US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message January 19, 2008
Fellow Pilots,
I am compelled once again to respond to another reckless attempt by the PHL Council 41 representatives to derail the process that the rest of your MEC stands behind. I imagine
that our largest council is unhappy with the fact that every other council doesn't have a
problem with seeing if we can come to a mutual agreement with the AWA pilots on
finding ways to mitigate the damages caused by the Nicolau Award to both groups, in
concert with developing a comprehensive JNC proposal that could be presented to each
MEC for their review and approval. No other council is sending intentionally misleading
communications meant to scare our pilots into thinking that the work of our three man
Steering Committee is somehow a direct route to the implementation of the Nicolau
Award “as is,†because it is not, and the rest of the MEC understands that.
I've spent my share of time on the MEC, representing pilots from two different domiciles,
PHL and BWI, and now as MEC Chairman, and I understand and certainly respect the
work and passion that is part and parcel to being a pilot representative. But just being the
representatives from the largest council and just being the representatives who cast the
most aspersions, does not guarantee that your opinions will prevail. The MEC is a policymaking
body, and they often disagree on the best course of action and how to make
policy. But whipping pilots up into a frenzy is irresponsible and shows a lack of
representational responsibility, especially when most of the "facts" being sent out are
untrue and jeopardize the direction that the majority of the MEC has decided to take. It
appears that the PHL agenda is to turn our pilots against the process—which hasn't even
started yet—by spreading untruths and careless innuendos.
The PHL Reps are not new to MEC business, so they should know better. To pretend to
not understand my role as MEC Chairman is ludicrous. They know full well that my
responsibility as MEC Chairman is to represent the MEC when they aren't in session. If
they don’t like the process that I have been communicating to you, then they should
confront their colleagues on the MEC and attempt to persuade them rather than resorting
to blaming me for everything that does not go their way. At our last meeting in
December, the PHL reps attempted to shut down the Steering Committee, but were
unable to convince a majority of their fellow MEC members that such action was in the
best interests of our pilots.
As MEC Chairman, I represent the MEC majority along with their direction and opinion.
When the MEC said they wanted the Nicolau Award to go away, that's what I insisted on
in my communications to our pilots and to ALPA’s Executive Council. When the MEC
said they wanted a permanent, separate - but equal operation, that’s what I
communicated. When the MEC directed your Negotiating Committee to obtain
retroactive pay parity, I delivered that message to Captain Prater, ALPA’s Executive
Council and to our pilots. The Executive Council ultimately responded with a resolution
endorsing pay parity for East pilots as a priority. And when the MEC unanimously
endorsed the concept of a Blue Ribbon Panel, I delivered that message to Captain Prater,
who responded by directing that both MECs staff such a panel. And finally, when the
MEC elected to investigate a process with the AWA pilots to determine if mitigating the
damages of the Nicolau Award were possible—yes, a change from their previous
position, and for good reason, that's what I reported to you in my letters and my
Chairman messages.
If the PHL reps aren't happy with what I'm saying, that is fine, and I respect their right to
disagree with the majority, but they can’t pretend to think that I, as MEC Chairman, can
make a unilateral change to the direction the rest of the MEC has set. They can’t pretend
to think that I am responsible for setting our policy and direction. And as I have told them
repeatedly, if they don’t like the direction that I am reporting to you, then they need to go
back to the rest of the MEC, develop an agenda, call a special meeting, and convince the
other 10 members that what I'm saying is not consistent with the direction they have set.
They haven't been able to do that so far, either because they are unwilling, or they know
that the rest of the MEC is not buying into their tirades and tactics, so they continue to
lash out and vent their frustrations on me.
I respect the right of the PHL Council to disagree with what I say. But they ought to be
smart enough to know that I alone can't fix what they want fixed. The MEC Chairman
doesn't set policy, the MEC does. My job is to implement and communicate to you what
they have set.
It’s also very important to note that no MEC resolutions have been "broken" during this
whole process, and you haven't heard a word about broken resolutions from other LEC
reps—because it never happened. As we embarked on the grueling process of dealing
with the aftermath of the Nicolau Award at our Special MEC Meeting in Herndon on
May 6, 2007, the MEC passed a series of resolutions throughout the summer months and
into the fall. The latest of these resolutions was passed unanimously (all 12 reps on the
MEC voting in the affirmative!) on October 13, 2007:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the AAA MEC requests that ALPA National establish a
Blue Ribbon Panel composed of East and West pilots selected by each MEC, with a 30-
day duration, to jointly negotiate a mutually acceptable solution to the Nicolau Award to
include pay parity and seniority related issues, and
THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED the results of the panel will be presented to
each MEC for review and approval prior to serving as a basis for any JNC negotiations.
Passed Unanimously
This is exactly what we are engaged in now. Depending on the progress of this process,
some resolutions may have to be revisited. For example, if the three-man panel process
continues to move forward, and we get to a point where the AAA MEC agrees with the
AWA MEC on a counterproposal to present to the company, then the MEC will have to
pass a resolution that directs that Negotiating Committee members be reassigned to the
JNC, as was described in the process that your MEC developed. If you look at the
pertinent MEC actions that we've posted on the Merger Committee page on our website,
you'll see that all MEC resolutions are being followed.
The PHL reps know that, but they often pretend as though they don’t. I’m asking your
PHL reps to get their message straight, as they seem to advocate in the beginning of this
Council 41 Update from last June:
Update for June 6, 2007 #2
Say what you mean and mean what you say!
Dear Philadelphia Pilots,
It would seem that for most folks “meaning what you say†would be a fundamental belief
learned at a very young age. It is one of those human characteristics that goes right to
the core of one’s personality and soul.
Unfortunately, it is a trait that is getting harder and harder to find among our leaders,
both within Management and the Union.
We have watched our fellow pilots in positions of union leadership say one thing and
then do something completely different. It doesn’t seem to matter whether it’s to an
individual or 400 people, whether it’s by spoken word or in writing. They lack the
strength of character to honor their previously stated or written commitments. Why? I
suppose at the time it is the easier choice, usually involving less confrontation with less
risk. Risk produces fear, and fear is a powerful motivator for these individuals. They
don’t like absolutes. They do like excuses. They look to so-called “experts,†who in most
cases are no more qualified than you or I, to make a basic decision for them. Many times
these experts have their own agendas and interests.
It is unfortunate that these individuals are able to find their way into positions of
leadership and representation; they sell themselves as something that they are not to the
pilots they are supposed to represent. These individual’s and their flaws of character are
at the heart of what has been lost in our profession.
The Aviators of yesterday were not fearful; they had courage to make decisions and then
to standby them, not hide (in closed session) from them. They would not be threatened by
risk and were extremely self reliant and independent; they didn’t need experts to hide
behind. They would not compromise their principals due to fear or for expediency. And
they said what they meant and meant what they said.
I couldn’t agree more. Who would respect a man who hid or concealed an agenda? What
kind of a leader would pretend to be someone he is not? And who would remain in a
position of representation and/or responsibility for one union, when they thought another
union, currently fighting for the right to represent your pilots, could do a better job? A
man must mean what he says and he should say what he means, notwithstanding the
possibility of course, that one may elect to change one’s mind or to have a change of
heart.
But in the following month, in a July 30, 2007 Council 41 Fast Read, the PHL reps wrote:
On the Decert
I ,Eric, know three fellows involved in the decert. They are all fine fellows as far as I
can tell. Supporters of Dave and I? The pilots I know working on the decert are not even
Philly pilots. The closest thing I have said about the decert is that “If ALPA throws holy
water on this list I am out of here, I will not represent an organization that would do
such a thing. When I leave I will take as many pilots with me as I can.â€
As we know, ALPA delivered the list to the Company on December 19, 2007. That was
over 30 days ago. My question to Captain Rowe is simply this - does he mean what he
said, or was he just pretending again, had a change of heart, or is he now just waffling?
I apologize that you have to tolerate the volley of incendiary communications that you so
strongly abhor. As I've said to you before, all we ask is that you give this process to
mitigate damages to the Nicolau Award every chance to succeed. While it is a process
that PHL Council 41 only seems to actively oppose when the MEC is not in session and a
process they blame me for, it is the direction that the majority of the MEC are
comfortable with proceeding. The communications from PHL Council 41 indicate that
they are unwilling to look under every stone to protect you from the Nicolau Award.
Perhaps like USAPA, they want your MEC to fail. Your MEC officers and the other
members of your MEC continue to support the process to seek solutions to the problems
caused by the Nicolau Award. As this may be our last opportunity to find acceptable
mutual solutions, we won’t give up on you in our efforts.
Fraternally,
Jack Stephan
US Airways MEC Chairman
