOU might have gotten rid of the NIC, BUT the damage over the past years are still there, and most importantly, if most West were given less than the NIC after the new SLI, bingo damages are ripe. Talking with Bud (Former Captain ******* to many here, now just *******) APA did not want that baggage.

The west's reaction to all of this is hysterical. After all these years of screaming about USAPA's unfairness, they embrace what's happening. I hate to break it to you guys, but the APA's loyalties are where they should be-with the native AA pilots. I think the West's reaction is normal and cannot understand why East members think the West would be willing to help. Even if the West fell inline with the East would they still not end up without their arbitrated position or thrown under the bus? So what motivation do they have to help the East? Violates "WIIFM". What's in it for me? That is where I feel you guys screwed the pooch. Just a part of paying the price for keeping out the NIC (like LOA93). Only this one will affect the future. I have no idea how the East could have gotten the West on board. But that divide might really harm all USAir pilots during arbitration. As I said before the Arbitrators will not likely "punish" the East for the past, but it might color the new SLI results in favor of APA. If APA brings up LOA93 and suggest it was a terminal pay rate it could certainly influence a lower ranking for a USAPA pilot vs a APA pilot. Motivation for West not helping would be a lower ranking on the list, making NIC ripe so damages. More future crap and that is why I think APA is trying to bury this mess now.

Capt Hindsight
03-01-2014, 11:18 AM
Well, according to you and a few others, I will be towards the bottom of the list, so I don't guess it really matters anyway.

So, you just want USAPA to get the heck out of the way, no matter the consequences? Just so you can move bases and make more money, regardless of the fate of everyone above you at US. That is no better than the attitude you perceive coming from USAPA. See the irony?

Capt H

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 11:23 AM
In the spirit of reading between the lines-

I find it telling that in their response to USAPA's walkout, APA never really refutes USAPA's claim that they came in with a last-minute add-on giving them authority to modify the protocol agreement as they and AAL see fit. They merely state their "position has remained consistent." Kinda make you go hmm.


Capt H
I disagree with your idea. What legal benefit would a response give? Better to remain silent and not give any legal advantage to USAPA. Smart on their legal team and communication folks. A reply gives it more traction. Not responding interferes with their strategy (as indicated by the USAPA statement). Not saying it is not true, just their motive for remaining quiet.

flybywire44
03-01-2014, 11:25 AM
Quote:





Originally Posted by flybywire44


Here is USAPA's problem:

USAPA wants their current Merger Committee to operate independent of APA under the current USAPA officers and possibly the BPR as well. However, APA will not commit to this request.




Because the dfr lies with the apa not usapa at that point. Anyone would be crazy to allow the east scum to cause them liability.

Cacti,

Except that there is no liability for APA if they fight USAPA being able to represent themselves, and lose that fight in arbitration.

That is why an arbitration of the merger protocol agreement, and it's eventual award may all be a conspiracy to be rid of all DFR liability.

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 11:34 AM
Cacti,

Except that there is no liability for APA if they fight USAPA being able to represent themselves, and lose that fight in arbitration.

That is why an arbitration of the merger protocol agreement, and it's eventual award may all be a conspiracy to be rid of all DFR liability.
You got it wrong brother, the apa takes over they have liability that day. The Mou REQUIRES the apa takeover and usapa agreed to it.

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 11:51 AM
Wow, very well stated. I wonder if any eastie here will take the time to understand what you are saying? I don't think they are capable of digesting this since they have such a twisted sense of logic. BTW our attorneys opinion is dead on with yours. Let me highlight a few things to help these easties understand what is about to happen to them:

APA might become CBA but they cannot control the MB arbitration. Yup, funny that usapa wants to fight a "neutral" process the APA is trying to establish, very telling.

I think what they are trying to do is defuse this bad history and have a clean slate for the future. Fractured pilot groups are not a good thing for you, just for the company. Amen

Most of what she said has no bearing on this DIRECTLY. Trust me she does have an idea of what the MB law says (provided to her by her law clerks, they are usually very smart attorneys). If a Federal Judge tells you something, I promise you best listen and learn. Her "advice" was telling your side how a Judge thinks of what is going on and what will happen. Fight that at your own risk it is likely a loser. The east has never understood that, notice the latest lawsuit they just filed.
Her ruling about the West was ONLY about their organic right to a seat. They did not. What she did NOT say was another party could not invite them to participate. Both the company and APA could invite them. I think Siegal's argument is why the finding language was so specific. Nothing the East can do but bluff a legal fight. It would lose quickly. This bears repeating

Her ruling about the West was ONLY about their organic right to a seat. They did not. What she did NOT say was another party could not invite them to participate. Both the company and APA could invite them. R57, do you understand this?

I have to disagree here. The East/West fight was never put to bed. Every court "win" was really only kicking the can down the road. Nothing terminally settled. You are on fire dude, another thing the east just can't come to grips with.

The company was not the only one keeping you on LOA93- USAPA played an active part also. (BTW, I disagree with USAPA that they did not "inherit" the NIC- if their position was correct why did they never get to move on?) So the fight never finished. The shadow lingers. The Company and APA, as the new CBA would inherit the fight. Both are responsible for seeing a "fair SLI". The MOU might have gotten rid of the NIC, BUT the damage over the past years are still there, and most importantly, if most West were given less than the NIC after the new SLI, bingo damages are ripe. Talking with Bud (Former Captain ******* to many here, now just *******) APA did not want that baggage. Preach on brother.


But that divide might really harm all USAir pilots during arbitration.
And it will, they are such buffoons they don't realize this.

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 11:59 AM
Oh, I got that, I'm just not buying it.

USAPA's position in our SLI was not at question. I believe the APA is taking her dicta and running with it? Why? The company is asking her to remove that. One problem is I don't think it's "her Dicta". I think a bunch of law clerks (not secretaries, but very bright lawyers) has researched this quite extensively and came to those conclusions. Laws are a funny thing. Like "it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

MB came about because of AA unions actions. Immaterial. Allowing the unions to control both sides of this isn't logical (Immaterial) to me. Allowing "unions" to control both side" is not the issue because when MB starts they will have no power. Interfering with a CBA would be an issue. If APA is made CBA no other union has a right to interfere. Again as I noted in other post APA will not "control" both sides. That is what the Arbitrators do. APA will not control the USAPA MC. Arbitrators will not allow one side to dominate. That would make their job a fraud. Not going to happen. APA will see that both East AND West are represented, under threat of a DFR. Some question if East could fairly represent the West (I fall into that category). APA will control that and it should take away AOL's reason for being. The East should should be able to argue their points and if they have merit whats to worry about?

Let's look at one issue. US 3rd listers and Eagle flow throughs. Any chance for conflict there? I think so. Should the APA be able to pick a US merger committee that may not care about our 3rd listers? I'd say most 3rd listers think nobody at USAPA cares, but they do have access to USAPA hq, how APA's. OK I am having trouble following your logic here. If neither USAPA or APA cares for "third listers" (as shown by several that say their reps won't even reply to them) what difference will it make? Even if third listers go to USAPA HQ how will that matter if the PTB won't listen to them (if indeed its true)?

I don't see how the opposing team can have any influence in our matters and ut ve fair. Just ask the west pilots.
I don't guess we will know how fair or unfair until a MC is selected. What if APA told the East to select three and told the West to select three, your choice, do you think it would be fair? Remember they are the CBA so East and West USAPA are no longer material.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 12:22 PM
That's fine, but the bottom line is, none of this should be a surprise to anyone. USAPA appears to have an incredibly incompetent legal team. These normal and expected moves by the APA should have been explained by legal long before USAirways pilots voted for the MOU. Was it explained, and everyone was just fixated on the new pay rates? Why did everyone vote for the MOU when they knew this was a possibility?

This injunction will go nowhere, for the reasons outlined in APA's response.

If USAPA doesn't get their (stuff) together and start worrying about more important things their membership is going to be steamrolled because of the actions of a few hotheads at HQ and an incompetent legal team.

Well, incompetent or not, they have prevailed in the last three visits to federal court.

Repeat after me. We understand that the APA will become the CBA. Get it, we understand that, but that is not the same as having a finger in the MB process. What is it you don't get about this?

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 12:28 PM
Cactiboss, I would not jump up and down if I were you. That post was only for R57 and I think he understands quite well (well, for the most part, just a little stubborn here and there). The West has just as much fault for this fracture as the East. Your side could have worked to fix this and instead chose to fight. Your right to do so, but sometimes it is better to listen and work out a solution AWAY FROM THE LAWYERS (I know because I was a lawyer). That was bad for all of you AND the airline pilot profession as a whole. As a comparison, my daughter is a anesthesiologist. Her pay has grown a lot over the past decade (started out making 150K, now north of 400K). Airline pilots have been stagnant WHILE companies have made record profits. You are not getting your fair slice of the pie. BTW, I don't have a dog in this hunt East or West. Only a former pilot who wised up and went my own way. Missed the flying and most of the people, but not the crap.

Advice from a old attorney. Get the company and APA to agree on a MC right damn now for the East. Give up fighting a West MC and agree for them to sit. That gets the company and APA off their strategy. Pick your MB arbitrators and get working on your plan. Present it well and hope for the best. I would not advise the West to only go NIC, it is out dated and a loser. Come up with something new or be ignored. Likewise East give up DOH or other plans designed to screw groups. I will bet no side will win if your plan only benefits your group. The arbitrators will work it out. All will be equally unhappy if it is done correctly. Then put this behind and never speak of it again. Or else the company will win in MB.

The Drizzle
03-01-2014, 12:35 PM
Cactiboss, I would not jump up and down if I were you. That post was only for R57 and I think he understands quite well (well, for the most part, just a little stubborn here and there). The West has just as much fault for this fracture as the East. Your side could have worked to fix this and instead chose to fight. Your right to do so, but sometimes it is better to listen and work out a solution AWAY FROM THE LAWYERS (I know because I was a lawyer). That was bad for all of you AND the airline pilot profession as a whole. As a comparison, my daughter is a anesthesiologist. Her pay has grown a lot over the past decade (started out making 150K, now north of 400K). Airline pilots have been stagnant WHILE companies have made record profits. You are not getting your fair slice of the pie. BTW, I don't have a dog in this hunt East or West. Only a former pilot who wised up and went my own way. Missed the flying and most of the people, but not the crap.

Advice from a old attorney. Get the company and APA to agree on a MC right damn now for the East. Give up fighting a West MC and agree for them to sit. That gets the company and APA off their strategy. Pick your MB arbitrators and get working on your plan. Present it well and hope for the best. I would not advise the West to only go NIC, it is out dated and a loser. Come up with something new or be ignored. Likewise East give up DOH or other plans designed to screw groups. I will bet no side will win if your plan only benefits your group. The arbitrators will work it out. All will be equally unhappy if it is done correctly. Then put this behind and never speak of it again. Or else the company will win in MB.

Like blinding rays of sunshine, you'll stun and confuse them all.

A big AMEN.

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 12:38 PM
Cactiboss, I would not jump up and down if I were you. That post was only for R57 and I think he understands quite well (well, for the most part, just a little stubborn here and there). The West has just as much fault for this fracture as the East. Your side could have worked to fix this and instead chose to fight. Your right to do so, but sometimes it is better to listen and work out a solution AWAY FROM THE LAWYERS (I know because I was a lawyer). That was bad for all of you AND the airline pilot profession as a whole. As a comparison, my daughter is a anesthesiologist. Her pay has grown a lot over the past decade (started out making 150K, now north of 400K). Airline pilots have been stagnant WHILE companies have made record profits. You are not getting your fair slice of the pie. BTW, I don't have a dog in this hunt East or West. Only a former pilot who wised up and went my own way. Missed the flying and most of the people, but not the crap.

Advice from a old attorney. Get the company and APA to agree on a MC right damn now for the East. Give up fighting a West MC and agree for them to sit. That gets the company and APA off their strategy. Pick your MB arbitrators and get working on your plan. Present it well and hope for the best. I would not advise the West to only go NIC, it is out dated and a loser. Come up with something new or be ignored. Likewise East give up DOH or other plans designed to screw groups. I will bet no side will win if your plan only benefits your group. The arbitrators will work it out. All will be equally unhappy if it is done correctly. Then put this behind and never speak of it again. Or else the company will win in MB.Not jumping up and down, simply pointing out that what you said is how every other lawyer sees it (company/apa/west) except for the east. You are ignoring who is fighing your advice, it's not the west. There is only one party fighting giving the west a seat. Don't worry about our arbitration strategy as we hired the most capable SLI attorney in the country, and we fully plan on following his advice if given a seat.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 12:44 PM
I don't guess we will know how fair or unfair until a MC is selected. What if APA told the East to select three and told the West to select three, your choice, do you think it would be fair? Remember they are the CBA so East and West USAPA are no longer material.

Yeah, that would be fair, but what guarantees that if they are in charge? What is to keep them from picking 3 east guys that would roll over on the Nic, or 3 west guys that would roll over on the Nic? Having the APA involved in any part of the MB process, for our side, is not good and could lead to the temptation to rig the process. Would any other group want USAPA doing that if they were elected the CBA? I think not.

I've said that I thought the west would get their own merger committee and suspected that was the hold up in the protocol agreement. I sent an email suggesting USAPA give that to them. Then say "Their own list, their own merger committee AND their own fleet."

Back to the dicta. Whoever wrote it, it has Judge Silver's name on it. What weight does it carry? USAPA says none, the APA says everything. The company is trying to get her to take it out.

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 01:41 PM
I did not explain my reasoning on why Judge Silver's order did not bar the West from MB. What she did say is no organic rights. She has no jurisdictional right to the MB table. Now the parties at the table- Company, APA and USAPA signed an agreement. I would seriously doubt there are restrictions on just whom a member party can seat. APA has no right to tell USAPA who they can bring. The opposite has the same rights. So if APA did invite the West, unless specifically detailed against in the MOU, USAPA has no demand rights on the APA side. Now another reason for APA pushing for CBA. If USAPA remains APA has no right it interfere with their union business- including how the East treats the West. It could make for some legal delays, however, ultimately APA as CBA will still be responsible for it being fair. Interesting twist and turns.

Seaslap8
03-01-2014, 02:12 PM
R57, just a few thoughts to think about (before the tards show up). I think the APA do not want a fractured group like East and West, hence the desire to become the CBA sooner rather than later. During the MB process APA will not control anything. The power will lie with the Arbitrators. APA might "choose" the new MC members but I would bet they will ask the East and perhaps the West to give them the names. That might be called a defacto three way. But it should put the past seven years behind once and for all and shut down AOL. After the Arbitrators are named it would largely be out of the grip of APA's hands. They are just along for the ride and have to sell their position just like the USAPA pilots. MB results won't end up in court. That would be a real problem to even get past pre-trial much less win in open court (but I admit there are hungry lawyers that will promise they can beat it- for a fee). And just for a laugh maybe you guys could sue ALPA like the CAL guys just did! USAPA's problem is if APA is named CBA they cannot interfere. That is why they filed the injunction. The USAPA guys were big fish in a little pond. Now they are going to be little fish in a big pond. Hard for a person to give up their power. I still think all sides will turn out just fine in the long run.

Who are the "Tards" exactly?

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 02:14 PM
Yeah, that would be fair, but what guarantees that if they are in charge? What is to keep them from picking 3 east guys that would roll over on the Nic, or 3 west guys that would roll over on the Nic? Having the APA involved in any part of the MB process, for our side, is not good and could lead to the temptation to rig the process. Would any other group want USAPA doing that if they were elected the CBA? I think not.

I've said that I thought the west would get their own merger committee and suspected that was the hold up in the protocol agreement. I sent an email suggesting USAPA give that to them. Then say "Their own list, their own merger committee AND their own fleet."

Back to the dicta. Whoever wrote it, it has Judge Silver's name on it. What weight does it carry? USAPA says none, the APA says everything. The company is trying to get her to take it out.
As I wrote above nothing directly. However, their interpretation on the legal outcome is likely correct. Judge Silver and her clerks are not stupid people like some here like to think. Look at it like a warning. Seems to be coming down like that.

Seaslap8
03-01-2014, 02:17 PM
Late yesterday, February 27, USAPA filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for an injunction that would require the Company and APA to follow the provisions of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment (click here). In accord with Section 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, the suit alleges that more than 20 days have passed since the SLI dispute arose, that no agreement has been reached, that USAPA has requested a list of arbitrators, and that the parties disagree about the applicability of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment. The suit will be served today (February 28) on the Company (both American and US Airways) and APA. Under the federal rules of civil procedure, the defendants are required to “answer or otherwise plead” in 21 days.

The purpose of the suit is simple: to require the Company and APA to follow the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which requires a prompt “fair and equitable” resolution of the SLI dispute that arose when the two airlines merged. This has been carefully considered and is necessary to protect the seniority rights of our pilots. We will keep you informed of further developments.

USAPA Communications

I'm certain the APA leadership structure is well acquainted with the USAPA track record...it would be advisable for all AMR pilots to do a little research on USAPA and SLI procedural agreements.

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 02:19 PM
Then say "Their own list, their own merger committee AND their own fleet."

.
So you are for giving us a seat only if you get tospecify what the west can argue? You don't see how f'd up that mentality is? I have already already told you sunshine, we merged in 2005 not 2014.

texaspilot76
03-01-2014, 02:46 PM
Yeah, that would be fair, but what guarantees that if they are in charge? What is to keep them from picking 3 east guys that would roll over on the Nic, or 3 west guys that would roll over on the Nic? Having the APA involved in any part of the MB process, for our side, is not good and could lead to the temptation to rig the process. Would any other group want USAPA doing that if they were elected the CBA? I think not.

I've said that I thought the west would get their own merger committee and suspected that was the hold up in the protocol agreement. I sent an email suggesting USAPA give that to them. Then say "Their own list, their own merger committee AND their own fleet."

Back to the dicta. Whoever wrote it, it has Judge Silver's name on it. What weight does it carry? USAPA says none, the APA says everything. The company is trying to get her to take it out.

Ah, so the truth comes out. This delay is out of fear of the Nic being used.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 02:55 PM
I'm certain the APA leadership structure is well acquainted with the USAPA track record...it would be advisable for all AMR pilots to do a little research on USAPA and SLI procedural agreements.

Really. I mean their actions led to federal legislation. Oh wait....

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 02:56 PM
Ah, so the truth comes out. This delay is out of fear of the Nic being used.

Can you pay attention? I said that they could pick a west committee that would roll on the Nic too.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 02:59 PM
So you are for giving us a seat only if you get tospecify what the west can argue? You don't see how f'd up that mentality is? I have already already told you sunshine, we merged in 2005 not 2014.

No, that's what my position would be. You could present anything you want.

Our airline merged in 2005, but to this day our pilots aren't merged and the MOU says we won't until THIS process is finished.

As of today, can you place a bid on an A330 or for CLT,PHL or DCA?

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 03:06 PM
As I wrote above nothing directly. However, their interpretation on the legal outcome is likely correct. Judge Silver and her clerks are not stupid people like some here like to think. Look at it like a warning. Seems to be coming down like that.

Seems contrary to the intent of MB. Look at two carriers represented by ALPA. Did UA have any say on the CO merger committee, or vice versa? No.

Like I said, if there was any chance of USAPA being elected as the CBA would any AA pilot take the current APA stance? I doubt it.

I'm not throwing rocks at the APA or AA pilots. It's just human nature in general and pilots specifically that worry me. This is my 4th merger and I've seen some pretty interesting reasoning from all parties. I expect the APA to advocate for native AA pilots, not us, so I don't want them having any part of our merger committee selection.

We'll see what happens.

Have you read USAPA's filing to the NMB about Silver's dicta?

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 03:07 PM
No, that's what my position would be. You could present anything you want.

Our airline merged in 2005, but to this day our pilots aren't merged and the MOU says we won't until THIS process is finished.
Well take solace in knowing that we the west have no doubt your merger committee will profer that exactly, which will fit nicely into whatever other radical proposals they have.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 03:08 PM
Cactiboss, I would not jump up and down if I were you. That post was only for R57 and I think he understands quite well (well, for the most part, just a little stubborn here and there). The West has just as much fault for this fracture as the East. Your side could have worked to fix this and instead chose to fight. Your right to do so, but sometimes it is better to listen and work out a solution AWAY FROM THE LAWYERS (I know because I was a lawyer). That was bad for all of you AND the airline pilot profession as a whole. As a comparison, my daughter is a anesthesiologist. Her pay has grown a lot over the past decade (started out making 150K, now north of 400K). Airline pilots have been stagnant WHILE companies have made record profits. You are not getting your fair slice of the pie. BTW, I don't have a dog in this hunt East or West. Only a former pilot who wised up and went my own way. Missed the flying and most of the people, but not the crap.

Advice from a old attorney. Get the company and APA to agree on a MC right damn now for the East. Give up fighting a West MC and agree for them to sit. That gets the company and APA off their strategy. Pick your MB arbitrators and get working on your plan. Present it well and hope for the best. I would not advise the West to only go NIC, it is out dated and a loser. Come up with something new or be ignored. Likewise East give up DOH or other plans designed to screw groups. I will bet no side will win if your plan only benefits your group. The arbitrators will work it out. All will be equally unhappy if it is done correctly. Then put this behind and never speak of it again. Or else the company will win in MB.

Stubborn? Me? Guilty as charged. I will say that although I don't know you personally, that might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.;)

Be careful with Cacti, if you don't see things as him he might call you a thief, scumbag, scab, etc.

cactiboss
03-01-2014, 03:16 PM
Be careful with Cacti, if you don't see things as him he might call you a thief, scumbag, scab, etc.
Heck I don't agree with him on a couple of things but he has never stolen anything from me like you and your have that is why you get "special" treatment.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 03:41 PM
Heck I don't agree with him on a couple of things but he has never stolen anything from me like you and your have that is why you get "special" treatment.

Nothing was stolen from you cacti. The TA was followed.

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 04:29 PM
Nothing was stolen from you cacti. The TA was followed.
But here is the crux of the matter. USAPA did not do anything after the TA was reached. Their purpose should be to represent the pilots against the company. They stopped there with the only reason- to stop the NIC. A West pilot (hell any USAir pilot) would reasonably expect for improved wages and benefits from their union when the company has record profits. That did not happen, except for East movement up the scale. That remains a problem for USAPA. I suspect if the APA and company gets their way that threat will disappear along with USAPA. About Judge Silver's interesting... observations in the trial. That has studied legal review behind it and rarely would you see it incorrect. Remember, those judges in that district get overturned by the Ninth, but over sixty percent of the time (worst record by far) the Ninth gets it wrong and they are reversed by SCOTUS. She was not just spouting off nonsense. I am quite certain your legal team studied the transcript quite thoroughly, including the cites. That is the effect it has, really an advantage because it gives a road map on what the opposite is doing. They have to counter those findings with reasonable legal arguments. That is why they filed for the injunction. If they lose CBA they cannot interfere and you guys really are along for the ride (even though I think you will do just fine in MB). I saw the reply letter APA sent and I would be surprised if the judge finds for USAPA. They loathe to get into the Executive Branch regulatory dealings anyway. I expect it to go no where. But who knows until it happens. I am finding it difficult as to why those guys are on you so much. You seem reasoned and open (mostly!), unlike the tards that showed up last time I posted to you.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 04:44 PM
But here is the crux of the matter. USAPA did not do anything after the TA was reached. Their purpose should be to represent the pilots against the company. They stopped there with the only reason- to stop the NIC. A West pilot (hell any USAir pilot) would reasonably expect for improved wages and benefits from their union when the company has record profits. That did not happen, except for East movement up the scale. That remains a problem for USAPA. I suspect if the APA and company gets their way that threat will disappear along with USAPA. About Judge Silver's interesting... observations in the trial. That has studied legal review behind it and rarely would you see it incorrect. Remember, those judges in that district get overturned by the Ninth, but over sixty percent of the time (worst record by far) the Ninth gets it wrong and they are reversed by SCOTUS. She was not just spouting off nonsense. I am quite certain your legal team studied the transcript quite thoroughly, including the cites. That is the effect it has, really an advantage because it gives a road map on what the opposite is doing. They have to counter those findings with reasonable legal arguments. That is why they filed for the injunction. If they lose CBA they cannot interfere and you guys really are along for the ride (even though I think you will do just fine in MB). I saw the reply letter APA sent and I would be surprised if the judge finds for USAPA. They loathe to get into the Executive Branch regulatory dealings anyway. I expect it to go no where. But who knows until it happens. I am finding it difficult as to why those guys are on you so much. You seem reasoned and open (mostly!), unlike the tards that showed up last time I posted to you.

You're wrong about that spd. USAPA continued to try and reach a jcba. The lawsuits stymied that.

They are on me because I counter their BS.

Thanks for the insight. We'll see what happens.

SewerPipeDvr
03-01-2014, 06:54 PM
You're wrong about that spd. USAPA continued to try and reach a jcba. The lawsuits stymied that.

They are on me because I counter their BS.

Thanks for the insight. We'll see what happens.
Looking at it from an outsiders POV you seem to be cherry picking your data and stopping early on analysis. USAPA tried to reach a JCBA. What was the root cause of their failure to obtain one? They tried but did the East's actions stopping the NIC cause the failure? The lawsuits. Why were lawsuits filed? Root cause analysis. Break it down. Actions of East. The fact that this carried on for years should be the tell. The East and USAPA are NOT the same. One has a responsibility, the other does not. West was wrong to not try to fix the outcome that the East found so repulsive. East was wrong in not following the agreed upon arbitration and using USAPA to prevent improvements for all. The East moves were legal but perhaps a bit unethical. However, whomever was running USAPA did not do their duty. Fix the mess. Get real airline pilot wages and benefits for all members during a time period that the company made record profits. Just the bottem line of all the arguments. Sounds so simple but reality is so much more complicated. Good night all, another major winter storm is bearing down and I will have a long day tomorrow at the ranch. Mommas and calves into the barns. Send the cowhands home early. Ready to go back to Georgetown. I hate cold.

flybywire44
03-01-2014, 07:01 PM
Quote:





Originally Posted by R57 relay


You're wrong about that spd. USAPA continued to try and reach a jcba. The lawsuits stymied that.

They are on me because I counter their BS.

Thanks for the insight. We'll see what happens.




Looking at it from an outsiders POV you seem to be cherry picking your data and stopping early on analysis. USAPA tried to reach a JCBA. What was the root cause of their failure to obtain one? They tried but did the East's actions stopping the NIC cause the failure? The lawsuits. Why were lawsuits filed? Root cause analysis. Break it down. Actions of East. The fact that this carried on for years should be the tell. The East and USAPA are NOT the same. One has a responsibility, the other does not. West was wrong to not try to fix the outcome that the East found so repulsive. East was wrong in not following the agreed upon arbitration and using USAPA to prevent improvements for all. The East moves were legal but perhaps a bit unethical. However, whomever was running USAPA did not do their duty. Fix the mess. Get real airline pilot wages and benefits for all members during a time period that the company made record profits. Just the bottem. Sounds so simple but reality is so much more complicated.

Record profits at a company strapped with debt? Had LCC actually serviced it's debt more than it may have not been as profitable.

eaglefly
03-01-2014, 08:18 PM
Nothing was stolen from you cacti. The TA was followed.

.......just as the MOU is being followed. Unfortunately, when entities begin serially embracing the concept of selective revisionism in what they accept post agreement, they nullify their credibility.

I'll be interested in hearing USAPA's response when the judge considering their injunction request reads the MOU, notes their signature on it and asks them why they are disputing its provisions now instead of before they signed it. I suppose they could claim they are illiterate idiots and didn't understand what they not only signed, but actually negotiated, but that wouldn't fly, so I'm not sure they'll have much of an argument. The provisions of the MOU require M-B and M-B doesn't require two unions to be valid and/or effective. That's what arbitration does.

The feeble claim M-B requires their existence is not in accordance with M-B, nor the MOU. This is nothing but a bums rush power play in the hope of gaining leverage for East pilot interests both against AA pilots and the West. USAPA can tap dance around these realities until they flip over, but it won't make their claims any more valid.

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:34 PM
.......just as the MOU is being followed. Unfortunately, when entities begin serially embracing the concept of selective revisionism in what they accept post agreement, they nullify their credibility.

I'll be interested in hearing USAPA's response when the judge considering their injunction request reads the MOU, notes their signature on it and asks them why they are disputing its provisions now instead of before they signed it. I suppose they could claim they are illiterate idiots and didn't understand what they not only signed, but actually negotiated, but that wouldn't fly, so I'm not sure they'll have much of an argument. The provisions of the MOU require M-B and M-B doesn't require two unions to be valid and/or effective. That's what arbitration does.

The feeble claim M-B requires their existence is not in accordance with M-B, nor the MOU. This is nothing but a bums rush power play in the hope of gaining leverage for East pilot interests both against AA pilots and the West. USAPA can tap dance around these realities until they flip over, but it won't make their claims any more valid.

Are you related to wiggy?

You didn't answer my question. If there was a chance of USAPA being elected as the CBA would you embrace them having a hand in your merger committee?

R57 relay
03-01-2014, 08:37 PM
Looking at it from an outsiders POV you seem to be cherry picking your data and stopping early on analysis. USAPA tried to reach a JCBA. What was the root cause of their failure to obtain one? They tried but did the East's actions stopping the NIC cause the failure? The lawsuits. Why were lawsuits filed? Root cause analysis. Break it down. Actions of East. The fact that this carried on for years should be the tell. The East and USAPA are NOT the same. One has a responsibility, the other does not. West was wrong to not try to fix the outcome that the East found so repulsive. East was wrong in not following the agreed upon arbitration and using USAPA to prevent improvements for all. The East moves were legal but perhaps a bit unethical. However, whomever was running USAPA did not do their duty. Fix the mess. Get real airline pilot wages and benefits for all members during a time period that the company made record profits. Just the bottem line of all the arguments. Sounds so simple but reality is so much more complicated. Good night all, another major winter storm is bearing down and I will have a long day tomorrow at the ranch. Mommas and calves into the barns. Send the cowhands home early. Ready to go back to Georgetown. I hate cold.

The Nicolau award was the root cause. I agree that both sides failed to fix it.

Sorry about the calves you lost.

Enterprise
03-02-2014, 04:19 AM
You didn't answer my question. If there was a chance of USAPA being elected as the CBA would you embrace them having a hand in your merger committee?


I'll answer for him and myself - "no."

However, you would be on here following up with the obvious question "well then why did you sign the MOU?"

Airline pilots get themselves into trouble all the time by agreeing to legal documents they either don't understand or are poorly explained by incompetent legal representation.

There were consequences to the document that USAPA signed. One of them was USAPA losing representation and USAirways pilots being represented by APA.

This lawsuit will be tossed.

aquagreen73s
03-02-2014, 04:47 AM
Conclusion #1: The West has just as much fault for this fracture as the East.

Conclusion #2:Your side could have worked to fix this and instead chose to fight.

SewerPipDvr, would you be so kind to explain your reasoning which leads you to the above conclusions, i.e. your conclusions are based on what facts?

Packrat
03-02-2014, 04:47 AM
Second verse, same as the first. Unfrackingbelievable.

SewerPipeDvr
03-02-2014, 06:14 AM
Record profits at a company strapped with debt? Had LCC actually serviced it's debt more than it may have not been as profitable.
All companies operate this way. And I would not call it "strapped" debt. It is SERVICEABLE debt. Big difference. "Bad" debt is when a company cannot service said debt while continuing normal operations. It is a company president and board of directors call on how to service debt and what profit is decided on. If you can make five percent on operations when money only cost you one percent you just made four percent. I would use debt to operate and make the profit if money is cheap to borrow.

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 06:19 AM
Are you related to wiggy?

You didn't answer my question. If there was a chance of USAPA being elected as the CBA would you embrace them having a hand in your merger committee?

I don't recall you asking me this question, so why would I be related to anyone else here ? The answer to that is that my union should evaluate that BEFORE agreeing to anything that would provide for that. If they DID agree to it, I wouldn't imply they didn't. A seperatist group of USAPA members isn't suing APA and AAL for injunctive relief saying they were duped by their union into relinquishing their negotiating interests, it is USAPA itself saying...............well, no one really understands what they are saying because they not only agreed to the MOU, they NEGOTIATED its provisions. USAPA has proven they repeatedly are capable of rationalizing just about anything and when push comes to shove it will STILL be neutral arbitrators that determine the SLI. The MOU is a legally binding document and although that is a non-existent term on planet USAPA, they negotiated it, they signed it and it provides for neutral arbitration to decide the SLI. End of story.

Look, APA could remain mute and hand 3 seniority lists over to the arbitration panel, turn around and walk away saying "let us know when you've decided something" and the arbitrators would still have the ability based on company supplied data, the consideration of other SLI aspects, previous legal or arbitrated decisions and the lists themselves to put together what THEY feel is fair and equitable and best preserves pre-merger career expectations. Alternatively, APA could do the exact above but blow smoke at the arbitrators and say "East pilots should be stapled below the rest of the world".

Now what do you think the arbitrators would do with a statement by APA even if they were stupid enough to make it, considering the information they could have without comment by any party ?

Would they say, "oh gee, well we better staple the East then" ? Of course not. This is nothing more then irrelevant USAPA obstructionist hysterics by a group of grumpy old men who are angling to maximize their best interests in doing two things; maintaining the ability to shout as loud as APA until SLI completion and the ability to shout OUT the West in the same process. If Leo was smart, they'd sue USAPA for attempting to continue to control them OUT of the process by suing APA and AAL in direct contradiction of the MOU process THEY negotiated and agreed to, but are now attempting to destroy and it's a process that provides for all aspects of M-B and neutral arbitration to resolve the SLI.

SewerPipeDvr
03-02-2014, 06:21 AM
The Nicolau award was the root cause. I agree that both sides failed to fix it.

Sorry about the calves you lost.
Came in for breakfast and to warm up. None lost this go round- yet. Storms are just coming in.

SewerPipeDvr
03-02-2014, 06:47 AM
Conclusion #1:

Conclusion #2:

SewerPipDvr, would you be so kind to explain your reasoning which leads you to the above conclusions, i.e. your conclusions are based on what facts?

I don't play your question games. I will respond with an answer though. My reasoning is based on results. Results are what counts. "Facts" vary depending on argument. Both sides were making regional wages or significantly below industry. Both sides lost retirement moneys (if they had any). Both sides were locked into their own turf. Now this did not only affect USAir pilots. It caused pressure on other airline pilots through their own companies. Companies have to compete with the low ball carriers, just like what is happening in the regional world today (Lakes, Silver and PSA ring a bell?). The Delta/NW merger showed how it can be done. Same with UAL/CAL. Why did USAir not get this fixed? Both sides knew how much each side was affected. As I pointed East was wrong to staple, West was wrong to keep the East on regional wages. Both sides should have kept at it until a disagreeable, but agreeable solution was found. That is why USAPA was indeed a failure. Both sides should have been professional enough to fix this for the good of all the industry. Pilots have been screwed far longer than this fight, as I was in the 1970s. Putting the pilots first as a whole, not just "your" group is the only way pilots can manage their profession. Otherwise, the bean counters will and you will be along for the ride (as you have been for these past seven or ten years). So the wordy answer to your question is "final results". My career was nothing but conflict between parties. I have always found "facts" are dependent on just where in the conflict your are standing. I hope this answers your question.

aquagreen73s
03-02-2014, 06:56 AM
Ok. So your conclusions are not based on any personal knowledge or research specific to the events leading up to the certification of USAPA as the bargaining agent in April, 2008, correct?

A321
03-02-2014, 07:51 AM
Everyone seems to be forgetting that US Airways pilots are now dealing with the most militant pilot group in the country....APA. Why should they have the power to appoint who represents the US pilots in SLI, and the ability to change the MOU at their whim?

How quickly we forget about the TWA staple job.

APA will look out for it's #1 interest, pre-merger American pilots.

Wiskey Driver
03-02-2014, 08:01 AM
Everyone seems to be forgetting that US Airways pilots are now dealing with the most militant pilot group in the country....APA. Why should they have the power to appoint who represents the US pilots in SLI, and the ability to change the MOU at their whim?

How quickly we forget about the TWA staple job.

Why not? I mean that's usapa's motto change that with which we don't like and never intend on honoring. I think this is karma just coming back to deal with the very people that have been so ugly.

WD at AWA

Enterprise
03-02-2014, 08:19 AM
How quickly we forget about the TWA staple job.

Yes this is true. All TWA pilots were stapled under the most junior FO at AA. All of the TWA pilots were furloughed and have never flown Captain at AA. In fact, it will still be 20 years before a TWA pilot ever makes Captain at AA. It's just sad that people forget this.

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 08:45 AM
Everyone seems to be forgetting that US Airways pilots are now dealing with the most militant pilot group in the country....APA. Why should they have the power to appoint who represents the US pilots in SLI, and the ability to change the MOU at their whim?

How quickly we forget about the TWA staple job.

APA will look out for it's #1 interest, pre-merger American pilots.

:confused:

It isn't the APA that is suing to alter the MOU, it is USAPA and why should APA have the power to represent U pilots ?

Because USAPA agreed to give it to them. The process ensures APA cannot unilaterally devise the ISL, arbitrators in accordance with McCaskill-Bond will do that. Your last sentence indicates you've stopped thinking for yourself and handed your brain over to USAPA to be pounded into mush. Stop NOT thinking and believing everything that hysterical group of liars says.

You'll be much better off.

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 08:49 AM
Yes this is true. All TWA pilots were stapled under the most junior FO at AA. All of the TWA pilots were furloughed and have never flown Captain at AA. In fact, it will still be 20 years before a TWA pilot ever makes Captain at AA. It's just sad that people forget this.

What ?

Who told you this drivel ?

All TWA pilots were NOT stapled under the most junior F/O at AA. All the TWA pilots were NOT furloughed. Many of the TWA pilots kept their captain seats and...............please give the laptop back to daddy now and let the grown-ups bicker about this, please. :cool:

Enterprise
03-02-2014, 09:00 AM
What ?

Who told you this drivel ?

All TWA pilots were NOT stapled under the most junior F/O at AA. All the TWA pilots were NOT furloughed. Many of the TWA pilots kept their captain seats and...............please give the laptop back to daddy now and let the grown-ups bicker about this, please. :cool:


I was being sarcastic.

Next time I'll put out a flashing neon SARCASM sign so you don't miss it.

I would still like to hear him explain to everyone how it was a "staple."

bassslayer
03-02-2014, 09:18 AM
What ?

Who told you this drivel ?

All TWA pilots were NOT stapled under the most junior F/O at AA. All the TWA pilots were NOT furloughed. Many of the TWA pilots kept their captain seats and...............please give the laptop back to daddy now and let the grown-ups bicker about this, please. :cool:

Yep! In fact the the APA treated the TWA guys so well in fact they had to make a law called MB so no other pilot group could ever be so generous to another again. Now the very pilot group that ushered in that law gets to hold our hand through the process. What could go wrong?

R57 relay
03-02-2014, 09:30 AM
I'll answer for him and myself - "no."

However, you would be on here following up with the obvious question "well then why did you sign the MOU?"

Airline pilots get themselves into trouble all the time by agreeing to legal documents they either don't understand or are poorly explained by incompetent legal representation.

There were consequences to the document that USAPA signed. One of them was USAPA losing representation and USAirways pilots being represented by APA.

This lawsuit will be tossed.

Thanks for the honest answer.

You are definitely right about the trouble with poor documents, we have bitten over and over again by them and we may by this too. Thing is, we knew the APA would be the CBA and there was no way to stop that or SCS. I guess we could have put our rights in the MOU, but I thought that was what the federal law was for. As I've said, that isn't the issue. We just disagree with what that means as it pertains to the SLI.

We'll see what happens. If we get bitten, we get bitten. I'll deal with it and try to work within the APA and move on. Hopefully if it goes as the APA envisions we will get a good panel of arbitrators and it won't matter.

R57 relay
03-02-2014, 09:51 AM
I don't recall you asking me this question, so why would I be related to anyone else here ? The answer to that is that my union should evaluate that BEFORE agreeing to anything that would provide for that. If they DID agree to it, I wouldn't imply they didn't. A seperatist group of USAPA members isn't suing APA and AAL for injunctive relief saying they were duped by their union into relinquishing their negotiating interests, it is USAPA itself saying...............well, no one really understands what they are saying because they not only agreed to the MOU, they NEGOTIATED its provisions. USAPA has proven they repeatedly are capable of rationalizing just about anything and when push comes to shove it will STILL be neutral arbitrators that determine the SLI. The MOU is a legally binding document and although that is a non-existent term on planet USAPA, they negotiated it, they signed it and it provides for neutral arbitration to decide the SLI. End of story.

Look, APA could remain mute and hand 3 seniority lists over to the arbitration panel, turn around and walk away saying "let us know when you've decided something" and the arbitrators would still have the ability based on company supplied data, the consideration of other SLI aspects, previous legal or arbitrated decisions and the lists themselves to put together what THEY feel is fair and equitable and best preserves pre-merger career expectations. Alternatively, APA could do the exact above but blow smoke at the arbitrators and say "East pilots should be stapled below the rest of the world".

Now what do you think the arbitrators would do with a statement by APA even if they were stupid enough to make it, considering the information they could have without comment by any party ?

Would they say, "oh gee, well we better staple the East then" ? Of course not. This is nothing more then irrelevant USAPA obstructionist hysterics by a group of grumpy old men who are angling to maximize their best interests in doing two things; maintaining the ability to shout as loud as APA until SLI completion and the ability to shout OUT the West in the same process. If Leo was smart, they'd sue USAPA for attempting to continue to control them OUT of the process by suing APA and AAL in direct contradiction of the MOU process THEY negotiated and agreed to, but are now attempting to destroy and it's a process that provides for all aspects of M-B and neutral arbitration to resolve the SLI.

This is an amazing post. For all you ignorant rambling about the east/west situation, you apply the same logic you accuse the east pilots of. And still don't answer the question!

USAPA didn't negotiate away it's rights. As I said above, SCS and the APA being voted in was a foregone conclusion. There was no way to stop it. So that point is irrelevant. But, the APA took Silver's ruling and is attempting to use it in a way that is contrary to the logic of MB, or so it appears and I haven't seen anything from the APA to alleviate that feeling.

As the Nicolau award at US/AW shows, the make up of the merger committee can have a big affect on the SLI, even in arbitration. The APA should have no hand in choosing the US east or west merger committee. Period.

Let's try it one more time. If there was a chance that USAPA could be elected the CBA, would you be taking your (the APA's) current stance?

R57 relay
03-02-2014, 10:53 AM
Does anyone here remember when SCS status was granted for AW/US? I seem to remember that the IAM applied for it and it was granted way before USAPA's creation, but the APA states it differently.

"In response to a perceived unfairness of the Nicolau Award, a group of East Pilots formed a new organization called USAPA and filed a petition with the NMB in the name of USAPA to have the two carriers declared a single transportation system in order to trigger a representation election to displace ALPA and then seek to avoid application of the Nicolau Award."

I don't think this is right. We already had a single operating certificate by the time USAPA was formed. I believe the guys formed USAPA and distributed cards for an election, just as any union could.

Update. I did find an NMB filing. I guess SCS is for each group. SCS had been granted for the IAM, but ALPA was resisting it for pilots.

texaspilot76
03-02-2014, 11:17 AM
:confused:

It isn't the APA that is suing to alter the MOU, it is USAPA and why should APA have the power to represent U pilots ?

Because USAPA agreed to give it to them. The process ensures APA cannot unilaterally devise the ISL, arbitrators in accordance with McCaskill-Bond will do that. Your last sentence indicates you've stopped thinking for yourself and handed your brain over to USAPA to be pounded into mush. Stop NOT thinking and believing everything that hysterical group of liars says.

You'll be much better off.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. APA cannot make a lopsided seniority list due to McCaskill Bond. The law prevents it.

I think USAPA is scared that APA will use or encourage the Nicilau as the list for US Airways in the integration. They want their say so the can present their DOH list as the basis for integration.

GrapeNuts
03-02-2014, 11:27 AM
This is what I've been trying to say all along. APA cannot make a lopsided seniority list due to McCaskill Bond. The law prevents it.

I think USAPA is scared that APA will use or encourage the Nicilau as the list for US Airways in the integration. They want their say so the can present their DOH list as the basis for integration.

So, Usapa wants to be able to screw the west without the interference from the APA?

drinksonme
03-02-2014, 11:41 AM
^^^^^^Bingo. That's all this is about, USAPA's last ditch effort to avoid West influence at SLI. Anyone who thinks differently or believes their is somehting more is wasting their thoughts. They see the writing APA wrote on the wall.....that says we will have the West involved in SLI and you just wasted your last sevens years with nothing to show for it, especially $$$$ left on the table. I am sure the majority of East pilots will not be too happy with USAPA folks,and how they "represented" them, when that day arrives. The day the MB SLI comes out is gonna be so fun!

Enterprise
03-02-2014, 11:48 AM
I think USAPA is scared that APA will use or encourage the Nicilau as the list for US Airways in the integration. They want their say so the can present their DOH list as the basis for integration.


If this is true then the reality of the situation is escaping USAPA and they will end up screwing themselves.

The one way to ENSURE the Nic is used is to not come to an agreement with APA and then have this go to arbitration. If this goes to arbitration, there is no way another arbitrator will overturn his good buddy George's decision.

Now, if the USAPA we to submit a combined list (not necessarily DOH or the Nic list, but something in between) to APA right before APA takes over, then things get interesting.

cactiboss
03-02-2014, 12:05 PM
Does anyone here remember when SCS status was granted for AW/US? I seem to remember that the IAM applied for it and it was granted way before USAPA's creation, but the APA states it differently.

"In response to a perceived unfairness of the Nicolau Award, a group of East Pilots formed a new organization called USAPA and filed a petition with the NMB in the name of USAPA to have the two carriers declared a single transportation system in order to trigger a representation election to displace ALPA and then seek to avoid application of the Nicolau Award."

I don't think this is right. We already had a single operating certificate by the time USAPA was formed. I believe the guys formed USAPA and distributed cards for an election, just as any union could.

Update. I did find an NMB filing. I guess SCS is for each group. SCS had been granted for the IAM, but ALPA was resisting it for pilots.

Each labor group has to have an scs declared for that particular group. One work group getting scs doesn't guarantee the rest will. Our RLA attorney says our case easily meets scs and expects it declared within a couple of weeks.
The big unknown is how long usapa lives after that since the rules changed last year and no one is sure how nmb will apply them. There are 3 possibilities, It could be automatically after scs (due to apa being more than 2/3), it could be 30 days after scs if they give usapa 30 days to collect the required 50 % cards required to trigger election, or it could be 54 days after scs if an election is held. Either way we expect usapa to be gone as early as March or as late as early may.

PS. Don't forget the case before Silver is still open and not resolved. We expect it to be open until the day usapa is decertified. I'll let think about what that means.

R57 relay
03-02-2014, 12:35 PM
. If this goes to arbitration, there is no way another arbitrator will overturn his good buddy George's decision.

Now, if the USAPA we to submit a combined list (not necessarily DOH or the Nic list, but something in between) to APA right before APA takes over, then things get interesting.

Why? Why would a panel of arbitrators ignore a federal case, with a federal judge ruling that USAPA didn't fail it's DFR by abandoning the Nic? For friendship?

Why would USAPA present a combined list? That would be contrary to the MOU.

GrapeNuts
03-02-2014, 12:47 PM
Why? Why would a panel of arbitrators ignore a federal case, with a federal judge ruling that USAPA didn't fail it's DFR by abandoning the Nic? For friendship?

Why would USAPA present a combined list? That would be contrary to the MOU.


Read Silver's dicta about arbitration, fair result and dangerous ground...

Silver ruled there was no DFR at the time simply because USAPA had not presented a non-Nic list. There was nothing to compare the Nic list to, therefore there was no DFR.

Your selective, piecemeal splicing of sentences easily misleads you but not the APA and AAL attorneys. This, really, is why USAPA is putting up such a fight over west representation (which is what USAPA's lawsuit is all about): The MOU has a defined SLI protocol which YOU agreed to, now that you realize you signed away your right to screw the west you are vainly attempting to redefine the MOU.

cactiboss
03-02-2014, 01:24 PM
Why? Why would a panel of arbitrators ignore a federal case, with a federal judge ruling that USAPA didn't fail it's DFR by abandoning the Nic? For friendship?

Why would USAPA present a combined list? That would be contrary to the MOU.

That's not what Silver said, the DFR was only about the Mou and the Mou didn't specify any list to be used, that is why you skated.

sailingfun
03-02-2014, 01:56 PM
That's not what Silver said, the DFR was only about the Mou and the Mou didn't specify any list to be used, that is why you skated.

The arbitration community is small. It does not matter if you agree with the list or not the nic list will be a factor in the final product in this merger. The arbitrator will be fully versed in the entire issue and he will work it into his final decision. The east pilots would have been well advised to have toned down some of their statements over the last 5 years regarding nic. It will not help the result. I think their leadership now knows that.

SewerPipeDvr
03-02-2014, 02:12 PM
Ok. So your conclusions are not based on any personal knowledge or research specific to the events leading up to the certification of USAPA as the bargaining agent in April, 2008, correct?
Why would you ask a question that way? I did not discuss how I made my "conclusions". So why would you try to frame the "personal knowledge or research" in a leading negative manor? Argumentative weakness? Just have the balls to state why you believe differently and move on. You asked a question. I clarified my statement. If you did not understand I cannot help you (and perhaps you should not be flying airplanes). If you just want to argue go elsewhere. Believe me when I tell you I don't care to play your game.

GrapeNuts
03-02-2014, 02:47 PM
Why would you ask a question that way? I did not discuss how I made my "conclusions". So why would you try to frame the "personal knowledge or research" in a leading negative manor? Argumentative weakness? Just have the balls to state why you believe differently and move on. You asked a question. I clarified my statement. If you did not understand I cannot help you (and perhaps you should not be flying airplanes). If you just want to argue go elsewhere. Believe me when I tell you I don't care to play your game.

So, you have nothing to offer but opinion void of facts?

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 05:31 PM
I was being sarcastic.

Next time I'll put out a flashing neon SARCASM sign so you don't miss it.

I would still like to hear him explain to everyone how it was a "staple."

Even a slight hint would have worked.

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 05:35 PM
Yep! In fact the the APA treated the TWA guys so well in fact they had to make a law called MB so no other pilot group could ever be so generous to another again. Now the very pilot group that ushered in that law gets to hold our hand through the process. What could go wrong?

M-B was primarily regarding the complete staple of the F/A's not pilots. Actually, if you look at the last 20 SLI's some groups WERE stapled, but TWA pilots weren't one of them. It was also politically motivated. Anyway, you're comparing apples to oranges is that M-B is in play, neutral arbitrators are there and USAPA agreed to it.

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 05:57 PM
This is an amazing post. For all you ignorant rambling about the east/west situation, you apply the same logic you accuse the east pilots of. And still don't answer the question!

This is NOT an amazing post, simply more convoluted Usapian psychobabble, but I'll answer your pointless question.

USAPA didn't negotiate away it's rights. As I said above, SCS and the APA being voted in was a foregone conclusion. There was no way to stop it. So that point is irrelevant. But, the APA took Silver's ruling and is attempting to use it in a way that is contrary to the logic of MB, or so it appears and I haven't seen anything from the APA to alleviate that feeling.

USAPA negotiated away its EXISTENCE, not US Airways pilots rights. Those are still intact, but USAPA is mixing the two for its own benefit.

As the Nicolau award at US/AW shows, the make up of the merger committee can have a big affect on the SLI, even in arbitration. The APA should have no hand in choosing the US east or west merger committee. Period.

If it can have a big difference, why does USAPA advocate muzzling the West in the SLI process ? Now YOU are making absurd contradictory arguments and blaming APA for the exact thing USAPA wants to do to the West. Only, on planet USAPA.........:cool:

Let's try it one more time. If there was a chance that USAPA could be elected the CBA, would you be taking your (the APA's) current stance?

NO ! I wouldn't trust USAPA as far as I could throw them. I really don't trust APA, but at least APA doesn't have a DOH SLI standard (and stop blathering that drivel that they do not, because they do). USAPA's history is sub-terrainian in ethics and is unfit to represent ANYBODY.

R57 relay
03-02-2014, 07:51 PM
Read Silver's dicta about arbitration, fair result and dangerous ground...

Silver ruled there was no DFR at the time simply because USAPA had not presented a non-Nic list. There was nothing to compare the Nic list to, therefore there was no DFR.

Your selective, piecemeal splicing of sentences easily misleads you but not the APA and AAL attorneys. This, really, is why USAPA is putting up such a fight over west representation (which is what USAPA's lawsuit is all about): The MOU has a defined SLI protocol which YOU agreed to, now that you realize you signed away your right to screw the west you are vainly attempting to redefine the MOU.

"And there never will be." Ever heard that one?

R57 relay
03-02-2014, 07:55 PM
This is NOT an amazing post, simply more convoluted Usapian psychobabble, but I'll answer your pointless question.



USAPA negotiated away its EXISTENCE, not US Airways pilots rights. Those are still intact, but USAPA is mixing the two for its own benefit.



If it can have a big difference, why does USAPA advocate muzzling the West in the SLI process ? Now YOU are making absurd contradictory arguments and blaming APA for the exact thing USAPA wants to do to the West. Only, on planet USAPA.........:cool:



NO ! I wouldn't trust USAPA as far as I could throw them. I really don't trust APA, but at least APA doesn't have a DOH SLI standard (and stop blathering that drivel that they do not, because they do). USAPA's history is sub-terrainian in ethics and is unfit to represent ANYBODY.

I said the west should have it's own merger committee.

Usapa didn't negotiate it's demise. That was a given in this situation.

So if there was a chance of USAPA being the CBA, you would change your tune. Nice situational ethics. You'd make a good AOLer.

Show me the DOH MANDATE.

eaglefly
03-02-2014, 08:32 PM
I said the west should have it's own merger committee.

Who cares ? USAPA feels differently and that was my point.

Usapa didn't negotiate it's demise. That was a given in this situation.

That dog won't hunt and it makes ab-so-lute-ly no sense. But O.K., let's say it was a given (it was as per the MOU USAPA negotiated and signed). Since it was a given PRIOR to USAPA's agreement to the MOU (which they negotiated) and they agreed to it (they signed the MOU, so don't say they didn't), then they should agree to what's a given. The SLI will be in accordance with M-B, supposedly USAPA's slick lawyers were the ones that WROTE M-B (or so another Usapian claims, although he is a admitted liar) and so USAPA once again only makes sense to itself and no one else.

So if there was a chance of USAPA being the CBA, you would change your tune. Nice situational ethics. You'd make a good AOLer.

My tune has always been the same about USAPA and that is they are totally unfit for existence and has ZERO ethics. So sorry, but no situation there.

Show me the DOH MANDATE.

Your constitution was posted before and it used the term DOH and/or language that advocated its equivalent. If DOH wasn't in the equation, including and reference to or any variation of DOH, it wouldn't be mentioned......AT ALL. USAPA demanded DOH and refused to come off that during negotiations with the West resulting in the Nic, no ?

I think you've been making excuses and rationalizing USAPA's policies and conduct for so long now, you don't even recognize the truth anymore. The planet USAPA's running out of humans to alienate (pun intended) and soon its self-righteous glow will fade to become just like that of a white dwarf, but with a much shorter lifespan.

DrivinTheDash
03-02-2014, 10:55 PM
This is what I've been trying to say all along. APA cannot make a lopsided seniority list due to McCaskill Bond. The law prevents it.

How does the law prevent it, exactly? Under the APA's theory that they become the sole CBA for the purposes of seniority integration, the only provision of McCaskill Bond that would apply is the second paragraph, which states that McCaskill Bond will not apply if both sides are represented by the same union:

(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this
section;

sailingfun
03-02-2014, 11:29 PM
How does the law prevent it, exactly? Under the APA's theory that they become the sole CBA for the purposes of seniority integration, the only provision of McCaskill Bond that would apply is the second paragraph, which states that McCaskill Bond will not apply if both sides are represented by the same union:

In general when applying rules to structure a merger you take a snapshot of the entire situation at the constructive date of merger. MB would apply regardless of later changes.

DrivinTheDash
03-02-2014, 11:33 PM
In general when applying rules to structure a merger you take a snapshot of the entire situation at the constructive date of merger. MB would apply regardless of later changes.

Indeed, but apparently APA wants to ignore that snapshot, under which USAPA represents the USAirways pilots and APA represents the AA pilots, and instead act as though they are the sole representative in this merger.

GrapeNuts
03-03-2014, 02:42 AM
Indeed, but apparently APA wants to ignore that snapshot, under which USAPA represents the USAirways pilots and APA represents the AA pilots, and instead act as though they are the sole representative in this merger.

You mean, APA wants to follow the MOU which everyone agreed to? Oh the horrors! How dare the APA manage a fair and equitable process outlined in a document Usapa agreed to!

Whale Pilot
03-03-2014, 02:46 AM
I once remember when American Pilots told TWA pilots that American Pilots were like "Nordstrom" and that TWA were like "Kmart". Another was that TWA pilots were lucky to even have jobs and that they had "no career expectations" because TWA had filed bankruptcy.

I love how the "worm" has turned. Just remember that you reap what you sow. :D

Enterprise
03-03-2014, 03:37 AM
I once remember when American Pilots told TWA pilots that American Pilots were like "Nordstrom" and that TWA were like "Kmart". Another was that TWA pilots were lucky to even have jobs and that they had "no career expectations" because TWA had filed bankruptcy.

I love how the "worm" has turned. Just remember that you reap what you sow. :D


Oh yes, we all remember. And it wasn't just ONE GUY. it was ALL AA pilots that said that like you say. Of course, the bankruptcies were exactly the same too. AA was on their 3rd bankruptcy, had no cash, and the employees knew that if another company didn't buy them, AA would liquidate and we would all be out of a job. And remember, all of the TWA pilots were stapled after the merger.

Man, re-writing history is easy.

(Note to Eaglefly - this post was written in sarcasm)

aa73
03-03-2014, 03:38 AM
Hi Whale,
Just to clarify - Those remarks were made by a very unpopular and notorious APA leader that 99% of the line pilots did not agree with, and to this day I absolutely do not condone those remarks. APA and USAPA both need to continue sticking to the process now in seeking BINDING neutral arbitration for this SLI, there is absolutely no room for making disparaging remarks and adopting a "superior" attitude. And there is definitely no place for disregarding the outcome as USAPA did last time.
73

flybywire44
03-03-2014, 03:44 AM
Just to be sure we all have this straight...

West pilots don't get independent representation because USAPA "fairly" represents *ALL* pilots....but APA can't be trusted to protect the interests of USAir pilots. OK. Got it.

USAPA losing its ability to guarantee a merger committee independent of APA will be a falling tide that will lower all boats.

If APA represents USAPA pilots than East, West and Thirds will get hammered alike.

Remember, you either get the best SLI position now (maybe even a seat at the table) or you get some minimal TWA-like settlement long after. DFR does not reorder the list.

Whale Pilot
03-03-2014, 03:53 AM
Hi Whale,
Just to clarify - Those remarks were made by a very unpopular and notorious APA leader that 99% of the line pilots did not agree with, and to this day I absolutely do not condone those remarks. APA and USAPA both need to continue sticking to the process now in seeking BINDING neutral arbitration for this SLI, there is absolutely no room for making disparaging remarks and adopting a "superior" attitude. And there is definitely no place for disregarding the outcome as USAPA did last time.
73

I have no "meat" in this game anymore. However, all APA represented pilots "benefited" at the hands of TWA pilots. It really doesn't matter anymore, ya'll benefited!

Therefore, you reap what you sow. I can imagine that former TWA are just sitting back and enjoying the "show". You will most likely get no support from those former TWA pilots.

Enjoy the ride! ;)

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 04:54 AM
Oh yes, we all remember. And it wasn't just ONE GUY. it was ALL AA pilots that said that like you say. Of course, the bankruptcies were exactly the same too. AA was on their 3rd bankruptcy, had no cash, and the employees knew that if another company didn't buy them, AA would liquidate and we would all be out of a job. And remember, all of the TWA pilots were stapled after the merger.

Man, re-writing history is easy.

(Note to Eaglefly - this post was written in sarcasm)

LOL !!!

Of course the biggest faliure of his post is its irrelevance to what is occurring now.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 05:05 AM
USAPA losing its ability to guarantee a merger committee independent of APA will be a falling tide that will lower all boats.

If APA represents USAPA pilots than East, West and Thirds will get hammered alike.

Remember, you either get the best SLI position now (maybe even a seat at the table) or you get some minimal TWA-like settlement long after. DFR does not reorder the list.

But, but, but the MOU ensures McCaskill-Bond does it not ? Plus, isn't it the USAPA lawyers who wrote McCaskill-Bond and isn't it the NMB who will decide the SLI who are supposedly aware of "APA's shenanigans", yet now you claim that despite all that APA will be deciding the SLI and ensuring a TWAesque result ?

You can now add fear mongering to your USAPA approved resume right under deliberate misrepresentation (AKA lying). Your credibility is irrepairable.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 05:08 AM
I have no "meat" in this game anymore. However, all APA represented pilots "benefited" at the hands of TWA pilots. It really doesn't matter anymore, ya'll benefited!

Therefore, you reap what you sow. I can imagine that former TWA are just sitting back and enjoying the "show". You will most likely get no support from those former TWA pilots.

Enjoy the ride! ;)

Yet, aside from its inaccuracy, this has nothing to do with anything. I think there's a titlist lodged in your blowhole. :cool:

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 05:24 AM
That dog won't hunt and it makes ab-so-lute-ly no sense. But O.K., let's say it was a given (it was as per the MOU USAPA negotiated and signed). Since it was a given PRIOR to USAPA's agreement to the MOU (which they negotiated) and they agreed to it (they signed the MOU, so don't say they didn't), then they should agree to what's a given. The SLI will be in accordance with M-B, supposedly USAPA's slick lawyers were the ones that WROTE M-B (or so another Usapian claims, although he is a admitted liar) and so USAPA once again only makes sense to itself and no one else.

You make no sense. There was no way USAPA could be the CBA, so adding that to the MOU made no difference. But rights as a CBA and rights under MB are different, hence the lawsuit.



My tune has always been the same about USAPA and that is they are totally unfit for existence and has ZERO ethics. So sorry, but no situation there.

USAPA is not human entity, so it cannot have human qualities. Those involved in it, including it's members, have qualities that run the gamut.



Your constitution was posted before and it used the term DOH and/or language that advocated its equivalent. If DOH wasn't in the equation, including and reference to or any variation of DOH, it wouldn't be mentioned......AT ALL. USAPA demanded DOH and refused to come off that during negotiations with the West resulting in the Nic, no ?

I think you've been making excuses and rationalizing USAPA's policies and conduct for so long now, you don't even recognize the truth anymore. The planet USAPA's running out of humans to alienate (pun intended) and soon its self-righteous glow will fade to become just like that of a white dwarf, but with a much shorter lifespan.

No, you are wrong AGAIN. There never were any negotiations over the SL, either between USAPA and the west or USAPA and the company. Not a single minute. The west said they wouldn't come off the Nic and inch and the company never even addressed it.

The C&BLs talk about the principles of DOH, they don't mandate a straight DOH list. There is a distinction and the BPR passed a resolution giving the MC free rein.

You are as bad as cacti and WD about pulling stuff our of you rear.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 05:30 AM
LOL !!!

Of course the biggest faliure of his post is its irrelevance to what is occurring now.

So the trust factor is irrelevant? You don't trust USAPA for it's actions, but we should all sleep well at night with the APA's thumb in the pie?

USAPA will always be tainted for it's actions and you wouldn't want them involved at all with your merger committee. Ditto for the APA.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 05:53 AM
But, but, but the MOU ensures McCaskill-Bond does it not ? Plus, isn't it the USAPA lawyers who wrote McCaskill-Bond and isn't it the NMB who will decide the SLI who are supposedly aware of "APA's shenanigans", yet now you claim that despite all that APA will be deciding the SLI and ensuring a TWAesque result ?

You can now add fear mongering to your USAPA approved resume right under deliberate misrepresentation (AKA lying). Your credibility is irrepairable.

EF, have you ever been a party to a merger and/or a SLI arbitration?

kingairip
03-03-2014, 06:25 AM
For starters...I do NOT want to appear to be defending the USAPA as I think they're the SECOND worst union (in regards to treating other pilots) in the industry right now. However, they're the worst second only to the APA (whose treatment of the TWA guys was much worse than USAPA's treatment of the West. I think any reasonable outsider can agree with that.)

With that out of the way, here are a couple of quick questions for all those who say "USAPA agreed to be cut out of the SLI negotiations by signing the MOU" or words to that effect. If that is true then why did the APA put the following in a MOU summary (you can find this on page 3 in the "Contract Comparison Jan 2014" put out recently by APA.)

http://i7.minus.com/iWiM8EWl1Qh0y.jpg

Why would the arbitrator's award be binding on USAPA if it was intended by the MOU for USAPA to be dead and gone and no part of the integration process?

Also, this (still on page 3)

http://i7.minus.com/ibsdedhJNWJeZj.jpg

Why does the APA say that the MOU calls for direct negotiations between USAPA and APA if the MOU intended for USAPA to not be part of the process?

On the very next page (page 4), APA makes clear "The MOU establishes a timeline for joint collective bargaining agreement (JCBA) with USAPA participation until such time that the NMB certifies a single union" The implication here is that after the NMB certifies a single union USAPA won't be involved in the "joint collective bargaining agreement." If the same was true for the SLI, why didn't the APA summarize that as well (after all, that's kind of an important point, don't you think?)

Seems to me that the APA has taken Judge Silver's ruling and is running with it. The MOU never intended for USAPA to be out of the SLI negotiations...that's clear by the APA's summary of it. APA is saying that USAPA can't be part of the process because of Silver's ruling (not because of the MOU.) Whether that is true or not, who knows? I guess that's for the courts to decide. But, I think it's time to stop staying that "USAPA agreed they wouldn't be part of the SLI by signing the MOU."

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 06:30 AM
^^^^^^^

Exactly. I don't know of a single US pilot that expects USAPA to have a role after SCS, EXCEPT in the SLI. I find it illogical, with the history of MB, to say that the APA should have any role in our side.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 06:46 AM
Eaglefly said:

"Specifically, the MOU became the new contract for US Airways pilots on the date of POR acceptance. If USAPA can nullify the SLI provision of the MOU, why can't management nullify other provisions ? The MOU was a replacement of US Airways pilots CBA until JCBA and SLI completion. What's to stop management from essentially requesting both sides go back to their pre-merger contractual corners with AA pilots working under the CLA (the MOU currently replaced this) and US Airways pilots reverting back to their pre-merger CBA provisions ?

Parker's certainly used division to lower costs in the past. This time might save a lot of $$$ while this dispute and the ones to follow run their way through the court system. USAPA's suit basically questions the validity of the MOU itself, which is puzzling because their negotiators negotiated the damn thing and if it's under question, why not delay its implementation until it's validity is resolved ?

If USAPA is going to practice the game of selective reinterpretation post agreement (as they have repeatedly), why not the other parties ?

The bull only knows how to be a bull and cannot help trashing any china shop that presents itself. It'll be interesting to see if this time they inadvertently picked a china shop they should have passed on. The china shop owners this time (the creditors) aren't going to be happy as this will likely drive the stock price down and may even put AA pilots final claim payment in delay, so people may have a financial claim against USAPA for their frivolous persuits. This may be another reason SOME may want to reset the MOU clock to mitigate financial loss"

EF, I'd like to make sure I understand you with this comment. Dolphinflyer also posted something similar to this and I asked for verification, but no answer yet. Are you advocating a change to US pilots pay rates?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 06:55 AM
No, you are wrong AGAIN. There never were any negotiations over the SL, either between USAPA and the west or USAPA and the company. Not a single minute. The west said they wouldn't come off the Nic and inch and the company never even addressed it.

The C&BLs talk about the principles of DOH, they don't mandate a straight DOH list. There is a distinction and the BPR passed a resolution giving the MC free rein.

You are as bad as cacti and WD about pulling stuff our of you rear.



Complete hopelessness, but continue on my dear friend.

There is NO WAY USAPA could be the CBA, they KNEW that and AGREED TO THAT. They AGREED to relinquish their existence as long as M-B and its neutral arbitration process was part of the MOU SLI process (post JCBA). The only excuse they have at this point is that they were blind, illiterate or irretrievably stupid and were duped by others.

You're saying those that run USAPA and are making these decisions do not have human qualities ?

Well, if so, we finally agree on something, so perhaps we ARE getting somewhere. :rolleyes:

I've never said there were any negotiations between anyone over this SLI (RTFP). The only thing that has occurred so far is failed protocol. I did say that DOH is referenced repeatedly in your Constitution and that USAPA wouldn't budge off that when negotiating with the West, hence the Nic, thus there is USAPA's past position to go on. I think it's YOU that's ejecting unpleasantries out of your outflow valve. Your explanation of why DOH is all over your Constitution MIGHT fly if it weren't for USAPA or it's creators demanding it on their last SLI attempt with the west and when that failed, they put it in the Constitution they devised when they orchestrated their coup over the West, which they now want to muzzle.

If "free rein" and neutrality with no favoritism of one method of SLI or another were TRULY in play, there would be no mention of it at all or seeking it's "principles", which is just creative language seeking an equivalent standard. Next, you'll try to convince me the sky really isn't blue, but magenta.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 06:59 AM
EF, have you ever been a party to a merger and/or a SLI arbitration?

What does that have to do with anything ? The answer is actually yes though and on multiple occasions. If you look at the history of American Eagle you'll see MULTIPLE mergers and SLI's.

I seems you'd like to use that as another springboard to claim it means I (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't comment on this one (or any SLI unless they've been through one already). Epic fail, if that's your hope.

aa73
03-03-2014, 07:04 AM
I have no "meat" in this game anymore. However, all APA represented pilots "benefited" at the hands of TWA pilots. It really doesn't matter anymore, ya'll benefited!

Therefore, you reap what you sow. I can imagine that former TWA are just sitting back and enjoying the "show". You will most likely get no support from those former TWA pilots.

Enjoy the ride! ;)

That's a fact, and I'm quite ok with that. I never expected support from any group: in this industry it's every man for himself. However, it also goes without saying that APA'S duty is always to best represent it's members, and I fully expect them to just that in the AA/US deal. They did that in the AA/TWA deal and if you were in our shoes, you'd expect the same: after all your group sued ALPA for precisely the same reasons. What I won't tolerate are disparaging remarks and/or actions that indicate an air of superiority during the process.

However, I'll bet you a good chunk of money that the ex TWA pilots are not just sitting there and enjoying the show: they may face a real dilemma depending on how the SLI goes down, due to the very law they helped push into existence (McCaskill/Bond.)

In either case, I lose no sleep over the fact I will probably lose a good chunk of seniority in this merger... just the nature of the beast. I just hope it can be done without the type of remarks and actions we've seen in the past, specifically speaking, the comments that notorious APA leader made.

Good luck to you too Whale.
73

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 07:05 AM
Complete hopelessness, but continue on my dear friend.

There is NO WAY USAPA could be the CBA, they KNEW that and AGREED TO THAT. They AGREED to relinquish their existence as long as M-B and its neutral arbitration process was part of the MOU SLI process (post JCBA). The only excuse they have at this point is that they were blind, illiterate or irretrievably stupid and were duped by others.

You're saying those that run USAPA and are making these decisions do not have human qualities ?

Well, if so, we finally agree on something, so perhaps we ARE getting somewhere. :rolleyes:

I've never said there were any negotiations between anyone over this SLI (RTFP). The only thing that has occurred so far is failed protocol. I did say that DOH is referenced repeatedly in your Constitution and that USAPA wouldn't budge off that when negotiating with the West, hence the Nic, thus there is USAPA's past position to go on. I think it's YOU that's ejecting unpleasantries out of your outflow valve. Your explanation of why DOH is all over your Constitution MIGHT fly if it weren't for USAPA or it's creators demanding it on their last SLI attempt with the west and when that failed, they put it in the Constitution they devised when they orchestrated their coup over the West, which they now want to muzzle.

If "free rein" and neutrality with no favoritism of one method of SLI or another were TRULY in play, there would be no mention of it at all or seeking it's "principles", which is just creative language seeking an equivalent standard. Next, you'll try to convince me the sky really isn't blue, but magenta.

Are you sure you are not related to WD? I see similar traits.

It is not the loss of CBA status that is bothering USAPA, it's the appearance of overreaching by the APA on the MB process. You are ignoring that, coming to a false conclusion and just keep repeating yourself.

The negotiations I was talking about were US east, and company. Geez. It was a response to your claim that USAPA wouldn't come off DOH.

US east didn't DEMAND DOH, or even propose it. We proposed LOS. This is why you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.

The "principles of DOH" was put in the C&BLs as a selling point. It's a phrase, not a mandate. Again, you don't what you are talking about. The USAPA C&BLs really doesn't matter squat. It has no bearing on things as there would never be a merger with another USAPA represented airline. The PROPOSED a DOH list to US, but it was just a proposal like any other. The company would have to agree with it, and IMHO they never would have.

I'd say for you the sky is brown, from the vantage point of having your head up your rear on this.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 07:11 AM
I just hope it can be done without the type of remarks and actions we've seen in the past, specifically speaking, the comments that notorious APA leader made.



Agree 100%. During the aborted 2000 UA/US merger some US guy made a comment about where to get his 747 manuals. Whether it was a joke or a brain dead statement, it became a rallying call for UA pilots. We never even got close to talking about the SLI and it was nasty. I had a UA pilot tell me I wouldn't have been hired by UA(like I wanted to be).

This is business, and I expect the APA to look after native AA pilots interests until after the SLI. That's why I want them out of our SLI business until then.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 07:12 AM
What does that have to do with anything ? The answer is actually yes though and on multiple occasions. If you look at the history of American Eagle you'll see MULTIPLE mergers and SLI's.

I seems you'd like to use that as another springboard to claim it means I (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't comment on this one (or any SLI unless they've been through one already). Epic fail, if that's your hope.

No, I'm trying to figure out your logic. That's an epic fail.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 07:20 AM
For starters...I do NOT want to appear to be defending the USAPA as I think they're the SECOND worst union (in regards to treating other pilots) in the industry right now. However, they're the worst second only to the APA (whose treatment of the TWA guys was much worse than USAPA's treatment of the West. I think any reasonable outsider can agree with that.)

I doubt that. I'm not defending APA on their handling of the TWA situation, but at least SOME of the TWA pilots were recognized as opposed to a complete disregard, domination and isolation of AWA pilots by East ALPA and USAPA. But that really doesn't matter as in the case of comparing APA and TWA ALPA, they were different unions EACH representing their members PRE McCaskill-Bond, wheras in the US Airways/AWA dispute it was the SAME union that was then hijacked by one side to avoid a binding arbitration result they agreed to. As one who himself has been in the direct gunsights of APA, I don't make this statement lightly as I have MAJOR trust issues with APA.

With that out of the way, here are a couple of quick questions for all those who say "USAPA agreed to be cut out of the SLI negotiations by signing the MOU" or words to that effect. If that is true then why did the APA put the following in a MOU summary (you can find this on page 3 in the "Contract Comparison Jan 2014" put out recently by APA.)

http://i7.minus.com/iWiM8EWl1Qh0y.jpg

Why would the arbitrator's award be binding on USAPA if it was intended by the MOU for USAPA to be dead and gone and no part of the integration process?

Also, this (still on page 3)

http://i7.minus.com/ibsdedhJNWJeZj.jpg

Why does the APA say that the MOU calls for direct negotiations between USAPA and APA if the MOU intended for USAPA to not be part of the process?

On the very next page (page 4), APA makes clear "The MOU establishes a timeline for joint collective bargaining agreement (JCBA) with USAPA participation until such time that the NMB certifies a single union" The implication here is that after the NMB certifies a single union USAPA won't be involved in the "joint collective bargaining agreement." If the same was true for the SLI, why didn't the APA summarize that as well (after all, that's kind of an important point, don't you think?)

Seems to me that the APA has taken Judge Silver's ruling and is running with it. The MOU never intended for USAPA to be out of the SLI negotiations...that's clear by the APA's summary of it. APA is saying that USAPA can't be part of the process because of Silver's ruling (not because of the MOU.) Whether that is true or not, who knows? I guess that's for the courts to decide. But, I think it's time to stop staying that "USAPA agreed they wouldn't be part of the SLI by signing the MOU."

This is all "summary". The process cannot identify exactly when IN the process USAPA will become replaced. USAPA was to be part of the JCBA negotiations, but not necessarily the SLI as it is unknown exactly when they would no longer be the CBA for US Airways pilots, thus the language ensuring the SLI process will be "in accordance" with M-B along with arbitration as a protective measure to ensure DFR and a "fair and equitable" result. This process would continue if it COULD continue, but that requires agreement on protocol which wasn't reached. Prior to that failure between APA and USAPA, USAPA's West reps left claiming the East was advocating their muzzling, so the process broke down pretty early. Certain people will blame APA and/or AAL, but we know where the common denominator really is.

I think it's difficult to claim judge Silvers ruling had anything to do with the MOU process that again, *sigh* USAPA agreed to as the MOU came WELL before Judge Silver's ruling, no ?

I think the MOU was designed to include the "binding" statement as that is presently the only way to identify the US Airways pilots and considering USAPA's past of considering binding arbitrations not applicable to them, probably necessary for clarity. If the process hadn't broken down over protocol, it would still be on track and USAPA would indeed be participating and moving the JCBA portion of the MOU process forward, but even with that, likely after declaration of STS by NMB and the selection of APA as the CBA, they would have ceased to be a recognized part of the SLI process at some point post JCBA and somewhere in the SLI process. Since one cannot really identify where, USAPA still has to be identified as they are still the CBA for US Airways pilots.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 07:21 AM
No, I'm trying to figure our your logic.

On this I have no doubt.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 07:26 AM
So the trust factor is irrelevant? You don't trust USAPA for it's actions, but we should all sleep well at night with the APA's thumb in the pie?

USAPA will always be tainted for it's actions and you wouldn't want them involved at all with your merger committee. Ditto for the APA.

Using "USAPA" and "trust" in the same sentence is a certain path to contradiction. USAPA AGREED to this process and now only AFTER they got there pay raises are they hijacking this SLI just like they hijacked the SLI with the West.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it gets any simpler or more complicated then that.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 07:33 AM
Using "USAPA" and "trust" in the same sentence is a certain path to contradiction. USAPA AGREED to this process and now only AFTER they got there pay raises are they hijacking this SLI just like they hijacked the SLI with the West.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it gets any simpler or more complicated then that.

That is a completely false statement and you know it.

Would you like to address my questions. You have a hard time doing that.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 07:43 AM
Are you sure you are not related to WD? I see similar traits.

Perhaps you simply see the similarity of WD and I being humans. I can see that could be confusing to a die-hard Usapian. After all, I've been told they have no "qualities" in that respect. ;)

It is not the loss of CBA status that is bothering USAPA, it's the appearance of overreaching by the APA on the MB process. You are ignoring that, coming to a false conclusion and just keep repeating yourself.

Oh no I see that exactly, it's just since USAPA AGREED to it, it's hard to comprehend WHY. But, alas if one looks toward the past and USAPA's past, it then becomes crystal clear and then I see a lot of "repetition".

The negotiations I was talking about were US east, and company. Geez. It was a response to your claim that USAPA wouldn't come off DOH.

US east didn't DEMAND DOH, or even propose it. We proposed LOS. This is why you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.

The "principles of DOH" was put in the C&BLs as a selling point. It's a phrase, not a mandate. Again, you don't what you are talking about. The USAPA C&BLs really doesn't matter squat. It has no bearing on things as there would never be a merger with another USAPA represented airline. The PROPOSED a DOH list to US, but it was just a proposal like any other. The company would have to agree with it, and IMHO they never would have.

I'd say for you the sky is brown, from the vantage point of having your head up your rear on this.

They proposed LOS ? A pilot group who at the time was essentially senior to the majority of the other pilot group on that basis and a result that would have essentially mimicked DOH ? Sure..........slice and dice that USAPA style anyway you want. :cool:

You said, "the West said they wouldn't come off the Nic an inch", yet those negotiations were BEFORE the Nic. The Nic was the result of those negotiations that failed essentially due to East ALPA intransigence (not unlike now). You GOT the Nic at least partially due to East pilot (USAPA) mentality by USAPA's own admission, i.e., Nicolau punished you for not playing fairly. If so, why is that ?

Answer : Because it's true.

Not that it matters as you "unbinded" it in your coup.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 07:49 AM
That is a completely false statement and you know it.

Would you like to address my questions. You have a hard time doing that.

I answer your questions, it's just you don't like the answers. Is it also in the USAPA Constitution that a Usapian question isn't answered unless a USAPA approved answer is given ?

I mean, DOH is supposedly not there, but those words are referenced repeatedly, yet you say they mean something else, so I can't figure out what's actually in that Manifesto and since nothing I say to you gets through, I figure this might be there too.

If it is, maybe it means something else though, eh ? :rolleyes:

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 08:15 AM
Perhaps you simply see the similarity of WD and I being humans. I can see that could be confusing to a die-hard Usapian. After all, I've been told they have no "qualities" in that respect. ;)



Oh no I see that exactly, it's just since USAPA AGREED to it, it's hard to comprehend WHY. But, alas if one looks toward the past and USAPA's past, it then becomes crystal clear and then I see a lot of "repetition".



They proposed LOS ? A pilot group who at the time was essentially senior to the majority of the other pilot group on that basis and a result that would have essentially mimicked DOH ? Sure..........slice and dice that USAPA style anyway you want. :cool:

You said, "the West said they wouldn't come off the Nic an inch", yet those negotiations were BEFORE the Nic. The Nic was the result of those negotiations that failed essentially due to East ALPA intransigence (not unlike now). You GOT the Nic at least partially due to East pilot (USAPA) mentality by USAPA's own admission, i.e., Nicolau punished you for not playing fairly. If so, why is that ?

Answer : Because it's true.

Not that it matters as you "unbinded" it in your coup.

You are intentionally being obtuse. And with that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

USAPA is not going back on anything, or trying to delay anything. They are asking for their rights under MB. If anybody is delaying, it's the APA. USAPA acknowledged that the SLI protocol failed and so asked for the arbitration phase to begin. The APA is the one that doesn't want that, they want the impasse of the SLI protocol to be a MOU disagreement, and delay going to arbitration. Why? If we are going to get there anyway, and we can't agree, let's go now and speed things up. Why the delay unless they have another motive. That's the reason for the lawsuit.

Now, back to my question. Are you and DF advocating revoking the pay rates for US pilots?

kingairip
03-03-2014, 08:30 AM
I doubt that. I'm not defending APA on their handling of the TWA situation, but at least SOME of the TWA pilots were recognized as opposed to a complete disregard, domination and isolation of AWA pilots by East ALPA and USAPA. But that really doesn't matter as in the case of comparing APA and TWA ALPA, they were different unions EACH representing their members PRE McCaskill-Bond, wheras in the US Airways/AWA dispute it was the SAME union that was then hijacked by one side to avoid a binding arbitration result they agreed to. As one who himself has been in the direct gunsights of APA, I don't make this statement lightly as I have MAJOR trust issues with APA.

I understand why you have MAJOR trust issues with APA. I think anyone (including West pilots) who come in APA's cross-hairs should absolutely not trust them. Here is why I think APA is worse than USAPA. At least the USAPA (or rather, US ALPA) let the integration proceedings go to arbitration. The APA, unable to reach an agreement with TWA ALPA, simply went to the company and reached an agreement with them on how to integrate the TWA pilots. As a result of that, the TWA pilots bore the brunt of the furloughs when they happened shortly thereafter. Both APA and USAPA are pretty despicable, but there is (or were) a lot more TWA guys on the street because of APA than AWA guys on the street because of USAPA. At any rate, it really doesn't matter. I think we agree that neither organization is particularly trustworthy.



This is all "summary". The process cannot identify exactly when IN the process USAPA will become replaced.

Why not. The process identifies "exactly when IN the process the USAPA will become replaced" with respect to the JCBA negotiations? Why couldn't it do the same for the SLI negotiations? Probably because it was never intended by the MOU for USAPA to be replaced during the SLI negotiations. If you can show me where in the MOU it calls for APA to handle all SLI negotiations while USAPA is disbanded we can put this to bed right now.


USAPA was to be part of the JCBA negotiations, but not necessarily the SLI as it is unknown exactly when they would no longer be the CBA for US Airways pilots,

I think this is flawed. I'm not really sure what you're saying here.



thus the language ensuring the SLI process will be "in accordance" with M-B along with arbitration as a protective measure to ensure DFR and a "fair and equitable" result.

If one side in a negotiation picks the representation of the other side, the result will not be "fair and equitable." Period. Dot. End of story. (Especially when one of those sides is USAPA or APA! Neither can be trusted to be fair to another party.)


I think it's difficult to claim judge Silvers ruling had anything to do with the MOU process that again, *sigh* USAPA agreed to as the MOU came WELL before Judge Silver's ruling, no ?

I agree with you. Which is why I find it strange that the APA is using her ruling in a grievance filed under the MOU against USAPA.


I think the MOU was designed to include the "binding" statement as that is presently the only way to identify the US Airways pilots and considering USAPA's past of considering binding arbitrations not applicable to them, probably necessary for clarity. If the process hadn't broken down over protocol, it would still be on track and USAPA would indeed be participating and moving the JCBA portion of the MOU process forward, but even with that, likely after declaration of STS by NMB and the selection of APA as the CBA, they would have ceased to be a recognized part of the SLI process at some point post JCBA and somewhere in the SLI process. Since one cannot really identify where, USAPA still has to be identified as they are still the CBA for US Airways pilots.

I think it's more likely the MOU envisioned USAPA would be the US representation throughout the SLI. It's Silver's ruling that changed that view (in APA's way of thinking.) (That may ultimately be what happens, but I think that will be decided in a court.) Nothing in the MOU indicates that USAPA won't be involved in the SLI (if you can show where the MOU (or a APA or USAPA summary of it) says otherwise, please do.)

Incidentally, and by way of reference, can anyone demonstrate an SLI where one group took over representation for the other group and appointed the other side's negotiators to the arbitrators?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 08:58 AM
You are intentionally being obtuse. And with that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

USAPA is not going back on anything, or trying to delay anything. They are asking for their rights under MB. If anybody is delaying, it's the APA. USAPA acknowledged that the SLI protocol failed and so asked for the arbitration phase to begin. The APA is the one that doesn't want that, they want the impasse of the SLI protocol to be a MOU disagreement, and delay going to arbitration. Why? If we are going to get there anyway, and we can't agree, let's go now and speed things up. Why the delay unless they have another motive. That's the reason for the lawsuit.

Now, back to my question. Are you and DF advocating revoking the pay rates for US pilots?

USAPA WANTED the protocol to fail and the first step was driving the West pilots out of the room. Using fancy words to describe me won't change that. The PROCESS that USAPA AGREED TO calls for the JCBA first and then the SLI. Due to pilot numbers, timeline AND ORDER, USAPA knew they would be replaced prior to SLI completion and they new it when they agreed to it. Glossing over everything else to cloud the fact USAPA did this deliberately AFTER they got their pay from the MOU, instead of questioning what is CLEAR in the MOU BEFORE they agreed to it, only destroys credibility further.

Am I still being obtuse ?

I don't recall you asking the question of what I (Eaglefly) am advocating on the MOU pay issue, but perhaps I missed it. You claim I never answer anything, but half the time I have no idea what you're asking or if it was asked at all. I commented that considering USAPA's self-serving obstructionist actions and the potential for the creditors to lose value and thus AA pilots could lose claim value which could equal a DIRECT financial loss for AA pilots (which is also indicative of USAPA attack against AA pilots I previously mentioned but was dismissed as "drama"), that resetting the MOU back to the beginning and thus putting all 3 pilot groups back to pre-merger financial position would be a valid response.

If the creditors lose money from this, they could recoup it by AAL saving some of the money that may be lost through delay in the merger process and synergy realization. If I was a creditor, I'd be setting my gun sights on where and how to minimize any financial loss by getting it from the very people who are causing the problem. The collateral damage part would mean USAPA would drag the West down with them (not that they care). If that should occur (or something similar), it will be USAPA to blame, although I'm sure You and/or others will spin it Usapian style as thuggery by APA and or AAL. USAPA has NEVER been ANYTHING but a caustic, devisive force that has poisoned EVERY single thing they've ever been involved in, thus as long as they exist, the merger of these two carriers will never be out of peril, financial or otherwise.

aa73
03-03-2014, 09:03 AM
I understand why you have MAJOR trust issues with APA. I think anyone (including West pilots) who come in APA's cross-hairs should absolutely not trust them. Here is why I think APA is worse than USAPA. At least the USAPA (or rather, US ALPA) let the integration proceedings go to arbitration. The APA, unable to reach an agreement with TWA ALPA, simply went to the company and reached an agreement with them on how to integrate the TWA pilots. As a result of that, the TWA pilots bore the brunt of the furloughs when they happened shortly thereafter. Both APA and USAPA are pretty despicable, but there is (or were) a lot more TWA guys on the street because of APA than AWA guys on the street because of USAPA. At any rate, it really doesn't matter. I think we agree that neither organization is particularly trustworthy.

Just a couple things that need to be added to this: overall a good summary, however:

- APA tried very hard to come to an agreement with TWA, however there were also plenty of unrealistic demands on the TWA side, which precluded a mutual agreement. In the end APA pulled a "SWAPA" and imposed the current SLI with the company. However they consulted with arbitrators and they helped craft an SLI that was completely along the lines of what the TWA pilots would have gotten out of arbitration anyway. **AA73 note: I believe this should have been arbitrated, as that would have been the fairest process. (but nobody consulted me)

- the massive furloughs that happened were due to 9/11, and two things bear mentioning. 1) Had 9/11 not happened, the majority if not all TWA pilots would have continued in their respective bid statuses, many of which were CAs and would have remained CAs.
2) It was APA'S duty to protect as many Native AA jobs in the case of a furlough, and that's precisely what they did. I think each and every one of us would expect this of our unions: I also think that many of you would be crying Foul if you had just purchased the assets of a struggling carrier and taken their pilots, then watched as your own pilots got furloughed while their pilots remained employed at your company. In other words, your union's job is to protect YOUR job.

Otherwise, as we all know - many TWA pilots got the short end of the stick, without a doubt, due to the many factors mentioned above.

I do trust APA to protect its members' seniority... but I also want them to abide by a fair process for all involved, and it's clear that did not happen back in 2001.

In the end, I don't believe one can compare APA to USAPA. APA may be missing a few screws here and there and there are complaints, but but not to the extent of USAPA, which is known industry-wide for some pretty poor practices.

GrapeNuts
03-03-2014, 09:05 AM
No, you are wrong AGAIN. There never were any negotiations over the SL, either between USAPA and the west or USAPA and the company. Not a single minute. The west said they wouldn't come off the Nic and inch and the company never even addressed it.

The C&BLs talk about the principles of DOH, they don't mandate a straight DOH list. There is a distinction and the BPR passed a resolution giving the MC free rein.

You are as bad as cacti and WD about pulling stuff our of you rear.



Interesting concept. So, by your thinking, the east basically steamrolled the west with a seniority cram down which is totally fine by you but you find it abhorrent the APA only wants to give all three parties equal representation in front of an arbitration panel.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:09 AM
USAPA WANTED the protocol to fail and the first step was driving the West pilots out of the room. Using fancy words to describe me won't change that. The PROCESS that USAPA AGREED TO calls for the JCBA first and then the SLI. Due to pilot numbers, timeline AND ORDER, USAPA knew they would be replaced prior to SLI completion and they new it when they agreed to it. Glossing over everything else to cloud the fact USAPA did this deliberately AFTER they got their pay from the MOU, instead of questioning what is CLEAR in the MOU BEFORE they agreed to it, only destroys credibility further.

Am I still being obtuse ?

I don't recall you asking the question of what I (Eaglefly) am advocating on the MOU pay issue, but perhaps I missed it. You claim I never answer anything, but half the time I have no idea what you're asking or if it was asked at all. I commented that considering USAPA's self-serving obstructionist actions and the potential for the creditors to lose value and thus AA pilots could lose claim value which could equal a DIRECT financial loss for AA pilots (which is also indicative of USAPA attack against AA pilots I previously mentioned but was dismissed as "drama"), that resetting the MOU back to the beginning and thus putting all 3 pilot groups back to pre-merger financial position would be a valid response.

If the creditors lose money from this, they could recoup it by AAL saving some of the money that may be lost through delay in the merger process and synergy realization. If I was a creditor, I'd be setting my gun sights on where and how to minimize any financial loss by getting it from the very people who are causing the problem. The collateral damage part would mean USAPA would drag the West down with them (not that they care). If that should occur (or something similar), it will be USAPA to blame, although I'm sure You and/or others will spin it Usapian style as thuggery by APA and or AAL. USAPA has NEVER been ANYTHING but a caustic, devisive force that has poisoned EVERY single thing they've ever been involved in, thus as long as they exist, the merger of these two carriers will never be out of peril, financial or otherwise.

Amazing. Nope, not obtuse. Just stupid.

@12:15:

"Now, back to my question. Are you and DF advocating revoking the pay rates for US pilots?"

So if that happens we can get our scope back right? We can pull the unlimited AA code share that we allowed. We can get back our change of control and make them structure this with US being the surviving company and lose all of those accumulated AA losses. Whatever.

I sure hope you are an anomaly among AA pilots.

kingairip
03-03-2014, 09:21 AM
Just a couple things that need to be added to this: overall a good summary, however:

- APA tried very hard to come to an agreement with TWA, however there were also plenty of unrealistic demands on the TWA side, which precluded a mutual agreement. In the end APA pulled a "SWAPA" and imposed the current SLI with the company. However they consulted with arbitrators and they helped craft an SLI that was completely along the lines of what the TWA pilots would have gotten out of arbitration anyway. **AA73 note: I believe this should have been arbitrated, as that would have been the fairest process. (but nobody consulted me)

- the massive furloughs that happened were due to 9/11, and two things bear mentioning. 1) Had 9/11 not happened, the majority if not all TWA pilots would have continued in their respective bid statuses, many of which were CAs and would have remained CAs.
2) It was APA'S duty to protect as many Native AA jobs in the case of a furlough, and that's precisely what they did. I think each and every one of us would expect this of our unions: I also think that many of you would be crying Foul if you had just purchased the assets of a struggling carrier and taken their pilots, then watched as your own pilots got furloughed while their pilots remained employed at your company. In other words, your union's job is to protect YOUR job.

Otherwise, as we all know - many TWA pilots got the short end of the stick, without a doubt, due to the many factors mentioned above.

I do trust APA to protect its members' seniority... but I also want them to abide by a fair process for all involved, and it's clear that did not happen back in 2001.

In the end, I don't believe one can compare APA to USAPA. APA may be missing a few screws here and there and there are complaints, but but not to the extent of USAPA, which is known industry-wide for some pretty poor practices.


Fair enough. Can't argue with that. I think you're certainly right. Especially the part above about trusting the APA "to protect its members' seniority." (Which is why any fair-minded, neutral observer can see the folly in allowing the APA to determine the other side's merger representation.)

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:24 AM
I also think that many of you would be crying Foul if you had just purchased the assets of a struggling carrier and taken their pilots, then watched as your own pilots got furloughed while their pilots remained employed at your company. In other words, your union's job is to protect YOUR job.



That's exactly what happened with US/AW, except that US was struggling more than AW. But, in the end the bulk of the remaining system is the old US system, and the Nic would have had us paying for the west shrinkage-AGAIN(We also did it with PSA. There is nothing left of them except the employees put in by DOH). By the time he did his list what was happening was evident and he ignored it.

I appreciate your comments that "you would have done it differently." Me too with our situation. I didn't vote for USAPA and even with their election I thought they should have handled it differently. But like you, they didn't ask me.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:25 AM
I understand why you have MAJOR trust issues with APA. I think anyone (including West pilots) who come in APA's cross-hairs should absolutely not trust them. Here is why I think APA is worse than USAPA. At least the USAPA (or rather, US ALPA) let the integration proceedings go to arbitration. The APA, unable to reach an agreement with TWA ALPA, simply went to the company and reached an agreement with them on how to integrate the TWA pilots. As a result of that, the TWA pilots bore the brunt of the furloughs when they happened shortly thereafter. Both APA and USAPA are pretty despicable, but there is (or were) a lot more TWA guys on the street because of APA than AWA guys on the street because of USAPA. At any rate, it really doesn't matter. I think we agree that neither organization is particularly trustworthy.

The SLI WILL go to arbitration. The arbitrators will be well aware of all the issues. IF any party or person can submit anything they wish to the arbitrators for consideration, then they can do their jobs. In that case, it won't matter that APA is the CBA and USAPA is extinct. The problem with USAPA is their history which is repeating itself with the present. ANYTHING they become involved with is mangled to the point of insolvency. I'm all for East, West, Native AA, TWA, AE flows or anyone else having the ability to submit an opinion to the arbitrators. If that occurs and the concept of "pre-merger career expectations" is the standard (as per M-B), the result should be fairly predictable.




Why not. The process identifies "exactly when IN the process the USAPA will become replaced" with respect to the JCBA negotiations? Why couldn't it do the same for the SLI negotiations? Probably because it was never intended by the MOU for USAPA to be replaced during the SLI negotiations. If you can show me where in the MOU it calls for APA to handle all SLI negotiations while USAPA is disbanded we can put this to bed right now.

Does the MOU NOT describe a process that envisions the possibility, if not probability that one union will become the CBA ?

Does it NOT describe a timeline that for the SLI which could be longer then the declaration of STS and thus a sole CBA and in fact, almost certainly will ?

Does it NOT have a protectionary process in place described to ensure a fair and equitable result that preserves pre-merger career expectations in accordance with McCaskill-Bond REGARDLESS of the existence of a single CBA ?

Most importantly, didn't USAPA's lawyers review this document when they were NEGOTIATING it and if this was to be a problem, resolve the process then BEFORE it became effective and their $$$ started rolling in potentially at the creditors and even AA pilots expense ?

I think this is flawed. I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

The timeline indicates that USAPA likely would still be in existence through most, if not all of the MOU process regarding bargaining for the JCBA (summer-fall), but less likely, if at all through SLI (late this year to mid 2015 for completion of the process).



If one side in a negotiation picks the representation of the other side, the result will not be "fair and equitable." Period. Dot. End of story. (Especially when one of those sides is USAPA or APA! Neither can be trusted to be fair to another party.)

If USAPA believes this, why did they negotiate it and agree to it ?

Answer : Their strategy was to get the $$$ first and then cry foul.


I agree with you. Which is why I find it strange that the APA is using her ruling in a grievance filed under the MOU against USAPA.

I believe they are using it to SUPPORT their position, not define it, but honestly I don't know what APA is thinking in private.


I think it's more likely the MOU envisioned USAPA would be the US representation throughout the SLI. It's Silver's ruling that changed that view (in APA's way of thinking.) (That may ultimately be what happens, but I think that will be decided in a court.) Nothing in the MOU indicates that USAPA won't be involved in the SLI (if you can show where the MOU (or a APA or USAPA summary of it) says otherwise, please do.)

Incidentally, and by way of reference, can anyone demonstrate an SLI where one group took over representation for the other group and appointed the other side's negotiators to the arbitrators?

We'll have to see what a judge decides on their merits of USAPA's complaint. I certainly have no idea what a ruling on that will be. Just like arbitrations, lawsuits can go in crazy directions with unexpected results. I assume a ruling on an injunction though will be fairly quick, it's what occurs after that from USAPA next to further delay that I think could be slower.

Perhaps the parties will meet and resolve it prior to hearing ?

Again, I think if any and all parties have input to the arbitrators, it doesn't matter if USAPA is gone or APA is the single CBA. If the SLI aspects of the MOU are maintained (and they presently are) and M-B is the standard (which it is), it won't matter that much if every party submits a position asking for the world as arbitrators are generally used to that.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:27 AM
Interesting concept. So, by your thinking, the east basically steamrolled the west with a seniority cram down which is totally fine by you but you find it abhorrent the APA only wants to give all three parties equal representation in front of an arbitration panel.

The east TRIED to steamroll the west, but was unsuccessful. The MOU kills USAPA's DOH quest just as it does the Nic. And, I never said the attempt was fine by me, where did you get that? Obviously you haven't kept up with my posts, but feel free to state my feelings.

If I thought that was the APA's only intent I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just don't think that's it.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:30 AM
The SLI WILL go to arbitration.








Then why not agree with USAPA what we were unable to AGREE(yes, agree. The MOU doesn't say that the APA gets it's way on a protocol agreement) on a protocol agreement and move on to the next step? Why the APA generated delay?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:34 AM
Amazing. Nope, not obtuse. Just stupid.

@12:15:

"Now, back to my question. Are you and DF advocating revoking the pay rates for US pilots?"

So if that happens we can get our scope back right? We can pull the unlimited AA code share that we allowed. We can get back our change of control and make them structure this with US being the surviving company and lose all of those accumulated AA losses. Whatever.

I sure hope you are an anomaly among AA pilots.

I'll see your obtuse and stupid and raise you a pathetic. As far as I'm concerned you can keep EVERYTHING the East has, fleet and all. I'll be happy to keep our routes, network and order/options. It's pathetic because you fail to understand that it doesn't matter what I think, only to those that can control something like that. If I lose final tranche claim value because of this, I'll not be happy about it though, but just as many of your planetary compadres feel, I'm sure you couldn't care less as it's not a Usapian concern.

Although I know you don't speak for all East pilots, on the planet USAPA I have no doubt you are NOT an anomaly. ;)

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:37 AM
I didn't vote for USAPA and even with their election I thought they should have handled it differently. But like you, they didn't ask me.

Yet you VEHIMENTLY defend virtually everything they have done and are doing to the tune of 3000 posts in 2 years ?

I guess I see too much of a disconnect between this statement and virtually all of your previous ones. :confused:

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:41 AM
Then why not agree with USAPA what we were unable to AGREE(yes, agree. The MOU doesn't say that the APA gets it's way on a protocol agreement) on a protocol agreement and move on to the next step? Why the APA generated delay?

Uhhh............isn't it USAPA that is seeking an injuction to the MOU process unless their demands are met ?

I would think the process could continue, if it not for that. A process BTW that is already stipulated to have neutral arbitration as per M-B a last resort.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:41 AM
I'll see your obtuse and stupid and raise you a pathetic. As far as I'm concerned you can keep EVERYTHING the East has, fleet and all. I'll be happy to keep our routes, network and order/options. It's pathetic because you fail to understand that it doesn't matter what I think, only to those that can control something like that. If I lose final tranche claim value because of this, I'll not be happy about it though, but just as many of your planetary compadres feel, I'm sure you couldn't care less as it's not a Usapian concern.

Although I know you don't speak for all East pilots, on the planet USAPA I have no doubt you are NOT an anomaly. ;)

Deal, as this may come a shock to you, but I'd be happy to keep what the east has. It has everything I want as I haven't left a thing in ORD, JFK, DFW or MIA. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. We are forever tied at the hip from now on and advocating one group to take a financial hit is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If that happened YOU would pay for it.

We need to let the process play out and then join forces to face the company. Only they win we are each others enemy.

You like to put labels on, but you ignore facts. Facts like I've come to believe the west deserves it's own merger committee. Facts like I didn't even vote for USAPA. You know, those inconvenient little things that you ignore when you label me, trying to create a diversion for not answering my questions.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:43 AM
Uhhh............isn't it USAPA that is seeking an injuction to the MOU process unless their demands are met ?

I would think the process could continue, if it not for that. A process BTW that is already stipulated to have neutral arbitration as per M-B a last resort.

They asked for the arbitration panel to be named, as their right under MB. The APA asked that not be granted, then the lawsuit. Get it right.

Why the delay? If everything is above board, let the NMB put the arbitration names out there and let's get on with. Who is really delaying by asking this to be arbitrated as a MOU dispute instead and why?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:47 AM
The east TRIED to steamroll the west, but was unsuccessful. The MOU kills USAPA's DOH quest just as it does the Nic. And, I never said the attempt was fine by me, where did you get that? Obviously you haven't kept up with my posts, but feel free to state my feelings.

Ummm...........how can the MOU kill USAPA's DOH "quest" when you repeatedly say that DOH IS NOT part of USAPA's goal ?

The MOU can't kill something that doesn't exist, right ?

Unless of course, it really DOES exist. ;)

Yes, the East tried to steamroll the West and we should be careful to not confuse that failure with it never happening at all. Perhaps many Usapians are flipping out over the MOU debacle because they only see in others what truly exists within themselves ?

GrapeNuts
03-03-2014, 09:48 AM
The east TRIED to steamroll the west, but was unsuccessful. The MOU kills USAPA's DOH quest just as it does the Nic.

So, then by your statement above you think there is no settled east west seniority list because even though you went to arbitration you (east pilot group) simply decided that arbitration result was unacceptable therefore no longer applicable? And because the MOU was signed that document wipes the slate completely clean between east and west?
Please point out in the mou where it says this. I read it and never saw anything about "Killing the Nic". In fact, I saw a statement declaring just the opposite, that the MOU doesn't kill the Nic nor does it implement the Nic. So, the intent of the MOU appears to be grossly misunderstood by you if, in your opinion, the MOU killed the NIC. Again, the MOU says just the opposite.
Since the east west seniority is thus "unresolved", there is no reason to not have a west representation in the "unresolved" seniority dispute between east and west. Now, the real question is snapshot date between east and west. Merger announcement historically has been used, last I checked that was May of 2005.
So, by using the May 2005 snapshot this falls in line with industry norm.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:49 AM
Deal, as this may come a shock to you, but I'd be happy to keep what the east has. It has everything I want as I haven't left a thing in ORD, JFK, DFW or MIA. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. We are forever tied at the hip from now on and advocating one group to take a financial hit is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If that happened YOU would pay for it.

We need to let the process play out and then join forces to face the company. Only they win we are each others enemy.

You like to put labels on, but you ignore facts. Facts like I've come to believe the west deserves it's own merger committee. Facts like I didn't even vote for USAPA. You know, those inconvenient little things that you ignore when you label me, trying to create a diversion for not answering my questions.

I answer your questions, you just don't approve of the answers. Believe what you wish though.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:51 AM
So, then by your statement above you think there is no settled east west seniority list because even though you went to arbitration you (east pilot group) simply decided that arbitration result was unacceptable therefore no longer applicable? And because the MOU was signed that document wipes the slate completely clean between east and west?
Please point out in the mou where it says this. I read it and never saw anything about "Killing the Nic". In fact, I saw a statement declaring just the opposite, that the MOU doesn't kill the Nic nor does it implement the Nic. So, the intent of the MOU appears to be grossly misunderstood by you if, in your opinion, the MOU killed the NIC. Again, the MOU says just the opposite.

Good Lord, we have to go through this again? Okay, I will.

Where do you stand in this? What pilot group are you a part of?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:55 AM
They asked for the arbitration panel to be named, as their right under MB. The APA asked that not be granted, then the lawsuit. Get it right.

Why the delay? If everything is above board, let the NMB put the arbitration names out there and let's get on with. Who is really delaying by asking this to be arbitrated as a MOU dispute instead and why?

We're back to allowing USAPA to redefine the MOU to which they agreed to after they've profited from it (possibly at others expense). In effect, they are HIJACKING the process and controlling it for their best interests. HIJACK and CONTROL are two concepts anyone under the covers with USAPA should be VERY familiar with.

Sorry, but I'll never validate them or their tactics. McCaskill-Bond and neutral arbitration are in the MOU, USAPA agreed to it and to their almost certain demise prior to SLI completion. Again, perhaps an agreement will happen prior to the injunction hearing, but give USAPA an inch and they'll demand 1000 miles though and if that doesn't work, they'll just snap the ruler in half. :cool:

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 09:57 AM
So, then by your statement above you think there is no settled east west seniority list because even though you went to arbitration you (east pilot group) simply decided that arbitration result was unacceptable therefore no longer applicable? And because the MOU was signed that document wipes the slate completely clean between east and west?
Please point out in the mou where it says this. I read it and never saw anything about "Killing the Nic". In fact, I saw a statement declaring just the opposite, that the MOU doesn't kill the Nic nor does it implement the Nic. So, the intent of the MOU appears to be grossly misunderstood by you if, in your opinion, the MOU killed the NIC. Again, the MOU says just the opposite.
Since the east west seniority is thus "unresolved", there is no reason to not have a west representation in the "unresolved" seniority dispute between east and west. Now, the real question is snapshot date between east and west. Merger announcement historically has been used, last I checked that was May of 2005.
So, by using the May 2005 snapshot this falls in line with industry norm.

"h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority listS currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10."

Seniority lists currently in effect. Is the Nicolau award in effect? NO. Is a combined east/west seniority list in effect? NO.

“Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising thereunder.”

Where does the Nicolau award reside? In the TA, as it has never been implemented. What happened to the TA? It became a nullity.

If the Nicoalu award is alive and well, why did the west pilots sue claiming that USAPA failed it’s DFR by abandoning it? Their words, not mine. They(you?) lost that suit.

When we go to arbitration, the panel may use the Nic. They can do pretty much what they want. But, with the history I don't think they will.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 09:58 AM
So, then by your statement above you think there is no settled east west seniority list because even though you went to arbitration you (east pilot group) simply decided that arbitration result was unacceptable therefore no longer applicable? And because the MOU was signed that document wipes the slate completely clean between east and west?
Please point out in the mou where it says this. I read it and never saw anything about "Killing the Nic". In fact, I saw a statement declaring just the opposite, that the MOU doesn't kill the Nic nor does it implement the Nic. So, the intent of the MOU appears to be grossly misunderstood by you if, in your opinion, the MOU killed the NIC. Again, the MOU says just the opposite.
Since the east west seniority is thus "unresolved", there is no reason to not have a west representation in the "unresolved" seniority dispute between east and west. Now, the real question is snapshot date between east and west. Merger announcement historically has been used, last I checked that was May of 2005.
So, by using the May 2005 snapshot this falls in line with industry norm.

I'm afraid you're not giving the correct answers. I've learned that unless the answer is approved, it is not simply the wrong answer, it's not an answer at all. Good luck ! :rolleyes:

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 10:00 AM
We're back to allowing USAPA to redefine the MOU to which they agreed to after they've profited from it (possibly at others expense). In effect, they are HIJACKING the process and controlling it for their best interests. HIJACK and CONTROL are two concepts anyone under the covers with USAPA should be VERY familiar with.

Sorry, but I'll never validate them or their tactics. McCaskill-Bond and neutral arbitration are in the MOU, USAPA agreed to it and to their almost certain demise prior to SLI completion. Again, perhaps an agreement will happen prior to the injunction hearing, but give USAPA an inch and they'll demand 1000 miles though and if that doesn't work, they'll just snap the ruler in half. :cool:

You have stated that we are going to arbitration. USAPA didn't say "We demand our version of the protocol agreement!", they acknowledged that it failed and that we should move on. Again, what's the problem if we go on to the point where you say we are going to get to anyway? What is the real goal of the APA delaying getting there?

We all profited from the MOU. You did as well. The company certainly did with the east's scope give away. But hey, that doesn't matter does it?

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 10:02 AM
I'm afraid you're not giving the correct answers. I've learned that unless the answer is approved, it is not simply the wrong answer, it's not an answer at all. Good luck ! :rolleyes:

I back mine up with proof, you pull yours out of your uneducated rear.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:12 AM
"h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority listS currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10."

Seniority lists currently in effect. Is the Nicolau award in effect? NO. Is a combined east/west seniority list in effect? NO.

The MOU doesn't change any of the lists, negotiation does and absent that, neutral and binding arbitration in accordance with McCaskill-Bond does. Apparently USAPA disagrees with the MOU's provisions, although they inexplicably negotiated and signed the thing, so......

“Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising thereunder.”

Where does the Nicolau award reside? In the TA, as it has never been implemented. What happened to the TA? It became a nullity.

.....if the MTA (MOU provisions based on the C11 APA CBA) hasn't been FULLY implemented yet (have they ?), therefore, nothing would seem to be nullified. I would wonder if that is the case, could the creditors come back and demand US Airways pilots revert to their CBA which technically hasn't been "displaced" or rendered null until such time as their union USAPA's claim that the MOU (MTA) is in question ?

If it's not been fully implemented and one party is questioning its validity, why cant another party modify it, especially if they can demonstrate financial harm by the first party ?

I wonder just who will show up for the court proceedings besides APA, USAPA, and AAL ?

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 10:16 AM
[/FONT]

The MOU doesn't change any of the lists, negotiation does and absent that, neutral and binding arbitration in accordance with McCaskill-Bond does. Apparently USAPA disagrees with the MOU's provisions, although they inexplicably negotiated and signed the thing, so......



.....if the MTA (MOU provisions based on the C11 APA CBA) hasn't been FULLY implemented yet (have they ?), therefore, nothing would seem to be nullified. I would wonder if that is the case, could the creditors come back and demand US Airways pilots revert to their CBA which technically hasn't been "displaced" or rendered null until such time as their union USAPA's claim that the MOU (MTA) is in question ?

If it's not been fully implemented and one party is questioning its validity, why cant another party modify it, especially if they can demonstrate financial harm by the first party ?

I wonder just who will show up for the court proceedings besides APA, USAPA, and AAL ?

You are just saying the same thing over and over again.

The MTA is in effect.

Again, would you really want the company to lose it's code share and maybe face a change of control issue and all that would go with it? Just simple questions you are incapable of answering.

What financial harm would there be with the acceleration of the process, as USAPA suggested?

GrapeNuts
03-03-2014, 10:31 AM
"h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority listS currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10."

Seniority lists currently in effect. Is the Nicolau award in effect? NO. Is a combined east/west seniority list in effect? NO.

“Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising thereunder.”

Where does the Nicolau award reside? In the TA, as it has never been implemented. What happened to the TA? It became a nullity.

If the Nicoalu award is alive and well, why did the west pilots sue claiming that USAPA failed it’s DFR by abandoning it? Their words, not mine. They(you?) lost that suit.

When we go to arbitration, the panel may use the Nic. They can do pretty much what they want. But, with the history I don't think they will.

Clearly, the MOU doesn't state "Nic is killed" (paraphrase here). What the MOU does clearly state is that status quo will continue in the form of the existing seniority lists, just like the NIC was in the background when the east and west were existing separately before APA jumped into the picture (to the APA's detriment). You are taking a statement from the MOU which affirms the pre existing status quo between east and west and twisting it into something which it clearly does not mean or even say.

This is where you (plural) go off the tracks with your filtered interpretation of the MOU- the MOU, for it to pass, had to have this language of neutrality on the status quo, otherwise the majority east pilots wouldn't have passed the MOU. Judge Silver recognized this and even stated this in her opinion, to allow the MOU to move forward for the benefit of everyone, including the American pilots and the American creditors, a neutrality on the status quo was completed for the benefit of all. It was because the MOU did not provide a new east/ west seniority list is the reason Silver ruled the west case not ripe and she specifically mentions this. Again, you need to understand her ruling which, apparently you either did not read carefully enough or have a hard time understanding what she said.

The language in the MOU you cite only preserves status quo- nothing more. The APA and company lawyers correctly understand this which is why having a west committee is so vital for the APA to avoid DFR and the company to avoid liability. You seem to appreciate the importance of this concept (which Jess Pauley seems to not understand), and it is a key point for all parties going forward.

Now, assuming a west committee is present in front of the arbitrators, there are two determinants on how the east/ west list is going to go.
1. Will it be a true three way between east, west and APA
-or-
2. Will it be an east/west integration followed by the APA.

My thoughts- APA minimizes their liability by totally staying clear of the east/ west arbitration by allowing each side (east/ west) to present their case under the terms of MB and then take that result to the next seniority integration with the American pilots. I think the APA would be nuts to institute the Nic straight out, they need to punt the problem to arbitrators and stay well clear.
Arbitration pretty much insulates the APA and the company from litigation. Based on info dribbling out of the respective merger committees, I bet I am right on by predicting the APA and the company both fully endorse and demand a west presence in front of the arbitrators. Whether it is under condition 1 or 2 above remains to be seen because the MOU is vague on this concept, which is why the protocol period was put into effect to clarify these ideas. It really is not surprising USAPA had a melt down, I guess they thought that the MOU just simply "killed the nic" and therefore no reason to even have a west presence. Now that USAPA withdrew from negotiations, they basically gave the APA a clean sheet to work with and can come up with whatever they want. As each day passes, USAPA becomes closer to extinction and that is why we are seeing the USAPA hysteria reaching epic levels lately.
This is going to end with arbitration, that part is undeniable.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:31 AM
You have stated that we are going to arbitration. USAPA didn't say "We demand our version of the protocol agreement!", they acknowledged that it failed and that we should move on. Again, what's the problem if we go on to the point where you say we are going to get to anyway? What is the real goal of the APA delaying getting there?

Convoluted logic. You seem to be claiming that by APA not capitulating to USAPA's injunction that it is THEY who are delaying this process. Nonsense.

The MOU and all previous APA info I've heard put the completion of the JCBA FIRST and that would take till perhaps fall. Then, after that the parties could concentrate on SLI issues as resources of doing both make that difficult, if not impossible. The SLI process, if arbitrated would push completion of that to perhaps next Spring or summer, which is about what both DAL/NWA and UAL/CAL took.....upwards of about 2 years.

USAPA initially agreed to that and put their signature on it. Then came the $$$$ !!!! :rolleyes:

But now, USAPA wants to tip over the apple cart, slam shut the JCBA negotiations and put THEIR interests FIRST, DEMANDING that essentially all else be dropped and the SLI put on a bum's rush fast track with them taking turns in the captains seat. The ravenous bull must be fed I guess..........

We all profited from the MOU. You did as well. The company certainly did with the east's scope give away. But hey, that doesn't matter does it?

The MOU is essentially the CBA we negotiated with Parker (AKA CLA) and was being implemented in stages. US Airways pilots on the other hand were still in the soup line compared to their industry counterparts thanks to USAPA's last round of obstructionist tactics. Who knows what financial damage could occur to any or all of us should certain other parties persue remedies for USAPA's latest idiocy and I can assure you that if AA pilots should feel any pinch, I know who 99.9% of them will blame.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:34 AM
I back mine up with proof, you pull yours out of your uneducated rear.

LOL !!!

It's the only valid response anymore to you.

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 10:34 AM
Clearly, the MOU doesn't state "Nic is killed" (paraphrase here). What the MOU does clearly state is that status quo will continue in the form of the existing seniority lists, just like the NIC was in the background when the east and west were existing separately before APA jumped into the picture (to the APA's detriment). You are taking a statement from the MOU which affirms the pre existing status quo between east and west and twisting it into something which it clearly does not mean or even say.

This is where you (plural) go off the tracks with your filtered interpretation of the MOU- the MOU, for it to pass, had to have this language of neutrality on the status quo, otherwise the majority east pilots wouldn't have passed the MOU. Judge Silver recognized this and even stated this in her opinion, to allow the MOU to move forward for the benefit of everyone, including the American pilots and the American creditors, a neutrality on the status quo was completed for the benefit of all. It was because the MOU did not provide a new east/ west seniority list is the reason Silver ruled the west case not ripe and she specifically mentions this. Again, you need to understand her ruling which, apparently you either did not read carefully enough or have a hard time understanding what she said.

The language in the MOU you cite only preserves status quo- nothing more. The APA and company lawyers correctly understand this which is why having a west committee is so vital for the APA to avoid DFR and the company to avoid liability. You seem to appreciate the importance of this concept (which Jess Pauley seems to not understand), and it is a key point for all parties going forward.

Now, assuming a west committee is present in front of the arbitrators, there are two determinants on how the east/ west list is going to go.
1. Will it be a true three way between east, west and APA
-or-
2. Will it be an east/west integration followed by the APA.

My thoughts- APA minimizes their liability by totally staying clear of the east/ west arbitration by allowing each side (east/ west) to present their case under the terms of MB and then take that result to the next seniority integration with the American pilots. I think the APA would be nuts to institute the Nic straight out, they need to punt the problem to arbitrators and stay well clear.
Arbitration pretty much insulates the APA and the company from litigation. Based on info dribbling out of the respective merger committees, I bet I am right on by predicting the APA and the company both fully endorse and demand a west presence in front of the arbitrators. Whether it is under condition 1 or 2 above remains to be seen because the MOU is vague on this concept, which is why the protocol period was put into effect. Now that USAPA withdrew from negotiations, they basically gave the APA a clean sheet to work with and can come up with whatever they want. As each day passes, USAPA becomes closer to extinction and that is why we are seeing the USAPA hysteria reaching epic levels lately.
This is going to end with arbitration, that part is undeniable.

You didn't answer my question. What group are you in?

What does nullity mean to you?

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 10:37 AM
Convoluted logic. You seem to be claiming that by APA not capitulating to USAPA's injunction that it is THEY who are delaying this process. Nonsense.

The MOU and all previous APA info I've heard put the completion of the JCBA FIRST and that would take till perhaps fall. Then, after that the parties could concentrate on SLI issues as resources of doing both make that difficult, if not impossible. The SLI process, if arbitrated would push completion of that to perhaps next Spring or summer, which is about what both DAL/NWA and UAL/CAL took.....upwards of about 2 years.

USAPA initially agreed to that and put their signature on it. Then came the $$$$ !!!! :rolleyes:

But now, USAPA wants to tip over the apple cart, slam shut the JCBA negotiations and put THEIR interests FIRST, DEMANDING that essentially all else be dropped and the SLI put on a bum's rush fast track with them taking turns in the captains seat. The ravenous bull must be fed I guess..........



The MOU is essentially the CBA we negotiated with Parker (AKA CLA) and was being implemented in stages. US Airways pilots on the other hand were still in the soup line compared to their industry counterparts thanks to USAPA's last round of obstructionist tactics. Who knows what financial damage could occur to any or all of us should certain other parties persue remedies for USAPA's latest idiocy and I can assure you that if AA pilots should feel any pinch, I know who 99.9% of them will blame.

The request to move on to the arbitration came first. The APA didn't want to do that. Right? We failed to reach a protocol agreement. What else is there to do? Oh right, let the APA do what they want.

AGAIN, are you okay with the loss of code share and the change of control issues? Damn man, they aren't hard questions.

I know you are "something special in the air", but we all made concessions on this.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:39 AM
You are just saying the same thing over and over again.

The MTA is in effect.

Again, would you really want the company to lose it's code share and maybe face a change of control issue and all that would go with it? Just simple questions you are incapable of answering.

What financial harm would there be with the acceleration of the process, as USAPA suggested?

Who cares what I want ?

Others may feel differently, of course. But who says all aspects of the MOU (MTA) would be temporarily altered ?

The creditors would want to maximize their value and minimize damage to that, so they might not want to alter code-sharing and hurt themselves further, just recoup losses from the psychotic bull trashing their new china shop. I have no idea what certain other parties will do, but if I were them and I lost money, I'd be pi$$ed and looking for relief.

GrapeNuts
03-03-2014, 10:39 AM
You didn't answer my question. What group are you in?

What does nullity mean to you?

I'm with the Planet Earth group. How about you?

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 10:40 AM
I'm with the Planet Earth group. How about you?

I'm a US east pilot. Are you embarrassed to state what group you are in?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:46 AM
Clearly, the MOU doesn't state "Nic is killed" (paraphrase here). What the MOU does clearly state is that status quo will continue in the form of the existing seniority lists, just like the NIC was in the background when the east and west were existing separately before APA jumped into the picture (to the APA's detriment). You are taking a statement from the MOU which affirms the pre existing status quo between east and west and twisting it into something which it clearly does not mean or even say.

This is where you (plural) go off the tracks with your filtered interpretation of the MOU- the MOU, for it to pass, had to have this language of neutrality on the status quo, otherwise the majority east pilots wouldn't have passed the MOU. Judge Silver recognized this and even stated this in her opinion, to allow the MOU to move forward for the benefit of everyone, including the American pilots and the American creditors, a neutrality on the status quo was completed for the benefit of all. It was because the MOU did not provide a new east/ west seniority list is the reason Silver ruled the west case not ripe and she specifically mentions this. Again, you need to understand her ruling which, apparently you either did not read carefully enough or have a hard time understanding what she said.

The language in the MOU you cite only preserves status quo- nothing more. The APA and company lawyers correctly understand this which is why having a west committee is so vital for the APA to avoid DFR and the company to avoid liability. You seem to appreciate the importance of this concept (which Jess Pauley seems to not understand), and it is a key point for all parties going forward.

Now, assuming a west committee is present in front of the arbitrators, there are two determinants on how the east/ west list is going to go.
1. Will it be a true three way between east, west and APA
-or-
2. Will it be an east/west integration followed by the APA.

My thoughts- APA minimizes their liability by totally staying clear of the east/ west arbitration by allowing each side (east/ west) to present their case under the terms of MB and then take that result to the next seniority integration with the American pilots. I think the APA would be nuts to institute the Nic straight out, they need to punt the problem to arbitrators and stay well clear.
Arbitration pretty much insulates the APA and the company from litigation. Based on info dribbling out of the respective merger committees, I bet I am right on by predicting the APA and the company both fully endorse and demand a west presence in front of the arbitrators. Whether it is under condition 1 or 2 above remains to be seen because the MOU is vague on this concept, which is why the protocol period was put into effect to clarify these ideas. It really is not surprising USAPA had a melt down, I guess they thought that the MOU just simply "killed the nic" and therefore no reason to even have a west presence. Now that USAPA withdrew from negotiations, they basically gave the APA a clean sheet to work with and can come up with whatever they want. As each day passes, USAPA becomes closer to extinction and that is why we are seeing the USAPA hysteria reaching epic levels lately.
This is going to end with arbitration, that part is undeniable.

You've got a pretty good bead on this, but your audience cannot comprehend it.

The collapse of the process happened quickly and what was the first domino to fall ?

Answer : USAPA anchoring a position that muzzled the West, which led to the process of the inability to agree to protocol and now USAPA is trying an end run to try and rush the process through whereby THEY control the West position and representation and also THEY can make their DOH mantra more relative.

It's an obstructionist power play for personal gain. Apparently agreeing to all this before hand is irrelevant (as most earthly logic is on USAPA). Their signature is always written in disappearing ink and the term "binding" is not in their dictionary.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:55 AM
The request to move on to the arbitration came first. The APA didn't want to do that. Right? We failed to reach a protocol agreement. What else is there to do? Oh right, let the APA do what they want.

USAPA made a request not in accordance with the process they agreed to. Another term is "reneged". The other parties declines. USAPA then reverts to past tactics to force their desires. It's the quintessential melodrama of USAPA. I expect (and hope) the last chapter ends poorly for them.

AGAIN, are you okay with the loss of code share and the change of control issues? Damn man, they aren't hard questions.

Then clean out your ears, because they are easy answers. I SAID as far as I'm concerned, the East can keep everything they have. What about that statement do you not understand ?

I know you are "something special in the air", but we all made concessions on this.

Ahh yes, there it is.........just a matter of time before we finally hit the wall. It's the last outpost when there's no valid argument left. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a little "RJ loser" stuff or that I shouldn't be at AA in the first place dribble. Perhaps some spelling or grammatical correction might help a little too ? ;)

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 10:58 AM
I'm with the Planet Earth group. How about you?

LMFAO !!!

See..............no one ever seems to answer his questions, yet if one looks they are in fact, almost always answered.

Crazy, isn't it ?

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 11:31 AM
USAPA made a request not in accordance with the process they agreed to. Another term is "reneged". The other parties declines. USAPA then reverts to past tactics to force their desires. It's the quintessential melodrama of USAPA. I expect (and hope) the last chapter ends poorly for them.



Then clean out your ears, because they are easy answers. I SAID as far as I'm concerned, the East can keep everything they have. What about that statement do you not understand ?



Ahh yes, there it is.........just a matter of time before we finally hit the wall. It's the last outpost when there's no valid argument left. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a little "RJ loser" stuff or that I shouldn't be at AA in the first place dribble. Perhaps some spelling or grammatical correction might help a little too ? ;)

The east keeping what they have is not an answer to the code share question. Sort of like nuts reply. But hey, I understand both and I know you have trouble with the tough ones.

Have I ever called you a RJ loser? I don't think so and if you can show that I did I will apologize. Now, valid proof against flow through, that's another story.

Puros
03-03-2014, 12:01 PM
LMFAO !!!

See..............no one ever seems to answer his questions, yet if one looks they are in fact, almost always answered.

Crazy, isn't it ?
Pardon the interruption.

Interestingly, because of our inherit prejudices, it is why we (pilots) never can agree on what is "fair", hence- wait for it- the beauty of arbitration. I agree with much of what you say, Eagle, and I believe rational heads, contract law and arbitration will prevail. This integration really isn't any more difficult than the other major airlines, what ails this one is a particular group that likes to throw up road blocks every step of the way. In the end, though, a speedy conclusion will be reached because the MOU timeline has been agreed to by all parties. USAPA cannot just ignore it like they did a previous arbitration. What happens with Nicolau remains murky and that is what arbitration is for (IMO). Clearly, though, the APA has their act together and Ed James has been preparing for these attempted setbacks. I believe the timeline will pretty much be upheld in the MOU and the SLI(s) will appropriately be placed in the hands of arbitrators.

I try to stay out of things, but we will see what happens. I've posted on and off for a while and am not in the industry, but your posts, eagle, stand out. You are well reasoned in your ideas. Thanks for your input.

DrivinTheDash
03-03-2014, 12:05 PM
It was because the MOU did not provide a new east/ west seniority list is the reason Silver ruled the west case not ripe and she specifically mentions this. Again, you need to understand her ruling which, apparently you either did not read carefully enough or have a hard time understanding what she said.


Judge Silver didn't rule the most recent case not ripe; rather, she ruled that USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for abandoning the Nic in the MOU.

aquagreen73s
03-03-2014, 12:25 PM
Not exactly. The plaintiffs argued that by entering into an MOU that does not result in the implementation of the Nicolau, USAPA breached its DFR. What Silver answered was that she couldn't rule on the argument posed by the plaintiffs without another seniority list in which to compare the Nicolau against. She then went on to change the question before the court to be whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose to enter into an MOU that was neutral on its face regarding seniority. She said that they did, but nevertheless avoided a DFR breach by the slimmest of margins.

PurpleTurtle
03-03-2014, 12:28 PM
You didn't answer my question. What group are you in?

What does nullity mean to you?


I'm with the Planet Earth group. How about you?

You only answered one question of a two question test... Your score is 50%, assuming full credit for question #1. You may answer question #2 and resubmit. Deadline 24hrs.

PurpleTurtle
03-03-2014, 12:30 PM
Not exactly. The plaintiffs argued that by entering into an MOU that does not result in the implementation of the Nicolau, USAPA breached its DFR. What Silver answered was that she couldn't rule on the argument posed by the plaintiffs without another seniority list in which to compare the Nicolau against. She then went on to change the question before the court to be whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose to enter into an MOU that was neutral on its face regarding seniority. She said that they did, but by the slimmest of margins.

She tried a case that was not ripe and had to invent new questions and new thresholds.

aquagreen73s
03-03-2014, 12:32 PM
Do you not know how to read?

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 12:39 PM
Do you not know how to read?

Are you this aquagreen73?

"Mark my words, this will go exactly like Pan-Am/National. Why? Because the merger is almost a dead-ringer. Because the "unfairness" arguments from the Pan-Am/National merger have already been argued in federal court following the merger and all challenges lost. That means there is already precedent for this sort of integration. It's the safest way out for the arbitrator, the unions (national leadership, of course) and the two airlines. And that's what everyone wants; just dispose of it as soon as possible. Anybody expecting something other than a ratio based on longevity will be disappointed.

But the PanAm-National merger directly applies. And that was straight longevity for the top part of the seniority lists, and then dovetailing for the rest. That's the scenario you outlined above. It's been done before and will be done again.

As for slotting, don't assume it would be one for one or tailed in such a way that the bottom flying UAir guy is paired with the bottom AWA guy. There will be some sort of slotting but consideration will be given to age and longevity as well. I expect the number one UAIR guy on furlough won't be much worse off than the bottom UAIR pilot flying. If he were markedly worse off solely because of his "furlough" status, then we're getting away from fairness and into pure arbitrariness in dictating peoples' lives and careers. The number one guy on furlough all of a sudden falls way behind the bottom flying guy, just ahead of him. Not cool. Make your arguments and let the chips fall where they may. It'll be a subjective, gut instinct decision on the part of the arbitrator, but that is just the way it is and is the best way for all.


But I doubt the furloughees with 15 years of longevity will go to the bottom. My guess on the ultimate integration will be to integrate using a weighted longevity formula. Somebody with fifteen years at U that's now on the street is likely to integrate somewhere around senior AWA f/o or perhaps very junior captain. But that's just a guess.

Given my place, it won't make much of a difference whether there is a dovetail or longevity based integration. I suspect I'd end up right around the 90-91 hires. I'm a somewhat senior f/o by the way.

I'd like to say one more thing about the integration: the focus needs to be on results, not applications. Just because a method is applied uniformly does not make it fair. Lots of ideas seem fair, but all ideas should be put to the test and judged according to the result. It's not fairness in the application we should seek but fairness in the result because it's the result we all have to live with."


Doesn't really matter, just wondering.


So, you think the APA has your best interests in mind?

aquagreen73s
03-03-2014, 12:43 PM
Are you the guy who got a job at Piedmont at the ripe age of 20 because his dad worked there?

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 12:43 PM
Pardon the interruption.

Interestingly, because of our inherit prejudices, it is why we (pilots) never can agree on what is "fair", hence- wait for it- the beauty of arbitration. I agree with much of what you say, Eagle, and I believe rational heads, contract law and arbitration will prevail. This integration really isn't any more difficult than the other major airlines, what ails this one is a particular group that likes to throw up road blocks every step of the way. In the end, though, a speedy conclusion will be reached because the MOU timeline has been agreed to by all parties. USAPA cannot just ignore it like they did a previous arbitration. What happens with Nicolau remains murky and that is what arbitration is for (IMO). Clearly, though, the APA has their act together and Ed James has been preparing for these attempted setbacks. I believe the timeline will pretty much be upheld in the MOU and the SLI(s) will appropriately be placed in the hands of arbitrators.

I try to stay out of things, but we will see what happens. I've posted on and off for a while and am not in the industry, but your posts, eagle, stand out. You are well reasoned in your ideas. Thanks for your input.

Well, I'm all for a speedy conclusion. I'm also for all affected sub-groups having the ability to communicate directly to the arbitrators. That way, no one can say they were muzzled and it would seem to let the APA off the hook (as much as possible anyway) for DFR and it will be the arbitrators that come up with whatever they do..... and we agree that ultimately, it will be arbitrators who will decide this SLI even if USAPA's injunction is torpedoed. Regarding my own status, questions have been asked of APA about their position on AE flows seniority interpretation and I've yet to hear of any response, so that gives many of us serious cause for concern with APA. Their track record with us hasn't been any better then it was with TWA pilots.

We agree that the definition of 'fair" will likely never be agreed upon here, but thankfully the concept of pre-merger career expectations can be more easily defined. That concept should ensure that no pilot within a current list benefits unfairly over those senior to them and lists are integrated to maintain PMCE as much as possible. Since LOS/Longevity is so complicated, I don't think it will work here as it has the potential ability to jumble a given list. I've been thinking about it lately and I advocate that no list be altered in relativity and that once they are merged (by whatever equation the arbitrators choose), that a general fence system be used to correct any PMCE conflicts that the feathering process does not solve and a secondary fence system be devised when feathering in some cases actually creates a PMCE. The latter would probably have to be a fairly complicated fence formula with a lot of variation in application and specific to each affected pilot, but likely will only impact a fairly small percentage of pilots if everything previous to that was done correctly.

Just a thought anyway.

Another option would be a master list with a post fence join date and 3 separate lists until that point, but that actually seems more complex to me then the MFF (Maintain, Feather, Fence) methodology I was describing above though.

Just another thought.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 12:48 PM
Judge Silver didn't rule the most recent case not ripe; rather, she ruled that USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for abandoning the Nic in the MOU.

Which would seem neither to promote, nor prevent its future use. In effect, she punted because she knew exactly where she was punting to and that ultimately the receiver would have "NMB" on the front of his jersey indicating his team and the name "McCaskill-Bond" stenciled on the back so we all know how he would run the ball back.

eaglefly
03-03-2014, 12:51 PM
You only answered one question of a two question test... Your score is 50%, assuming full credit for question #1. You may answer question #2 and resubmit. Deadline 24hrs.

Is USAPA grading this test ?

If they are and you're not a Usapian, you fail automatically regardless of the answer. :eek:

R57 relay
03-03-2014, 01:04 PM
Are you the guy who got a job at Piedmont at the ripe age of 20 because his dad worked there?


You always answer a question with a question counselor?

I got my job because of my superior flying skills and positive employee attributes. :D

You wouldn't know where I can get a really nice $600 tie, would you? Are you feeling some pressure? Your testimony seemed to indicate that.

flybywire44
03-03-2014, 02:20 PM
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/us-airways-pilot-union-sues-american-us-airways-and-americans-pilots-over-seniority-issue.html/?nclick_check=1

Wiskey Driver
03-03-2014, 02:22 PM
You always answer a question with a question counselor?

I got my job because of my superior flying skills and positive employee attributes. :D

You wouldn't know where I can get a really nice $600 tie, would you? Are you feeling some pressure? Your testimony seemed to indicate that.

HAhahaha what makes you call him counselor, why not Doctor?

WD at AWA

PurpleTurtle
03-03-2014, 02:57 PM
Is USAPA grading this test ?

If they are and you're not a Usapian, you fail automatically regardless of the answer. :eek:

Deadline 22 hrs. No extensions granted.

DrivinTheDash
03-03-2014, 03:19 PM
Which would seem neither to promote, nor prevent its future use.

That I agree with, but repeated claims by some that she ruled that the claim was not ripe are simply false.

PurpleTurtle
03-03-2014, 05:16 PM
That I agree with, but repeated claims by some that she ruled that the claim was not ripe are simply false.

She contradicted herself about ripeness.

Regardless, she held a trial on the merits and found for the defendant (in a trial that judged USAPA's past actions--a "ripe" case) then did her best to make predictions about contingent future events (not ripe issues that were not even being litigated).

cactiboss
03-04-2014, 09:31 AM
Here is an interesting filing by the company yesterday in Silvers court.

leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ/Doc_303_Airways%27_Reply_Brief.pdf

eaglefly
03-04-2014, 10:32 AM
Here is an interesting filing by the company yesterday in Silvers court.

leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ/Doc_303_Airways%27_Reply_Brief.pdf

Looks like management is clarifying their position that footnote 15 and only footnote 15 be deleted from Silvers ruling and are concerned the bull has set its sights to trash a future china shop called Silver's Ruling in addition the MOU. Since management is roped into neutrality by M-B and the MOU and it's the fastest way to a resolution, it looks like they don't want USAPA to have the ability to not only muzzle the West, but nullify both Silvers entire ruling and the MOU provisions and thus unilaterally destroy the agreed upon process as well, which is what they are trying to do and is again also known as "having your cake and eating it too".

It also seeks to ensure USAPA goes bye-bye at some point as per the MOU process and APA can create and select committees. Since pilots on an East committee would certainly be East pilots, I don't see the problem with that, but not being able to muzzle the West is a devastating blow. I especially like the paragraph between lines 21 and 28. It seems USAPA has indicated through its choice of terms and language that they intend to ignore a judges ruling at some future point just as they've ignored an arbitrators award in the past and are trying to slip the other parties a legal rusty musket with sneaky language in their filing.

....and so the plot thickens.

NERD
03-04-2014, 10:35 AM
Is there anyway to marginalize these morons, or does the MOU protect them and allow them to **** up another merger? IE: Can AA form a "Guadalupe holdings" type scenario to just shrink the east?

Wiskey Driver
03-04-2014, 10:43 AM
Is there anyway to marginalize these morons, or does the MOU protect them and allow them to **** up another merger? IE: Can AA form a "Guadalupe holdings" type scenario to just shrink the east?
They could but it would be cost prohibited thus not smart.

WD at AWA

eaglefly
03-04-2014, 11:00 AM
They could but it would be cost prohibited thus not smart.

WD at AWA

The other parties will simply maintain the proper legal tack as that's the fastest way to plow through this nonsense. USAPA's going to try and play every card in their deck, even the joker's in the hope something sticks, but ultimately I think they'll be dealt out of the game close to schedule.

In the end, APA will determine the committees and I would think at the least, you'd have pre-merger AA, East and West. The APA will bear the entire DFR weight though, so perhaps input from other sub-groups might be best for them on that since they create the committees and in their case represent several sub-groups. On the Nic issue with separate committees for East and West, I think neither USAPA's DOH based desires nor a pure Nic ruling will end up as the final list, thus both sides can cry foul on that.

That's just my opinion, of course.

aquagreen73s
03-04-2014, 11:05 AM
Is there anyway to marginalize these morons, or does the MOU protect them and allow them to **** up another merger? IE: Can AA form a "Guadalupe holdings" type scenario to just shrink the east? Paragraph 8 of the MOU reads: "8. The protections in this Paragraph begin on the Effective Date and last until the earlier of eighteen (18) months after US Airways and the New American Airlines obtain a single operating certificate, or the date on which a JCBA and integrated seniority list are in effect."

A single operating certificate is anticipated in April of 2015, so the max that the MOU protections will exist is until October, 2016. After that, there is no bottom in terms of fleet size and block hours for any side. The West was very fortunate to have the fleet and block hour minimums from the 2005 Transition Agreement (AWA-US) because those minimums were for an indefinite period until there was a "Single Agreement" between East and West. In other words, the fleet and block hour language from the 2005 TA prevented the West from experiencing what the Ozark pilots experienced. Being free from that sort of duress, we were able to litigate for justice no matter how long it took. What's changed now for everybody is that the floor protection that the West had for the last eight years no longer exists. The party that holds up the process now had best be thinking about what happened to the Ozark pilots.

A321
03-04-2014, 11:07 AM
Is there anyway to marginalize these morons, or does the MOU protect them and allow them to **** up another merger? IE: Can AA form a "Guadalupe holdings" type scenario to just shrink the east?

No.

e. The total number of aircraft block hours scheduled to be flown by mainline US Airways East
pilots (excluding Group I aircraft) during any rolling 12-month look-back period shall be no less
than 664,426. The total number of aircraft block hours scheduled to be flown by mainline US
Airways West pilots during any rolling 12-month look-back period shall be no less than
436,850. The number of widebody positions, either maintained or pay protected, for US
Airways pilots shall be no less than 291 US Airways widebody captain positions and 475 US
Airways widebody first officer positions. A pay-protected pilot under this Paragraph 8(e) shall
not be eligible for additional pay protection under Paragraph 12(a). In the event a pilot is
eligible for pay protection under both Paragraphs 8(a) and 12(a), such pilot shall be entitled to
whichever pay protection produces the higher pay and shall also fulfill one of the minimum
number of widebody positions required herein.

aquagreen73s
03-04-2014, 11:12 AM
And in October, 2016 the company can reduce any side to zero aircraft and zero block hours.

cactiboss
03-04-2014, 11:36 AM
Is there anyway to marginalize these morons, or does the MOU protect them and allow them to **** up another merger? IE: Can AA form a "Guadalupe holdings" type scenario to just shrink the east?

The MOU itself was designed by company to destroy the east scum so they couldn't screw this merger up. The MOU authorizes the apa to take over representation prior to SLi and as soon as nmb declares apa the bargaining agent. There is no doubt the beasties will attempt to represent the usairways pilots after they are decertified but both company and apa are ready to file criminal charges.

bassslayer
03-04-2014, 12:04 PM
The MOU itself was designed by company to destroy the east scum so they couldn't screw this merger up. The MOU authorizes the apa to take over representation prior to SLi and as soon as nmb declares apa the bargaining agent. There is no doubt the beasties will attempt to represent the usairways pilots after they are decertified but both company and apa are ready to file criminal charges.

Has the NMB declared the APA the bargaining agent yet? Has single carrier status been granted yet? I'm lost. Why would USAPA give up control of anything yet? Had an interesting conversation with a fairly senior AA CA the other day on the shuttle bus. He asked me what was going in on with our side. I said I really have no idea. As a third list pilot, I really have no representation at this airline. I told him USAPA is suing over something but I don't know all the details. He said good! USAPA should sue because if "we are given any leeway you guys are f'ked. Unfortunately that's the way we've operated since I've been here." I'm the bottom and couldn't care less. You West guys that thing the APA is your friend and that they are trembling in their mismatched uniforms over a potential DFR suit from the West pilots are kidding yourselves. You've let your hatred and need for revenge cloud your vision. You think the APA is going to allow an AWA 2004 hire over their '87 hire if they can possibly do anything to prevent it? Good luck with that

eaglefly
03-04-2014, 12:05 PM
Paragraph 8 of the MOU reads: "8. The protections in this Paragraph begin on the Effective Date and last until the earlier of eighteen (18) months after US Airways and the New American Airlines obtain a single operating certificate, or the date on which a JCBA and integrated seniority list are in effect."

A single operating certificate is anticipated in April of 2015, so the max that the MOU protections will exist is until October, 2016. After that, there is no bottom in terms of fleet size and block hours for any side. The West was very fortunate to have the fleet and block hour minimums from the 2005 Transition Agreement (AWA-US) because those minimums were for an indefinite period until there was a "Single Agreement" between East and West. In other words, the fleet and block hour language from the 2005 TA prevented the West from experiencing what the Ozark pilots experienced. Being free from that sort of duress, we were able to litigate for justice no matter how long it took. What's changed now for everybody is that the floor protection that the West had for the last eight years no longer exists. The party that holds up the process now had best be thinking about what happened to the Ozark pilots.

I think paragraph 4 in the MOU (MTA) nullifies any prior Collective Bargaining Agreements once all terms and conditions of the MOU are applied to all pilots equally. I don't think a completed SLI is necessary for that to be met, so if the MTA becomes fully implemented prior to that date, then I question whether that provision could be resurrected once it's been effectively displaced by MOU fleet language (which I believe exists as part of the pre-MOU APA CLA).

Now perhaps if the parties cannot implement all provisions and that date hits, who knows ?

Right now, management doesn't want USAPA nullifying the MOU, but if the MOU IS nullified through delay, thus completely f%&king up this merger and costing creditors, shareholders, management and AA labor alike big $$$, my guess is it will be a long line to get a number for your chance to stick it to USAPA and this would likely be disasterous for East pilots. I don't think USAPA understands the real meaning of "Pyrrhic" when it comes to choosing battles because they keep charging forward in seemingly ever more dangerous ground, but USAPA getting its way and trashing the MOU would be a sure bet to fragmentation for the East with no friends to be found, in my opinion.

I'm confident they'll be tackled before they sign theirs and East pilots career death warrant, but with USAPA, you never know. :cool:

eaglefly
03-04-2014, 12:11 PM
Has the NMB declared the APA the bargaining agent yet? Has single carrier status been granted yet? I'm lost. Why would USAPA give up control of anything yet? Had an interesting conversation with a fairly senior AA CA the other day on the shuttle bus. He asked me what was going in on with our side. I said I really have no idea. As a third list pilot, I really have no representation at this airline. I told him USAPA is suing over something but I don't know all the details. He said good! USAPA should sue because if "we are given any leeway you guys are f'ked. Unfortunately that's the way we've operated since I've been here." I'm the bottom and couldn't care less. You West guys that thing the APA is your friend and that they are trembling in their mismatched uniforms over a potential DFR suit from the West pilots are kidding yourselves. You've let your hatred and need for revenge cloud your vision. You think the APA is going to allow an AWA 2004 hire over their '87 hire if they can possibly do anything to prevent it? Good luck with that

The majority of the pilots I talk to here have never read the CLA, never read the MOU and don't know much about any lawsuits. There are a few sharp cookies that consider stuff I never thought about, but they are a significant minority. The opinions and knowledge of this pilot group is like any other, so what one captain thinks shouldn't be considered as anything more then their opinion..........kinda like all of us on this forum. Most fly their trips, go home and rarely think about or get involved with the politics of this professions issues.

bassslayer
03-04-2014, 12:26 PM
The majority of the pilots I talk to here have never read the CLA, never read the MOU and don't know much about any lawsuits. There are a few sharp cookies that consider stuff I never thought about, but they are a significant minority. The opinions and knowledge of this pilot group is like any other, so what one captain thinks shouldn't be considered as anything more then their opinion..........kinda like all of us on this forum. Most fly their trips, go home and rarely think about or get involved with the politics of this professions issues.

I agree. I take what one person says (along with USAPA ) with a grain of salt. This forum paints the wrong picture for everyone. Every side has their radicals but in my experience most are in the middle. The East CA's I fly with are not only some of the best pilots I've ever flown with but are also some of the nicest individuals I've ever met. Most rarely ever bring up the West, the Nic, or the APA. I've worked many red eyes from PHX with a West guy on the JS where the three of us laughed and cracked jokes all the way to CLT. In my experience, although short, that has been the norm. The NIC could be implemented tomorrow and Cacti and WD will still be here spewing hatred and venom. As will their East counterparts that post on here. For these guys, no matter what occurs in this merger, it will never be over.

cactiboss
03-04-2014, 12:45 PM
Has the NMB declared the APA the bargaining agent yet? Has single carrier status been granted yet? I'm lost. Why would USAPA give up control of anything yet? Had an interesting conversation with a fairly senior AA CA the other day on the shuttle bus. He asked me what was going in on with our side. I said I really have no idea. As a third list pilot, I really have no representation at this airline. I told him USAPA is suing over something but I don't know all the details. He said good! USAPA should sue because if "we are given any leeway you guys are f'ked. Unfortunately that's the way we've operated since I've been here." I'm the bottom and couldn't care less. You West guys that thing the APA is your friend and that they are trembling in their mismatched uniforms over a potential DFR suit from the West pilots are kidding yourselves. You've let your hatred and need for revenge cloud your vision. You think the APA is going to allow an AWA 2004 hire over their '87 hire if they can possibly do anything to prevent it? Good luck with thatthe Mou specifies that the apa file and takeover within 4 months of merger. This is what gives the apa the power to take over and it was agreed to by usapa. As a third lister you should know that usapa is the single biggest threat not only to the west but to your career as well. No illusions about apa, just reality about usapa.

Wiskey Driver
03-04-2014, 01:50 PM
I agree. I take what one person says (along with USAPA ) with a grain of salt. This forum paints the wrong picture for everyone. Every side has their radicals but in my experience most are in the middle. The East CA's I fly with are not only some of the best pilots I've ever flown with but are also some of the nicest individuals I've ever met. Most rarely ever bring up the West, the Nic, or the APA. I've worked many red eyes from PHX with a West guy on the JS where the three of us laughed and cracked jokes all the way to CLT. In my experience, although short, that has been the norm. The NIC could be implemented tomorrow and Cacti and WD will still be here spewing hatred and venom. As will their East counterparts that post on here. For these guys, no matter what occurs in this merger, it will never be over.

Well son you don't know me well enough to make that claim! I am upset over the lack of integrity within useast. I am upset that they make deals then don't honor them. I am upset that the mess they have created will linger on here for years.

Now none of us would be upset had that award been put in place like it should have been years ago. As a third lister you are enjoying that trip between Clt and PHX where west pilots who are years ahead you should be do that trip and you should be on the 190! Don't get beside yourself here and forget that you reaping benefits of usapa's dirty a$$ bull****!

WD at AWA

R57 relay
03-04-2014, 02:27 PM
I agree. I take what one person says (along with USAPA ) with a grain of salt. This forum paints the wrong picture for everyone. Every side has their radicals but in my experience most are in the middle. The East CA's I fly with are not only some of the best pilots I've ever flown with but are also some of the nicest individuals I've ever met. Most rarely ever bring up the West, the Nic, or the APA. I've worked many red eyes from PHX with a West guy on the JS where the three of us laughed and cracked jokes all the way to CLT. In my experience, although short, that has been the norm. The NIC could be implemented tomorrow and Cacti and WD will still be here spewing hatred and venom. As will their East counterparts that post on here. For these guys, no matter what occurs in this merger, it will never be over.

Great post bassslayer. I'm as guilty as anyone for poking sticks in the cage, but I for one will be glad to see this over. Even if the Nic is used and the APA takes us to the cleaners. I will join the APA and work from within to make the best of it, just as I tried to do with USAPA.

You know that SON from WD is a badge of honor, right? He thinks we should all be on the 190.

A321
03-04-2014, 02:27 PM
Well son you don't know me well enough to make that claim! I am upset over the lack of integrity within useast. I am upset that they make deals then don't honor them. I am upset that the mess they have created will linger on here for years.


http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/2/26660/2178890-youdontsay.jpg



Now none of us would be upset had that award been put in place like it should have been years ago. As a third lister you are enjoying that trip between Clt and PHX where west pilots who are years ahead you should be do that trip and you should be on the 190! Don't get beside yourself here and forget that you reaping benefits of usapa's dirty a$$ bull****!

WD at AWA

DAD:

You are so out of place. Every. Post. There are hundreds and hundreds of third listers and only 115 E190 FO spots, so of course new hires are going to go into the Airbus.

The 190 is SO below you, huh DAD?

enjoying that trip between Clt and PHX where west pilots who are years ahead you should be do that trip and you should be on the 190!

WELL, now that sounds like a DOH argument...... hmmm kettle meet pot?

R57 relay
03-04-2014, 02:30 PM
Well son you don't know me well enough to make that claim! I am upset over the lack of integrity within useast. I am upset that they make deals then don't honor them. I am upset that the mess they have created will linger on here for years.

Now none of us would be upset had that award been put in place like it should have been years ago. As a third lister you are enjoying that trip between Clt and PHX where west pilots who are years ahead you should be do that trip and you should be on the 190! Don't get beside yourself here and forget that you reaping benefits of usapa's dirty a$$ bull****!

WD at AWA

Really? You have shown enough with just this post. He should be on the 190? Really? How do you know that? Do you have any idea how many 3rd listers we have?

Aguagreen is a sharp guy even if I don't agree with him on a lot things. Did you catch his post above about what the TA did for YOUR SIDE? You are just not as wise as you think you are.

Wiskey Driver
03-04-2014, 05:24 PM
Really? You have shown enough with just this post. He should be on the 190? Really? How do you know that? Do you have any idea how many 3rd listers we have?

Aguagreen is a sharp guy even if I don't agree with him on a lot things. Did you catch his post above about what the TA did for YOUR SIDE? You are just not as wise as you think you are.

It really matters not how many we have as NONE of them are senior to west pilots period end of story! Now if we look just a little bit deeper we also learn that you yourself are a benefactor of the usapa deceit! You were an FO in the day the award come out but thru usapa you have capture a slot that you were not entitled to and there is ZERO THAT YOU CAN SAY ON THIS FORUM TO CHANGE THAT FACT! Don't waste my and others time with your unnecessary rhetoric on how you should not have had to honor the agreement because the TA made me do it. Its a tired lame ass excuse and here you try the same exact thing with APA but they are the MAJORITY and it they who will slap the living $hit out of the east and their garbage games. Get your face ready.

WD at AWA

R57 relay
03-04-2014, 05:59 PM
It really matters not how many we have as NONE of them are senior to west pilots period end of story! Now if we look just a little bit deeper we also learn that you yourself are a benefactor of the usapa deceit! You were an FO in the day the award come out but thru usapa you have capture a slot that you were not entitled to and there is ZERO THAT YOU CAN SAY ON THIS FORUM TO CHANGE THAT FACT! Don't waste my and others time with your unnecessary rhetoric on how you should not have had to honor the agreement because the TA made me do it. Its a tired lame ass excuse and here you try the same exact thing with APA but they are the MAJORITY and it they who will slap the living $hit out of the east and their garbage games. Get your face ready.

WD at AWA

Actually they are. Under the TA, that was replaced with the MOU, that became the MTA, almost all of our 3rd listers have a better relative position than SAVE-A-DAVE! Imagine that, guys hired just a month ago having a better relative position than a guy hired 9 years ago! Who'd a thunk it, right Weak D? Keep up.

Hey, don't tell cacti, but I'm now a line holder.

Don't you just love that contract YOU brought your west pilots?

R57 relay
03-04-2014, 06:02 PM
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/2/26660/2178890-youdontsay.jpg




DAD:

You are so out of place. Every. Post. There are hundreds and hundreds of third listers and only 115 E190 FO spots, so of course new hires are going to go into the Airbus.

The 190 is SO below you, huh DAD?



WELL, now that sounds like a DOH argument...... hmmm kettle meet pot?

Hey, hey! Take it easy on old WeakD. He flew for BN and AWA was the best he could do...(that's for you wiggly)

R57 relay
03-04-2014, 06:25 PM
the Mou specifies that the apa file and takeover within 4 months of merger. This is what gives the apa the power to take over and it was agreed to by usapa. As a third lister you should know that usapa is the single biggest threat not only to the west but to your career as well. No illusions about apa, just reality about usapa.

Not file AND takeover. File.

DCA A321 FO
03-04-2014, 06:29 PM
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/2/26660/2178890-youdontsay.jpg




DAD:

You are so out of place. Every. Post. There are hundreds and hundreds of third listers and only 115 E190 FO spots, so of course new hires are going to go into the Airbus.

The 190 is SO below you, huh DAD?



WELL, now that sounds like a DOH argument...... hmmm kettle meet pot?

Dude, you rock, good luck reasoning with WD and Cacti.

cactiboss
03-04-2014, 06:44 PM
Not file AND takeover. File.

Lol, is that uscaba's next argument?

JetMonkey
03-04-2014, 07:54 PM
Actually they are. Under the TA, that was replaced with the MOU, that became the MTA, almost all of our 3rd listers have a better relative position than SAVE-A-DAVE! Imagine that, guys hired just a month ago having a better relative position than a guy hired 9 years ago! Who'd a thunk it, right Weak D? Keep up.

Hey, don't tell cacti, but I'm now a line holder.

Don't you just love that contract YOU brought your west pilots?

Gasoline thrower… Maybe a line-holding gasoline thrower now, but that's all you really are..

Capt Hindsight
03-05-2014, 03:47 AM
Gasoline thrower… Maybe a line-holding gasoline thrower now, but that's all you really are..

At the risk of sinking to "Who started it?"-

YGTBSM. Take a look at the American/US Airways Merger web board. A simple tally of the multiple (and redundant) threads started by the same Phoenix Flamers will show who's repeatedly tossing Molitovs. Name calling and insults even in the thread titles (like this thread). And then the East responds in kind and the downward spiral starts anew. In the end, neither side is blameless here as valid viewpoints wind up deeply camouflaged in vitriol.

But I suppose it serves its purpose if it keeps the author's dog from receiving a boot to the ribcage.

Rant over.
Capt H

R57 relay
03-05-2014, 05:42 AM
Gasoline thrower… Maybe a line-holding gasoline thrower now, but that's all you really are..

Guilty as charged. I should turn the other cheek, and sometimes I can. But if I'm throwing a molotav cocktail, WD and cacti use napalm. It's been a constant barrage. I'm sure you want to take them on too, right?

cactiboss
03-05-2014, 07:41 AM
At the risk of sinking to "Who started it?"-

YGTBSM. Take a look at the American/US Airways Merger web board. A simple tally of the multiple (and redundant) threads started by the same Phoenix Flamers will show who's repeatedly tossing Molitovs. Name calling and insults even in the thread titles (like this thread). And then the East responds in kind and the downward spiral starts anew. In the end, neither side is blameless here as valid viewpoints wind up deeply camouflaged in vitriol.

But I suppose it serves its purpose if it keeps the author's dog from receiving a boot to the ribcage.

Rant over.
Capt HYeah except one group is a lying, thieving, union busting, untruthful pariah of the industry that never lives up to it's agreements, as demonstrated by this thread, the other isn't.

Wiskey Driver
03-05-2014, 08:32 AM
At the risk of sinking to "Who started it?"-

YGTBSM. Take a look at the American/US Airways Merger web board. A simple tally of the multiple (and redundant) threads started by the same Phoenix Flamers will show who's repeatedly tossing Molitovs. Name calling and insults even in the thread titles (like this thread). And then the East responds in kind and the downward spiral starts anew. In the end, neither side is blameless here as valid viewpoints wind up deeply camouflaged in vitriol.

But I suppose it serves its purpose if it keeps the author's dog from receiving a boot to the ribcage.

Rant over.
Capt H

Very interesting comment and here is one that you may find even more interesting.

None of this ever would have happened but the for original actions of you east folk. I mean really, if the you had been honorable from the onset would any of this ever taken place? I am always blown away by the east expecting graciousness from us when the things that you have done to this group border criminal behavior. The east lies cheats and steals from us but you think we should all hold hands and sing kumbayah. That will never happen as we despise you and your very existence. The majority of the west pilots have already applied to the APA and willing to take our chances with them. That's a message for you and to the NMB that screams fk off east pilots and die for all we care. Sad isn't it? Well its the bed you in the east have made.

WD at AWA

nwa757
03-05-2014, 09:49 AM
WD you never explained your childish 190 comments. You think all new hires should be on the 190, dad? You make all these outlandish comments just making yourself look like a grumpy old jackass, and you can't back them up with any common sense or reasoning.

All the "sons" you are tempting to slam will one day be the majority of this pilot group. How many more years do you have til retirement?

A321
03-05-2014, 11:19 AM
I don't see what USAPA's problem is. Even if APA took over today, the McKaskill Bond law will not allow a lopsided staple job to happen. That's why we have the law. APA is bound to it. The only reason I see these antics occuring is simply as a delay tactic. USAPA is afraid the arbitration will not go their way, and since the MB decision will be final, they will string this out as far as they can until its finally inevitable to swallow the pill.

This is the problem.... and as an Airways pilot you should be concerned.

If APA succeeds in getting a single carrier determination before the seniority lists are merged, according to McCaskill-Bond, the union's internal merger policy supersedes McCaskill-Bond. All USAPA is trying to do is allow arbitration to survive as an option.

This is very different than UAL/CAL and NWA/DAL because both carriers were ALPA in those scenarios, so they used ALPA merger policy.

Right now USAPA and APA are two different unions. Once APA becomes the single bargaining unit, then the union internal merger policy applies, and MB no longer does.

Plus, they want the ability to change the MOU after USAPA is voted out....how nice.

Wiskey Driver
03-05-2014, 11:38 AM
WD you never explained your childish 190 comments. You think all new hires should be on the 190, dad? You make all these outlandish comments just making yourself look like a grumpy old jackass, and you can't back them up with any common sense or reasoning.

All the "sons" you are tempting to slam will one day be the majority of this pilot group. How many more years do you have til retirement?

Sorry you took it as childish but look at from our f/o's position 14 plus yeas in the right seat when the avg upgrade time at AWA was 7 yrs before we took over that east outfit. People hired in 2012 sitting at capts while west pilots without a single second of furlough time has to watch new hires and east pilots that were flipping burgers at the time of merger who were FURLOUGHED take slots ahead of them.

Now is that enough reasoning for you or do you need more because I can provide you over 8yrs worth of low life usapa reasoning son if you need it. Slamming 3rd listers? Nope just making damn sure they understand what they are benefiting from and at who's expense. We done?

WD at AWA

meyers9163
03-05-2014, 12:29 PM
Sorry you took it as childish but look at from our f/o's position 14 plus yeas in the right seat when the avg upgrade time at AWA was 7 yrs before we took over that east outfit. People hired in 2012 sitting at capts while west pilots without a single second of furlough time has to watch new hires and east pilots that were flipping burgers at the time of merger who were FURLOUGHED take slots ahead of them.



Now is that enough reasoning for you or do you need more because I can provide you over 8yrs worth of low life usapa reasoning son if you need it. Slamming 3rd listers? Nope just making damn sure they understand what they are benefiting from and at who's expense. We done?

WD at AWA

Normally I don't disagree with you but are you really crying about E190 CAs that pay less or equal then a group 2 FO makes? Do the West pilots have that big of an Ego over being called "Captain?"

Please come to PHL, sit reserve, make less, have fewer days off and commute to the east coast.... Makes a whole lot of sense.

DCA A321 FO
03-05-2014, 12:45 PM
east pilots that were flipping burgers at the time of merger

WD at AWA

Could you be any ruder? I don't think so. I would like to thank you for paying part of my retirement, I was in a war zone at the time of the merger.

Wiskey Driver
03-05-2014, 01:36 PM
Normally I don't disagree with you but are you really crying about E190 CAs that pay less or equal then a group 2 FO makes? Do the West pilots have that big of an Ego over being called "Captain?"

Please come to PHL, sit reserve, make less, have fewer days off and commute to the east coast.... Makes a whole lot of sense.

Actually its way beyond that and the 190 seems to just stick out more. Lets take that away and talk about furloughs at the time of the merger vs pilots that bought jobs and seats to the dance. We can talk about pilots now with 2yrs on the property flying widebody while 15yr west pilots are stuck due to no other reasons that usapa and the east unwilling to honor what they begged for.

I really can not make it any clearer than that.

WD at AWA

Wiskey Driver
03-05-2014, 01:37 PM
Could you be any ruder? I don't think so. I would like to thank you for paying part of my retirement, I was in a war zone at the time of the merger.

Then you have my utmost respect in that regard.

WD at AWA

meyers9163
03-05-2014, 01:46 PM
Actually its way beyond that and the 190 seems to just stick out more. Lets take that away and talk about furloughs at the time of the merger vs pilots that bought jobs and seats to the dance. We can talk about pilots now with 2yrs on the property flying widebody while 15yr west pilots are stuck due to no other reasons that usapa and the east unwilling to honor what they begged for.

I really can not make it any clearer than that.

WD at AWA

That I can empathize with.... The E190 CA not at all. Last guy I flew with has the 15+ years and was working this weekend.... Not exactly a sweet gig...

CanoePilot
03-05-2014, 01:55 PM
That I can empathize with.... The E190 CA not at all. Last guy I flew with has the 15+ years and was working this weekend.... Not exactly a sweet gig...

I don't understand some of these e190 captains. You make more as an airbus f/o and can hold a better line. Are some of these guys that into being a "captain" of an rj?

Wiskey Driver
03-05-2014, 01:56 PM
That I can empathize with.... The E190 CA not at all. Last guy I flew with has the 15+ years and was working this weekend.... Not exactly a sweet gig...

The majority of west pilots could care less about the 190 gig but would have liked to at least have the option.

What really sticks in the stomachs of west pilots is that furloughed east pilots and yes they had no expectation to ever come back there as the place was going out of business. The are sitting in capt seats ahead of pilots that were not furloughed and many who have never been. They get on this forum and brag about how and what they are flying and have no regard to the pilots who have given up all their career expectations so that east pilots that had no jobs can just step all over them. That's my problem here.

WD at AWA

A321
03-05-2014, 02:13 PM
We done?

WD at AWA

Sounds good. We would all love it if you were done posting.


http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/155/938/stop_posting.jpg

eaglefly
03-05-2014, 02:27 PM
Could you be any ruder? I don't think so. I would like to thank you for paying part of my retirement, I was in a war zone at the time of the merger.

Well, perhaps we should give him at least a little credit for not calling him a "little maggot", eh ? ;)

But since it is you that brings up the topic of rudeness, perhaps it would be appropriate to balance your criticism of him in that respect with consideration of a few of your own transgressions in that department in addition to your flagrant personal attack on me that was deleted by the mods, yes ?

A brief effort to skim the surface produced these little gems;

2-13-2014 - "Keep reaching daddy........"

2-13-2014 - "Who do you fly for son ?"

2-14-2014 - "Daddy, you log onto here from the crew room when you could be spending time with us kids ? UGTFSM Get a life"

* Which leads one to question exactly how old you ARE ? At least chronologically.

2-13-2014 - "Well due to the low IQ of the sand pilots, ya'll make easy targets....."

2-16-2014 - "Good luck getting a reply from Cigar boy....."

2-19-2014 - "Without hesitation, I would stick multiple broomsticks up his arse........."


We all should be appreciative of the sacrifices of those who serve, but that's not a license for hypocrisy. Just sayin.............:rolleyes:

Wiskey Driver
03-05-2014, 02:38 PM
Well, perhaps we should give him at least a little credit for not calling him a "little maggot", eh ? ;)

But since it is you that brings up the topic of rudeness, perhaps it would be appropriate to balance your criticism of him in that respect with consideration of a few of your own transgressions in that department in addition to your flagrant personal attack on me that was deleted by the mods, yes ?

A brief effort to skim the surface produced these little gems;

2-13-2014 - "Keep reaching daddy........"

2-13-2014 - "Who do you fly for son ?"

2-14-2014 - "Daddy, you log onto here from the crew room when you could be spending time with us kids ? UGTFSM Get a life"

* Which leads one to question exactly how old you ARE ? At least chronologically.

2-13-2014 - "Well due to the low IQ of the sand pilots, ya'll make easy targets....."

2-16-2014 - "Good luck getting a reply from Cigar boy....."

2-19-2014 - "Without hesitation, I would stick multiple broomsticks up his arse........."


We all should be appreciative of the sacrifices of those who serve, but that's not a license for hypocrisy. Just sayin.............:rolleyes:

well said EF!! please explain to this child that no one respects a hypocrite A321 ya might wanna remember that.

WD at AWA

A321
03-05-2014, 03:12 PM
I finally figured out how to use the ignore feature. Helps to sort out the garbage.

-Quick Links
-User Control Panel
-Edit Ignore List
-Add Wiskey Driver
-Ignorant/Stupid Pilot Removal Checklist Complete

fosters
03-05-2014, 06:27 PM
This is the problem.... and as an Airways pilot you should be concerned.

If APA succeeds in getting a single carrier determination before the seniority lists are merged, according to McCaskill-Bond, the union's internal merger policy supersedes McCaskill-Bond. All USAPA is trying to do is allow arbitration to survive as an option.

This is very different than UAL/CAL and NWA/DAL because both carriers were ALPA in those scenarios, so they used ALPA merger policy.

Right now USAPA and APA are two different unions. Once APA becomes the single bargaining unit, then the union internal merger policy applies, and MB no longer does.

Plus, they want the ability to change the MOU after USAPA is voted out....how nice.

So what is the language of their internal merger policy?

FL370
03-05-2014, 06:35 PM
Pass the popcorn please.

fosters
03-05-2014, 06:47 PM
Here is an article, can people comment if it's factually correct?

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12449062/1/american-merger-brings-another-seniority-battle-for-us-airways-pilots.html

If so, it appears USAPA is upset that the APA will be in full control of the integration at this point. Are they correct in worrying? Personally I find their position somewhat logical, they are handing the keys to the APA with no say in how the list is integrated. For all they know the APA could put all their guys at the top, and all the Airways guys at the bottom, and no one would be able to stop them?

A321
03-05-2014, 07:47 PM
So what is the language of their internal merger policy?

I don't have it, maybe an APA pilot can post it here (they all seem to post on their own APA private forum) .... but history shows what their view on seniority integration should look like. Just see TWA. Additionally, just like ALPA has done in the past, internal merger policies can be changed in a heartbeat.

Taken from the article above, this is the most important paragraph:

"The company and APA appear to be attempting to accelerate the NMB procedures for determining the bargaining representative of the pilots in order to subvert the authority of USAPA in the seniority integration process," Hummel wrote. "APA is asserting that once it becomes the bargaining representative for all of our pilots, it will have the right to control the process and the merger committee that will represent the USAPA pilots in the arbitration."

If you let the APA pilots chose who represents the US pilots during SLI arbitration/negotiations, how fair is that going to end up? That potential scenario is what has created all this.

Each side is looking out for their own, rightfully so.