US Airways pilots' seniority disputes may muddle merger

PeanuckleCRJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

The nature of a policy is that it IS cut and dried as to how to apply it. Otherwise, they are guidelines, not policies. As I say, if the union establishes a policy as to how seniority will be integrated in mergers between the two (same) union represented carriers, then there is no ambiguity.

That said, I recognize the difficulties when you have something like AA/USA/HP, where you have 3 different unions in play.
 
rocketman5150 said:
The nature of policies is that it IS cut and dried as to how to apply it. Otherwise, they are guidelines, not policies. As I say, if the union establishes a policy as to how seniority will be integrated in mergers between the two (same) union represented carriers, then there is no ambiguity.

That said, I recognize the difficulties when you have something like AA/USA/HP, where you have 3 different unions in play.
Click to expand...

Not correct- the policy is basically no windfalls and to try to protect the career expectations. Ask 5 people about their career expectations and whether people got windfalls and you'll get 5 different answers. There is always some ambiguity in every seniority list integration, no matter what (unless it is a policy of only DOH or only relative that actually prescribes the list construction).

There are 2 unions in play with AA/US/HP... USAPA and APA. Former HP pilots are represented by USAPA.
 
The policy creates a process, not a uniform standard. A uniform standard is impossible to create, because each merger turns on its own facts. A merger of Pinnacle and Delta (hypothetically, of course) would not make sense to use the same standard as a merger between Delta and Northwest. Only a uniform process that provides guidelines for the committees and neutrals is appropriate.
 
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...
That's one side. If you ask a SWAPA member, you may get a different story. Did the Airtran pilot group get to vote on SLI method #1? The answer is most likely no, because 3 people know what's best for all 1000+ airtran pilots when they only polled about a dozen. Hillman did have one good point and that is you would have gotten Delta widebody pay to fly Boeing RJs (his words, not mine). Also, from a SWAPA member I know, he said the AAI side wasn't serious about negotiations and their goal was to stall and try and push it into arbitration. As a 150 or so fleet airline, there's no way to get any fair integration with a 600 fleet monster. Reaslitically speaking, a staple is what SWAPA would want. They pushed the same thing with Frontier, and given Frontier's situation today, they may wish they would have taken it. Bond McCaskill and other provisions are for warm fuzzies. When a legacy airline tells you that that they can just run you as a sperate entity, and who knows what will happen in the future, all that stuff goes out the window, and then that's where 85% vote yes out of fear. Not that it would ever happen, but if SWA bought out VX someday, I'd expect nothing but a staple. Just being realistic here with a 52 airplane operator versus a 600+ airplane one. If we don't accept what SWAPA offers, management will just counter with running VX as a separate operation and then slowly wind them down.

Derg is right, I don't wish a merger upon even my worst enemey.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
That's one side. If you ask a SWAPA member, you may get a different story.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that you would, since they weren't there for all of the meetings. Even the SWAPA Merger Committee wasn't present for a lot of the talks between our MC and SWA management. SWA management was smart to keep the hard core threats away from the ears of SWAPA so they could still continue to look like the good guy who would never even think of acting like regular airline management! It's all a facade.

Did the Airtran pilot group get to vote on SLI method #1? The answer is most likely no, because 3 people know what's best for all 1000+ airtran pilots when they only polled about a dozen.
Click to expand...

Actually, hundreds were polled, and hundreds more made their opinions known through emails and phone calls to the reps. There could be no doubt on the day of the MEC vote that the pilot group wanted the first deal killed. Some reps even kept spreadsheets with a record of how every pilot that they represented told them to vote. It was easily 2-1 in favor of killing the deal. Before the real threats started, there was no basis for accepting that deal at all.

Also, from a SWAPA member I know, he said the AAI side wasn't serious about negotiations and their goal was to stall and try and push it into arbitration.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Our Merger Committee proposed dozens of different solutions, many of which included a staple of a large number of our pilots and double-digit losses of relative seniority. SWAPA still wouldn't budge. Only a complete slaughtering was enough to satisfy their bloodlust and massive egos.

Not that it would ever happen, but if SWA bought out VX someday, I'd expect nothing but a staple.
Click to expand...

Of course. You have no representation, so you take what you can get.

Derg is right, I don't wish a merger upon even my worst enemey.
Click to expand...

Well, you're finally right about something.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Not correct- the policy is basically no windfalls and to try to protect the career expectations. Ask 5 people about their career expectations and whether people got windfalls and you'll get 5 different answers. There is always some ambiguity in every seniority list integration, no matter what (unless it is a policy of only DOH or only relative that actually prescribes the list construction).

There are 2 unions in play with AA/US/HP... USAPA and APA. Former HP pilots are represented by USAPA.
Click to expand...

This is my point. Problems come up when trying to satify individual circumstances and desires. This HP/USA/AA dust-up is going to cause years, if not decades of strife in the form of legal battles, personal grievances, and uncertainty. Millions of dollars will be spent on something that in the end, will only serve to make everyone miserable. The only people will benefit are the lawyers. Is that really better than just saying "this is how it is, deal with it?" God forbid someone reaps a benefit, or someone else doesn't get what they thought they would get. But I guess that is the nature of unions; everyone equal in the lowest common denominator.
 
images



This is going to be interesting.........
 
rocketman5150 said:
This is my point. Problems come up when trying to satify individual circumstances and desires. This HP/USA/AA dust-up is going to cause years, if not decades of strife in the form of legal battles, personal grievances, and uncertainty. Millions of dollars will be spent on something that in the end, will only serve to make everyone miserable. The only people will benefit are the lawyers. Is that really better than just saying "this is how it is, deal with it?" God forbid someone reaps a benefit, or someone else doesn't get what they thought they would get. But I guess that is the nature of unions; everyone equal in the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

The only SLI done right is where everyone is ticked off at least a bit except for the guy that ends up #1.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Wrong. I had my vote. My side lost, but we still had our vote. You don't.
Click to expand...
Is it still really a vote when the gun is held to the head? That would be like everyone else saying "the Airtran guys voted it in 85% so surely they must have been in great support of the deal and therefore happy."
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
It's not really a voluntary choice when SWA announces they would keep Airtran separate and then tear it down.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it. Most pilots agreed with you, which is why 85% voted in favor, and why I say it wasn't truly a consensual deal. But the other way to look at it (which is what I still believe to this day) is that it was never anything more than an elaborate bluff, and had we gone to arbitration, the operations would have been integrated as planned. There's quite a bit of reason to believe this, but like I said, a bunch of guys in their 40s and 50s with kids to put through school aren't willing to take the same risks I am, no matter what the odds.
 
Nick said:
You know, I really try to minimize quarreling on this forum, but I feel compelled to interject and say that you might be into the "glass house" shouldn't be throwing stones category here when you're bashing another airline yet your own company essentially only flies people to or from two cities in California.
Click to expand...

Supa regionals, flying FiFi, lol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top