gloopy

I seriously doubt the TWA pilots will see much of anything. And I hope they don't because its going to come out of our hide one way or another. Why should we pay for their seniority re-do (in the form of retro pay) that they agreed to (waiving their scope)? Didn't they even hire their own outside lawyers that told them the same thing? What if they called AA's bluff? Would we have a strong, powerful TWA flying around to make them whole? Or would they have just slid on over to AA at their "rightful place" like nothing happened, smearing egg all over the faces of the APA who had to eat a DOH or full on relative integration? Does anyone honestly believe either would have happened?

While I think the AT pilots would have gotten more had they pursued arbitration I base that assumption on their scope and merger language being strong enough to prevent being operated separtely while phased out. If they failed to bargain for that then how is that ALPA's falut? Again, they are trying to get a financial windfall off our backs. If SWA's second offer was better than the first like they thought it would be, would they be lining up to send thank you checks to their former union? While I am no ALPA fan, I hope ALPA sues them to the ends of the earth to recover all costs of this bogus junk lawsuit.

Its becomming SOP to auto-sue after an SLI and that needs to stop. Let them do a USAPA pipe dream if they think that will result in a magical re-do. And while TWA may have "won" so far, so did the USFL and I think their "award" will be similar.

Sink r8

I've always been amazed that their fragemntation langauge actually allowed them to be operated under a subsidiary, where they could be shrunk to oblivion. It didn't sound to me thought they actually had enough to force arbitration. At that point, they were playing with a weak hand. They took a risk of turning down the first deal, expecting somewhat better terms. That would have struck me as a fairly smart calculation at the time, but then again, I've never read their fragmentation language.

Thing is, had they sent this to the membership, they would have had to either recommend against it in the hope of a better second deal (which would never have come), or recommend it because their position was obviously weak. Either way, they lose.

I think every arbitration has always come with a suit. What might be a little "new" is the tendency not to accept the results, ever (USAPA). I don't blame TWA or AT for trying. They'll win or lose on the case's merits.

The real lesson here is that good scope language matters, even if it didn'tseemed to matter years before, when you reached that T/A.

shoelu

The fragmentation language of the ALPA contract was much stronger and obviously written specifically to address the issues which would be later be dealt with in integration. However, the language which was in place at the time of constructive notice was from the original AT contract. The original contract had virtually zero fragmentation protections.

Sink r8

Thanks. That explains it.

gloopy

So its ALPA's fault that they didn't recommend the first offer based on their pre-ALPA contract being so weak?

Yeah that should be worth a 6 figure award for everyone.

Clear Right

It's not rocket science, just integrate the seniority lists in a fair manner. Relative seniority with appropriate fences for different equipment. Simple. Compensation should be irrelevant in the SLI, because history has proven those airlines with industry leading pay will not last forever. If folks can't get over the pay difference (i.e. SWA scenario) then get creative and negotiate a solution that involves pay, maybe a bonus or more profit sharing for a period of time for the SWA folks. Whatever the creative solution you want to envision, but SENIORITY numbers should be integrated fairly and relative across the board. Just my opinion, and perhaps a pipe dream due to the greed and self interested mentality of most airline pilots.

johnso29

The problem with your solution is defining 'fair'.

Sink r8

Exactly. And usually, at least one group has to sue to get another shot. It's like asking Mom when Dad already settled it. Or, in some arbitrated cases, it's like asking dad twice.

shoelu

All I ever wanted wanted in this integration was to end up in the same relative place at retirement as I would without the merger. That's what I ended up getting. Due to the younger age of the AT group I ended up with a single digit bump in seniority now which erodes to zero at retirement. I feel that that was fair to me and my expectations. I can't speak to what the others involved expected or considered as fair. Fair to one is a gross injustice to another.

shoelu

ALPA National lawyers did in fact recommend the deal should be sent to the membership for a vote to avoid this very lawsuit.