Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 907748)

Well, we got absolutely NOTHING for the Special LOA that Whiteford signed regarding the E170. The company came to Whiteford and said "we made a mistake by not having the language include airplanes that weigh as much as the E170. Not allowing the E170 into the mix will severely hamper Skywest, Republic, etc's ability to negotiate the best rate for the 70 seaters because they can't pit one manufacturer against another."

So Whiteford said "Here ya go" and signed off on the E170 while getting NOTHING in return. Criminal.

Originally Posted by Yak02 (Post 907812)

Bingo! You've got it 2wright. ALPA has already blew their chance.

Originally Posted by 2wright (Post 907800)

Can you please point me to the contractual provision that allows us to hold up the Single Operating Certificate? That was a rhetorical question because there isn't one. The Single Operating Certificate is a matter between the FAA and management (when was the last time you heard the US Air call sign?). Moreover, has anyone else noticed that the optimization of aircraft and route structure is also not in our control? UA is about to start flying IAH-LIM with a 767-300, CO is about to start a bunch of 737 routes out of ORD and of course the well publicized regional flying out of IAH is about to become reality.

What we control is very limited: the ability for UA and CO pilots to fly together and for pilots to fly aircraft from the other pre-merger company --that's it. It's worth something, but only a fraction of the value that most pilots think we control. Meanwhile, years will go by as we wonder why management isn't capitulating to our demands while they already have 97% of the merger synergies in hand.

I know this post will be met with jeers from some, but it is a foolish endeavor to negotiate without a true assessment and understanding of your actual leverage. I'm all for maximizing the leverage we do have, but first we need to understand that we haven't hit the leverage lottery jackpot as some would like to believe.

I think ALPA is partially responsible for this mindset, because they think it's good politics to talk tough and cater to pilot's dream scenarios like controlling a billion + in merger synergies. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's bad politics to admit that most of it is just for show.

We are going to get the contract we're going to get and I'd prefer to have the time value of money working for me rather than against me. For those who think that retro-pay takes care of that concern, trust me, retro money just comes from some other area of the contract (for example, you could forgo the retro-pay and get higher pay rates or something else -- it's just money at that point). Furthermore there's no such thing as retro work rules -- you can't get back a day off from last year.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 907882)

Per the Transition Agreement:

Section 6
Single FAA Operating Certificate and Single Transportation System

6-A. Single Operating Certificate. Commencing no later than the Merger
Closing Date, the Airline Parties will take such actions as are necessary and
appropriate to securing expeditious approval of the FAA for the right to operate
under a Single Operating Certificate.

All this states is that the Company must take action to secure expeditious approval of the FAA Single Operating Certificate; it doesn't state that the approval can't be granted until there is a JCBA. Actually, the Company would be in violation by waiting rather than seeking expeditious approval.

6-B. Single Transportation System. The Airline Parties will provide to ALPA
such support as it reasonably requests in order to secure expeditious recognition
by the NMB of a Single Transportation System. Assuming the Airline Parties are
continuing in good faith to meet their obligations under Section 2 hereof, no later
than thirty (30) days following the Merger Closing Date, ALPA will file, and
United and Continental will support, a petition with the NMB requesting that the
NMB declare that United and Continental are operating as a single carrier within
the meaning of the RLA.

6-C. Regulatory and Political Processes. Assuming the Airline Parties are
continuing in good faith to meet their obligations under Section 2 hereof, ALPA
will not oppose the Airline Parties’ efforts to obtain regulatory and political
support



The company has already failed in its self-proposed timeline of having a contract by mid-October. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for ALPA to contend that the company is in violation of the transition agreement if we were not to have a JCBA by proposed date of the S.O.C at the end of 2011.

So ALPA could ask for a gajillion dollar increase and then claim that the Company is in violation of the TA agreement because they haven't agreed to it? I don't think that logic would pass the reasonableness test in any venue.

Furthermore, on the last day of 2011, the Transition Agreement becomes void, and both carriers are free to go back to negotiating for their own separate contracts. I'm not clear whether the mixed flying being started now would have to cease or not, but at the very least, those crews would be flying out of domicile.

Quite the contrary, neither CBA restricts opening new domiciles, the Trasition Agreement does. When it becomes void, so does the probation on opening coterminous domiciles.

So at that point the company would have to convince the FAA (or the courts if ALPA took it there) that they had met ALL their requirements to be issued a S.O.C.

The FAA does not care if we don't combine the pre-merger pilot groups any more than they care that some airlines separate domestic and international categories and some airlines don't. All they care about is that everyone is using the Ops Specs, procedures, AQP document, etc..

Assuming they get that far, which I don't think is a guarantee, they now are left with a USAirways type of operation operating essentially as two separate carriers with two separate training departments, etc. If they fail to reach and agreement with the mechanics, dispatchers, etc., then they lose further synergies.

I said that it does have some value, just nowhere near what most seem to think.

Recently, even USAirways finally admitted that its costing them more to operate separately then the savings in the crappy contract are worth and urged the pilots to settle the seniority dispute.

I have not seen this admission (please provide the source) and feel it has much more to do with the fact that they are somewhat hamstrung from participating in any further industry consolidation without getting the situation resolved. It was a huge issue in the UA-US merger talks earlier this year.

We may not have the poison pill to stop a merger, and we may lose a legal battle to prevent a S.O.C, but we DO have the power to completely destroy the projected numbers for this merger as they are based on achieving complete merger synergy. There is a REASON Delta and NWA didn't want to merge without a contract and list in place.

No, we can't completely destroy the projected numbers. 800 to 900MM of the synergies are forecast to come from revenue enhancement. Unless we win the upcoming arbitration ( which is not likely) we don't control access to that. The remaining 200 to 300MM is from cost savings. We don't control the elimination of duplicated management and facilities, which is the bulk of the savings.

Further, from Aviation Week eons ago:

The union (USAPA) lost this arbitration a long time ago.

US Airways and its two pilot unions are wrangling over possible violations of a transition agreement that has served as a guide to completing the US Airways-America West merger.

The dispute is one of several that have complicated contract negotiations and US Airways' application for an FAA operating certificate, which is scheduled to be issued Sept. 26. The single operating certificate would be one of the final acts of the merger, which began two years ago this month.

I think it would be safe to say that the Airways dorked up any claim they would have had against the company with their maneuvers.

Originally Posted by 2wright (Post 907976)

My comments in red.

Originally Posted by boxer6 (Post 907823)

WOW! Its sounds that a blatant exchange of value was taken from one group and given to the other.

It seems that would be reasonable grounds for a DFR conflict and subsequent lawsuit, especially in light of the fact that Whiteford's signature on that letter was done without a vote from the MEC much less the pilot group on the whole. I always thought major economic implications were required to be voted on by the membership?

Has there been any background noise about a lawsuit from the furloughees? From what I've read here it sound like one feces sandwich after another for those at the end of the UAL list. Gettingbumped mentioned the word criminal. Sounds accurate.

Originally Posted by 2wright (Post 907976)

The company has already failed in its self-proposed timeline of having a contract by mid-October. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for ALPA to contend that the company is in violation of the transition agreement if we were not to have a JCBA by proposed date of the S.O.C at the end of 2011.

So ALPA could ask for a gajillion dollar increase and then claim that the Company is in violation of the TA agreement because they haven't agreed to it? I don't think that logic would pass the reasonableness test in any venue.

Originally Posted by jsled (Post 908237)

Most guys on the line think he gave away the entire 70 seat scope, when in fact he gave away nothing. Definition 22 allows 80k lbs and certified for 70 seats. The EMB is 82K and certified for 78 seats. It was agreed to as an exception as long as it is flown with only 70 seats. End of story.

BTW, currently there are 115 CRJs flying UAL code and only 38 EMBs flying UAL code. These are the facts.

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 908311)

So you have no problem with this then?!? I never want to use the word 'only' when it comes to how many guppy killers the company gets. That's how we shoved our foots in our mouths in the first place...