TheManager

Same "Family Tree" as your sources, and other sources involved with the strategy. It was all about the DB plan when it came to the pilots. Having two bites at the apple instead of one was the bonus.

Splash

Sounds simple!

Give me the step-by-step strategy the DPA would have used to counter the stomping administered under the protection of bankruptcy laws. Please make it as detailed as possible.

Thanks in advance.

Bucking Bar

Splash, this applies to your post as well:

Very, very, true.

The most frustrating lie promulgated on us during the bankruptcy was that scope concessions were forced on us. If you look at the actual negotiator's notes and publications, ALPA was proud of the "credits" it received by selling jobs. In truth ALPA bargained scope rather than fight to clarify the murky gray area which exists between bankruptcy law and the Railway Labor Act.

There is a debate whether management can ask for, and a Judge agree to, interference in collective bargaining representation, or job protection provisions to remove scope in a 113c. The law is conflicting, but clearly the union should take the view that favors us, particularly in our case since Congress actually exempted us via their recognition of the Railway Labor Act in our bargaining.

While the Supreme Court has not weighed in yet, the decisions on the Federal Appellate Court level have been going in the favor of transportation unions. Certainly economic portions of agreements can be modified by the Courts, but thus far NO Judge has touched job protection provisions, or scope.

We should not forget the goal of a bankruptcy court is to facilitate the reorganization of a business so as to best protect stakeholders. The law is in the favor of employees who's livelihoods are more greatly effected by smaller changes (than say multi billion dollar investment banks) and of course employees are needed to staff the going concern if the business is to work its way out of bankrupcty.

(legalese warning):

Bucking Bar

Splash,

Refer to my post above. DPA would be completely overwhelmed and incapable of handling anything on the level of what ALPA dealt with in the previous decade. That sort of expertise is very cutting edge and very expensive.

At the end of the day history should show ALPA chose to negotiate strategically to maximize the benefits to the greatest number of members. Rather than risk the matter in the hands of a Judge, they negotiated consensual agreements.

Certainly some economic gains such as pensions would have been lost in the bankruptcy. The money simply was not there to save them. I believe ALPA was very effective in maximizing what they could get (again I stress protecting current members).

They negotiated away scope BECAUSE THAT WAS ALREADY THE TREND. They did not have to. Again, they saw a way to monetize a part of the contract deemed to be of little value to current members. Again, they maximized the potential recovery as best they could. But know, based on the law, scope was protected. (if scope wasn't protected in bankruptcy then it would have had no value when it was sold).

What still concerns me is that the views of ALPA leadership have still not changed when it comes to selling job protection. There is no real difference between contract 2012 and bankruptcy. Both are bargaining events.

Splash

Now post the rulings on the ability to use Self Help during Ch 11.

TheManager

This is not the strategy DPA would have used. It is the strategy DALPA should have.

Instead of buying into the intense and lop sided lounge presentations that delivered the messsage of "this is the best you'll get from the bk process" put on by DALPA, we should have thought and voted more critically.

Did we need to take the first offer. No. DALPA would go on to emphasize that by rejecting this TA, we would be hammered by the judge, process ends.

Not true.

Exhibit 1. Hawaiian Airlines. Rejected the first TA that was produced because it reached too far. The went back and after working on it produced the 2nd TA that was ratified.

This TA

* Did not terminate their pension.

* Had significantly higher payrates.

* Had significantly higher DC.

Exhibit 2. One item USAir included that DALPA did not was a snap back provision that can be found in their LOA 93.

Sure would have been nice to have one of those negotiated into tour agreenment.

These were all examples of groups that went into the process prior to us.

Instead, DALPA sold it with F. U. D.

Splash

Sophie thought the boy would be stronger.

Splash

Different judge.
Different contract.
Different circumstances.

You need to prove that the DPA would do it differently.

Bucking Bar

Sorry, I did not follow that. Can we use another metaphor?

Reroute

How's that LOA 93 working for them? They get their snap backs yet? How about their note for their pension termination? Any word on what they got from their claim?

Thanks in advance.