US Airways pilots' seniority disputes may muddle merger

ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, but like I said, the fact that it happens doesn't make it "consensual."
Click to expand...
Granted, the situation is typically an order of magnitude less complicated in the occasions where I've been forced to agree to a change of terms and conditions of employment. In each and every instance, it has been in a non-represented position in 'at will' states. So properly speaking, I do have a choice, but it isn't hugely palatable if I like my job and where I work.

Short of reading many pages of forum butthurt at APC, what specifically was non-consensual about the integration?
 
Oh lord, "they" always put a gun to your head and say "sign it or else".

I haven't voted on a contract or agreement in the airline business since 1996 that there wasn't also a gun to my head. Good times and bad times.

You should have seen the tap dancing and fear mongering I faced when I told one of the reps that I was voting "hell no" on our last contract.
 
Derg said:
Oh lord, "they" always put a gun to your head and say "sign it or else".
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I voted no. But in defense of the yes voters (can't believe I just said that), this situation was a little different than your typical CBA negotiations. We're a wholly owned subsidiary, easy to divest. It creates a different dynamic that makes it far more likely that they'll actually carry through on their threats. I still don't believe that they would have, but I can understand why so many pilots did.
 
Xcaliber said:
I'm new to the 121 world, but I know there are a few different ways to approach it.
- You can go by date of hire. Everyone is in line based on logetivity, but now the guy that was looking at an upgrade at Airline X is now back on reserve for MergedAir.
- You can do it based on relative seniority. For example, Pilot A at 65% seniority at Airline X will be at 65% in the new list, but behind Pilot B that's 64.9% at Airline Y, regardless of date of hire. Every keeps their relative seniority at MergedAir, but if A has been at X for 10 years, and B has only been at Y for 6 years, A is pissed that he's now behind a guy that has less longetivity than him. Personally, I think it's the fairest way to go about it, but then again, I've never had to deal with mergers.
- Then there's the "Hey, we're buying you, you're all stapled to the bottom now" way. Pilot cohesion at it's finest.
Click to expand...

My point being that, if the union has a standard merger policy, than there is no cause for all the trouble and strife of a seniority integration, Everyone knows what the deal is going into it.
 
rocketman5150 said:
My point being that, if the union has a standard merger policy, than there is no cause for all the trouble and strife of a seniority integration, Everyone knows what the deal is going into it.
Click to expand...

Every merger is a bit different. ALPA has a merger policy, but it sure isn't date of hire... date of hire isn't even mentioned IIRC. And even with that standard merger policy, it is never cut and dry how to apply it.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
To paraphrase the CEO, "take this cram-down or you'll all be out of work."
Click to expand...

Yeah - but didn't you guys willingly vote down a much better offer than the one enforced? That was my understanding at least. If he offers you death by gunshot, but you choose "Cowabunga" instead of death and then get "Death by Cowabunga" - isn't that kind of your fault? Seriously, just asking - that was my understanding.
 
WacoFan said:
Yeah - but didn't you guys willingly vote down a much better offer than the one enforced? That was my understanding at least. If he offers you death by gunshot, but you choose "Cowabunga" instead of death and then get "Death by Cowabunga" - isn't that kind of your fault? Seriously, just asking - that was my understanding.
Click to expand...

It went like this:

1. SLI negotiations weren't going much of anywhere, so SWA management started making some vague threats that maybe operations wouldn't be integrated if a consensual deal wasn't reached. The Merger Committee decided in light of the threats that it might be better to reach the best deal they could and bring it back to the MEC for their consideration. The deal was horrendous. A third of the pilot group stapled, average loss of seniority of about 25%, peak loss of about 34%, no one allowed to upgrade until the last SWA FO had upgraded, etc. It was the worst seniority integration in major airline history.

2. The MEC looked at the deal, and it was absolutely awful. But it was the best that the MC could get without arbitration, because SWAPA wasn't budging. We had a Process Agreement and the law on our side for arbitration, so the MEC voted down the deal and told the MC to continue to mediation and arbitration.

3. The MC went out to Dallas for one last meeting before mediation, and SWA management said that they had "500 people working on 'Plan B'", and Plan B involved not integrating operations and slowly whittling AirTran down to nothing as they stole our assets. Of course, this was blatantly illegal under McCaskill-Bond and in direct violation of the Process Agreement that they signed, but the general insinuation was "we don't care, take us to court, you'll all be bankrupt and living in the streets by the time you get a judge to hand you anything." In the meantime, the CEO had sent out a letter to the entire pilot group hinting at the same threats, but not in as strong of language as was being used behind closed doors. Still, the pilots started to panic.

4. Under these threats, the MC tried to negotiate a new deal, but SWA management said "no negotiations, you take this cram-down or we initiate 'Plan B.'" So they brought back the cram-down "deal." It was even worse than the first deal, with all captains now losing their seats and no pay raises until 2015.

5. The MEC sent it out for a vote, because the pilots were panicking at this point after the CEO's letter and rumors of stronger threats were leaking out. The Merger Committee told the pilots "vote yes if you want a job at SWA, vote no if you don't." Under those circumstances, with a pilot group almost all in their 40s or older with families to think about, it ratified by about 85%.

If you call that "consensual," then I beg to differ.
 
Derg said:
The DALPA forum is full of "Buyers Remorse", especially when the latest "pay raise" came into effect. Oh, the 2012 rates - 2013 rates and a dollar might get you and your bride an extra Starbucks a month! :)
Click to expand...
At least you got a dollar...

But meh. The choice is always "death by gunshot" or "death by cowabunga."
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It went like this:

1. SLI negotiations weren't going much of anywhere, so SWA management started making some vague threats that maybe operations wouldn't be integrated if a consensual deal wasn't reached. The Merger Committee decided in light of the threats that it might be better to reach the best deal they could and bring it back to the MEC for their consideration. The deal was horrendous. A third of the pilot group stapled, average loss of seniority of about 25%, peak loss of about 34%, no one allowed to upgrade until the last SWA FO had upgraded, etc. It was the worst seniority integration in major airline history.

2. The MEC looked at the deal, and it was absolutely awful. But it was the best that the MC could get without arbitration, because SWAPA wasn't budging. We had a Process Agreement and the law on our side for arbitration, so the MEC voted down the deal and told the MC to continue to mediation and arbitration.

3. The MC went out to Dallas for one last meeting before mediation, and SWA management said that they had "500 people working on 'Plan B'", and Plan B involved not integrating operations and slowly whittling AirTran down to nothing as they stole our assets. Of course, this was blatantly illegal under McCaskill-Bond and in direct violation of the Process Agreement that they signed, but the general insinuation was "we don't care, take us to court, you'll all be bankrupt and living in the streets by the time you get a judge to hand you anything." In the meantime, the CEO had sent out a letter to the entire pilot group hinting at the same threats, but not in as strong of language as was being used behind closed doors. Still, the pilots started to panic.

4. Under these threats, the MC tried to negotiate a new deal, but SWA management said "no negotiations, you take this cram-down or we initiate 'Plan B.'" So they brought back the cram-down "deal." It was even worse than the first deal, with all captains now losing their seats and no pay raises until 2015.

5. The MEC sent it out for a vote, because the pilots were panicking at this point after the CEO's letter and rumors of stronger threats were leaking out. The Merger Committee told the pilots "vote yes if you want a job at SWA, vote no if you don't." Under those circumstances, with a pilot group almost all in their 40s or older with families to think about, it ratified by about 85%.

If you call that "consensual," then I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying the position.
 
WacoFan said:
Yeah - but didn't you guys willingly vote down a much better offer than the one enforced? That was my understanding at least. If he offers you death by gunshot, but you choose "Cowabunga" instead of death and then get "Death by Cowabunga" - isn't that kind of your fault? Seriously, just asking - that was my understanding.
Click to expand...
Heh...death by Cowabunga...coffee thru nose and onto keyboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top