December 21, 2004
Pat Friend, President
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO
501 Third Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Pat:
Thank you for reaching out to me this morning to discuss the issues raised by your recent comments to the Financial Times. Nonetheless, I must reiterate how surprised and angered our members are at your comments in print regarding the Tentative Agreement between ALPA and United. It was rash and beyond explanation for you to suggest that ALPA "should be expelled from the AFL-CIO," or to refer to the United pilot leadership as "despicable." Your words were an unexpected, unfair broadside against pilots at United and every other ALPA carrier. Now that you and your advisors have read the agreement, and received a briefing from United regarding its provisions, I expect that you now agree that it does not call for the termination of the AFA's or any other pension plan at United.
As you are aware, United has said for some time that in order for it to emerge from bankruptcy, it must terminate the defined benefit plans of all its employees and replace them with defined contribution arrangements. It must also achieve hundreds of millions in annual labor cost savings, over and above the concessions it has been granted since filing for bankruptcy in December 2002. The United pilots' leadership has concluded that there is a sufficient basis for the company's claims, and that it would be irresponsible for us to ignore this situation.
Faced with the economic realities, ALPA reached a tentative agreement that would, if adopted, terminate United's motion against us under Section 1113. As part of that TA, ALPA has agreed not to oppose a request by United for Bankruptcy Court approval of termination of the Pilot A-Plan under a procedure that grants other affected parties a full opportunity to argue against the termination if they so desire. As part of the pilot agreement, ALPA insisted on a "me too" clause, which assures pilots that if United backs away from its claim that plan terminations are necessary and permits any other employee group to keep its defined benefit plan, the pilots will have the right to fight termination of their A-Plan.
As you know, contingency clauses have been fairly standard in airline labor negotiations for many years, including AFA contracts. They assure that the pain (or gain) is spread fairly among employee groups, particularly when agreements are reached sequentially. I would never expect you to agree to a possible termination of the flight attendants' pension plan without a similar agreement.
With this TA, United pilots have stepped up to the plate and provided their fair share of the necessary cost savings, based on their percentage of the total company payroll. As we both know, pilots are almost always the lead group in negotiations. In good economic times, other employee groups want to see how well ALPA does and they set their expectations based on the pilots' successes. In bad times, management goes after us first because we are the biggest target. We would not be representing our members' best interests if we failed to negotiate contingency clauses related to other union agreements under these circumstances.
Some are mischaracterizing the pilots' pension contingency clause as trying to "force" the other unions to accept termination of their plans. This is utter nonsense. As I told you in our phone conversation, we are not trying to force any other union to do anything. Other employee groups are free to negotiate the best deal possible for their members, and we would never interfere with that. The pension contingency clause simply protects the pilots if the defined benefit plan of any other group remains protected.
I am willing to discuss these issues further, but in the meantime I ask you to continue to study this agreement. I hope that, upon further reflection, you will agree there is nothing in ALP A's Tentative Agreement that is inappropriate or interferes with AF A's negotiations with United.
Fraternally yours,
Duane E. Woerth, President
Pat Friend, President
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO
501 Third Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Pat:
Thank you for reaching out to me this morning to discuss the issues raised by your recent comments to the Financial Times. Nonetheless, I must reiterate how surprised and angered our members are at your comments in print regarding the Tentative Agreement between ALPA and United. It was rash and beyond explanation for you to suggest that ALPA "should be expelled from the AFL-CIO," or to refer to the United pilot leadership as "despicable." Your words were an unexpected, unfair broadside against pilots at United and every other ALPA carrier. Now that you and your advisors have read the agreement, and received a briefing from United regarding its provisions, I expect that you now agree that it does not call for the termination of the AFA's or any other pension plan at United.
As you are aware, United has said for some time that in order for it to emerge from bankruptcy, it must terminate the defined benefit plans of all its employees and replace them with defined contribution arrangements. It must also achieve hundreds of millions in annual labor cost savings, over and above the concessions it has been granted since filing for bankruptcy in December 2002. The United pilots' leadership has concluded that there is a sufficient basis for the company's claims, and that it would be irresponsible for us to ignore this situation.
Faced with the economic realities, ALPA reached a tentative agreement that would, if adopted, terminate United's motion against us under Section 1113. As part of that TA, ALPA has agreed not to oppose a request by United for Bankruptcy Court approval of termination of the Pilot A-Plan under a procedure that grants other affected parties a full opportunity to argue against the termination if they so desire. As part of the pilot agreement, ALPA insisted on a "me too" clause, which assures pilots that if United backs away from its claim that plan terminations are necessary and permits any other employee group to keep its defined benefit plan, the pilots will have the right to fight termination of their A-Plan.
As you know, contingency clauses have been fairly standard in airline labor negotiations for many years, including AFA contracts. They assure that the pain (or gain) is spread fairly among employee groups, particularly when agreements are reached sequentially. I would never expect you to agree to a possible termination of the flight attendants' pension plan without a similar agreement.
With this TA, United pilots have stepped up to the plate and provided their fair share of the necessary cost savings, based on their percentage of the total company payroll. As we both know, pilots are almost always the lead group in negotiations. In good economic times, other employee groups want to see how well ALPA does and they set their expectations based on the pilots' successes. In bad times, management goes after us first because we are the biggest target. We would not be representing our members' best interests if we failed to negotiate contingency clauses related to other union agreements under these circumstances.
Some are mischaracterizing the pilots' pension contingency clause as trying to "force" the other unions to accept termination of their plans. This is utter nonsense. As I told you in our phone conversation, we are not trying to force any other union to do anything. Other employee groups are free to negotiate the best deal possible for their members, and we would never interfere with that. The pension contingency clause simply protects the pilots if the defined benefit plan of any other group remains protected.
I am willing to discuss these issues further, but in the meantime I ask you to continue to study this agreement. I hope that, upon further reflection, you will agree there is nothing in ALP A's Tentative Agreement that is inappropriate or interferes with AF A's negotiations with United.
Fraternally yours,
Duane E. Woerth, President
