Neutral opinion needed on east/west
10-12-2012, 08:04 AM
#41
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by eaglefly
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.
10-12-2012, 09:02 AM
#42
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by cactiboss
The term sheet was written to fix the whole issue, Parker and Kirby have said it in public. Think about what the true issue is here and you see howthe term sheet get's rid of it in short order.
If you're talking about the agreement between APA and Parker (which isn't a "term sheet" but a "conditional" labor agreement), it vaporizes if AMR management is awarded the POR and exits C11 stand alone. The only way Horton will get a consensual agreement from AA pilots if it is industy-standard (as a package) and that means it will be much better then APA's agreement with Parker. That would likely mean a post BK merge with U under AMR management control if a merger even occurs, so all bets would be off on anything worked out so far with Parker. That implies AA would even merge with U post BK, of course.
AA and U still could merge and it IS the STRONG desire for a change of management by AA pilots, but I think AA pilots would rather have a better deal and merge after C11 with management change then, then Parker's agreement inside it. That being said, if an acceptable consensual deal is unobtainable, then getting rid of this management inside C11 and choking on Parkers deal (if necessary) would be the only viable path left. At any rate, I wouldn't count too heavily on the APA to be a white knight resolving this conflict as odds are AMR may make it to the finish line, especially if they have a contract with the pilots.
10-12-2012, 09:43 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by R57 relay
Alfa, you and I have sparred before, but I have a serious question that I would like your opinion on. I will just listen and not reply unless you have a question for me.
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
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, 10:03 AM
#44
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Whose term sheet ?
If you're talking about the agreement between APA and Parker (which isn't a "term sheet" but a "conditional" labor agreement), it vaporizes if AMR management is awarded the POR and exits C11 stand alone. The only way Horton will get a consensual agreement from AA pilots if it is industy-standard (as a package) and that means it will be much better then APA's agreement with Parker. That would likely mean a post BK merge with U under AMR management control if a merger even occurs, so all bets would be off on anything worked out so far with Parker. That implies AA would even merge with U post BK, of course.
AA and U still could merge and it IS the STRONG desire for a change of management by AA pilots, but I think AA pilots would rather have a better deal and merge after C11 with management change then, then Parker's agreement inside it. That being said, if an acceptable consensual deal is unobtainable, then getting rid of this management inside C11 and choking on Parkers deal (if necessary) would be the only viable path left. At any rate, I wouldn't count too heavily on the APA to be a white knight resolving this conflict as odds are AMR may make it to the finish line, especially if they have a contract with the pilots.
If you're talking about the agreement between APA and Parker (which isn't a "term sheet" but a "conditional" labor agreement), it vaporizes if AMR management is awarded the POR and exits C11 stand alone. The only way Horton will get a consensual agreement from AA pilots if it is industy-standard (as a package) and that means it will be much better then APA's agreement with Parker. That would likely mean a post BK merge with U under AMR management control if a merger even occurs, so all bets would be off on anything worked out so far with Parker. That implies AA would even merge with U post BK, of course.
AA and U still could merge and it IS the STRONG desire for a change of management by AA pilots, but I think AA pilots would rather have a better deal and merge after C11 with management change then, then Parker's agreement inside it. That being said, if an acceptable consensual deal is unobtainable, then getting rid of this management inside C11 and choking on Parkers deal (if necessary) would be the only viable path left. At any rate, I wouldn't count too heavily on the APA to be a white knight resolving this conflict as odds are AMR may make it to the finish line, especially if they have a contract with the pilots.
10-12-2012, 10:06 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,484
Judge Silver has set up the Nicolau Award as the yardstick for any future SLI proposals from USAPA. USAPA wanted the Nicolau list to be ruled irrelevant, that was not done. USAPA also wanted to be free from the TA. Judge Silver also said that the TA was in play, although the company and the union are free to negotiate off that, at their peril.
Judge Wake also talked about Legitimate Union Purpose. With the evidence that USAPA was formed to harm the west (their own paper trail) there is a very high bar for USAPA to clear to show any list they present other than the Nic is not just to screw the West pilots. Evidence from the Addington trial is still in play. And USAPA has shown no willingness to move off Date of Hire so it will be hard for them to make that jump to a LUP.
Judge Wake also talked about Legitimate Union Purpose. With the evidence that USAPA was formed to harm the west (their own paper trail) there is a very high bar for USAPA to clear to show any list they present other than the Nic is not just to screw the West pilots. Evidence from the Addington trial is still in play. And USAPA has shown no willingness to move off Date of Hire so it will be hard for them to make that jump to a LUP.
10-12-2012, 10:46 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Maybe it's time for USAPA to put the Kirby proposal with the Nic out for a vote and we can all put our money where our mouth is. There is no DL contract availalbe to US pilots with this situation, absent an AA merger and even then the term sheet appears to fall short of DL.
10-12-2012, 12:08 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: Doing what you do, for less.
Posts: 1,792
Originally Posted by R57 relay
Maybe it's time for USAPA to put the Kirby proposal with the Nic out for a vote and we can all put our money where our mouth is. There is no DL contract availalbe to US pilots with this situation, absent an AA merger and even then the term sheet appears to fall short of DL.
10-12-2012, 01:50 PM
#50
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Ford E150 Captain
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by KillingMeSmalls
Would the McCaskill-Bond affect the new list?
Nevermind, I just read it, it would not change anything because ALPA merger policy would apply. But how would the isl look now that the ALPA mrger policy has changed (as a result of US/AW)?
Last edited by glyde; 10-12-2012 at 02:08 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
