Alpa Close To A Ta?

[USA320Pilot]

Today the ALPA Negotiating Committee offered the Company a proposal that is close to and may meet management's $295 million ask. I have not seen ALPA E&FA's valuation, but I have seen the proposal and it appears the parties could be close to an agreement.

Key points include:

1. Amendable date December 31, 2009.

2. Freeze current pay rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09, reduce rates as frozen by 17.5%, reduce international pay override for transoceanic trips by 17.5%, eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips, and pay all flying at day rates.

3. All rates of required contributions to the Pilots’ Defined Contribution Plan that are above 10% shall be reduced to 10%. Make all contributions that were not made to Pilots’ Defined Contribution Plan, July 2004 and thereafter. Note - this is key because the DC Plan has been reduced by 90%, which was a very difficult decision for the RC4.

All pre petition and post petition notional money shall be paid in accordance with the Pilots’ Defined Contribution Plan in six equal installments after the pilot retires; a retiring pilot shall receive 1/6th of the amount on his retirement date and equal payments each six months thereafter until the entire amount is paid.

4. Simplify the scheduling system, permit up to 95 block hours per month, and provide work rule and sick policy relief.

5. Maximum vacation 21 days.

6. Concessions were provided to LTD, training, and retiree health care.

7. Minimum fleet count, minimum block hour, and CAR's relief.

8. ALPA maintained fragmentation and change of control provisions, which provides job security protections in the event of a corporate transaction.

9. Expanded voluntary leave of absence (LOA) and an early retirement incentive program in lieu of furloughs, which are no cost items. In addition, MDA J4J relief to include the loss of mainline recall if a pilot resigns from MDA (the pilot will be removed from the US Airways mainline system seniority list and will not be eligible for future recall). These proposals could prevent furloughs. It's my understanding the company currently has 120 pilots who desire a LOA.

10. No out of seniority furloughs and the proposal maintains furlough pay.

10. CRJ-900 and EMB190/195 aircraft, which the company desires to be deployed at PSA and MDA, respectively, was not addressed.

11. ALPA agreed to company's pre-bankruptcy profit sharing proposal.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Vote No.

 

[ISP]

7. Minimum fleet count, minimum block hour, and CAR's relief.

[post="185715"][/post]​

No 279 planes = let the furloughs begin

 

[PITbull]

USA320,

So, did the CLT Rep get the 4 ALPA reps to resign?

 

[delldude]

USA320,

So, did the CLT Rep get the 4 ALPA reps to resign?

[post="185721"][/post]​

yeah i thought you guys were having them for dinner.....now we have a love affair??

 

[PITbull]

USA320,

So, did the CLT Rep get the 4 ALPA reps to resign?

[post="185721"][/post]​

Well I guess no response means a "negative" on that, good buddy.

Can I offer you some "crow" with that pie?

 

[USA320Pilot]

PitBull:

The CLT F/O Rep intends to submit a resolution demanding the RC4s resignation at the next MEC meeting.

Separately, with the help of ALPA legal, two pilot's have provided notice to the PHL Council 41 chairman and ALPA National of their intent to hold another recall of all 3 PHL LEC officers at the next local meeting.

In regard to ALPA's proposal, the true test of the company's intentions are in their response, which ALPA believes will be obtained on Wednesday. ALPA has now given management everything they said they needed. The one item the Negotiating Committee keeps taking out of ALPA's proposal and management keeps putting back in is the paragraph that requires modifying LOA 91, which would permit the EMB-190/195 and CRJ-900 at MDA and PSA, respectively. The company refused to give credit for it during negotiations, saying it has no value.

Obviously, this is a key issue with major implications for every US Airways employee.

Meanwhile, Bill Pollock just called a Special MEC meeting to be held in CLT commencing on September 30 with the agenda a "Negotiating Committee Update".

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[delldude]

320- its quite obvious to all that by a recall attempt we have here a divided house for all to see. :mf_boff:

 

[EyeInTheSky]

The majority of the pilots have spoken already. They said no and will continue to say no to the company's ridiculous demands.

 

[PITbull]

USA320,

Its ludicrous to start a "recall" again. It will fail.

It sends no message but a sign of division, which creates anxiety among the members at a time like this.

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[USA320Pilot]

If the company accepts this proposal, it should pass by about a 3 to 1 margin.

It has been very clear at the last two MEC meetings, with over 300 pilot's in attendance, that 90% of the pilot's want an agreement. The rank-and-file would have agreed to the company's September 10 proposal, if provided a vote, which is now similar to ALPA's September 28 proposal.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

P.S. There is now significant motivation to recall the PHL Reps and Fred Freshwater is not running for re-election in PIT. The election process is now occurring and there will be new PIT representation on March 1. Meanwhile, it would not surprise me if the RC4 resign after ALPA has a ratified CBA.

 

[USA320Pilot]

In regard to the minimum fleet count, it's my understanding some creditor's want to repossess their aircraft.

Furthermore, the company has major aircraft lease payments due in January and February; as well as very expensive heavy maintenance due this winter on the widebody aircraft.

Bankruptcy law provides the company 60 days after the bankruptcy filing to determine whether or not it will affirm or reject leases, which was the motivation for the 60-day limited S.1113 protection.

It's unclear how the fleet plan will evolve, however, the company desires to maintain as high as possible mainline fleet, and still desires mainline hulls to grow to 320 aircraft. Meanwhile, there is still the 150 mainline aircraft point-to-point fleet plan that is still a possibility because of its projected 8% profit margin.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[delldude]

i see them changing cfm-3 engines all of the sudden on a daily basis here in pit...could this be a harbinger to come for the repo man??

 

[Light Years]

ALPA uses seniority like every union at US for work assignments etc. Correct?

There is this whole issue of the EMB 170/190/195 & similar CRJ's that US wants to fly. My question is this. If the company wants to save money why not eliminate the W/0's, Negotiate a contract for the entire airline based on equipmen flown?

It could work for f/s too.

I mean it could go something like this.

Dash-8 = 37.50 flight hour
CRJ -200 = 50.00 per flight hour
EMB-145 = 50.00 per flight hour
737-319 = 75.00 per flight hour
757-320 = 90.00 per flight hour
767-330 = 120.00 per flight hour

ONE contract with the same scope and work rules systemwide. Assignments based on qualification and seniority. This offers a career path within US Airways.

F/A would be the same as well. I'm NOT suggesting these numbers, just an example.

This way you could also eliminate management overlap and create some economies of scale on the administrative side. It would tend toward building morale as well, the PSA, Piedmont, MAA acrimony as the workgroup would be one

[post="185740"][/post]​

Well Bob, we've had our disagreements in the past but you are 100% correct here. Not sure with the actual dollar amounts but the single, or at most two seniority lists would go a long way. JetBlue, Southwest, AirTran? Single seniority list. HUGE cost savings and huge morale boost- everyone would be on the same team for once.

They would never agree to it because they want to pit people against each other. If one group "causes trouble", they've got the other... If MDA folks get too big for thier britches come negotiating time, they always have PSA with the same sized aircraft and so on.

Redundancy in Express carriers, fleet types, and work groups is worse at US than any airline in the world. Who has three/two wholly owneds, a division, and six contract carriers flying as Express? Keep in mind every one of them has thier own administrative and operational support facilities and personel, plus the costs of paying the contractors to be profitable. Same thing with having two fleet types for every mission... each has it's own web of support in people and parts.

There is a space for everyone at US somewhere... they choose to make things complicated so the workforce doesn't feel any empowerment or ownership. If only they did... the power of being a single team with a shared goal is immeasurable. Imagine if the energy put into trying to keep your job from being outsourced to Mesa was channeled into providing a superior product and beating the pants off the the competing airlines.

I've said it before- it's hard to compete to with other airlines when you've got to compete with the outside help who are wearing your uniform and taking your job within your own "brand." It's hard to care about your airline when you've been/are getting laid off while the Shuttle America and Mesa folks slap on the uniform you worked so hard for (or part of it).

If the company wants to buy new airplanes, whether they have 30 seats or 266, it needs to be US Group people staffing them, who's agenda is the whole airline's success, not being cheap enough to rob more flying from the airline and its employees.

This is the type of basic, fundamental stuff that is ridiculously expensive and a massive detriment to the overall product and morale. When they address these types of glaringly stupid operational issues, then maybe folks will talk, or feel some sort of hope.

 

[Kev3188]

ALPA uses seniority like every union at US for work assignments etc. Correct?

There is this whole issue of the EMB 170/190/195 & similar CRJ's that US wants to fly. My question is this. If the company wants to save money why not eliminate the W/0's, Negotiate a contract for the entire airline based on equipmen flown?

It could work for f/s too.

I mean it could go something like this.

Dash-8 = 37.50 flight hour
CRJ -200 = 50.00 per flight hour
EMB-145 = 50.00 per flight hour
737-319 = 75.00 per flight hour
757-320 = 90.00 per flight hour
767-330 = 120.00 per flight hour

ONE contract with the same scope and work rules systemwide. Assignments based on qualification and seniority. This offers a career path within US Airways.

F/A would be the same as well. I'm NOT suggesting these numbers, just an example.

This way you could also eliminate management overlap and create some economies of scale on the administrative side. It would tend toward building morale as well, the PSA, Piedmont, MAA acrimony as the workgroup would be one

[post="185740"][/post]​

LY--

Wow, this is scary....Both you and I agreeing with Bob on something.

Piney, I've been preaching this over at the Big Red Machine for years. In our case it'd be the 146, and CRJ, but the theory about them being "entry level" A/C for our flight crews would remain the same (replacing, in our case, some DC9-10 flying among others...). It's so much simpler, and NW already is paying leases, landing fees, etc. for the XJ & 9E. Not to mention the happy, secure feeling employee factor......