Already contacted them thanks.

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you are trying to say here.

Has any airline merger in recent memory required the pilots pay an extra amount on top of the dues they already pay in order for each side to have their interests protected and also complete the transaction with a joint CBA and seniority integration?

 

You can't have it both ways. For someone who tries to present how educated you are on the entire Union and negotiating process, you need to read, or reread, the ALPA merger policy, specifically Part 3 paragraphs F. 4. and 5.

If you don't agree, than vote against a merger fund resolution. If it passes, stick to your guns and don't pay it. At least then you won't have to worry about a TA, you wouldn't get to vote on it anyway.

Frankly, I have no idea where you were before and couldn't care less, it's irrelevant what the policy was then. The merger policy is what it is today, and that's all that matters. We can either bury our heads in the sand, or we can prepare to protect our seniority in the event a merger takes place.

 

Delta/NWA
Airways/AWA
United/Continental
Alaska has a $1 mil pilot funded account

Just to name a few.

Would you want Frontier on that list instead of us? In case you didn't see it, they are voting to merge with ALPA.

 

I never proposed that I know everything about everything as you say. I'll take a look at the merger policy because I just assumed this could be allocated from the already large pot of dues we pay. I do not know of any other airline where the union assessed the pilot for merger related expenses.

There is also nothing I've seen so far that says we would get a vote on this assessment. It could be done by our reps alone, no?

 

We are typing at the some time. So what did CAL/UAL and Usair/AA do?

Also if frontier does become Alpa wouldn't it be that much easier? Does the merger policy not spell out the process? What could this money possibly be for?

Edit: I see you wrote cal/Ual. I'm going to contact someone there and ask about that. Thanks.

 

Correct. The reps will be voting on a resolution to create a merger assessment fund at the next MEC meeting. It was listed on the preliminary agenda that was attached to the meeting notice emailed to all of us.

 

Yeah, hopefully he understands that should the resolution pass the MEC, he doesn't have a choice but to pay up unless he wants to go into bad standing.

 

All recent mergers involving large airlines didn't need to have a merger assessment to fund a legal team due to the fact that they have nearly unlimited money in their MEC coffers from regular dues. So much that much of these dues are funneled back to ALPA national to help assist with smaller airlines who don't have the money to support a basic MEC structure. This is one reason why Delta has a strong push for an independent union, they keep all of their dues money.

So when Delta merged with NWA and Airways and AA now, their MECs have the money (due to their large size) to fund lawyers. Spirit and its almost 1100 dues paying (underpaid) members don't have those same excess funds for the 7 figure some a legal defense would require, hence the assessment.

Now Regional airlines can get around this. Take Pinnacle/Colgan/Mesaba. They chose to use pilot reps and no lawyers to argue the SLI. If they hadn't, an assessment would have been necessary as well. Short of us merging with the similar sized Frontier or Allegiant, you can best believe the other airline(s) will be "lawyering up) and we will need that assessment to fund a legal defense.

The only other choice is to send 3 pilot reps in (paid for by MEC flight pay loss) against a team of lawyers from Dewey Screwem and Howe from XXX Airline.

As pointed out, the ALPA merger policy is very clear on this. ALPA won't touch a merger because of what has happened in the past. We are on our own with the exception of using ALPA lawyers in the form of protocol as provided to both sides

Having the company pay up (quid) to fund this merger fund is a HUGE step in funding us without assessing us. It's why your emails to your reps should push for this now, instead of the clueless "where is my quid"

 

I confirmed that CAL did in fact assess its Alpa members to fund a merger fund. My contact does say he was foggy (6 years ago)on the amount but that it was variable based on your personal income or maybe position. He also said he vaguely remember it was paid in 4 separate deductions not all at once and they also got money back after the merger because all the money wasn't used.

I just love the amount of education coming from the MEC about this topic. One line in an email about them voting on a resolution that affects us all financially. No info on history if this type of thing at other airlines or where the money comes from and how, or what it's used for. gtbfkm

I don't think "quid" going directly to a merger fund is necessarily the right way. That's our money and if we choose to fund a merger fund it should be a finite amount not just whatever we can get for quid. Maybe quid is too much or maybe it's not enough.

 

Seriously? YGTSM! You come on here preaching about unity being the answer to our contract negotiations, but then make some of the most divisive and condescending comments, specifically about the "degenerates" at the top of the seniority list. You preach people needing to educate themselves, and then come on here and make comments that show how uneducated you are on this issue, both in terms of policy and history. I call you on it, you claim to not be a know-it-all, and only capitulate when you independently verify that you were wrong. Try taking your own advice, stop making insulting and divisive comments about the pilots you work with, and get educated before you make a post on a specific subject.

Sorry, but most of this is just inaccurate and false. MEC account size has nothing to do with it. In fact, the merger policy does address a small vs large merger to assure the small isn't defeated on fund size alone. Any merger in recent times that used MEC funds for merger activities was either before the merger policy was amended, or didn't involve ALPA/ALPA mergers.