Neutral opinion needed on east/west
10-12-2012, 06:40 AM
#31
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
The judge makes two points:
1. USAPA has tried to pretend that there is no seniority list at the merged company and they get to start anew with no reference to the Nicolau list as an established list created by a mutually agreed to "fair and equitable" process. The Judge states unequivocally that there is a list and USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement.
2. It is allowable to change a seniority list as it is a negotiable item in the contract. However, it is super duper extremely hard to change it. By definition, for every pilot that gains a number another pilot loses a number. In order for a union to change a seniority list they have to present an overriding union objective that benefits the entire list. You can't just exchange one unhappy group of pilots for another unhappy group of pilots simply because you have the votes. That is why you almost never hear about a seniority list being changed, ever. The Judge tried to make this point abundantly clear to USAPA but they have in the past ignored all common sense and legal precedent and seem determined to take this all the way until they lose in court.
The bottom line is that US Airways management now has a built in excuse to never negotiate with USAPA until USAPA accepts the Nicolau award. They have numerous legal opinions from federal judges that spell out explicitly the danger to US Airways if they aid and abet USAPA in changing the seniority list. The NMB will see this danger and will not move the process forward until USAPA quits trying to make US Airways a co-conspirator in a DFR lawsuit.
1. USAPA has tried to pretend that there is no seniority list at the merged company and they get to start anew with no reference to the Nicolau list as an established list created by a mutually agreed to "fair and equitable" process. The Judge states unequivocally that there is a list and USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement.
2. It is allowable to change a seniority list as it is a negotiable item in the contract. However, it is super duper extremely hard to change it. By definition, for every pilot that gains a number another pilot loses a number. In order for a union to change a seniority list they have to present an overriding union objective that benefits the entire list. You can't just exchange one unhappy group of pilots for another unhappy group of pilots simply because you have the votes. That is why you almost never hear about a seniority list being changed, ever. The Judge tried to make this point abundantly clear to USAPA but they have in the past ignored all common sense and legal precedent and seem determined to take this all the way until they lose in court.
The bottom line is that US Airways management now has a built in excuse to never negotiate with USAPA until USAPA accepts the Nicolau award. They have numerous legal opinions from federal judges that spell out explicitly the danger to US Airways if they aid and abet USAPA in changing the seniority list. The NMB will see this danger and will not move the process forward until USAPA quits trying to make US Airways a co-conspirator in a DFR lawsuit.
As for your original request, I present you with something that almost never happens...I agree with Alfa's post 100%. That is my unbiased opinion.
10-12-2012, 06:47 AM
#32
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Neutral, between the East and West, is Lebanon Kansas. What do I win?
Check Essential & AlphaRomeo are correct on the facts and prognosis. The Judge ruled USAPA can do its own seniority list, then it will be sued. It has no money, so there really isn't anything to win or lose.
Meanwhile the worrying fact is, co-pilots 200 NM out on the 242 radial from your home base are earning more than your Captains. That's not good for pilots at either airline.
As is always the case in this profession, unity is more important than tactical position. It does not matter much who's in the left seat when both pilots are making less than the industry average for the right seater.
My personal opinion on who needs to compromise does not matter (no one would listen anyway). But regardless, a meeting of the minds must occur and the result, any result, would be better than status quo.
10-12-2012, 07:09 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
The judge makes two points:
1. USAPA has tried to pretend that there is no seniority list at the merged company and they get to start anew with no reference to the Nicolau list as an established list created by a mutually agreed to "fair and equitable" process. The Judge states unequivocally that there is a list and USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement.
2. It is allowable to change a seniority list as it is a negotiable item in the contract. However, it is super duper extremely hard to change it. By definition, for every pilot that gains a number another pilot loses a number. In order for a union to change a seniority list they have to present an overriding union objective that benefits the entire list. You can't just exchange one unhappy group of pilots for another unhappy group of pilots simply because you have the votes. That is why you almost never hear about a seniority list being changed, ever. The Judge tried to make this point abundantly clear to USAPA but they have in the past ignored all common sense and legal precedent and seem determined to take this all the way until they lose in court.
The bottom line is that US Airways management now has a built in excuse to never negotiate with USAPA until USAPA accepts the Nicolau award. They have numerous legal opinions from federal judges that spell out explicitly the danger to US Airways if they aid and abet USAPA in changing the seniority list. The NMB will see this danger and will not move the process forward until USAPA quits trying to make US Airways a co-conspirator in a DFR lawsuit.
1. USAPA has tried to pretend that there is no seniority list at the merged company and they get to start anew with no reference to the Nicolau list as an established list created by a mutually agreed to "fair and equitable" process. The Judge states unequivocally that there is a list and USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement.
2. It is allowable to change a seniority list as it is a negotiable item in the contract. However, it is super duper extremely hard to change it. By definition, for every pilot that gains a number another pilot loses a number. In order for a union to change a seniority list they have to present an overriding union objective that benefits the entire list. You can't just exchange one unhappy group of pilots for another unhappy group of pilots simply because you have the votes. That is why you almost never hear about a seniority list being changed, ever. The Judge tried to make this point abundantly clear to USAPA but they have in the past ignored all common sense and legal precedent and seem determined to take this all the way until they lose in court.
The bottom line is that US Airways management now has a built in excuse to never negotiate with USAPA until USAPA accepts the Nicolau award. They have numerous legal opinions from federal judges that spell out explicitly the danger to US Airways if they aid and abet USAPA in changing the seniority list. The NMB will see this danger and will not move the process forward until USAPA quits trying to make US Airways a co-conspirator in a DFR lawsuit.
I'm in the middle of this mess and I have a hard time remembering all the points. I agree that a seniority list is hard to change, and a union has to have a legitimate objective and the change must be within a wide range of reasonableness. The "legitimate union objective" that I seem to remember USAPA making was that a contract containing the Nicoalu award will be a very hard thing to attain. That abandoning the Nic DOES benefit the whole group because we are falling behind the industry every day and it allows us to get a new jcba. Is that a legitimate union objective, in THIS case? Our T/A prohibits the use of the Nicolau award until we have a joint contract. We are 7 years into the merger, 5 years after the Nic award came out, 1 year after a clear referendum on the course of the union through last years officer election and we are nowhere near a jcba because of the Nicolau award. I'd say that supports that theory, but there has never been a vote on a jcba. Do we have to vote on a jcba and turn it down to legitimize that claim? Do we have to vote it down 1 time, 2 times, 3, 10? Do we have to slog through this 10 more years to prove the legitimate union objective?
It will be interesting to see the company's and AOL's response.
Thanks
10-12-2012, 07:10 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
My personal opinion on who needs to compromise does not matter (no one would listen anyway). But regardless, a meeting of the minds must occur and the result, any result, would be better than status quo.
Last edited by R57 relay; 10-12-2012 at 07:21 AM.
10-12-2012, 07:59 AM
#40
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Clearly, discontent will remain. It doesn't sound like US Airways (or any successor) is free of potential legal liability either. Considering that, I wonder how AMR and its creditors will look upon potential legal jeopardy going forward should USAPA force something against the west and they persue a claim (which you know they will). Wouldn't surprise me to see Horton pitching that angle to the creditors to bolster his desire to emerge from Chapter 11 stand alone and then control any merge with whomeve and in the case of US Airways, in part or whole.
Alternately, you have a stalemate that might preclude any true merger of operations going forward and I wonder if ANY future acquirer of US Airways will want to ingratiate themselves into this. Perhaps Parker might have to consider a fragmentation scenario of selling one side and sticking with the other in a merger ?
Not sure of the feasability of that or if they've considered that option, but I don't see a merger resolving this as all it would seem to do would be to shift financial jeopardy to new parties. Not sure if the ROI on inheriting either an internally fragmented carrier or a single one littered with 5-10 years worth of lawsuits would be worth it.
Alternately, you have a stalemate that might preclude any true merger of operations going forward and I wonder if ANY future acquirer of US Airways will want to ingratiate themselves into this. Perhaps Parker might have to consider a fragmentation scenario of selling one side and sticking with the other in a merger ?
Not sure of the feasability of that or if they've considered that option, but I don't see a merger resolving this as all it would seem to do would be to shift financial jeopardy to new parties. Not sure if the ROI on inheriting either an internally fragmented carrier or a single one littered with 5-10 years worth of lawsuits would be worth it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
