Quote:
Care to list those grievances? I never heard of one that would "bring back more natives." The only one I've heard had to do with vacation accrual, and that one was never even a part of CC. I do know that APA fully supports LOS for all furloughees.
There was a grievance relative to the computation of Supp CC allowed (TWA) Captains that—at the time due to recalls being done “in the ratio”—would have required that 100 more TWA pilots have been recalled to Captain, forcing recalls to bring the other ratioed nAAtives with them.
The other pertains to Supp CC and the TWA pilots’ rights to having SEP and Vacation bidding priority over nAAtives in STL. This is explained in the APA’s own “Explanation of Supplement CC”. Instead, TWA pilots don’t have the right to bid SEP and Vacation in STL ahead of the nAAtives—unlike monthly bidding.
Both grievances were unsupported—if not vehemently opposed—by the APA.
Quote:
Most natives I know that are still in STL are scrambling out every month, including yours truly (last year.) I enjoyed my time there, as well as working with those folks. However, there is no future in STL for natives, as it is a protected TWA base.
There’s nothing in Supp CC to force the nAAtives
out. While TWA pilots are fenced into STL, not all nAAtives are fenced out.
Quote:
Regarding your beef with being confined to STL... hey, I didn't write the integration, nor did I vote on it. Had I had my way, I would have figured some formula for TWA pilots to have remained in TWA's old bases. But I do know for a fact that the whole integration was crafted with the help of an arbitrator's guidance and opinion on what would have transcribed had it been arbitrated. Obviously, it was deemed passable by the courts and the judge. Does it make it fair, depends on who you ask. But integrations are never crafted on fairness, they are crafted on what will stand up in court. This has always held true in all mergers/acquisitions, because so many folks will have a different idea on what "fair" is.
Supp CC has never been tested in court. What was tested—based on the information
available at the time—was APA’s duty of fair representation to the TWA pilots. The TWA pilots didn’t endorse Supp CC—unlike the OZ/TWA integration or, say, Morris and Southwest. Reading
Bernard v. ALPA is a good start.
I disagree with your assertion of integrations being “crafted in fairness”—the Delta/Northwest arbitration yielded what I view as a very fair integration. Similar arguments could be made for USAir and America West. APA has their scope and successorship clauses crafted to avoid these very outcomes—to a predatory advantage. So much so that now there’s legislation to avoid such an advantage.
Quote:
I will never change your opinions on this subject, nor will you ever change ours. All that's left out of this deal is a bunch more employees, a diminished amount of airplanes, and everyone talking smack at each other about their own personal opinion on what should have happened. When you stop and think about it, what does that really accomplish? Nothing, other than bitterness. In other words, the typical result of a merger/acquisition. In the end, the fact remains that you are now all AA pilots, and for those of you who choose to come back when recalled, you will be AA pilots working under a (hopefully) industry-leading contract brought to you by the hard work of APA, regardless of whether you join or not. Those are the facts. The rest is just talk.
You’re right—our opinions will differ. Being an AA pilot would mean that there’s no separate Supplement to abide by. Until then, there are AA pilots and former TWA pilots who wear the same uniform in STL.
I do hope that recallees are made whole with the new contract but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect it will be dealt away for something else of value to the APA Negotiators. Can you cite the last Section 6 contract where recallees were made whole? Or was it done during the acquisition of another carrier?
X