That's all well and good. When did ALPA National change the merger policy, before or after the Delta/NWA merger?

I think Moak was elected when the UAL group refused to help the CAL MEC chairman get elected to that position. Proud to be on the UAL SL! I take it you are a CAL rep or work in SoCal app/dep?

 

SCOPE is a perfect example , as to why the JCBA then ISL. it unifies our joint goals going forward without concern to seniority of any individual pilot group. It gives the company less leverage to whipsaw groups within groups With ISL first, and one group with larger numbers and older seniority list could vote out SCOPE protections....as they throw big $$$, immediate upgrades, big iron etc.... in the eye's of the short-sighted. Conceivably you are placing a furlough section in your contract that will have a domino effect on one group above the other ( junior vs senior etc...On The other hand, without full knowledge of where you will be integrated, and if you vote to get rid of SCOPE protections, before the ISL is final, you are rolling the dice with present and future QOL, career expectations or employment. In other words, you could be voting yourself to the street SCOPE is a cornerstone of the pilots at CAL and the pilots i know at UA get it as well. Bottom line, a JCBA first, places everyone's skin in the game and it reflects agreed upon contractural cornerstones of both pilot groups

 

As you say, "That's all well and good....."

So we can both agree your assessment of ALPA's President in 2008 to be that of a DAL Pilot who "ruled by intimidation" (the same time as DAL/NWA Arbitration findings were released) was indeed inaccurate? Just to be clear, it was a CAL Captain who held office at that time till late Dec, 2010.....thus there was no DAL Capt to be found in office as APLA president to rule in the matter that you insinuated. If your facts were obscured by your opinion, great! Presenting misinformed, skewed facts, or twisting the truth.....let's keep it real.

This thread started by presenting the question/asking the opinion of what should come first.....SLI vs JCBA. As stated earlier, it's black/white per a standing policy. Until that is reformed formally by way of policy change, everything else resides in the same zip-code as Fantasy Land. As the two groups work together to get something by way of an industry leading JCBA, the whole is greater than the two halfs. Inject the SLI prior to obtaining that JCBA (especially when some rattle sabers of future litigation), it will by most accounts fall by the way side of what we've seen prior in the USAirways Merger. In my opinion.....could be worse.....MGT-1 vs UA/CAL-0

CAL Rep?? HARDLY!! Just one of the CAL Line Pilots.

To answer your other question, YES, the ALPA Merger Policy was rewritten following the DAL/NWA SLI. A Merger Policy Review Committee (MPRC) that was composed of several pilots (as well as attorney's, and other administrators) from various carriers in which to "rework/clean up" the standing policy. In May, 2009 (After 18 months of work), the MPRC made some "minor adjustments" to the existing policy that was used under the DAL/NWA Merger SLI Arbitration which was rendered complete in Dec, 2008. Even though the MPRC changes were constructed in concert to the DAL Arbitration, the policy changes were non-germane to the DAL Arbitration as agreed upon by the MPRC when they began their revamp/modifications that started in mid-late 2007.

Again, for those who say the "policy was rewritten", the answer would be YES.....but if you have not researched as to what the changes are, I strongly encourage you to speak with you Merger Comm Reps, or read the summaries written on "what" has actually "changed". As was mentioned earlier, VERY LITTLE has "changed" in the body itself. The rewrite was more a "clean-up" to the existing guidelines. For those who interpret the "policy rewrite" to mean there has been a complete revamp, they will be sorely disappointed when reading the high-lights concerning the limited changes in the body as a whole.

 

Makes sense.... Thanks.

 

The CAL MEC Chairman Jay Pierce DID NOT run for ALPA president when Capt. Moak was running. The former ALPA President John Prater, a Continental pilot, did run for a second term which Capt Moak won instead.

The current CAL MEC Chairman did run for the first vice president's position, however. Just some factual clarifications.

 

Would these be the CAL merger committee talking points/arguments they intend to present in order to diminish the value of longevity?

 

If you have any concerns/questions on such topic, feel free to personally speak with S-UAL's own Dave Smith. After all, he was one of the 9 members who resided on MPRC during the rework. I'm sure Mr Smith would be better versed to handle your question.....or at least provide you the information in which you pine for.

As far as Capt Brucia, or what the S-CAL M.C. plans to do.......Why would he/they devuldge the M.C.'s play book prior to the first snap??

When the JCBA is complete, I suppose we'll know soon enough.

 

[QUOTE=SoCalGuy;1138573]As you say, "That's all well and good....."

This thread started by presenting the question/asking the opinion of what should come first.....SLI vs JCBA. As stated earlier, it's black/white per a standing policy. Until that is reformed formally by way of policy change, everything else resides in the same zip-code as Fantasy Land. As the two groups work together to get something by way of an industry leading JCBA, the whole is greater than the two halfs. Inject the SLI prior to obtaining that JCBA (especially when some rattle sabers of future litigation), it will by most accounts fall by the way side of what we've seen prior in the USAirways Merger. In my opinion.....could be worse.....MGT-1 vs UA/CAL-0

************************************************** *************************************************
As far as being "black/white", if you read the ALPA Merger Policy, that may not me entirely correct. Here's the excerpt from the policy. So far JCBA then SLI is the process that UAL/CAL is working by, but the way I read it they can agree on another method. Not saying anything will change, just pointing out that there is flexibility if agreed to that's all.
************************************************** *************************************************

ALPA Merger Policy...

"This policy establishes processes based on these premises, to be followed by pilot groups from the outset through the completion of the merger. However, broad authority is provided to MECs to design and agree on alternative processes that meet their own needs. The basic policy serves as a “governing” process in the event that the MECs do not desire to or cannot reach such agreements.

The policy recognizes that MECs may be required to deal with a variety of types of corporate transactions and that innovation by MECs dealing with different types of corporate transactions may best serve the interests of their pilot groups and ALPA. MECs are strongly encouraged to consider using flexible arrangements available under policy to design processes tailored to the needs of their particular pilot groups and transaction. MECs are encouraged to keep in mind that flexibility is made available in recognition that a “one size fits all” process is not the best approach when dealingwith transactions.

This policy provides at the outset that its scope (Part 2B 1) should not be defined in terms of particular types of transactions or the timing or announcement of transactions, all of which are controlled by corporate interests, but rather in terms of situations when there is a need to protect employee interests.

Thus, a “merger” is defined as a situation where there is a reasonable probability of sufficient operational integration between or among two or more ALPA airlines that there is or will be a need for an integrated seniority list, a JCBA and a merged MEC to adequately protect the employment interests of the flight deck crew members. Its scope also recognizes that MECs may desire to make agreements “at any time” – for example, before there is a “merger” as defined by policy – to enable A successful merger requires the full support of ALPA MEC and Local Council leadership for its implementation.

ALPA members will be kept informed and up to date through responsible communications, and an environment developed to foster unity and strength in negotiating the JCBA. Unity of purpose, based on close cooperation among Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) members and between the participating MECs, is essential to bringing about a work force that will obtain benefit from the merger through successful negotiations.

Integration of seniority lists is one step in the entire merger process; the merger is one transaction, consisting of the seniority integration process, the contract negotiation process, the ratification process, and the transition process (both as to the carriers and ALPA governance), all leading to a single pilot group and MEC.

The policy provides for its implementation using either of two methods.

Under one method, the involved MECs may determine “at any time” (Part 2B 2) that it is in the best interests of their flight deck crew members to enter into agreements which provide for an alternative process for seniority integration, negotiating a JCBA or both. If this determination is made, with the approval of the President, the MECs have wide latitude to fashion their own process, subject only to meeting certain fundamental requirements of policy (Parts 2B 2 and 2C 1).

This feature of the policy provides the MECs with the flexibility to deal with their particular situation. It is also important that these policy provisions enable MECs to make these agreements “at any time,” even before there is a “merger” as defined by policy, so that cooperating MECs can be involved in a potential merger at an early stage.

Under the second method, if there is a “merger” as defined by policy and the MECs do not enter into agreements which provide for an alternative process for seniority integration and negotiating a JCBA, the policy is implemented through a “Process Implementation Date” (PID). The policy calls for the PID to be established on the earlier of the date on which the Executive Council, in its judgment, determines there is a merger or the date on which the President agrees with the determination of all involved MECs that there is a merger (Part 2B 3)."
************************************************** ************************************************
Sorry for the bad formatting!

 

There is very little I 'pine" for since there is nothing I can do to influence the SLI. Except for voting against a jcba with the pay bands JP so desires. Has he signed the letter yet stating he will not use the JCBA as a platform to benefit the seniority cause for the CAL pilots?

Your comments appear as if they are straight from your merger committee reps.

 

[QUOTE=FACSofLife;1139354]The "Black/White" reference that I made above was speaking specifically to the "standing policy". To my knowledge, there currently has NOT been any change to the present policy as it reads at this time.....Thus as I stated, it being "Black/White" = JCBA---->SLI. If you have any information/copy of active-proposed change, would like to see it.

Stating the obvious.....The "IF" (and a big IF) that you alluded to would require "formal change" exercised beyond current bounds with the alternative provisions mentioned. In order for that to happen, there would be required "P and P" to be implemented, and agreed upon unilaterally. Until such time, I stand by the current/present policy being "Black/White" in the order of JCBA---->SLI.