Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[EastUS1]

....If the company doesn't find a way around them then they'll protract the grievance we file. It'll be years before that sees the light of day.

You reasonably observe that such behavior is typical of tempe,.....yet you're thrilled with signing on to an agreement that's so full of holes that it'd make any competing swiss cheese blush, slink away and hide in shame?

 

[dca319]

You reasonably observe that such behavior is typical of tempe,.....yet you're thrilled with signing on to an agreement that's so full of holes that it'd make any competing swiss cheese blush, slink away and hide in shame?

So what's your plan General? Up until now you've been nothing more than a big mouth. How about some substance in one of your posts for once.

 

[Zone5]

The New B-Scale

Already famous for the launch of the B-scale in the 80’s, the APA has done it again with the E190 Captain rate of $114/hr. It is true the airplane is included in the parity review on January 1, 2016 and is expected to be brought up to $147 an hour but since the parity review is done by adding a certain percentage increase to an artificially low rate, the $147 will reflect well below industry standard for the E190. To make matters worse, the NAC is avoiding telling you that contained in the APA contract is the following language:

Neither party shall, without the written consent of the other party, seek to modify the pay relationship (i.e. ratio) set forth in Section 3.E. between Group I and Groups II – V through the processes of the Railway Labor Act for a period of two (2) contract cycles or ten (10) years from DOS, whichever is later.


Do you understand what it means? It means the B-scale E190 rates will be here for over a decade before APA is even allowed to discuss it with management. They have agreed to not bring it up for 10 years or two Section 6 negotiating cycles whichever is longer.

And how did the APA go about mitigating the lower E190 pay? With this language:

Pilots flying Group I aircraft may pick-up as restricted only by FAR limits.

This is the only fleet that is allowed a cap of FAR limits. It looks like this was the APA’s way of addressing the lower hourly pay.

Ya, the APA really screwed up the 190 thing......almost as bad as Piedmont screwed up the F28.......and USAir screwed up Metrojet! We would all have been better off without those jobs on the mainline and being flow by the commuters! Ask the "Jets For Jobs" guys how they liked that program.


seajay

 

[EastUS1]

Still waiting for your plan General. Or is your ego not allowing you to have to explain yourself?

Well, precious little lamb, it's been highlighted by others already. Vote down this offer. Seek and reasonably expect better. Clean up the utterly inadequate language and insert what's needed to form even ANY semblance of a rational and defensible contract, that all may well live under far longer than is currently fantasized or imagined. Is there anything particularly unclear there?

Many suggested road shows and such hoopla from which to garner the "facts". Well, the truth of ANY legal instrument is that the facts reside within it, and ONLY within it...period. I suggest actually reading the friggin' document. "Or is your ego not allowing you" to realize even the idea that you just might be being had here, or even to think at all?

 

[luvthe9]

Paul DiOrio did an in depth study of the DAL and UAL pay rates as part of his function as Chairman of the Negotiating Committee before Gary Hummel fired him at the behest of the company.

A careful study by him shows that pay rates after 1/1 2016 and beyond that the NAC is now showing are substantially wrong and will be substantially lower than they are telling people based on comparing Group 2 aircraft (B737-800 and the A-320) with DAL and UAL parity rates.

No one knew more about these negotiations, the pay rates and the pitfalls than Paul. Unfortunately, that was why he was removed. It made it that much easier for the Company and Gary Hummel to reach this flawed, vague and sometimes misleading agreement and to try to pass it off to us. Now, more than ever before we need someone in office that will navigate us through this mess.

Make no mistake, this MOU is a mess. No businessman in their right mind would sign off on an agreement that had such vague language intentionally placed in it. Between the 1st and 2nd MOU, there was ample time to solidify this language and I believe it was done deliberately.

If the pay rates are so badly miscalculated, what else are we missing? This is just another reason to vote for Paul DiOrio as PHL BPR Chairman.

I suggest, if you want more information that you email Paul at [email protected].

 

[traderjake]

This is just another reason to vote for Paul DiOrio as PHL BPR Chairman.

In addition to the results he's produced as NAC Chairman?

 

[Bill Brasky]

How can all that be? The payscales and the assumptions they are based on are right there. The only thing I see that is subject to significant change is the amount after the parity review. Plus, screwing over 14,000 pilots in your employ isn't smart. I have to admit the E190 pay thing is pretty sad. Doesn't JetBlue make a lot more than that? What I see is a bunch of folks looking for reasons to justify voting "no", just like all the emotional screamers demanding "paybacks" at the roadshow.

 

[EastUS1]

In addition to the results he's produced as NAC Chairman?

Care to argue against the validity of the following observation trader?

Make no mistake, this MOU is a mess. No businessman in their right mind would sign off on an agreement that had such vague language intentionally placed in it.

 

[EastUS1]

What I see is a bunch of folks looking for reasons to justify voting "no", just like all the emotional screamers demanding "paybacks" at the roadshow.

My concerns are purely pragmatic. Field any/all notions contrary to the following observation if you will sir:

No businessman in their right mind would sign off on an agreement that had such vague language intentionally placed in it.

 

[luvthe9]

Care to argue against the validity of the following observation trader?

Make no mistake, this MOU is a mess. No businessman in their right mind would sign off on an agreement that had such vague language intentionally placed in it.

I think he will have to talk to Munn and Walmartgreeter first, it was funny today went in and out of CLT a few times also had a jumpseat rider, Munn and his group of ALPO recall rejects are not too well liked from what the boys are saying, go figure what a group of losers.
This group has a whole different agenda from the rest of the normal ones here sounds like they will fail on the recall, which is nice!!! PS Paul knows more about this MOU than anyone I would listen to him if I were you.

 

[nevergiveup]

Here is some food for thought for your readership.

If the MOU passes, we all know what happens next. No secret.

What if the MOU does NOT pass???

We keep scope and min block hours AND our pay goes back to "Book
rates". 190 pilots would suffer for a time period until a JCBA

If we go to arbitration for seniority, then we would be bringing to
the table a much higher pay rate than the AA pilots. The westies
wouldn't be bringing much to the table. No Large airplanes. No high
pay rates. No international routes. No orders for Airbus 350's. And
only one Hub that is not very profitable. The east pilots would have
a much better argument for being harmed than the west would and fair a
better chance at DOH or something better that NIC award. I know that
we may have to grieve the COC pay, but I'm sure we would win. If East
pilots are willing to fight for COC instead of MOU, we would have a
better chance of doing better in an arbitrated seniority list. Just
my thoughts!!!!

We get the pay, we get the scope and we get the seniority. It's
worth the risk and the fight.

I voted for the MOU, but then changed it to a NO vote today.

Respectfully,
Tom Sloan
f/o ab phl

What if they decide not to merge as a result of our voting down the MOU (due to high coc operating costs). Then our pay stays at LOA 93.

If the merger is a 100% guarantee, then we might benefit by voting it down. Are we willing to take that chance? hmmmm.

 

[luvthe9]

What if they decide not to merge as a result of our voting down the MOU (due to high coc operating costs). Then our pay stays at LOA 93.

If the merger is a 100% guarantee, then we might benefit by voting it down. Are we willing to take that chance? hmmmm.

Hopefully with all that excessive verbiage behind us, we can finally talk about how “risk” and “uncertainty” apply to the MOU. Although a “no” vote on the MOU was previously described by another writer as an “uncertainty,” it is actually a “risk.” Although we do not know exactly what Parker would do with a “no” vote, we certainly do know what he could do. For instance, Parker could come back with an even worse MOU (extremely unlikely as he loses all credibility in the eyes of APA, the creditors, etc.) or he does nothing (again unlikely as he is by his own words and promises trying to put together a merger. Doing nothing defies logic and good business sense and ignores the elephant in the room. It makes the creditors wonder how serious Parker is about achieving the synergies of a big airline. Parker’s ego does not want nor will he be permitted to run three separate airlines.) or he comes back kicking and screaming with an MOU (or better yet, a contract) that is more palatable to the pilot group. In my opinion, this is his only real option if he wants to hold this merger together. Too much time, money and energy have been expended by Parker and others to let it fall apart now.

 

[dca319]

Well, precious little lamb, it's been highlighted by others already. Vote down this offer. Seek and reasonably expect better. Clean up the utterly inadequate language and insert what's needed to form even ANY semblance of a rational and defensible contract, that all may well live under far longer than is currently fantasized or imagined. Is there anything particularly unclear there?

Many suggested road shows and such hoopla from which to garner the "facts". Well, the truth of ANY legal instrument is that the facts reside within it, and ONLY within it...period. I suggest actually reading the friggin' document. "Or is your ego not allowing you" to realize even the idea that you just might be being had here, or even to think at all?

And if the company doesn't come back? What then General?

 

[dca319]

Care to argue against the validity of the following observation trader?

Make no mistake, this MOU is a mess. No businessman in their right mind would sign off on an agreement that had such vague language intentionally placed in it.

That was covered in the roadshow and in a prior post. But I guess your to good for any of that.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Care to argue against the validity of the following observation trader?

Make no mistake, this MOU is a mess. No businessman in their right mind would sign off on an agreement that had such vague language intentionally placed in it.

Hmmm, a disparaging remark from someone just removed from their position. Yea, I should give that a lot of consideration, certainly more than the NAC members and attorneys I listened to.