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.




View Full Version : APA Protocol Agreement proposal


algflyr
06-18-2014, 08:54 PM
It seems the APA has responded to USAPA...

https://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/AboutAPA/APAPublicNews/tabid/843/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4586/Seniority-Integration-Protocol.aspx

SENIORITY INTEGRATION PROTOCOL: APA proposed a seniority integration protocol agreement today to the US Airline Pilots Association that incorporates USAPA's suggestions and addresses concerns their leadership has expressed. As you will see, the four-party protocol will include American Airlines and US Airways management as signatories. We'll update you once USAPA has responded to our proposal.


PurpleTurtle
06-18-2014, 10:18 PM
It seems the APA has responded to USAPA...

https://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/AboutAPA/APAPublicNews/tabid/843/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4586/Seniority-Integration-Protocol.aspx

SENIORITY INTEGRATION PROTOCOL: APA proposed a seniority integration protocol agreement today to the US Airline Pilots Association that incorporates USAPA's suggestions and addresses concerns their leadership has expressed. As you will see, the four-party protocol will include American Airlines and US Airways management as signatories. We'll update you once USAPA has responded to our proposal.

The West Class should not implicitly assume an arbitrator would ignore a court order that found the West Class is not entitled to participate in MB SLI arbitration.

The West had a chance to negotiate at Wye River, at the 9th, at Judge Silver's DJ, and at the DFR trial on the merits. Every time they stuck with "Nic or Nothing" and got worse than nothing. They can call Garry and tell him they want to make a deal, or they can double down and get nothing, again.

Al Czervik
06-19-2014, 02:00 AM
The USAPA response will be a lawsuit.


crzipilot
06-19-2014, 04:12 AM
Interestingly it seems as though APA is agreeing to have USAPA merger committee autonomous even after single carrier determination. The kicking point is paragraph 3.

Believe this is APA way of saying, ok if the west thinks it deserves it's own MC, then let's let it goto arbitration and let him decide. Sticking point I see is that there is a federal court ruling already answering that question.....So why let an arbitrator change that? Seems more along the lines of CYA by APA

FreighterGuyNow
06-19-2014, 04:47 AM
The USAPA response will be a lawsuit.

We've won every single one.

Al Czervik
06-19-2014, 05:17 AM
We've won every single one.

Has anyone really won anything? Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. Didn't mean to start the thread off wrong. I'd like to see USAPA work with this and keep things out of court.

dynap09
06-19-2014, 06:37 AM
The USAPA has been pushing for DOH. They have "won" every case on their road to DOH. However, that road has now stretched to a decade and DOH is not yet in effect. The west has "lost" every case, but has successfully prevented DOH.

It now appears the west may get a separate seat at the table during this protocol with east permission. That's a big change from the days when USAPA was the sole agent.

At some point folks have to move on. Seriously. Is DOH only worth this fight? For the west, this also seems like a place to lay it out there. Might not get Nic, but should get something better than DOH. USAPA also can lay out why they consider DOH the only way to merge lists.

ackattacker
06-19-2014, 07:00 AM
Interestingly it seems as though APA is agreeing to have USAPA merger committee autonomous even after single carrier determination. The kicking point is paragraph 3.

Believe this is APA way of saying, ok if the west thinks it deserves it's own MC, then let's let it goto arbitration and let him decide. Sticking point I see is that there is a federal court ruling already answering that question.....So why let an arbitrator change that? Seems more along the lines of CYA by APA

I don't see where the West gets a seat. It sets up USAPA and APA committees. Did I miss something? Cursory reading, it appears to give USAPA what they want, which is the permanence of their merger commitee. I don't see at first glance anything in there USAPA would have major objection to.

PurpleTurtle
06-19-2014, 07:54 AM
Has anyone really won anything? Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. Didn't mean to start the thread off wrong. I'd like to see USAPA work with this and keep things out of court.
The proposal was to USAPA, but it is more important for AOL to listen carefully...

The APA made it clear they will not accept responsibility to establish a seperate West Merger Committee.... Let that sink in... The West can approach USAPA and negotiate a way to participate in the retirement vacancies on the East, or they can watch.

crzipilot
06-19-2014, 10:27 AM
think it's in that section 3 there.....gives the west a chance to take it to arbitration and let the arbitrator decide. After the lawsuits that have already been decided, have a feeling USAPA will not agree to that..

ackattacker
06-19-2014, 12:23 PM
Ah, I see it. Don't know how I missed that on first skimming. Yup, a committee "claiming to represent" the West pilots can apply to the arbitrator to be designated as a separate merger committee for the West list. I think USAPA would be smart to take this deal, it still sends all three lists intact into negotiation/arbitration AND it seems to set a Dec 9, 2013 "default" snapshot for the lists (although still disputable by interested parties, guarantee the West would dispute it)

I make no predictions for how it's going to go down. But I think it's a reasonable offer. They give up their "hard won" exclusion of the West, but gain quite a bit in return. They could lose these lawsuits and find themselves completely shut out.

drinksonme
06-20-2014, 04:20 AM
^^^^^Well, to USAPA it is "regressive" and "a step backwards" per the Merger Committee update this morning. So the fun continues.

FreighterGuyNow
06-20-2014, 05:18 AM
They give up their "hard won" exclusion of the West, but gain quite a bit in return. They could lose these lawsuits and find themselves completely shut out.

I don't see it as a hard won exclusion. The West refused to participate or participated then quit.

Then, 8 West pilots form a corporation, get class status then meet with management to undermine the union.

ALPA shut down the PHL LEC by placing into trusteeship just for publically supporting an election vote - not an outcome, just take it to a vote and then let's move on.

aa73
06-20-2014, 05:53 AM
I don't see any distinction between "West" and "East," or not including West. Unless I'm mistaken, APA simply mentions "USAPA" which obviously includes west and east together, since USAPA represents both groups....right?

R57 relay
06-20-2014, 06:01 AM
I don't have a philosophical problem with the west pilots having their own merger committee, I've said that with the separate seniority list provision of the MOU/MTA I can see the logic in it. However, I can see a potential for legal issues and I sure have a problem with the APA controlling the whole process. This is why:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2012/03/railway_airline_labor_law_committee_midwinter_meet ing/mw2012rla_jermanjoshi.authcheckdam.pdf


Read the bottom of page 24, top of 25 if nothing else. I can't cut and paste my copy.

USAPA Merger Committee Update


"Click here to read the proposed Protocol Agreement from the APA, which you may have seen posted elsewhere after its release by the APA. Our Merger Counsel sent our proposals for Protocol, Union Transition, and Global Settlement Agreements to APA Counsel on April 29. This week’s APA proposal came to us unannounced, with no prior communication to our Merger Counsel. Needless to say, we were surprised to see the APA’s proposal, given APA's recent refusal to negotiate, and after we were told there would be no counterproposal.

Contrary to what you may have heard from APA communications, this APA Protocol Agreement proposal does not incorporate the compromises we offered back on April 29. In fact, the APA proposal rejects virtually every item we included in our April 29 proposal, which protected your McCaskill-Bond rights, while also resolving the impasse in the negotiations.

For example:



(1) The APA proposal continues to provide that once APA becomes the certified representative, it controls the Seniority List Integration (SLI) process, thus allowing it and the Company to make wholesale changes to the Protocol Agreement. This means US Airways pilots would waive their protections under McCaskill-Bond and only be protected by APA's Duty of Fair Representation. This was the reason we could not agree on a Protocol Agreement back in February, and is what led to the need for USAPA to file a lawsuit in the federal court in the District of Columbia compelling APA, AA and US Airways to follow the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment.



(2) The APA proposal adds a new requirement that the integrated list resulting from the M-B process would be implemented only through a Joint Collective Bargaining Process, completely controlled by APA. If this requirement were allowed, USAPA and our Merger Committee would be cut out of the process.



(3) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw its opposition to the NMB single carrier determination, paving the way for APA to become the sole bargaining representative for the combined pilot group and eliminating USAPA’s right to separately represent our pilots, thereby allowing APA to implement its plan to unilaterally control the SLI process.



(4) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw the M-B Injunction Action currently pending in federal court in the District of Columbia with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the claims in the lawsuit cannot be refiled and that we give up our right under McCaskill-Bond to proceed to arbitration now.



(5) The APA proposal includes no guarantee whatsoever that APA will refrain from interfering with USAPA’s relationship with the USAPA Merger Committee.

The TWA pilots waived their contractual language which would have ensured Allegheny-Mohawk Section 3 and 13 protections. The Merger Committee has resisted any effort to forfeit our M-B rights to ensure those protections, and rest assured, we will continue to do so.

In short, the APA proposal is regressive. It is a step backwards from the proposal we rejected in February.

Additionally, the APA posted its proposal on the web just hours after providing it to us, after agreeing to keep protocol negotiations confidential. We fully appreciate the need for appropriate transparency, but productive negotiations do not happen on the internet. While we intend to honor the confidentiality of protocol negotiations we agreed to, you should know our compromise proposal was a reasonable solution to the impasse. We cannot accept a proposal that separates us from our M-B rights and effective representation in the SLI process.

We assure you we are committed to gaining a fair and equitable result for all US Airways pilots in the SLI process. We will keep you informed of any developments in this matter as they occur.

USAPA Merger Committee"

FreighterGuyNow
06-20-2014, 06:10 AM
I don't have a philosophical problem with the west pilots having their own merger committee, I've said that with the separate seniority list provision of the MOU/MTA I can see the logic in it.

I happen to agree as well. It's the repeated end runs around the union that are the issue.

R57 relay
06-20-2014, 06:27 AM
I happen to agree as well. It's the repeated end runs around the union that are the issue.

The article has highlights of several attempts by pilot groups to do the same. I can't cut and paste from my copy, but the bottom of page 24 and top of 25 are interesting.

It's not the AA pilots or the APA. I wouldn't trust any group to control the whole process. They sure wouldn't trust USAPA to run it and I wouldn't either in their shoes.

I actually think that having a west merger committee would help drive a stake in the Nic. The MOU/MTA call for the use of seniority lists in effect. The west is calling for their own merger committee because of that. Okay, so they acknowledge that the Nic is not in effect, and never has been, but would then argue that is should be used?

R57 relay
06-20-2014, 06:34 AM
I don't see any distinction between "West" and "East," or not including West. Unless I'm mistaken, APA simply mentions "USAPA" which obviously includes west and east together, since USAPA represents both groups....right?

A simple honest question aa73. If you were in my shoes, and after reading the paper I posted, would you trust the APA to have control over the whole process? In your shoes, would you trust USAPA to have control over the whole process?

At first reading of the APA update I was encouraged. But after a few readings my skepticism returned.

aa73
06-20-2014, 06:41 AM
For me, the honest answer is always binding neutral arbitration....period. However, I have no problems with APA or USAPA putting out protocol intentions, as it's all posturing for the inevitable.

Al Czervik
06-20-2014, 06:58 AM
Seeing that we will never agree...
Has the clock started in order for this to go to arbitration? Does the protocol agreement have to be agreed upon before that happens?

R57 relay
06-20-2014, 07:12 AM
For me, the honest answer is always binding neutral arbitration....period. However, I have no problems with APA or USAPA putting out protocol intentions, as it's all posturing for the inevitable.

That's not what I asked. There can be a lot of side roads to binding neutral arbitration. If on side is controlling the process, is it neutral? What gets presented to the arbitration panel can have a bit effect on the outcome.

Mason32
06-20-2014, 07:56 AM
For me, the honest answer is always binding neutral arbitration....period. However, I have no problems with APA or USAPA putting out protocol intentions, as it's all posturing for the inevitable.

I'll agree with this too.

R57 relay
06-20-2014, 08:00 AM
I'll agree with this too.

Me too, as far as it goes, but it's not that simple.

How about my question to aa73. How do you feel about those and did you read the paper I provided a link to? Does it sound accurate?

PurpleTurtle
06-20-2014, 08:34 AM
For me, the honest answer is always binding neutral arbitration....period. However, I have no problems with APA or USAPA putting out protocol intentions, as it's all posturing for the inevitable.


I agree. Binding neutral arbitration... the only thing that makes arbitration "binding" is the provision of the legal instrument that makes it so...... the MB statute (mandatory) or a contract (negotiated).

It seems obvious at this point that the only way we are ever going to end up in binding arbitration is by a court order compelling it, regardless of what legal instrument they cite as dispositive.

aa73
06-20-2014, 09:20 AM
R57,

I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"

PurpleTurtle
06-20-2014, 09:37 AM
R57,

I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"

I think it's great that APA has changed their mind about negotiating a protocol agreement. Maybe it will be possible to agree to start binding arbitration sooner than a court could get around to compelling it.

eaglefly
06-20-2014, 09:58 AM
R57,

I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"

I read that letter the same way. It seems clear now USAPA has folded their arms and either its demands will be met or the legal kabuki dance will have to be enjoyed in its entirety. At this point, I think APA is better off standing behind the MOU and Hummels signature. Clearly, they seem very far apart in position. I do agree that binding arbitration with all sides choosing their own reps and making their own proposals or in failure of that, presenting their positions to arbitration is the best outcome. The realization of that goal doesn't require USAPA as a recognized entity and M-B doesn't require two unions to meet its protections, but USAPA will never go willingly even if that were offered.

One question for me, is what will Parkers response to any long delay in synergy realization be as what could be perhaps years roll by ?

The MOU offers a lot of flexibility there.

Another question for me is what ELSE does USAPA have up its sleeve ?

Considering the obvious reality that they planned all along to sabotage a process they agreed to, which is clear in its provisions for USAPA's dissolution at some point prior to SLI completion simply to first gain financial benefit, if they are then allowed to continue there must be another joker in their deck they intend to play further along in the game. I think any agreement now that USAPA would accept would only cancel out the previously played jokers, but they'd never agree to anything that prevents jokers still in their deck from future use. That's how USAPA plays cards and they want to stay at the table.

IMO, each capitulation to USAPA now only emboldens them to aggravate their defiant stance further and perhaps its best to let the legal process determine the path. It seems all but impossible for a compromise at this point.

eaglefly
06-20-2014, 10:02 AM
I think it's great that APA has changed their mind about negotiating a protocol agreement. Maybe it will be possible to agree to start binding arbitration sooner than a court could get around to compelling it.

USAPA would have to let the West have their own reps argue their own position at this point and we both know they'd NEVER willingly allow that. I think APA would believe they'd be in too much jeopardy if they allowed USAPA to steamroll the West like they claim they are preventing APA from doing to East pilots.

JCBA first though and then ?

PurpleTurtle
06-20-2014, 10:21 AM
USAPA would have to let the West have their own reps argue their own position at this point and we both know they'd NEVER willingly allow that. I think APA would believe they'd be in too much jeopardy if they allowed USAPA to steamroll the West like they claim they are preventing APA from doing to East pilots.

JCBA first though and then ?

There is plenty of finger pointing going on from all sides. Absent a willing participation and solution, the courts will have to compel arbitration. I really don't care which path we take.

Surprise
06-20-2014, 10:31 AM
What's the latest on Single-Carrier Status? Wasn't that supposed to be decided already?

DrivinTheDash
06-20-2014, 10:41 AM
R57,

I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"

The single element of the APA proposal that gives me pause, and that I would consider "controlling the situation," is paragraph 16:

16. Further elements of the seniority integration protocol may be established by written agreement of the parties (American, US Airways, USAPA and APA until NMB certification of a single bargaining representative; American, US Airways, and the Organization following NMB certification of a single bargaining representative); provided, that no modification shall be made in the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

This provision, it seems to me, gives APA wide latitude to modify almost everything being agreed to without input/approval/consent of the USAPA side of the house. In the US/HP merger, there was a provision for separate ratification of the JCBA, and, I believe, for changes to the transition agreement. That is, even after SCS was declared, the TA could not be changed without agreement of both east and west. I would be very comfortable with this proposal if paragraph 16 were changed to require consent of both sides of the house to agree to changes after SCS. For example:

16. Further elements of the seniority integration protocol may be established by written agreement of the parties (American, US Airways, USAPA and APA until NMB certification of a single bargaining representative; American, US Airways, and each Merger Committee following NMB certification of a single bargaining representative); provided, that no modification shall be made in the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

PurpleTurtle
06-20-2014, 10:52 AM
The single element of the APA proposal that gives me pause, and that I would consider "controlling the situation," is paragraph 16:



This provision, it seems to me, gives APA wide latitude to modify almost everything being agreed to without input/approval/consent of the USAPA side of the house. In the US/HP merger, there was a provision for separate ratification of the JCBA, and, I believe, for changes to the transition agreement. That is, even after SCS was declared, the TA could not be changed without agreement of both east and west. I would be very comfortable with this proposal if paragraph 16 were changed to require consent of both sides of the house to agree to changes after SCS. For example:
A very good point. The 2005 specifically allowed amendments by all parties that signed it. The West always argued SCS did not change that and the company always supported that position.

eaglefly
06-20-2014, 12:13 PM
What's the latest on Single-Carrier Status? Wasn't that supposed to be decided already?

Already ruled as such regarding the agents petition. In approving it, the NMB noted the pilots MTA as one supporting document. It would appear a favorable ruling of Single Carrier for the pilots is imminent. If the JCBA is held up beyond MOU provisions, it goes to arbitration (where we all will likely lose :cool:). There's a 24-month deadline for SLI arbitration as well, unless USAPA is successful in nullifying the MOU or Parker seeks its nullification as a response to USAPA's path of choice.

cactiboss
06-20-2014, 12:44 PM
Already ruled as such regarding the agents petition. In approving it, the NMB noted the pilots MTA as one supporting document. It would appear a favorable ruling of Single Carrier for the pilots is imminent. If the JCBA is held up beyond MOU provisions, it goes to arbitration (where we all will likely lose :cool:). There's a 24-month deadline for SLI arbitration as well, unless USAPA is successful in nullifying the MOU or Parker seeks its nullification as a response to USAPA's path of choice.
Yeah but that was for the pax service agents, single carrier has not been declared for the pilots. Our attorneys expected in mid April and the fact the nmb uses the pilots mou as evidence of single carrier in the pax service application while not ruling on pilots themselves has us all dumbfounded.

A321
06-20-2014, 12:52 PM
I'm proud that this thread has not fallen off the tracks and turned into a East West poo flinging argument.

Please keep it this way!

SewerPipeDvr
06-20-2014, 01:58 PM
I don't have a philosophical problem with the west pilots having their own merger committee, I've said that with the separate seniority list provision of the MOU/MTA I can see the logic in it. However, I can see a potential for legal issues and I sure have a problem with the APA controlling the whole process. This is why:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2012/03/railway_airline_labor_law_committee_midwinter_meet ing/mw2012rla_jermanjoshi.authcheckdam.pdf


Read the bottom of page 24, top of 25 if nothing else. I can't cut and paste my copy.

USAPA Merger Committee Update


"Click here to read the proposed Protocol Agreement from the APA, which you may have seen posted elsewhere after its release by the APA. Our Merger Counsel sent our proposals for Protocol, Union Transition, and Global Settlement Agreements to APA Counsel on April 29. This week’s APA proposal came to us unannounced, with no prior communication to our Merger Counsel. Needless to say, we were surprised to see the APA’s proposal, given APA's recent refusal to negotiate, and after we were told there would be no counterproposal.

Contrary to what you may have heard from APA communications, this APA Protocol Agreement proposal does not incorporate the compromises we offered back on April 29. In fact, the APA proposal rejects virtually every item we included in our April 29 proposal, which protected your McCaskill-Bond rights, while also resolving the impasse in the negotiations.

For example:



(1) The APA proposal continues to provide that once APA becomes the certified representative, it controls the Seniority List Integration (SLI) process, thus allowing it and the Company to make wholesale changes to the Protocol Agreement. This means US Airways pilots would waive their protections under McCaskill-Bond and only be protected by APA's Duty of Fair Representation. This was the reason we could not agree on a Protocol Agreement back in February, and is what led to the need for USAPA to file a lawsuit in the federal court in the District of Columbia compelling APA, AA and US Airways to follow the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment.



(2) The APA proposal adds a new requirement that the integrated list resulting from the M-B process would be implemented only through a Joint Collective Bargaining Process, completely controlled by APA. If this requirement were allowed, USAPA and our Merger Committee would be cut out of the process.



(3) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw its opposition to the NMB single carrier determination, paving the way for APA to become the sole bargaining representative for the combined pilot group and eliminating USAPA’s right to separately represent our pilots, thereby allowing APA to implement its plan to unilaterally control the SLI process.



(4) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw the M-B Injunction Action currently pending in federal court in the District of Columbia with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the claims in the lawsuit cannot be refiled and that we give up our right under McCaskill-Bond to proceed to arbitration now.



(5) The APA proposal includes no guarantee whatsoever that APA will refrain from interfering with USAPA’s relationship with the USAPA Merger Committee.

The TWA pilots waived their contractual language which would have ensured Allegheny-Mohawk Section 3 and 13 protections. The Merger Committee has resisted any effort to forfeit our M-B rights to ensure those protections, and rest assured, we will continue to do so.

In short, the APA proposal is regressive. It is a step backwards from the proposal we rejected in February.

Additionally, the APA posted its proposal on the web just hours after providing it to us, after agreeing to keep protocol negotiations confidential. We fully appreciate the need for appropriate transparency, but productive negotiations do not happen on the internet. While we intend to honor the confidentiality of protocol negotiations we agreed to, you should know our compromise proposal was a reasonable solution to the impasse. We cannot accept a proposal that separates us from our M-B rights and effective representation in the SLI process.

We assure you we are committed to gaining a fair and equitable result for all US Airways pilots in the SLI process. We will keep you informed of any developments in this matter as they occur.

USAPA Merger Committee"

I believe I told you APA would become the only union but they would let the USAPA MC continue. Sounds like that is what is going to happen. I think your fears of a TWA repeat won't happen. Besides did not the TWA pilots win 50 million or so from ALPA? All you guys are looking at how it affects you right now. I think the guys running this op are looking at a bigger picture. They need you. They need a cohesive group to get to DAL/UAL levels. They cannot get it if a third of their workforce does not cooperate. This proposal from APA is just what I thought they would want. They will be the ONLY union around as dumb ole' Judge Silver seems to have warned USAPA. They will I think allow the West a seat after single carrier IF they cannot get East/West to arbitration to settle this. It would make the MB arbitration a lot easier to predict and build the final list. I still don't believe any arbitrator will "punish" the East. I don't believe the West will get their "windfall". They will get US wide body seats if they chose and can hold one. I also don't believe USAPA will get anywhere in DC. Siegal is on it with jurisdiction. It will stay with the NMB. You guys will do OK. Not great, but OK. Boats on the hard for storm season, last of the cattle went to auction and I made a killing. Life is good. Won't be around much I have to take the bosslady on a vacation to the mountains.

R57 relay
06-20-2014, 05:03 PM
R57,

I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but have the same concerns as Drivin. Perhaps the APA should clearly state their intentions. The paper I posted and posts from eaglefly make me nervous.

PurpleTurtle
06-20-2014, 08:59 PM
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but have the same concerns as Drivin. Perhaps the APA should clearly state their intentions. The paper I posted and posts from eaglefly make me nervous.

SCS in the last merger did not resolve the SLI dispute and it won't solve it in this merger.

cactiboss
06-20-2014, 09:46 PM
SCS in the last merger did not resolve the SLI dispute and it won't solve it in this merger.

You forget last scs put usapa in charge, this scs will oust the east pilots, very different.

PurpleTurtle
06-21-2014, 02:39 AM
You forget last scs put usapa in charge, this scs will oust the east pilots, very different.

"Very different".... Ok, sure it's "very different"... Do you suggest we should implicitly assume that alone is reason enough to believe it will take a "very different" amount of time to resolve the SLI? ... Should we implicitly assume it will be a "very different" amount less time or a "very different" amount more time? :D

FreighterGuyNow
06-21-2014, 03:45 AM
is successful in nullifying the MOU or Parker seeks its nullification as a response to USAPA's path of choice.

Please post the relevant language that USAPA is seeking to nullify the MOU rather than enforce the MBond legislation.

Thx

eaglefly
06-21-2014, 06:08 AM
Please post the relevant language that USAPA is seeking to nullify the MOU rather than enforce the MBond legislation.

Thx

USAPA is playing with the concepts of "fact" and "interpretation". The FACT is the MOU REQUIRES completion of JCBA first and then SLI. USAPA is seeking to force seniority integration immediately in reverse order using its INTERPRETATION that McCaskill-Bond requires almost immediate arbitration of SLI issues now while they are A. still relevant and B. while they have the power to muzzle the West and as a result of a strategy they orchestrated to allow exactly this at exactly this early stage in SLI and pre-JCBA. Turning the timeline of the very foundation of the MOU on its head by unilaterally dissolving its fundamental path IS a nullification of its provisions, Q.E.D.

In the interim, USAPA is seeking injunctive relief until its demands are ruled on, are they not ?

They want to stop (nullify) the ENTIRE process because they want to do SLI arbitration now, while they are still relevant and in control of the West. I do accept this is falling on deaf ears as it's more then obvious USAPA has successfully filled a lot of gullible minds with emotion-filled sap.

aa73
06-21-2014, 06:19 AM
^^^ that pretty much sums it up.

PurpleTurtle
06-21-2014, 06:44 AM
USAPA is playing with the concepts of "fact" and "interpretation". The FACT is the MOU REQUIRES completion of JCBA first and then SLI. USAPA is seeking to force seniority integration immediately in reverse order using its INTERPRETATION that McCaskill-Bond requires almost immediate arbitration of SLI issues now while they are A. still relevant and B. while they have the power to muzzle the West and as a result of a strategy they orchestrated to allow exactly this at exactly this early stage in SLI and pre-JCBA. Turning the timeline of the very foundation of the MOU on its head by unilaterally dissolving its fundamental path IS a nullification of its provisions, Q.E.D.

In the interim, USAPA is seeking injunctive relief until its demands are ruled on, are they not ?

They want to stop (nullify) the ENTIRE process because they want to do SLI arbitration now, while they are still relevant and in control of the West. I do accept this is falling on deaf ears as it's more then obvious USAPA has successfully filled a lot of gullible minds with emotion-filled sap.

Everyone has a finger to point. No need to worry... The courts will sort it out.

eaglefly
06-21-2014, 08:05 AM
Everyone has a finger to point. No need to worry... The courts will sort it out.

If and when they do and it's not to USAPA's liking, will they accept it ?

We both know they won't. ;) USAPA never negotiates (although they're masters of creating that illusion), they dictate and they've alienated almost everyone they've ever had contact with including other labor groups, arbitrators, airline executives, judges and even some of their own who haven't fallen down your rabbit hole.

It sounds as though you think the possibility of USAPA being handed its hat is out of the question. Confidence is a good thing in moderation. :D

Of course the day may come when you ask yourself, "why, oh why, didn't I take the red pill ?".

R57 relay
06-21-2014, 08:32 AM
^^^ that pretty much sums it up.

Taking fly's word. Oh man.

Did this come from your DCA reps? Maybe they know more than he does.

"One speed bump was that new AAL management invited a group of former America West to the first protocol meeting. USAPA represents all pilots at USAir. USAPA refused to attend any meeting that included parties that had no legal standing. "

R57 relay
06-21-2014, 08:35 AM
USAPA is playing with the concepts of "fact" and "interpretation". The FACT is the MOU REQUIRES completion of JCBA first and then SLI. USAPA is seeking to force seniority integration immediately in reverse order using its INTERPRETATION that McCaskill-Bond requires almost immediate arbitration of SLI issues now while they are A. still relevant and B. while they have the power to muzzle the West and as a result of a strategy they orchestrated to allow exactly this at exactly this early stage in SLI and pre-JCBA. Turning the timeline of the very foundation of the MOU on its head by unilaterally dissolving its fundamental path IS a nullification of its provisions, Q.E.D.

In the interim, USAPA is seeking injunctive relief until its demands are ruled on, are they not ?

They want to stop (nullify) the ENTIRE process because they want to do SLI arbitration now, while they are still relevant and in control of the West. I do accept this is falling on deaf ears as it's more then obvious USAPA has successfully filled a lot of gullible minds with emotion-filled sap.

Ironic because all of that is YOUR interpretation.

R57 relay
06-21-2014, 08:36 AM
Aa73. Did you read the paper I posted the link to? If you were in my shoes would you be concerned?

aa73
06-21-2014, 10:47 AM
No I would not be concerned because this thing is headed for arbitration no matter how APA or USAPA slants it.

R57 relay
06-21-2014, 10:52 AM
No I would not be concerned because this thing is headed for arbitration no matter how APA or USAPA slants it.

I agree that it will end up there, but as I said before, the shape it takes on the road there can change things.

texaspilot76
06-21-2014, 11:59 AM
No I would not be concerned because this thing is headed for arbitration no matter how APA or USAPA slants it.

And, as history has shown, if the arbitration is not to USAPA's liking, they will sue and drag this out as long as they can.

aa73
06-21-2014, 11:59 AM
Correct... and thus my statement that the posturing between both unions is pretty much worthless. I don't see any "land grab" statements by APA, and usapa seems to be in quit a big hurry to do the SLI. In the end we need to allow the full process to run its course, and that's going to include plenty of posturing between both sides. Just the nature of the beast.

Edit: I was answering R57's post, not texaspilot.

texaspilot76
06-21-2014, 12:05 PM
Despite this disagreement, APA and USAPA need to work together hard on the JCBA negotiations. This is something we will all have to live with for years.

PurpleTurtle
06-21-2014, 01:42 PM
If and when they do and it's not to USAPA's liking, will they accept it ?

We both know they won't. ;) USAPA never negotiates (although they're masters of creating that illusion), they dictate and they've alienated almost everyone they've ever had contact with including other labor groups, arbitrators, airline executives, judges and even some of their own who haven't fallen down your rabbit hole.

It sounds as though you think the possibility of USAPA being handed its hat is out of the question. Confidence is a good thing in moderation. :D

Of course the day may come when you ask yourself, "why, oh why, didn't I take the red pill ?".

AOL has been litigating the same thing for seven years and still can't get a favorable ruling. Like I said the courts will settle this, and incase you haven't figured it out, the East has no quarrel with the courts handling it.

eaglefly
06-21-2014, 02:03 PM
.........and incase you haven't figured it out, the East has no quarrel with the courts handling it.

......right up until they receive what they believe to be an undesirable outcome occurs. Since we only have USAPA (East ALPA) past history to go on, I think most of us know what will happen then or some variation of it.

Why more of the same, of course. Obstruction, impedance, intransigence, demands and dictation. You can be absolutely sure USAPA has their next move in the spirit of those principles planned should the court deny USAPA's injunction.

R57 relay
06-22-2014, 08:47 AM
Funny, nobody commented on the paper I provided a link to or the supposed APA DCA update.

R57 relay
06-22-2014, 04:07 PM
Correct... and thus my statement that the posturing between both unions is pretty much worthless. I don't see any "land grab" statements by APA, and usapa seems to be in quit a big hurry to do the SLI. In the end we need to allow the full process to run its course, and that's going to include plenty of posturing between both sides. Just the nature of the beast.

Edit: I was answering R57's post, not texaspilot.

Aa73,

Have you read Judge Silver's ruling in Addington II? The APA is leaning it pretty heavily, would you agree? We'll here is a note from the transcript:



"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration."

See why we might worry? Fly likes to claim that the MOU is clear, but a federal judge had problems with it.

FreighterGuyNow
06-22-2014, 05:03 PM
Despite this disagreement, APA and USAPA need to work together hard on the JCBA negotiations. This is something we will all have to live with for years.

NAC Update: Reserve System Improvements



Both the APA and USAPA negotiating committees saw this as an opportunity to fix some of the ills of the Reserve system during these settlement discussions and to that end, members of both committees spent the last couple weeks working on the document.


Once the contract language is written, the MTA will be updated to reflect the changes.

USAPA Negotiating Advisory Committee

aa73
06-22-2014, 05:07 PM
R57, I just don't see how this will not be arbitrated. We've got 3 different groups with 3 different points of view... there is no way this will be settled by APA alone. So relax man.

FreighterGuyNow
06-22-2014, 05:33 PM
USAPA is playing with the concepts of "fact" and "interpretation". The FACT is the MOU REQUIRES completion of JCBA first and then SLI. USAPA is seeking to force seniority integration immediately in reverse order using its INTERPRETATION that McCaskill-Bond requires almost immediate arbitration of SLI issues now while they are A. still relevant and B. while they have the power to muzzle the West and as a result of a strategy they orchestrated to allow exactly this at exactly this early stage in SLI and pre-JCBA. Turning the timeline of the very foundation of the MOU on its head by unilaterally dissolving its fundamental path IS a nullification of its provisions, Q.E.D.

In the interim, USAPA is seeking injunctive relief until its demands are ruled on, are they not ?

They want to stop (nullify) the ENTIRE process because they want to do SLI arbitration now, while they are still relevant and in control of the West. I do accept this is falling on deaf ears as it's more then obvious USAPA has successfully filled a lot of gullible minds with emotion-filled sap.

Please point out your accusations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Issue an injunction permanently prohibiting APA, American and US Airways from attempting to resolve the seniority list integration dispute arising from the merger of American and US Airways through any process other than that provided by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment

eaglefly
06-22-2014, 07:38 PM
Please point out your accusations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Issue an injunction permanently prohibiting APA, American and US Airways from attempting to resolve the seniority list integration dispute arising from the merger of American and US Airways through any process other than that provided by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment

Nice little snippet there, but it doesn't tell the whole story though. I've read USAPA's complaint and I stand behind my beliefs of the post you highlighted. All can read that complaint and understand the issues anyway they please and form their own opinions. One should note in paragraph 3 that regarding their complaint, USAPA seeks relief including, but not limited to the above injunction, so that sure looks to me like their toll pass to the further mayhem options I was taking about.

AFAIC, they orchestrated this the minute they ran the protocol phase dry (deliberately) on 2/18/14 and then they began the process of INCORRECTLY applying McCaskill-Bond IMMEDIATELY and when the CCO of AAG proposed arbitration (ostensibly to resolve this SPECIFIC dispute and NOT "failed" SLI bargaining, which had yet to occur), Hummel contacted the NMB the very next day to get a list of arbitrators to begin actual M-B arbitration process of actual SLI. Remember, not a single position on seniority integration has been exchanged. USAPA goes on to highlight its complaint noting required completion of full-blown SLI arbitration in 90 days as per the MOU (you know, the one they are apparently SELECTIVELY interpreting and cherry-picking the provisions that they think work in their favor to remain relevant). This means that as per USAPA's complaint, they essentially want to complete full-blown M-B arbitration of the SLI (which hasn't failed, because it hasn't occurred) before any reasonable expectation of JCBA completion.

Aside from being clearly a deliberately rushed action, it's an inversion of the principle order of the MOU process and thus a nullification of its provisions. AAG and APA filed a grievance shortly thereafter to allege USAPA is doing just that. In essence, USAPA's complaint and SLI pursuit is really a strawman argument all built on an erroneous and self-serving foundation based on subjective and selective interpretation.

Again, the real question the judge should first ask USAPA is, since the MOU was clear about their dissolution at some pre SLI completion point in the MOU process, WHY didn't they voice their concerns BEFORE signing the agreement ?

The answer is..........well, some of us not swirling in the doldrums of hysteria or wallowing in sub-terrainian denial see the OBVIOUS answer. :cool:

But like I said, that's how USAPA rolls.................

R57 relay
06-22-2014, 07:43 PM
Nice little snippet there, but it doesn't tell the whole story though. I've read USAPA's complaint and I stand behind my beliefs of the post you highlighted. All can read that complaint and understand the issues anyway they please and form their own opinions. One should note in paragraph 3 that regarding their complaint, USAPA seeks relief including, but not limited to the above injunction, so that sure looks to me like their toll pass to the further mayhem options I was taking about.

AFAIC, they orchestrated this the minute they ran the protocol phase dry (deliberately) on 2/18/14 and then they began the process of INCORRECTLY applying McCaskill-Bond IMMEDIATELY and when the CCO of AAG proposed arbitration (ostensibly to resolve this SPECIFIC dispute and NOT "failed" SLI bargaining, which had yet to occur), Hummel contacted the NMB the very next day to get a list of arbitrators to begin actual M-B arbitration process of actual SLI. Remember, not a single position on seniority integration has been exchanged. USAPA goes on to highlight its complaint noting required completion of full-blown SLI arbitration in 90 days as per the MOU (you know, the one they are apparently SELECTIVELY interpreting and cherry-picking the provisions that they think work in their favor to remain relevant). This means that as per USAPA's complaint, they essentially want to complete full-blown M-B arbitration of the SLI (which hasn't failed, because it hasn't occurred) before any reasonable expectation of JCBA completion.

Aside from being clearly a deliberately rushed action, it's an inversion of the principle order of the MOU process and thus a nullification of its provisions. AAG and APA filed a grievance shortly thereafter to allege USAPA is doing just that. In essence, USAPA's complaint and SLI pursuit is really a strawman argument all built on an erroneous and self-serving foundation.

Again, the real question the judge will first ask USAPA is, since the MOU was clear about their dissolution at some pre SLI completion point in the MOU process, WHY didn't they voice their concerns BEFORE signing the agreement ?

The answer is..........well, some of us not swirling in the doldrums of hysteria or wallowing in sub-terrainian denial see the OBVIOUS answer. :cool:

But like I said, that's how USAPA rolls.................

When did Judge Silver's ruling come out, before or after the MOU vote?

R57 relay
06-22-2014, 07:50 PM
R57, I just don't see how this will not be arbitrated. We've got 3 different groups with 3 different points of view... there is no way this will be settled by APA alone. So relax man.

Don't worry, I'm relaxed. Just hope the APA sees it like you do and not an opportunity. It's my 4th merger and I've seen a lot of bad behavior and rationalization from all sides for their actions.

PurpleTurtle
06-22-2014, 07:55 PM
Nice little snippet there, but it doesn't tell the whole story though. I've read USAPA's complaint and I stand behind my beliefs of the post you highlighted. All can read that complaint and understand the issues anyway they please and form their own opinions. One should note in paragraph 3 that regarding their complaint, USAPA seeks relief including, but not limited to the above injunction, so that sure looks to me like their toll pass to the further mayhem options I was taking about.

AFAIC, they orchestrated this the minute they ran the protocol phase dry (deliberately) on 2/18/14 and then they began the process of INCORRECTLY applying McCaskill-Bond IMMEDIATELY and when the CCO of AAG proposed arbitration (ostensibly to resolve this SPECIFIC dispute and NOT "failed" SLI bargaining, which had yet to occur), Hummel contacted the NMB the very next day to get a list of arbitrators to begin actual M-B arbitration process of actual SLI. Remember, not a single position on seniority integration has been exchanged. USAPA goes on to highlight its complaint noting required completion of full-blown SLI arbitration in 90 days as per the MOU (you know, the one they are apparently SELECTIVELY interpreting and cherry-picking the provisions that they think work in their favor to remain relevant). This means that as per USAPA's complaint, they essentially want to complete full-blown M-B arbitration of the SLI (which hasn't failed, because it hasn't occurred) before any reasonable expectation of JCBA completion.

Aside from being clearly a deliberately rushed action, it's an inversion of the principle order of the MOU process and thus a nullification of its provisions. AAG and APA filed a grievance shortly thereafter to allege USAPA is doing just that. In essence, USAPA's complaint and SLI pursuit is really a strawman argument all built on an erroneous and self-serving foundation based on subjective and selective interpretation.

Again, the real question the judge should first ask USAPA is, since the MOU was clear about their dissolution at some pre SLI completion point in the MOU process, WHY didn't they voice their concerns BEFORE signing the agreement ?

The answer is..........well, some of us not swirling in the doldrums of hysteria or wallowing in sub-terrainian denial see the OBVIOUS answer.

But like I said, that's how USAPA rolls.................

I have jumped on APA, AWA, and USAir Jumpseats, and have had pilots of all above on the jump seat. The only ones that care about the SLI are the West pilots... and a couple of them have been obsessed about lecturing me, even while on the jumpseat. I just smile with satisfaction and ignore them. :)

:)

:)

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 05:12 AM
I have jumped on APA, AWA, and USAir Jumpseats, and have had pilots of all above on the jump seat. The only ones that care about the SLI are the West pilots... and a couple of them have been obsessed about lecturing me, even while on the jumpseat. I just smile with satisfaction and ignore them.

:)

:)

So you're saying most AA pilots (or even none) care about seniority integration ?

Ummm, OK. If you say so..............:cool:

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 10:04 AM
So you're saying most AA pilots (or even none) care about seniority integration ?

Ummm, OK. If you say so..............:cool:

You can't read.


I said that no pilots, in jumpseat conversations, cared about the SLI, except for some West pilots that were obsessed with preaching their opinions.

:)

You could pass yourself off as a West pilot, even without your $675 tie.

:)

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 11:33 AM
You can't read.


I said that no pilots, in jumpseat conversations, cared about the SLI, except for some West pilots that were obsessed with preaching their opinions.

I can read, you're just not very proficient at stating a coherent point.

Of course they aren't going to get into that too deeply riding a jumpseat (if they're smart ;)). So if you're not insinuating all AA pilots (or AA pilots in general) don't "care" about this SLI, then given the reality of my first point in this post, you're really saying nothing of consequence at all. :rolleyes:


You could pass yourself off as a West pilot, even without your $675 tie.



From the beedy eyes of a maroon Usapian tortoise, I have no doubt I am believed to be a boogyman from the West. Every maroon Usapian tortoise knows Western boogymen are hiding everywhere. Isn't that taught in USAPA's basic indoc course ?

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 12:12 PM
I can read, you're just not very proficient at stating a coherent point.

Of course they aren't going to get into that too deeply riding a jumpseat (if they're smart )). So if you're not insinuating all AA pilots (or AA pilots in general) don't "care" about this SLI, then given the reality of my first point in this post, you're really saying nothing of consequence at all. :rolleyes:



You still can't read. What high school did you go to?

Of course pilots don't normally "care" about SLI when riding the jumpseat... that was the point. The West pilots are the one's obsessed enough to deny me the jump seat, or have lectured me about the Nic, the evils of USAPA, and their lawyers. Everyone else is smart enough to "have no care about it."

The west pilots just get louder when I smile like a cat that ate the mouse. :)

:)

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 01:25 PM
You still can't read. What high school did you go to?

My high school was on Earth. Perhaps that's the problem ?

There were English, Spanish and French classes, but no Usapian classes. Go figure. :cool: Come to think of, my astronomy class may have touched on it when reviewing galaxies far, far away. As hard as I've tried, admittedly I just can't learn your language. Your logic, I understand completely. It involves those who want to be cats like you who enjoy eating mice like those in the West and soon AA. ;)

Of course pilots don't normally "care" about SLI when riding the jumpseat... that was the point. The West pilots are the one's obsessed enough to deny me the jump seat, or have lectured me about the Nic, the evils of USAPA, and their lawyers. Everyone else is smart enough to "have no care about it."

Jumpseat denials ?

Who knew you were rambling about that. Never mind...........


The west pilots just get louder when I smile like a cat that ate the mouse.


.....and wouldn't a victory for USAPA's ploy fatten up this not-so-innocent little cats tummy once again ?

That is, of course, unless it is pyrrhic. :o

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 01:35 PM
Wine and DOH have one thing in common.... Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc... :)

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 01:49 PM
Wine and DOH have one thing in common.... Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc... :)

I told you I don't speak Usapian...........could you translate that into English ?

Dolphinflyer
06-23-2014, 02:37 PM
Latest update from APA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seniority Integration Protocol: The Facts
You may have seen APA's seniority integration protocol proposal last week and a subsequent USAPA Merger Committee blast accusing the APA Seniority Integration Committee of blindsiding them with a "regressive" proposal. Although we have been patient in an attempt to forge an acceptable agreement, it is now time to set the record straight on some of the misrepresentations contained in the USAPA Merger Committee blast.

To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding.

Last week, before we passed our latest protocol proposal, APA Vice President FO Neil Roghair was invited to speak at USAPA domicile meetings in Charlotte and Philadelphia. The APA talking points were simple:

APA wants a smooth and amicable integration with the pilots of US Airways.
APA is committed to the process that we all agreed to and ratified in the MOU.
APA will take its duty of fair representation to all American Airlines pilots seriously.
FO Roghair communicated that the protocol agreement for seniority integration should be complete and that the only major barriers have been superfluous and unacceptable USAPA demands, including:

Obligating APA to pay post-single carrier USAPA bills, including costs of its current headquarters
Maintaining USAPA's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process
Paying for ongoing litigation expenses in Addington and any subsequent DFR cases
Recognizing USAPA as a party to the protocol agreement even after USAPA ceases to be the certified bargaining representative (contrary to its own position in the Addington litigation, the judge's ruling in that case and the specific language of the MOU)
These are not commitments APA is willing to entertain and are what brought seniority protocol negotiations to a halt.

As FO Roghair stated, APA does not take its duty of fair representation lightly. Contrary to USAPA's assertions otherwise, and at their suggestion, APA has proposed that the West pilots be afforded the opportunity to petition a neutral arbitrator for the right to a separate and independent merger committee in the seniority integration process. USAPA, the company and APA would have the right to object or support a West merger committee. The arbitrator would then rule on the issue, and the process would move forward based on the arbitrator's final and binding decision on the West merger committee's status.

At the CLT meeting, a member of the USAPA Merger Committee briefed those in attendance on why the committee found the prospect of a separate West merger committee acceptable. And, upon hearing APA's proposal, the USAPA secretary-treasurer remarked that this proposal came directly from USAPA. This highlights that the USAPA Merger Committee's blast, dated June 20, 2014, is entirely inconsistent with statements made by USAPA leadership to APA.

The USAPA national officers specifically requested that APA disregard the USAPA transition and settlement proposals and present a "seniority protocol only" proposal to USAPA so that we can all point to a seniority integration proposal that represents the path forward. Thus, we made our protocol proposal last week at USAPA's specific request. It could not have surprised them.

Regardless of the circumstances that resulted in APA's passing the protocol document, the proposal was fully consistent with requests and understandings agreed to by USAPA's leadership and communicated to pilots at the CLT and PHL meetings. It meets every legitimate "ask" from USAPA in the seniority protocol. Among other things:

The proposal guaranteed that the USAPA Merger Committee would continue in its current form after APA becomes the single bargaining representative. The USAPA committee would remain completely autonomous, and APA would formally agree not to interfere with its staffing, decision-making, operations or funding. Who gives direction to that committee is not within APA's control.
The proposal accepted USAPA's position that APA not have the unilateral right to appoint a West merger committee but the West pilots be required to seek representation through final and binding arbitration.
The proposal accepted USAPA's procedure for the selection of the seniority Arbitration Board.
While the proposal provided that the company and APA would be the only parties to the protocol after APA becomes the single bargaining representative — which is consistent with the RLA and the duty of fair representation and has always been APA's position — APA would formally commit that it had no legal authority to make any modification to the protected status of the USAPA Merger Committee.
Nothing in the APA proposal was a surprise to USAPA or its merger counsel. The only written additions to our latest proposal were to codify the previous understanding that USAPA would drop its litigation in federal district court asking for an alternative process to MOU paragraph 10 and to provide that USAPA drop its opposition at the NMB to the single-carrier determination.

The day after our counsel transmitted the protocol proposal, the USAPA Merger Committee released its blast to USAPA membership, in which they claimed our proposal blindsided them and was unacceptable and regressive. They listed five points of deep concern.

Their first four points object to APA suggesting that everyone follow the process spelled out in MOU paragraph 10 — the process approved 11-0 by the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives and ratified by three-quarters of the USAPA membership. USAPA's position that complying with a signed agreement (the MOU) is somehow optional can only be described as beyond the pale. At no time did USAPA suggest that any other party to the MOU could unilaterally disregard its provisions.
The fifth point of objection is that APA is asserting the right to change and control their merger committee. That is false. The very premise of our protocol proposal is that the merger committees, including specifically the USAPA Merger Committee, will be autonomous and independent after the certification of a single bargaining representative. While APA will be the bargaining representative and will not formally agree to USAPA party status, USAPA may continue as an organization, with a board and national officers, albeit at their own expense.
This seniority integration process will be difficult and complex. APA is deeply committed and obligated to an autonomous USAPA Merger Committee. APA also has a duty to guarantee a process that will give the West pilots a fair opportunity to make their case in arbitration.

The APA Seniority Integration Committee made our proposal public for simple reasons. The proposal reflects every commitment we have made to USAPA with regard to the seniority integration process and contradicts false assertions being made by USAPA in an effort to delay a single-carrier finding by the NMB. It is time to agree to a protocol before this affects the ability of APA and USAPA to move forward in areas of mutual interest, such as the JCBA.

Please forward this email to every US Airways pilot you know and tell them that APA is committed to the fair process that we all signed up for.

Dolphinflyer
06-23-2014, 02:46 PM
This might be easier to read:

Seniority Integration Protocol: The Facts > Allied Pilots Association (http://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/ForTheMedia/APAInformationHotline/APAInformationHotlineArchive/tabid/950/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4607/Seniority-Integration-Protocol-The-Facts.aspx)

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 02:53 PM
This might be easier to read:

Seniority Integration Protocol: The Facts > Allied Pilots Association (http://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/ForTheMedia/APAInformationHotline/APAInformationHotlineArchive/tabid/950/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4607/Seniority-Integration-Protocol-The-Facts.aspx)

Both sides disagree about the applicability of MB and the MOU. One can read both sides in the court filings in D.C. Court.

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 03:00 PM
Latest update from APA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seniority Integration Protocol: The Facts
You may have seen APA's seniority integration protocol proposal last week and a subsequent USAPA Merger Committee blast accusing the APA Seniority Integration Committee of blindsiding them with a "regressive" proposal. Although we have been patient in an attempt to forge an acceptable agreement, it is now time to set the record straight on some of the misrepresentations contained in the USAPA Merger Committee blast.

To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding.

Last week, before we passed our latest protocol proposal, APA Vice President FO Neil Roghair was invited to speak at USAPA domicile meetings in Charlotte and Philadelphia. The APA talking points were simple:

APA wants a smooth and amicable integration with the pilots of US Airways.
APA is committed to the process that we all agreed to and ratified in the MOU.
APA will take its duty of fair representation to all American Airlines pilots seriously.
FO Roghair communicated that the protocol agreement for seniority integration should be complete and that the only major barriers have been superfluous and unacceptable USAPA demands, including:

Obligating APA to pay post-single carrier USAPA bills, including costs of its current headquarters
Maintaining USAPA's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process
Paying for ongoing litigation expenses in Addington and any subsequent DFR cases
Recognizing USAPA as a party to the protocol agreement even after USAPA ceases to be the certified bargaining representative (contrary to its own position in the Addington litigation, the judge's ruling in that case and the specific language of the MOU)
These are not commitments APA is willing to entertain and are what brought seniority protocol negotiations to a halt.

As FO Roghair stated, APA does not take its duty of fair representation lightly. Contrary to USAPA's assertions otherwise, and at their suggestion, APA has proposed that the West pilots be afforded the opportunity to petition a neutral arbitrator for the right to a separate and independent merger committee in the seniority integration process. USAPA, the company and APA would have the right to object or support a West merger committee. The arbitrator would then rule on the issue, and the process would move forward based on the arbitrator's final and binding decision on the West merger committee's status.

At the CLT meeting, a member of the USAPA Merger Committee briefed those in attendance on why the committee found the prospect of a separate West merger committee acceptable. And, upon hearing APA's proposal, the USAPA secretary-treasurer remarked that this proposal came directly from USAPA. This highlights that the USAPA Merger Committee's blast, dated June 20, 2014, is entirely inconsistent with statements made by USAPA leadership to APA.

The USAPA national officers specifically requested that APA disregard the USAPA transition and settlement proposals and present a "seniority protocol only" proposal to USAPA so that we can all point to a seniority integration proposal that represents the path forward. Thus, we made our protocol proposal last week at USAPA's specific request. It could not have surprised them.

Regardless of the circumstances that resulted in APA's passing the protocol document, the proposal was fully consistent with requests and understandings agreed to by USAPA's leadership and communicated to pilots at the CLT and PHL meetings. It meets every legitimate "ask" from USAPA in the seniority protocol. Among other things:

The proposal guaranteed that the USAPA Merger Committee would continue in its current form after APA becomes the single bargaining representative. The USAPA committee would remain completely autonomous, and APA would formally agree not to interfere with its staffing, decision-making, operations or funding. Who gives direction to that committee is not within APA's control.
The proposal accepted USAPA's position that APA not have the unilateral right to appoint a West merger committee but the West pilots be required to seek representation through final and binding arbitration.
The proposal accepted USAPA's procedure for the selection of the seniority Arbitration Board.
While the proposal provided that the company and APA would be the only parties to the protocol after APA becomes the single bargaining representative — which is consistent with the RLA and the duty of fair representation and has always been APA's position — APA would formally commit that it had no legal authority to make any modification to the protected status of the USAPA Merger Committee.
Nothing in the APA proposal was a surprise to USAPA or its merger counsel. The only written additions to our latest proposal were to codify the previous understanding that USAPA would drop its litigation in federal district court asking for an alternative process to MOU paragraph 10 and to provide that USAPA drop its opposition at the NMB to the single-carrier determination.

The day after our counsel transmitted the protocol proposal, the USAPA Merger Committee released its blast to USAPA membership, in which they claimed our proposal blindsided them and was unacceptable and regressive. They listed five points of deep concern.

Their first four points object to APA suggesting that everyone follow the process spelled out in MOU paragraph 10 — the process approved 11-0 by the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives and ratified by three-quarters of the USAPA membership. USAPA's position that complying with a signed agreement (the MOU) is somehow optional can only be described as beyond the pale. At no time did USAPA suggest that any other party to the MOU could unilaterally disregard its provisions.
The fifth point of objection is that APA is asserting the right to change and control their merger committee. That is false. The very premise of our protocol proposal is that the merger committees, including specifically the USAPA Merger Committee, will be autonomous and independent after the certification of a single bargaining representative. While APA will be the bargaining representative and will not formally agree to USAPA party status, USAPA may continue as an organization, with a board and national officers, albeit at their own expense.
This seniority integration process will be difficult and complex. APA is deeply committed and obligated to an autonomous USAPA Merger Committee. APA also has a duty to guarantee a process that will give the West pilots a fair opportunity to make their case in arbitration.

The APA Seniority Integration Committee made our proposal public for simple reasons. The proposal reflects every commitment we have made to USAPA with regard to the seniority integration process and contradicts false assertions being made by USAPA in an effort to delay a single-carrier finding by the NMB. It is time to agree to a protocol before this affects the ability of APA and USAPA to move forward in areas of mutual interest, such as the JCBA.

Please forward this email to every US Airways pilot you know and tell them that APA is committed to the fair process that we all signed up for.

The "leaders" can keep pointing fingers at each other and attempt to negotiate a deal on public message boards, they can sit down and hammer out a solution in a private room, or they can fight it out in court until the judge compels a resolution.

No matter what path they take, the clock is ticking... and pilots are hitting age 65.

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 03:10 PM
latest update from apa:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the apa talking points were simple:

Apa wants a smooth and amicable integration with the pilots of us airways. ...

:D:D:D

The Leopard swears it has changes its spots.

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 03:10 PM
The "leaders" can keep pointing fingers at each other and attempt to negotiate a deal on public message boards, they can sit down and hammer out a solution in a private room, or they can fight it out in court until the judge compels a resolution.

No matter what path they take, the clock is ticking... and pilots are hitting age 65.

The leadership of APA and/or USAPA are attempting to negotiate a deal on a public message board ?

Wow. Could you clue us in as to where ? It would certainly be interesting to read.

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 03:13 PM
The leadership of APA and/or USAPA are attempting to negotiate a deal on a public message board ?

Wow. Could you clue us in as to where ? It would certainly be interesting to read.

Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc. :cool:

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 03:40 PM
Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc. :cool:

Another empty post. :cool:

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 04:10 PM
Another empty post. :cool:

Age 60 List for August 2014 Bid Month

Click here for the PDF of Age 60 Captains and First Officers, listed alphabetically, for use in bidding for August 2014. The attached list of affected pilots is also available on the top of the NAC page of the USAPA members' site. For your convenience, we are also providing the following alternative formats of the Age 60 data on the USAPA Web site:
..
The Age 60 list, provided to help address Age 60 pairing conflicts, will continue to be updated every month as information is received from the Company. Best efforts were made to ensure that the list is complete and accurate; however, we are not responsible for omissions.

USAPA Negotiating Advisory Committee

Tic, Toc. Tic, Toc...

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 04:30 PM
Age 60 List for August 2014 Bid Month

Click here for the PDF of Age 60 Captains and First Officers, listed alphabetically, for use in bidding for August 2014. The attached list of affected pilots is also available on the top of the NAC page of the USAPA members' site. For your convenience, we are also providing the following alternative formats of the Age 60 data on the USAPA Web site:
..
The Age 60 list, provided to help address Age 60 pairing conflicts, will continue to be updated every month as information is received from the Company. Best efforts were made to ensure that the list is complete and accurate; however, we are not responsible for omissions.

USAPA Negotiating Advisory Committee

Tic, Toc. Tic, Toc...

Tic, Toc, Shmick, Shmock.......Who cares ? As I said, in the short-term the East can capture more upgrades and movement, but what's more important in the long run is actual placement on the list and short-term post merger advancement on the East won't alter that equation (although I have no doubt hungry felines like yourself ravenous to burp as many mice down at others expense is salivatingly enticing ;)).

Take your upgrades for the next couple of years, all it will likely mean is future frustration as those on the AA side and perhaps the West who didn't will move ahead to better seniority when they do. I'll raise your "Tic, Tock" and see you a "ring, ring" as in crew scheduling assigning you another RAP. :D

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 04:39 PM
Tic, Toc, Shmick, Shmock.......Who cares ? As I said, in the short-term the East can capture more upgrades and movement, but what's more important in the long run is actual placement on the list and short-term post merger advancement on the East won't alter that equation (although I have no doubt hungry felines like yourself ravenous to burp as many mice down at others expense is salivatingly enticing ;)).

Take your upgrades for the next couple of years, all it will likely mean is future frustration as those on the AA side and perhaps the West who didn't will move ahead to better seniority when they do. I'll raise your "Tic, Tock" and see you a "ring, ring" as in crew scheduling assigning you another RAP. :D

"frustration of the AA side"... that is funny. The APA is tickled purple to delay this. Purple I say. Tickled Purple. :D

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 05:18 PM
"frustration of the AA side"... that is funny. The APA is tickled purple to delay this. Purple I say. Tickled Purple. :D

Can you read ? What Usapain high school did you attend ?

The "frustration" I referred to was the EAST side when some of the Usapians like yourself see there is no long-term payoff for a year or two of faster upgrades and that it wasn't "tic, toc" they heard, but "Jack squat". :)

Purple...........you mean as is "The PurpleTurtle is hopped up on Purple juice" ?

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 06:06 PM
Can you read ? What Usapain high school did you attend ?

The "frustration" I referred to was the EAST side when some of the Usapians like yourself see there is no long-term payoff for a year or two of faster upgrades and that it wasn't "tic, toc" they heard, but "Jack squat". :)

Purple...........you mean as is "The PurpleTurtle is hopped up on Purple juice" ?


Yes. Yes... The doom of the future is certain, and will be epic. Tic, toc.

algflyr
06-23-2014, 06:07 PM
Did anyone expect anything different from the APA? They are not new to this game and know how to play it very well. They will keep this up until an agreement is reached (and not in public), or a judge compels them to arbitrate. I think you will then see an agreement forged on how this will finally play out...

I personally don't have an issue with the West pilots having a committee to negotiate for their separate seniority list at US Airways in the SLI with American as long as they play by the rules of engagement. I don't think they can put forth the Nic anymore that the East can put forth a DOH combined list.

We will have 3 lists merged together on the merits of each list and what each has at the time of this merger.

I think the West should have West pilots defending their list and the positions they bring. I think they should be able to do that under USAPA to be legal under the NMB rules. Maybe some basic language like the APA tried to introduce so their committee cannot be influenced by USAPA East. But to try and introduce the NIC would not be in their scope as that would be trying to negotiate for the East. The Nic was never a legal list as we never attained a joint contract, and now that cannot happen. To try and use that would ignore the terms of the TA reached that produced the Nic in the first place. So the West must present their list and have it integrated on how they best see their pilots benefiting from the integration of the 3 lists. Be that DOH or status position, it's up to them.

And the East will be responsible for presenting their list and desires of methodology for integration. They cannot present a combined DOH East/West list as that would be negotiation for the West. So the East will fight for only their list, be it DOH, status or something else.

And of course the APA will defend their list how they see fit. But they will be responsible only for their list, not those of USAirways...

Just my views...

cactiboss
06-23-2014, 06:19 PM
Just my views...

So, let's give the west a voice but don't allow them the freedom to argue what they desire, in effect, put a muzzle on them and prevent them from showing the arbitrators what has transpired the last 8 years.

crzipilot
06-23-2014, 06:23 PM
So, let's give the west a voice but don't allow them the freedom to argue what they desire, in effect, put a muzzle on them and prevent them from showing the arbitrators what has transpired the last 8 years.


Yes, because you have lost all the court cases regarding the NIC......So come up with another game plan...

I would imagine every East pilot would be fine with a west merger committee if it was agreed upon the NIC was never mentioned anywhere....

I would assume you would not agree to such....

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 06:24 PM
So, let's give the west a voice but don't allow them the freedom to argue what they desire, in effect, put a muzzle on them and prevent them from showing the arbitrators what has transpired the last 8 years.

He was more generous than you ever got from the judge. Ya gotta give him that.

flybywire44
06-23-2014, 06:32 PM
If APA had such a strong case they would not need to make these types of announcements.

I'm waiting for arbitration/litigation to progress a Protocol Agreement.

There is nothing to discus until we get some direction from a "higher power."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

eaglefly
06-23-2014, 07:08 PM
Did anyone expect anything different from the APA? They are not new to this game and know how to play it very well. They will keep this up until an agreement is reached (and not in public), or a judge compels them to arbitrate. I think you will then see an agreement forged on how this will finally play out...

I don't see APA as avoiding arbitration, so why would they need to be compelled to arbitrate. They've now publicly stated their beliefs and intentions that they have no interest in controlling what the East decides for itself on the SLI path, so it seems pretty difficult to then go back on their public word. That would be something East ALPA (USAPA) would do, a'la the Nicolau award. If they did that now, they really WOULD be in deep kimche and pushovers in a DFR suit. I think the APA pulled their pants down today with that blast and MUST now allow an unmolested and fair process for all INCLUDING the East.

I personally don't have an issue with the West pilots having a committee to negotiate for their separate seniority list at US Airways in the SLI with American as long as they play by the rules of engagement. I don't think they can put forth the Nic anymore that the East can put forth a DOH combined list.

Rules of Engagement ? I'm sure that exists at Top Gun, but where is a description of that in SLI's ?

Why couldn't the West put forth the Nic or the East put forth DOH if they so choose ? What exactly prevents that ?

Wouldn't that be part of a fair and equitable process for each group to put forth any argument they please in negotiation or arbitration unimpeded ?

You seem to be advocating certain arguments are off limits and that is not in accordance with a free and open process. I thought USAPA wanted a free and open process ?

We will have 3 lists merged together on the merits of each list and what each has at the time of this merger.

That's one argument. I'm sure there are others. Anyone is free to argue any position, however the flipside of that is that there is risk in getting too greedy with arbitrators. Didn't the East learn that the hard way once before ?

I think the West should have West pilots defending their list and the positions they bring. I think they should be able to do that under USAPA to be legal under the NMB rules. Maybe some basic language like the APA tried to introduce so their committee cannot be influenced by USAPA East. But to try and introduce the NIC would not be in their scope as that would be trying to negotiate for the East. The Nic was never a legal list as we never attained a joint contract, and now that cannot happen. To try and use that would ignore the terms of the TA reached that produced the Nic in the first place. So the West must present their list and have it integrated on how they best see their pilots benefiting from the integration of the 3 lists. Be that DOH or status position, it's up to them.

Are you guys really that frightened of the Nic ? You seem to be essentially saying the West should be free to argue any East-approved position (non-Nic) they want provided they are represented and controlled by USAPA and yet, it's unfair for APA to represent and control the East ?

You see no contradiction in that position ?

And the East will be responsible for presenting their list and desires of methodology for integration. They cannot present a combined DOH East/West list as that would be negotiation for the West. So the East will fight for only their list, be it DOH, status or something else.

Unless the East/West SLI is arbitrated first with everything on the table for supposedly neutral arbitrators to consider and rule upon and THEN, that result is put forth against the AA list for negotiation and/or arbitration, someone isn't getting fair representation. It seems some think that "fair and equitable" doesn't exist UNTIL the SLI with AA occurs. Fair and equitable has to either be evident to solve the East/West issues first or if not, then for fair and equitable to exist in a sub-sequent 3-way scenario, all 3 parties must enjoy that ability. In SLI's, statement of position doesn't occur in a vacuum, i.e., you can't just argue "your" list. The interrelationship of the desired final product compels all parties to argue not just aspects of their list but others as well.


And of course the APA will defend their list how they see fit. But they will be responsible only for their list, not those of USAirways...

Just my views...

How about a 3-way arbitration where everyone gets to put forth their position for their own benefit and at their own peril ? Sounds good to me...............if only USAPA would allow that to occur. As long as the Nic is off limits, the West is mute (and moot) and the process is dead until a black robe revives it.

PurpleTurtle
06-23-2014, 07:42 PM
If APA had such a strong case they would not need to make these types of announcements.

I'm waiting for arbitration/litigation to progress a Protocol Agreement.

There is nothing to discus until we get some direction from a "higher power."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


B u l l s e y e.

algflyr
06-23-2014, 08:28 PM
... They've now publicly stated their beliefs and intentions ... so it seems pretty difficult to then go back on their public word.

Really? What the APA put out today was purely a negotiating strategy... If they decide to take another direction, don't think they will even think: but we already said something else publicly, were committed to what we said...



Why couldn't the West put forth the Nic or the East put forth DOH if they so choose ? What exactly prevents that ?

...

You seem to be advocating certain arguments are off limits and that is not in accordance with a free and open process. I thought USAPA wanted a free and open process ?

The bottom line is that the Nic came with certain conditions that must be met before it could be implemented. Those conditions were never met. That's why the Nic isn't being used by the company... for anything... If an arbitrator was to somehow impose the Nic now, they would be over-ruling the conditions that were needed for the award to be imposed. The Nic came with the caveat that the East (and West) must vote on it to approve it. Using it now without a vote would go against the very legal process that created it in the first place.



there is risk in getting too greedy with arbitrators. Didn't the East learn that the hard way once before ?

Indeed. I for one was amazed that East ALPA didn't come off their DOH mantra once the arbitrator said it wouldn't fly... I also think that's why the Nic is punitive against the East. Definitely a bad move by East ALPA... I think the whole industry learned from that mistake.

As long as the Nic is off limits, the West is mute (and moot) and the process is dead until a black robe revives it.

We all have to play the hand we were dealt. It may very well take a "black robe" to finally get this entire mess behind us... Either way, I will be glad when it's finally over... :) What will we argue about then??

crzipilot
06-24-2014, 04:40 AM
Possibly we can argue who has the oldest flight attendants on their trips?!?!

R57 relay
06-24-2014, 12:25 PM
Fellow Pilots,

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

By now, you have probably read the USAPA Merger Committee’s June 20 update on the Protocol Agreement and APA’s response to it. As pilots, you have witnessed many contract negotiations over the years and the occasional hyperbolic language that sometimes accompanies it. What we’re seeing now is no exception.

Hyperbole can be dangerous. Hyperbolic language between Kennedy and Khrushchev at the Vienna Summit in 1961 escalated a year later into the Cuban Missile Crisis. For the month of October in 1962 the world believed that the two super powers would most certainly be going to war. Thankfully a truce ensued, and paradoxically, the Cuban Missile Crisis led to an immediate improvement in US-Soviet relations.

USAPA is committed to representing the interests of all of our pilots in the Seniority List Integration (SLI) process. That means protecting their rights under McCaskill-Bond, leading to a fair and equitable SLI through a neutral arbitration process. The Officers, the BPR, and our pilots fully support our Merger Committee. We are committed to working with the APA and have attempted to secure a fair Protocol Agreement for quite some time. We will not tire until the job is done.

Yesterday I asked the APA leadership to meet with USAPA to negotiate a fair Protocol Agreement. I await their response in good faith and refrain from any additional rhetoric. Only with a fair agreement can we withdraw the pending McCaskill-Bond Injunction action. We will not waive our rights under McCaskill-Bond and look forward to reaching an agreement that fully protects the rights of ALL pilots until the SLI is complete.

It’s time to end the hyperbole and disarm the missiles. Our Merger Committee stands ready for détente.



Regards,

Gary Hummel, President

Al Czervik
06-24-2014, 12:39 PM
Was McCaskill Bond agreed to in the MOU?

eaglefly
06-24-2014, 12:59 PM
Really? What the APA put out today was purely a negotiating strategy... If they decide to take another direction, don't think they will even think: but we already said something else publicly, were committed to what we said...

If it's "strategy" to publicly confirm you will not interfere with another parties merger negotiating committee, then that's bad strategy if you're clandestinely planning on screwing them over later. I think some of you guys have wallowed for so long in the ethically bankrupt cesspool of USAPA that you assume that's normal behavior.

The bottom line is that the Nic came with certain conditions that must be met before it could be implemented. Those conditions were never met. That's why the Nic isn't being used by the company... for anything... If an arbitrator was to somehow impose the Nic now, they would be over-ruling the conditions that were needed for the award to be imposed. The Nic came with the caveat that the East (and West) must vote on it to approve it. Using it now without a vote would go against the very legal process that created it in the first place.

The Nic was the result of agreed upon binding arbitration which was subverted by the East in the only manner possible, i.e., the creation of a rogue union by will of the East majority. The rest of your assertions in this paragraph are simply USAPA revisionist history mixed with convoluted desire, nothing more, nothing less.

Indeed. I for one was amazed that East ALPA didn't come off their DOH mantra once the arbitrator said it wouldn't fly... I also think that's why the Nic is punitive against the East. Definitely a bad move by East ALPA... I think the whole industry learned from that mistake.

Everyone except USAPA, the afterbirth of East ALPA. The same wide-eyed zombies still roam the Earth. :cool:

We all have to play the hand we were dealt. It may very well take a "black robe" to finally get this entire mess behind us... Either way, I will be glad when it's finally over... :) What will we argue about then??

Seriously ? :eek:

USAPA isn't playing the hand they were dealt now. They sat down at the table, signed the MOU and now want to knock over the table once AA pilots staked the East with pay and pension raises. They sat down at a different table before with Nicolau and when they decided their hand wouldn't win then, they knocked over that table too. I too hope for a quick resolution and that involves a judge driving a stake through the heart of USAPA.

eaglefly
06-24-2014, 01:09 PM
Fellow Pilots,

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

By now, you have probably read the USAPA Merger Committee’s June 20 update on the Protocol Agreement and APA’s response to it. As pilots, you have witnessed many contract negotiations over the years and the occasional hyperbolic language that sometimes accompanies it. What we’re seeing now is no exception.

Hyperbole can be dangerous. Hyperbolic language between Kennedy and Khrushchev at the Vienna Summit in 1961 escalated a year later into the Cuban Missile Crisis. For the month of October in 1962 the world believed that the two super powers would most certainly be going to war. Thankfully a truce ensued, and paradoxically, the Cuban Missile Crisis led to an immediate improvement in US-Soviet relations.

USAPA is committed to representing the interests of all of our pilots in the Seniority List Integration (SLI) process. That means protecting their rights under McCaskill-Bond, leading to a fair and equitable SLI through a neutral arbitration process. The Officers, the BPR, and our pilots fully support our Merger Committee. We are committed to working with the APA and have attempted to secure a fair Protocol Agreement for quite some time. We will not tire until the job is done.

Yesterday I asked the APA leadership to meet with USAPA to negotiate a fair Protocol Agreement. I await their response in good faith and refrain from any additional rhetoric. Only with a fair agreement can we withdraw the pending McCaskill-Bond Injunction action. We will not waive our rights under McCaskill-Bond and look forward to reaching an agreement that fully protects the rights of ALL pilots until the SLI is complete.

It’s time to end the hyperbole and disarm the missiles. Our Merger Committee stands ready for détente.



Regards,

Gary Hummel, President

Comrade Hummel is a character, no doubt. I especially like the baseless claim that "USAPA is committed to representing the interests of all of our pilots....". This is laughable to most, considering their past and present actions. Personally, I see this statement as.......well, simply rhetoric. USAPA's placement of their missiles was done on the sly as they were acting as sheep prior to the MOU signing and then once signed, the sheep pelt immediately came off and the wolf was once again in full view.

Negotiating with wolves with aimed missiles has very poor prospects. Again, I think the most prudent move now is for a coalition to disarm the wolves by annihilation. Hopefully, only one more judge will be needed to make that coalition effective and complete. :rolleyes:

eaglefly
06-24-2014, 01:22 PM
Was McCaskill Bond agreed to in the MOU?

Yup. That's the foundation for the "process" of SLI. McCaskill-Bond doesn't require two unions and in consideration of the MOU CLEARLY envisioning the dissolution of USAPA at some point prior to SLI completion and possible prior to JCBA completion, the MOU was crafted to ensure the three separate merger committees can represent their pilots and that M-B IS the process even with one union and multiple merger committees. APA publicly confirmed that yesterday along with listing SPECIFIC issues of USAPA failure and non-compliance which........drum roll, please............was termed "rhetoric" today by USAPA. Vague, empty statements of rebuttal clarifying nothing and confirming less are what's considered rhetoric and are apparently the hallmark of Usapian doctrine.

Frisco727
06-24-2014, 02:02 PM
Comrade Hummel is a character, no doubt. I especially like the baseless claim that "USAPA is committed to representing the interests of all of our pilots....". This is laughable to most, considering their past and present actions. Personally, I see this statement as.......well, simply rhetoric. USAPA's placement of their missiles was done on the sly as they were acting as sheep prior to the MOU signing and then once signed, the sheep pelt immediately came off and the wolf was once again in full view.

Negotiating with wolves with aimed missiles has very poor prospects. Again, I think the most prudent move now is for a coalition to disarm the wolves by annihilation. Hopefully, only one more judge will be needed to make that coalition effective and complete. :rolleyes:


USAPA isn't a Cold War era Superpower rather a banana republic.

drinksonme
06-24-2014, 04:34 PM
Let me get this straight, the President of USAPA just compared the negotiations of two pilot groups to that of a nuclear crisis, between 2 superpowers, that COULD HAVE ENDED THE WORLD. Holy ****, now I've seen it all. Talk about a simile that is an epic failure. That's either a big stretch or a big head.....your call. This is a serious disgrace, to reply in this manner to APA's most recent communication regarding the PROTOCOL AGREEMENT! Again, a PROTOCOL AGREEMENT! There is no counter to APA statements, nor a rebuttal of their facts. It comes off a desperate pep assembly speech for a team that has no chance of winning. Very sad display....

flybywire44
06-24-2014, 05:06 PM
Let me get this straight, the President of USAPA just compared the negotiations of two pilot groups to that of a nuclear crisis, between 2 superpowers, that COULD HAVE ENDED THE WORLD. Holy ****, now I've seen it all. Talk about a simile that is an epic failure. That's either a big stretch or a big head.....your call. This is a serious disgrace, to reply in this manner to APA's most recent communication regarding the PROTOCOL AGREEMENT! Again, a PROTOCOL AGREEMENT! There is no counter to APA statements, nor a rebuttal of their facts. It comes off a desperate pep assembly speech for a team that has no chance of winning. Very sad display....

GH was actually alluding to the fact that this conflict will last as long as the cold war did... Which will be roughly 6 years. :eek:

eaglefly
06-24-2014, 05:07 PM
Let me get this straight, the President of USAPA just compared the negotiations of two pilot groups to that of a nuclear crisis, between 2 superpowers, that COULD HAVE ENDED THE WORLD. Holy ****, now I've seen it all. Talk about a simile that is an epic failure. That's either a big stretch or a big head.....your call. This is a serious disgrace, to reply in this manner to APA's most recent communication regarding the PROTOCOL AGREEMENT! Again, a PROTOCOL AGREEMENT! There is no counter to APA statements, nor a rebuttal of their facts. It comes off a desperate pep assembly speech for a team that has no chance of winning. Very sad display....

Bombastic, grandiose speeches have proven effective in influencing the simple-minded.

eaglefly
06-24-2014, 05:13 PM
GH was actually alluding to the fact that this conflict will last as long as the cold war did... Which will be roughly 6 years. :eek:

The Cold War lasted well over 40 years. If Commandant Hummel believes that, he's clueless. I expect allied forces will overcome the USAPA bloc in surprisingly short order.

algflyr
06-24-2014, 05:37 PM
I expect allied forces will overcome the USAPA bloc in surprisingly short order.

Nice play on words... I like it. :)

eaglefly
06-24-2014, 05:48 PM
Nice play on words... I like it. :)

Always good to have a sense of humor in trying times like these. If one can't laugh at all this while still debating it, one is slouching toward a total crack-up. ;)

algflyr
06-24-2014, 05:54 PM
Always good to have a sense of humor in trying times like these. If one can't laugh at all this while still debating it, one is slouching toward a total crack-up. ;)

I agree 100%

R57 relay
06-25-2014, 05:47 AM
The Cold War lasted well over 40 years. If Commandant Hummel believes that, he's clueless. I expect allied forces will overcome the USAPA bloc in surprisingly short order.

Commandant Hummel. Your in company with some of your favorite people. A lot of US guys don't like Hummel, accuse him of wanting to give up on the Nic just to suck up to the APA and move along.

R57 relay
06-25-2014, 06:04 AM
[QUOTE=eaglefly;1671291
USAPA isn't playing the hand they were dealt now. They sat down at the table, signed the MOU and now want to knock over the table once AA pilots staked the East with pay and pension raises. They sat down at a different table before with Nicolau and when they decided their hand wouldn't win then, they knocked over that table too. I too hope for a quick resolution and that involves a judge driving a stake through the heart of USAPA.[/QUOTE]

You are wrong, again. You are getting to be like cacti, saying the same old BS over and over again, hoping it will stick.

The US pilots all agreed to the MOU. The WEST decided to vote yes for it, all the while planning on suing AFTER it passed. THAT'S what happened and it changed everything with that lawsuit and Judge Silver's ruling.

In that case she was asked to give the west pilots representational status and she said no, but the APA and company still want to do it. AOL LLC went so far as to produce their own merger committee!

I asked you to show me a SLI where the a former CBA didn't participate in it. Or one that the new CBA ran the whole show.

Was the whole SCS a ploy by the APA all along, or an issue after the WEST pilots lawsuit. In other mergers, which came first, the SLI or SCS? Let's hear it.

crzipilot
06-25-2014, 11:03 AM
Interesting reads....

Something about having a transition agreement, and negotiating for awhile, The viola APA gets single carrier and they go on their merry way. Seems simple enough? Granted, don't know the history that well, but some of the statements in those documents seem to be mirroring something that is happening present day?! Or no?

http://www.amrcaseinfo.com/pdflib/955_15463.pdf

http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/Archive/TWA/nmbpositionstmt.pdf