Talk:US Airline Pilots Association

Neutrality Issues

(Please Note: Recent comments by 68.2.33.125 (talk) have been moved to the end of this section. Please add any new comments there.)

This article seems awfully one-side to me. Could someone a little more familiar with the subject matter please review and edit it, as necessary? Thanks. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There are obviously two opposing points of view on the issue, and I don't think there is any room to get the sides to agree. I suggest each side create a section that clearly states their point of view, leaving the other alone. Any further "scab" talk or other inflammatory talk should be speedily reverted. Wikipedia is not a forum, or a place to debate the issues. The main body of the article should stick to verifiable facts, and any information or views that are not verifiable or agreeable by both side, should be clearly marked as controversial views. Users of Wikipedia readers would benefit from hearing both points of view. The current edit war benefits no one. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree InDeBiz1: I have problems with a few sentences:

A new protective coalition of West pilots, called AWAPPA (America West Pilots Protective Association) was created in order to defend the West pilots from the wildcat raid by USAPA on the legitimate and legally binding arbitrated seniority award, as well as the incumbent East and West union, ALPA.

Wildcat raid? Defend the west pilots? I think this sentence is pretty biased, even though I don't know how to fix it.

Pilots of the formerly bankrupt carrier

Why even point out the bankruptcy? Definitely POV. Will be cleaning that up in a second.

Then there are two sentences in a row that completely disagree with each other. This article should exist, in my opinion, but it shouldn't be used as a battleground. --Matt (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm working on a rewrite as an attempt to satisfy WP:NPOV while at the same time providing a balanced description of the issues from both sides. See User:Tcncv/sandbox for a preview my work in progress. I would like to hear your comments - good or bad (aka constructive critisism). -- Tcncv (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Donate: AWAPPA.ORG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.33.125 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia, including its talk pages, is not a soapbox for advocating a specific point of view (see WP:SOAP). There has been a lot of name calling going on, but that has no place here. That said, if you can identify specific facts, statements, or actions that are documented through media coverage, press releases, or other verifiable sources, that information is fair game for discussion here and possible inclusion in the article. The key is to do so in a neutral and balanced manner. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm soliciting opinions - Should information about the controversy between East and West pilots, the arbitration agreement, and other circumstances surrounding the formation of USAPA be included in the article? See this change (before and after). Please comment below.

• My opinion is that the information should be retained. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, same here. It is very relevant info. When NPOV is impossible, I think we should follow MPOV (multiple POV). I have reverted the other guy's deletion! --Inetpup (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think we should try to include relevant, cited information, including information about the controversy. The first diff had wild NPOV issues, so I agree with that being reverted. --Matt (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With only a few votes in, it appears that the consensus is to retain the material, with care to attend to [[WP:NPOV] issues. I'm working on a rewrite as an attempt to satisfy WP:NPOV while at the same time providing a balanced description of the issues from both sides. See User:Tcncv/sandbox for a preview my work in progress. I would like to hear your comments - good or bad (aka constructive critisism). -- Tcncv (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your writing is completely bias,and approaching defamation. At some point, legal will get involve. I would carefully consider what you are doing here. America West did not acquire US Airways, as that is a matter of record, and the surviving company is US Airways Inc., not America West.Please provide references to support your statements. They don't exist. That is also a matter of record. See 10-K. USAPA represents all US Airways pilots, by law. Certain members have decided not to pay dues and become members, but the fact still remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djshryack (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of us aren't experts on this topic. There are some editors who are writing biased information on the article, but as you can see above, other editors are working to fix the neutrality issues. Instead of just deleting content, you could try to fix the problems in the article and help - that could help the article become better. --Matt (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

matt, this article has been written by a disgruntled individual, and is totally biased. This action taints the integrity of wikipedia, and does not reflect reality on this topic. Please contact USAPA and US Airways Inc. to obtain correct and unbiased information, not only on the merger of these two airlines, but the legal NMB sanctioned election of USAPA as the new collective bargaining agent for ALL US Airways pilots-East and West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.91.243 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the article at it presently exists, or to the rewrite that I'm preparing (see User:Tcncv/sandbox) to cover the seniority controversy? I agree that the existing article has had numerous biased and controversial additions recently, most of which have been removed, but some of which remain. If you think my rewrite is biased, please cite a specific example (one phrase or sentence) that needs balancing and I'll look into it. I'm actively soliciting constructive criticism. Calling me a "disgruntled individual" and making a sweeping comment that the rewrite is "totally biased" doesn't really help. -- Tcncv (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

1. America west did not acquire US Airways. It was a merger financed by a consortium. Please reference numerous statements from Doug Parker, CEO. If America West acquired US Airways, why is the surviving company US Airway Inc.? This is a matter of record. Also, we currently operate under ONE operating certificate, hich happens to be US Aiways Inc. 2. The East pilots did show evidence, at Herndon with over 500 pilots being present at the headquarters of Alpa. An interpretation of the evidence is subjective.You are confusing an interpretation of evidence and producing evidence. The MDA issue is evidence, which was produced.Also, evidence can be ignored. You just conveniently left that out. 3. USAPA was elected under NMB rules, that 5200 US Airways pilots were of the same class and craft. USAPA was elected by the majority. Unless you have the info on who voted for whom, your statement is subjective. The end game, USAPA was elected by the majority under secret ballot.2700+ to 2200+. 4. USAPA is a closed shop agency, please reference Mark Hememway's letter from the company. 5. Whether certain groups join and participate is irrelevant in defining USAPA's purpose and mission. 6. You certainly have a right to not join USAPA, or disagree with it's constitution and by-laws, but the majority did agree, and voted USAPA as the CBA for the US Airways pilots, so I would still state that your article is based only from your narrow point of view.I will not debate this any further, but in my opinion, your article is a form of cyber vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.91.243 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. '71.28.91.243', please don't be so ignorant. The merger between HP (NYSE:AWA) and US (OTC:UAIRQ) was a reverse merger; do you even know what that is? The smaller company, America West Holdings, created a shell company (for tax/accounting purposes) called Barbell Acquisitions that acquired US Airways. But US Airways (UAIRQ) was the merger non-survivor as it was pretty much dumped from the board! America West Holdings was the merger survivor with a lion's share of board seats and management control. The current name has nothing to do with who ended on top (the survivor). --Inetpup (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response, that now gives me a chance to address the issues you've raised.

1. I am not making or proposing any changes relating to who acquired whom or any related issue. I'm focusing on the seniority issue, the arbitration, and how these issues relate to the formation of USAPA.

2. I am not sure what you are referring to. Are you referring to my proposed but unverified statement "this agreement violated ALPA policies" or possibly "dissatisfaction with ALPA's representation of US Airways pilots over the years"? I currently have both of these statements tagged with "citation needed", meaning I need a source. If you have sources I can use to back up these statements, please let me know. I have no idea what MDA is. Both the Wikipedia disambiguation pages and google search yielded several possibilities, but none stood out in this context. Please educate me.

3. I don't think the fact that USAPA is now the current legal collective bargaining agent for the 5200 US Airways pilots is in dispute. You do have a point that there is no way to verify any possible relationship between votes for/against USAPA and East/West association. Some other editors has implied such a relationship, so I included it with a "citation needed" tag. It's unlikely that a reliable source will be found to support that statement, so I'll rework it.

4. I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that USAPA membership is an employment condition and those who do nt sign up with the union are at risk? The "closed shop" article indicates that the "Taft-Hartley Act" made this illegal. Perhaps you mean a "union shop" or "agency shop". Also, I do not have access to Mark Hememway's letter. Please respond with a source.

5. Granted. But if a significant group is in dissension, I think that is relevant to a related discussion of the seniority controversy. But the point you make is also part of the reason that I am proposing moving this material to a section separate from the general discussion of the union's roles, history, and activities.

6. Actually, I personally have no right to join the USAPA, since I am not eligible. But yes, people do disagree, and the majority does rule. That's what's being documented in this article. I disagree that an article that acknowledges and discusses controversial information is cyber vandalism, or that I have a narrow point of view, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

It appears that you're not convinced of my neutrality. I invite you examine my edits to this article back dating back to 6 May. You will find that I have undone numerous biased edits on both side. My first edit was to undo a change that labeled the USAPA a "SCAB organization". I'll let the rest of my edit history speak for itself. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• As I suggested much earlier in this discussion thread, there is no way to get consensus on this hot potato topic. Thus, the only resolution is to introduction arguments on both sides of the fence. Hopefully, it will be as unbiased as possible, but that isn't realistic for this type of topic. So, what we need is a subheading under Controversies titled === East pilots (USAPA) grievances === and === West pilots (ALPA) grievances ===. Such a simple solution! Why didn't I think of it earlier? --Inetpup (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I just read Tcncv's proposed article, and he and I are on the same page about an opposing perspectives section. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still soliciting other opinions. See User:Tcncv/sandbox for a preview my work in progress. I would like to hear your comments - good or bad (aka constructive critisism). -- Tcncv (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

America west did not acquire US Airways, and the person above is wrong. That needs to be changed.Your article is focused on the dissension, and yes, it is obvious you are not being neutral. Anyone could see that. Ask the person above who financed the merger. To acquire something, you must pay for it. America West was on the verge of bankruptcy, and at today's gas prices, certainly would be, imho.They did not finance the merger, and just because their management remained, that does not define acquisition. Prove it. Also, USAPA legally represents all the pilots, and has nothing to do with the East pilots. Whoever joins or doesn't is irelevant to a description of what USAPA is. Again, your article is biased, and USAPA's legal department is aware. At this time, no action is being taken. If you want an unbiased definition of USAPA, go to their website and copy in the home page description. You are right, I'm am not convinced of your neutrality, and your article shows me that wikipedia is not a real source of true information. I will not use it again as a source, and I will tell others to stay away too.Ask the person above what he means by on top. This is a new company, no one is on top. You see, that is the mentality you are dealing with. He thinks he won, so he has rights to whatever he wants, like a locust. He sees this like a sport, with a winner and a loser. We are all in this together, working for the same company, with no one on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.91.243 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For my pal above: Here is the official legalities of the merger. Barbell Corp. The transactions contemplated by the Tudor Agreement are expected to be consummated simultaneously with the closing under the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) entered into on May 19, 2005 between America West Holdings, US Airways Group and Barbell Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways Group. The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Barbell Acquisition Corp. will merge with and into America West Holdings (the Merger), with America West Holdings continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways Group. this is right out of 10k filings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.91.243 (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, my proposed changes and this discussion topic are not intended to cover the topic of who acquired who. I suggest you start a new topic so that you, 71.28.91.243 (talk), and Inetpup (talk · contribs) can discuss this separately. As for my neutrality (or alleged lack thereof) and your legal threats, I'm submitting these issues to the RfC (Request for Comment) process. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Disagreement over neutrality of proposed changes

The main article has a history of many edits with neutrality issues and several neutrality issues remain. I (Tcncv (talk · contribs) am attempting neutral rewrite of a subset of the article, but user 71.28.91.243 (talk) is contesting my neutrality and making legal threats. See my proposed changes. And preceding section for pior discussion. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear tcncv, I am now convinced that your motives are good. All I can tell you is that USAPA is aware of the original article, which you have edited towards a more neutral position, and I thank you for taking the high road. I'm not well versed with wikipedia, and at this time, no action has been sanctioned by USAPA, however, it will continue to be monitored. Since I am a volunteer for the organization, I was tasked with looking into the original article posted. Our attorneys were notified. As of this time, no action is anticipated, but they are aware. I see now that you are trying to help bring this to a neutral stance, maintaining the integrity of the wikipedia community. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.91.243 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for what appears to be a vote of confidence. I had just about given up trying to convince you. It sounds like you're not in a position to endorse the results, but at least you acknowledge my intent. I'll accept that for what it's worth. By the way, by the way, my status as a contributor is no different than any other contributor. I was just passing by and took an interest in an article in need of moderation. Anyone is welcome to make constructive contributions, but and others who monitor changes will likely roll back blatantly biased edits, vandalism, and wholesale removal of relevant material. Of course, the definition of "biased", "vandalism", and "relevant" are often subject to interpretation. That's what the talk pages are for.

For future reference, there are two specific legal issues very seriously by Wikipedia, one is copyright infringement, and the other is unverified controversial information about living persons. I don't think either applies in this case. Legal threats related to other issues are more likely be counterproductive. See "WP:No legal threats". It's much more productive to take issues to the talk page (as we are doing here), or failing to resolve an issue that way, the issue can be taken through several levels of WP:dispute resolution. As much as any company or organization would like a to have a squeaky clean Wikipedia page that reflects the company line, that's not what Wikipedia is all about.

I plan to make a few more changes to my draft, look up and add a rew references, and then I'll rthrow it to the wolves (grin).

You can help by helping me find references I can use for some of the material. You made several points in one of your earlier comments, but for me to follow up on those and improve my rewrite I need sources. For example, I need useful sources that document objections that US Airways pilots had to the Nicolau award. I made a few other requests for information or clarification above. Anything useful you can provide is welcome.

Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tcncv, thanks for the info. I tried to dispute the original article, which appeared to be written by a "west" pilot and was WAY off base, and I never heard back from wiki. I am a volunteer for USAPA, and was asked to look into it, and it was communicated to our legal council. Since then, different rewrites have appeared. I am very busy doing computer work for USAPA, so I don't have time to hunt around for all the references right now. When I get time, I'll add them. I did try the NPOV dispute route, but since I am a novice with wiki, I never got very far or got a response. I did not realize that you were a volunteer. We have some pilots that are disgruntled with the new collective bargaining agent, and I thought you were one of them. I don't mind that they have an opinion, but opinions are biased. You saw their earlier writings, using words like "scab." The MDA pilots are currently suing Alpa for DFR, and the mixup in the Nicolau award, as he stapled them on the list as if they were furloughed, when in fact, they weren't. I suggest you look up Alpa's merger policy, and why date of hire was removed a few years ago. Every other union on the property went date of hire, which is a standard tenet for unions, with some case law all the way to the supreme court. The CEO is on record many times stating that this was a merger, financed by several entities, and both companies were in trouble. That is a matter of record. Remember, 2700+ pilots out of 5200 voted for USAPA to replace Alpa. 2200 voted for ALPA. The rest did not vote. thanks for your attention and desire to write the truth. DS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.91.243 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One other question - do you (or someone else in your office) sometimes log in to Wikipedia as user Djshryack? That user had some comments similar to yours, and if you're not one in the same, I might have some more convincing to do. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tcncv, yes we are the same. Sorry, I don't have a good working knowledge of wiki stuff. Originally, I e-mailed wiki to file a dispute. In reference to the merger, go to US Airways.com, about us, investor relations. Search for mergers and acquisitions, and there is an s4 document that officically explains the parameters of the merger. The "reverse merger" was for accounting purposes only! It is word for word what I posted above. Aslo, the Alpa merger policy gives no credence to a previous company's financial condition. I have a copy of it, but I believe it can be referenced from Alpa, although it may be in the members only section. I am a volunteer for USAPA, and our only goal is to keep this neutral, as there are certain factions within the pilot ranks trying to disrupt USAPA. You can e-mail USAPA at: info@usairlinepilots.org if you need more references.Once again, the original article violated the NPOV policy of wiki in reference to USAPA. Djshryack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.43.218 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempted neutral rewrite

Greetings all! Since I've received a couple of comments generally supporting my efforts, and no recent specific objections to the proposed content, I've applied the changes to the article. The new and rewritten material has been added to a new section, and I removed controversial material from the other sections. There's still work to be done. Some material still needs references, and I've marked them with a "citation needed" tag. There is also some material that has been been added in the past, that might be candidates to be added back in given the proper references. Click here for a comparison between the old and new versions of the article.

I hope you will all agree that the material represents a neutral (if somewhat bland) representation of the situation. I also hope that we can all agree that it's in the best interest of all involved to maintain this neutrality. If overly biased an inflammatory statements start reappearing, it could start another edit war.

If you disagree with the changes, please discuss your objections below in the talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help. The following items that need supporting references:

• Many US Airways pilots contended that this agreement violated ALPA policies
• US Airways pilots also alleged other errors in the award, including the treatment of MDA (Mid-Atlantic Division) pilots as furloughed pilots as furloughed pilots.
• General dissatisfaction with ALPA's representation of US Airways pilots over the years as (a reason) for replacing ALPA with USAPA
• US Airways West pilots have generally declined to join USAPA

Also, here are a few statements that have been added in the past, but are not in the present version. If proper sources can be identified, they might be candidates for discussion or inlusion.

• "Evidence is supported in court documents and court testimony that ALPA violated its policy" (Recent edit not included in rewrite.
• "USAPA supporters are universally regarded as SCABS by the rest of the piloting profession" (Referenced in earlier talk page comments)
• DFR (Duty of fair representation) lawsuit? (Referenced in earlier talk page comments)

I'm not advocating any of the above, just listing them in an attempt to be fair and complete. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tcncv, I would remove the statement--"usapa is only representing the east pilots interests." Usapa was elected by the majority of pilots at US Airways, with a mandate to represent the interest of ALL USAirways pilots, East and West. If a pilot does not want to be represented by USAPA, that is his prerogative, but that has nothing with USAPA, and it's constitutionally mandated mission and purpose to represent all the pilots. That statement needs to be changed, as it is completely inaccurate, and speaks of certain pilots opinions, which don't represent USAPA. Djshryack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.43.218 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. That "only the East" phrase kept appearing and disappearing over the last few weeks. I missed it on my cleanup effort. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Usapa's constitution

Usapa's constitution and by-laws also states "conditions and restrictions" with Date of hire, to protect unmerged expectations. DJshryack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.43.218 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The September 11, 2007 article ALPA National to East US Airways Pilots -- 'Buzz Off'; National Association Abandons East Pilots, Seniority published on the USPS press releases page contains the statement "USAPA has determined that seniority is a self-defining term. Accordingly, the USAPA Constitution requires the merging of seniority lists by 'date-of-hire' and no other methodology." If this is an oversimplification, what's needed is a better reference, such as the USAPA Constitution itself or a published excerpt, or possibly another press article that better explains this item. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:33, 30 May

2008 (UTC)

Dear Tcncv, this is right out of USAPA's constitution and by-laws, under objectives. Alpa put out a lot of propaganda, as they have not been voted off a property in 3/4 of a decade. Your references are from very biased articles. "D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on Date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot's unmerged career expectations." I might add that USAPA has filed today a civil suit in federal court, do to unlawful sabatoge by disgruntled supporters of Alpa, or unsupporters of USAPA. djshryack

"Since the date of its certification on April 18, 2008, USAPA and individual US Airways pilots have been subjected to a concerted campaign of intimidation and sabotage, which has included the following: 1) The jamming of USAPA’s toll-free telephone line in order to hamper union services and impose costs on the Union; 2) false communications to USAPA’s safety line – the equivalent of maliciously triggering a fire alarm; 3) communications to US Airways pilots asserting that their “safety” will be jeopardized if they pay dues to USAPA; 4) malicious efforts to interfere with USAPA’s electronic communications, 5) jumpseat boycotts designed to interfere with pilots’ right to earn a living, and 6) interference with U.S. Mail facilities. Our attorneys have advised us that many of these acts are in violation of federal and/or North Carolina state criminal law.

"USAPA is in possession of substantial documentary evidence confirming the existence of a concerted sabotage campaign. Initial written warnings to those first identified as responsible have either been ignored or met with disingenuous denials of responsibility. And, despite these warnings, the acts of criminal sabotage have continued.

Consequently, in defense of its members, their rights to unhampered union services and a fiscal responsibility to dues contributions, USAPA has determined that it has no choice but to take legal action.

Pursuant to a unanimous vote of the USAPA Pilot Board of Directors, on Friday, May 30, 2008, USAPA filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging violations of state and federal law."

This has nothing to do with the wiki article, but many other issues, as you can see. djshryack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.43.218 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I am rolling back a few recent changes because they were starting to unbalance the article.

• East vs West - I believe its best to keep the East vs West views and posturing in the controversy section, and limit the top section to the mundane description of the ASAPA as the National Mediation Board recognized collective bargaining agent for US Airways pilots. I recognize that the many (most/all?) of the West pilots to not believe the USAPA represents them, but thats what the controversy section is for.

• Merger vs Acquisition - Also, in the interest of neutrality, can we just briefly refer to this as a merger and get on with the rest of the article? The actual transactions that occurred were complicated and involved several holding companies, one of which appears to have effectively acquired the other two. Convincing arguments can be made either way as to which airline acquired which, but I suggest that this debate be taken to the US Airways article which has a section devoted to that transaction. Regardless of the legal and financial transactions involving the holding companies, operationally the two airlines themselves are merging.

• The Nicolau Award - The cited reference (The Street: Union Fight Ups Stakes at US Airways) expressed the opinion that the award was favorable to the West position, and I believe this is the generally accepted opinion. A review of the details seems to show that the award more closely aligns with the integration proposal put forth by the America West pilots.

One thing that is still needed in the article is a reference supporting the assertion that "West pilots have generally declined to join USAPA".

Please comment and discuss proposed changes here on the talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The seniority dispute between East and West pilots was finally settled, not in court, but by arbitration as part of the McCaksill Bond seniority integration process. This occurred as part of the US Airways / American Airlines merger. The McCaskill Bond Amendment to the Railway Labor Act, requires that an acquiring airline provide a “fair and equitable” method of seniority list integration. If the parties to an airline merger cannot agree on the integration of a single seniority list then any party may place the dispute before a neutral arbitrator.

West pilots maintained that a “fair and equitable” seniority integration had already occurred between US Airways and America West in 2007 and the fruit of that arbitrated settlement, known as the Nicolau award, was the suitable result and should be used going forward with the American Airlines Integration. The East pilots maintained that the Nicolau award, which gave no credit for longevity or date of hire, was deeply flawed and was not “fair and equitable.”

There was a great deal of litigation, as described in paragraphs above, with the 9th circuit finally overturning a lower court decision and finding that USAPA did in fact breach it’s Duty of Fair Representation to the West pilot class in not using the Nicolau award as the basis of the single seniority list for East and West pilots. Congress however, via the Railway Labor Act, and the McCaskill Bond amendment, gave arbitrators the sole authority to create a single integrated seniority list in an airline merger. While the court may have found USAPA liable, the court had no authority to intervene in the US Airways / American merger process, despite repeated requests by West pilots for them to do so.

Three parties, East pilots, (original US Airways), West Pilots, (original America West), and Legacy American Airlines pilots proceeded to arbitration over the question of a single integrated seniority list. Both the legacy American Airlines group and the West Pilots advocated for the Nicolau award in some form or another. The East pilots argued for a Longevity, Category and Status method of integration. In early September of 2016 the three member arbitration panel issued their opinion and award and the Nicolau award was not used in the final seniority list integration for the pilots of American Airlines. The arbitration panel found and stated the following:

“The Nicolau Award list has never been implemented because no single collective bargaining agreement has been negotiated between US Airways and the labor organizations that represented the pilots of that Carrier.”

“This Board is tasked with integrating the East, West and AA pilot groups in mid- 2016, based on considerations of fairness and equity as of December 9, 2013. By contrast, the Nicolau Award presented an experienced arbitration panel’s best judgment of a fair and equitable basis to integrate the seniority of the East and West pilot groups in 2007, based upon facts and considerations of fairness and equity as of May 2005.”

“Based on the undisputed demographics of the East and West groups, it is also evident beyond cavil that negotiation, let alone US Air pilot ratification, of a joint collective agreement between US Air and ALPA or USAPA that incorporated the Nicolau Award ISL – one of the preconditions to the Nicolau Award becoming effective – was never a reasonable possibility.”

“The courts have uniformly declined to impose, enforce or direct implementation of the Nicolau Award. Based upon all of the foregoing, the Board is not persuaded that updating and implementing the integrated list of the Nicolau Award ISL is legally mandated, necessary, or appropriate, given the facts and circumstances extant on our snapshot date of December 9, 2013.” It can be safely said that the arbitration panel did not adopt the specific proposal of any of the parties. The arbitrators constructed a list based on longevity, Category, (size of aircraft) and Status, (Captain or First Officer). The list is considered final and binding both by contract and by law, as the product of the McCaskill Bond legislation.

There is pending litigation over the list and its creation from a group of Legacy American Pilots, and there is also group of more junior West pilots suing American Airlines over the creation of the list. The legacy American Pilots contend that their superior career expectations deserve more weight and hence they should receive more seniority and the West pilots allege that American Airlines colluded with the illegal actions of the US Airline Pilots Association in making the agreement and they should be paid damages as a result. The US Airline Pilots Association is not a defendant in this matter as they reached a settlement with the West pilots in August of 2016.

American Airlines is of the legal opinion that the matter is closed and they are using the seniority list, as provided for in the arbitration award, and moving forward with the complete integration of all employee groups and departments in the merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.195.177 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Coatrack

As it stands, this article seems like a bit of a coatrack for a specific controversy, and not like a general article on the USAPA. Is there a good reason for that section not to be a separate article? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "controversy" is disproportionate to the rest of the article, but this is more due to the limited coverage in the main section of the article. From what I have learned as an outsider researching this, it is a topic worthy of the current level of coverage. Whether or not it belongs in a separate article, I don't know. Is it customary for controversies to have their own article?

By the way, the current organization and content of the article is mostly the result of a rewrite that was an attempt to provide neutral coverage and to calm the flood of edits that started around May 6. I admit, that this may not be the best justification for determining content, but in the end it appears to have been successful. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)