Any Pilots?

[Hopeful]

It seems there has been movement on behalf of the pilots that they are offering a deal to the company to preserve their pensions and get their money back. A while back I had posted that I had a conversation with a pilot who said that AA should outsorce more work and ground employees so his pension would be saved.

Well it seems that is the position of the APA. The APA leadership has approached the company and basically stated that they would support any and all outsourcing from the ramp people to the aircraft maintenance. They basically said they are the most valuable employees and would do "whatever necessary" to perserve their pay and benefits and most of all their pensions.

Of hearing this news, I first thought it was just a rumor. But when I think back about 5 years or so, it was this same pilot union that wanted a boarding priority in non rev travel over all other employees because they were pilots.

AAny AA pilots care to respond?

 

[Decision 2004]

I know of many Line Mechanics who would favor outsource of heavy overhaul maintenance and baggage handling to save their pay, pensions, and benefits. Can you really blame them at this point?

I know of many Overhaul Mecahnics who would like to see baggage handling, stores, and Title II outsourced to save their pensions, pay, and benefits.

I dont think it takes any confirmation on these bulletins board to understand that we are all in a game of survival, and the "I've Got Mine Brother" mentality is going to be used as a stick as we proceed to the future.

Do not be surprised if you both personally gain, and personally suffer from the self serving attitudes of airlines employees.

Eat is Dog eat Dog and I do not need anyone on this fourm to confirm that, I can see it and hear it.

 

[Hopeful]

Decision:

I was looking for a pilot response. It's one thing for line maintenance to suggest outsourcing overhaul and vice versa. But for one work group to suggest outsourcing of OTHER work groups is the ultimate "I got mine."


I tell you what, why doesn't AA outsource pilots?

Decision, I don't know if you work the line, but since the pilots got their 9% snap back earlier in the year, they have been the poster children for the "I got mine" campaign.
(9% of $150,000 far outpaces our 1.5% or $.46 an hour raise we are due to get this year.)

Did you know that pilots are getting a "fuel burn" savings premium?
This includes APU burn on the ground. I can't tell you how many pilots have been lecturing maintenance about finding APU's being left running upon thier arrival to the cockpit.
(How much "fuel burn" savings premium do mechanics receive when taxiing on one engine?")

I have personally been lectured by a captain about how we all have to save the company and how fuel costs are eating away at profits. I agreed and then complimented him on his nice new leather flight jacket.

The day I received the "I am the Captain, hear me roar" speech about the APU running was the same day it was 10 degrees below zero with the windchill factor.

 

[Decision 2004]

Not to be offensive Hopeful, but if the Pilots can negotiate fuel burn premiums and you cannot, then I think we agree the problem is our Union not the Pilots. I personally do not see much difference in the two "outsource" for gain issues.

I can fully understand your anger, but I feel it is pointed in the wrong direction. Your own Craft and Class has plenty of flaws that need work, do not give up now and start focusing/blaming another work group.

Don't get me wrong, I have fears also, but I wonder, exactly what would you do about it, if a Pilot did come on this board and told you to pound sand because he will do whatever it takes to save his pension?

My point is this, asking for confirmation of something so serious on a bulletin board system of alias' is rather worthless in my mind.

Most I work around can see the writing on the wall, and the fact is, another threat of BK is around the corner, and we all got shafted once to save the Pilot "Sacred Cow" Pension. And with the Jim Little and the TWU on your side, history is more likely than not to repeat.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Most I work around can see the writing on the wall, and the fact is, another threat of BK is around the corner, and we all got shafted once to save the Pilot "Sacred Cow" Pension. And with the Jim Little and the TWU on your side, history is more likely than not to repeat.

And you can bet your life on it

 

[Hopeful]

Not to be offensive Hopeful, but if the Pilots can negotiate fuel burn premiums and you cannot, then I think we agree the problem is our Union not the Pilots. I personally do not see much difference in the two "outsource" for gain issues.

I can fully understand your anger, but I feel it is pointed in the wrong direction. Your own Craft and Class has plenty of flaws that need work, do not give up now and start focusing/blaming another work group.

Don't get me wrong, I have fears also, but I wonder, exactly what would you do about it, if a Pilot did come on this board and told you to pound sand because he will do whatever it takes to save his pension?

My point is this, asking for confirmation of something so serious on a bulletin board system of alias' is rather worthless in my mind.

Most I work around can see the writing on the wall, and the fact is, another threat of BK is around the corner, and we all got shafted once to save the Pilot "Sacred Cow" Pension. And with the Jim Little and the TWU on your side, history is more likely than not to repeat.

[post="234704"][/post]​

I started this topic because of my interaction with pilots. Not all of them, but pilots nonetheless. They see what is on the horizon for them when you think of Us Airways and UAL.

You are correct in blaming our so called union.

Most of the content on this board this this board debates the TWU's history with this company.
So when I post something of this nature, I am told well "can you blame the pilots for worrying about themselves?"

The bottom line is that pilots have always been and always will be out for themselves. Their compensation is equal to and in some cases greater than that of corporate executives.

Do I blame them?
Yes I do.
Have you ever wondered throughout the history of AA/Labor negotiations and collective bargaining that the pilots have received a greater piece of the pie?
Have you ever wondered that maybe their negotiations and collective bargaining power came at the expense of the other workers at the airline?

Consider this scenario:
Pilots go into negotiations and tell the company, "Give us this, this and that, and don't touch this this and that, and we will curtail writeups until the plane overnights at a maintenance station. Basically, we will help the company through these times.
We will support WHATEVER steps the company deems necessart to survive. As long as we are handsomely rewarded for not supporting other workers issues and concerns. You know, Mr. Arpey, you scrub our backs we'll scrub yours!"


So you might say, well let them, or good for them. But to have the yams to feather your own nest at the expense of other work groups is plain WRONG!

So those of you who say "good for the pilots" should be open to line maintenance saying "outsouce overhaul" and overhaul saying "screw the line stations."

It has been suggested on this board and especially after the AMFA loss that the TWU members need to unite and "get back what we lost, blah blah blah blah blah."

So, let's unite but ignore the pilot group for suggesting that we get outsourced and AA in general work with minimum staffing. Let them with their executive pay and leather jackets cohabitate with the company in determining the rest of us poor bastards' futures!


You do all remember about 5 years ago the pilot group wanting boarding priority for non rev travel, don't you? That included their families as well. You know the wife flying to West Palm Beach to the condo and junior heading down to spring break and little missy meeting her girlfriends in Cabo San Lucas!

They all would have boarded a plane before you!

Think about it!

 

[AAviator]

I started this topic because of my interaction with pilots. Not all of them, but pilots nonetheless. They see what is on the horizon for them when you think of Us Airways and UAL.

You are correct in blaming our so called union.

Most of the content on this board this this board debates the TWU's history with this company.
So when I post something of this nature, I am told well "can you blame the pilots for worrying about themselves?"

The bottom line is that pilots have always been and always will be out for themselves. Their compensation is equal to and in some cases greater than that of corporate executives.

Do I blame them?
Yes I do.
Have you ever wondered throughout the history of AA/Labor negotiations and collective bargaining that the pilots have received a greater piece of the pie?
Have you ever wondered that maybe their negotiations and collective bargaining power came at the expense of the other workers at the airline?

Consider this scenario:
Pilots go into negotiations and tell the company, "Give us this, this and that, and don't touch this this and that, and we will curtail writeups until the plane overnights at a maintenance station. Basically, we will help the company through these times.
We will support WHATEVER steps the company deems necessart to survive. As long as we are handsomely rewarded for not supporting other workers issues and concerns. You know, Mr. Arpey, you scrub our backs we'll scrub yours!"
So you might say, well let them, or good for them. But to have the yams to feather your own nest at the expense of other work groups is plain WRONG!

So those of you who say "good for the pilots" should be open to line maintenance saying "outsouce overhaul" and overhaul saying "screw the line stations."

It has been suggested on this board and especially after the AMFA loss that the TWU members need to unite and "get back what we lost, blah blah blah blah blah."

So, let's unite but ignore the pilot group for suggesting that we get outsourced and AA in general work with minimum staffing. Let them with their executive pay and leather jackets cohabitate with the company in determining the rest of us poor bastards' futures!
You do all remember about 5 years ago the pilot group wanting boarding priority for non rev travel, don't you? That included their families as well. You know the wife flying to West Palm Beach to the condo and junior heading down to spring break and little missy meeting her girlfriends in Cabo San Lucas!

They all would have boarded a plane before you!

Think about it!

[post="234717"][/post]​

You've said a mouthfull Hopeful. With little fact. First off, regarding our pensions. True, USAIRWays pilots lost theirs. It was a total loss to the pbgc. It was a defined benefit plan. There was no "other" plan on the property. Now you can talk to who you want, and believe what you want, but the bottom line IS, the guys that are retired from U, get what the PBGC gives them. Period. Here at AA, some 50 years ago, our "then" APA leadership decided that that wasn't the smartest way to go with our pensions, so they negotiated a "defined contribution" plan in place of part of the "defined benefit" plan. So far it seems to be the way to go. UAL, only recently, post ESOP has had any meaningful DC plan. During the esop days, that money was tied up in the esop, and ultimately was lost if you weren't able to retire during the esop. Their DB plan was taken over by the pbgc. Here's a link from the IAM that will give you an idea on how their pension investment/esop worked out. http://www.iam141.org/esop_tax_q&a.htm

Anyway back to the pilots pension. The "Defined benefit" is currently 83% funded. whereas, over a year ago it was 63% funded. Our DC plan is currently 100% funded, by design, and can't be touched in BK. That money has left the property, and no longer an AA asset. I'm not sure if it leaves on a monthly basis, or once a year, but its been doing that for over 50 years. Too bad the TWU didn't take this approach too huh? If you call this looking out for ourselves, it is, and we're in a better position because of it. It was a different approach to our pension than other work groups, and has its own risks, but now it looks like a good move. Sorry you don't like the pilot group because of it.

Outsourcing. Where did you come up with that one? Just so I can respond properly, fill me in the the scope language in your cba. Ours gives us all flying under the AA code with exceptions, mainly Eagle. I'd like to know what keeps other mechanics from working on our fleet, and other AA revenue producing aircraft.

As to the rest of your rambleings, only one merits a response. "fuel burn savings premium" Haaahahahahahaha. I wish that were true. You have to understand, we get bombarded every time we show up for work to save gas. Some guys may come across as overachievers to you but, every penny saved puts us on the road to profitability. Sorry you don't like it.

 

[Boomer]

AAviator,

With respect to the contract language within the TWU negotiated Maintenance & Related CBA, you are entirely correct. We have no protection for 49.99% of the work under the Line, Cross-Service and Base agreements nor has the TWU ever successfully negotiated any. Unfortunately, many will realize that fact after losing their job through outsourcing or as a result of the TWU cutting our wages to keep the headcount up.

The scope clause of the M&R contract only requires that the Company intend on keeping the preponderance of work with the TWU. Since 1950, reflected clearly in unambiguous language, the Company and the TWU have prioritized the goal of providing stable employment over any Union claim to said work.

Below are reprints from the current CBA that cover this particular topic. The highlights are all mine, but, I believe them to convey the weakness of the language and the futility of retaining the TWU in any future negotiations on our behalf.

As a highly regarded contract Lawyer, with experience in Union matters, told me after examining the current CBA and several of the arbitration cases surrounding past arbitrations on scope issues: " the language in that CBA is worse than the language you get from a cheap watch maker."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

and

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO

covering the

AVIATION MAINTENANCE,AND
PLANT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

of

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.


Effective date – May 1, 2003


(e) Contracting Out of Work. In the interest of providing stable employment, but nevertheless to permit the Company to maintain and continue the development of air transportation under applicable laws, the Company will perform aircraft and aircraft component maintenance and overhaul, and other related work, as its present employees have the normal time and the skills to perform, and for which the Company can reasonably make available the necessary facilities.
(1) Additionally, it is agreed that the Company may continue to contract out work not exceeding the scope of its present contracting out practices. The Company will provide to the Union, in January and July of each year, a report, which indicates the extent of the aircraft maintenance work, which has been contracted out as a percentage of the total aircraft maintenance expense in the preceding six (6) months for purposes of ensuring consistency with this obligation.

(2) It is understood that nothing in this Article requires the maintenance of the present volume of work.

(3) At the request of the Director of the Air Transport Division, discussions may be initiated with the Vice President – Employee Relations, quarterly or on reasonable request, to ascertain by type of aircraft, engine, or component part the amount and type of work which has been contracted out during the previous calendar quarter.

(4) The parties agree, that in response to an expressed Union concern over the practices of the Company in the matter of subcontracting aircraft and aircraft component maintenance and overhaul work and consistent with the provisions of Article 1(e), Contracting Out of Work, of the Agreement, it is agreed that the Company will advise the Director of the Air Transport Division, Transport Workers Union, in a quarterly listing of the total volume of work sub-contracted under Repair Outside (RO) practices, Cross Servicing, Base Maintenance, and Line Maintenance Service Agreements.

(a) It is the intention of the Company to insure that the predominant volume of work under Cross Service, Base Maintenance and Line Maintenance Service Agreements be performed by the Company employees. It is further understood, in no event, that the volume of work be less than equal to the work performed by other carriers for American Airlines under Cross Service, Base Maintenance and Line Maintenance Service Agreements. The ratio of mechanic work performed in terms of man-hours will be reflected quarterly, in writing, to the Union.

(5) The time limit for grievances filed under Article 29(d) involving contracting out will be six (6) months from the date on which the contracting out commenced, or in the case of a substantial expansion of prior contracting out, six (6) months from the date of the expansion.

(f) It is the intent of the parties that the above language in Article 1(e) represents an attempt in contract language to express the meaning of the letter by Mr. C. R. Smith, dated March 9, 1950.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 1.1 – CONTRACTING OUT WORK

From: C.R. Smith
To: Francis A. O’Neill
Re: Contracting Out Work

March 9, 1950

The contracting out of work has become an issue in our negotiations with TWU because the union believes this practice may threaten the job security of its members. To show that such fears are groundless I shall review our policy.

Our policy has been and is to maintain a stable work force. Few, if any, employees have been laid off because we have contracted work to others. In 1949 American Airlines, Inc. had the best record for continuity of employment in its mechanical department that it has ever had, even though it was necessary to give some non-recurring work to outside contractors.

In 1949 we scheduled our work in such fashion that there would be an orderly flow of work through the plants. The program was successful enough to provide the highest record of stable employment in the history of the company. One of the contributing factors to an orderly flow of work was our program to farm out such work as was beyond the capacity of our plants. We farmed out no projects that could have been accomplished in our plants. All of our people were busy during the year. How then can it be construed that the company will now find it desirable to contract out work that our employees have the time and facilities to get done?

The union has sought a severance pay formula. Even though it has not been demonstrated that work contracted out is, has or will jeopardize the security of the employees, the severance pay plan gives an additional measure of security. This is a new provision, unique in the air transport industry.

Nobody on the payroll will benefit by a program, which would require us to hire temporary employees to take care of peak or non-recurring work, and to discharge them as soon as the peak had gone. This, from our point of view, is a wastefully expensive way of doing business, because it is inefficient. We must, therefore, retain the right to give to others the work that our regular employees have not time to handle.

There are several things in airline operation, which principally affect the continuity of employment; the volume of the business, the schedules to be operated and the workload available. We will do the best we can to assure that each of these factors contributes to stability and continuity of employment; we cannot and do not contract about their volume, for we do not control that.

Our policy has enabled us to maintain a stable work force. We recognize its benefits and see no reason to change the policy.
(Signed original on file)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 1.2 – CONTRACTING OUT WORK – JOINT COMMITTEE

From: C.A. Pasciuto
To: John J. Kerrigan
Re: Contracting Out Work – Joint Committee

May 5, 1989

During the discussions leading to the Agreement signed May 5, 1989 the issue of contracting out was discussed.

The Company has agreed to create a joint committee for each Branch Manager’s area at Tulsa. The committee will meet periodically to review contracting out practices. Such items as cost considerations, turn times, training, facilities and return on investment will be reviewed. Each committee will be made up of three (3) management and two (2) TWU members with the Branch Manager as the Chairperson.
(Signed original on file)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 1.3 – NEW TWU CITIES

From: Charles A. Pasciuto
To: John J. Kerrigan
Re: New TWU Cities

May 5, 1989

During the course of the negotiations leading to the signing of the current agreement, the staffing of certain cities by TWU represented employees was raised by the Union.

As a result of these discussions, it is agreed that periodic meetings between the Company and the Union, represented by the International Vice President, Transport Workers Union, and the Senior Vice President-Field Services, American Airlines, will be held for the purpose of reviewing the long term implications of staffing of new cities by TWU represented employees.

(Signed original on file)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 1.4 – CROSS SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED MAY 27, 1974

From: Charles A. Pascinto
To: John J. Kerrigan
Re: Cross Service Agreement Dated May 27, 1974

May 5, 1989

This will confirm our discussion regarding the Letter of Agreement dated May 27, 1974, pertaining to the Cross Service Agreement. Since this letter was written, deregulation and American’s growth have brought about a change in the way we accomplish our work and we have demonstrated an enviable record of stable and secure employment.

Because of recent acquisition of some small aircraft fleets and expansion to additional cities, it is in the best interest of American Airlines and the Transport Workers Union to respond to changes in our industry. It is the intention of American Airlines to change its fleet configuration as market conditions and aircraft availability dictate. It is not economically feasible for American Airlines to purchase tooling and or construct facilities for those small fleets, which are planned to be phased out in the near term.

We have agreed, therefore, that during the term of this agreement (amendable March 1, 1993) those existing fleets of 25 aircraft or less and any new cities where we contract out our line maintenance will be exempt for reporting purposes from the Cross Service Agreement*. Our future quarterly report will reflect this change.

* (For example, the B-747 aircraft, which is planned to be replaced by the MD-11 and the B-737/BAe-146, which are planned for near term replacement. The B-727 fleet will not be segregated by fleet type.)

(Signed original on file)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 1.6 – CONTRACTING OUT WORK

From: Jane G. Allen
To: Edward R. Koziatek
Re: Contracting Out Work

August 15, 1995

This will confirm our understandings reached during the negotiations leading up to the agreement signed on August 15, 1995. During these discussions, we discussed the issue of contracting out on numerous occasions and the Company’s need to contract out that work as provided for in the labor agreement.

As we discussed, it is the Company’s intent to ensure that the TWU leadership is fully advised of those situations wherein the Company is planning to contract out work that is normally done in-house so that the matter can be fully discussed.

The parties agree that this letter recognized their respective rights under the collective bargaining agreement concerning the issue of contracting out work.

(Signed original on file)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Owens]

AAviator,

With respect to the contract language within the TWU negotiated Maintenance & Related CBA, you are entirely correct. We have no protection for 49.99% of the work under the Line, Cross-Service and Base agreements nor has the TWU ever successfully negotiated any. Unfortunately, many will realize that fact after losing their job through outsourcing or as a result of the TWU cutting our wages to keep the headcount up.

The scope clause of the M&R contract only requires that the Company intend on keeping the preponderance of work with the TWU. Since 1950, reflected clearly in unambiguous language, the Company and the TWU have prioritized the goal of providing stable employment over any Union claim to said work.

Below are reprints from the current CBA that cover this particular topic. The highlights are all mine, but, I believe them to convey the weakness of the language and the futility of retaining the TWU in any future negotiations on our behalf.

As a highly regarded contract Lawyer, with experience in Union matters, told me after examining the current CBA and several of the arbitration cases surrounding past arbitrations on scope issues: " the language in that CBA is worse than the language you get from a cheap watch maker."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[post="234960"][/post]​

Basically our scope clause provides some minimal protection for the "TWU (in that whoever does the work will pay dues to the TWU) but provides A&Ps with no protection whatsoever. No where in the contract does it specify what is A&P work.

 

[Hopeful]

As to the rest of your rambleings, only one merits a response. "fuel burn savings premium" Haaahahahahahaha. I wish that were true. You have to understand, we get bombarded every time we show up for work to save gas. Some guys may come across as overachievers to you but, every penny saved puts us on the road to profitability. Sorry you don't like it.

[post="234849"][/post]​

Then tell me AAviator, why all the whining and lectures from Captains on arriving to an aircraft that has had the APU left running. And this is not just hew and far between, this is a majority of the flights.

Can you please explain?

And spare me the "pilots really want to save the company some money."





Where did you stand on the pilot non rev boarding priority issue?

 

[Bob Owens]

Then tell me AAviator, why all the whining and lectures from Captains on arriving to an aircraft that has had the APU left running. And this is not just hew and far between, this is a majority of the flights.

Can you please explain?

And spare me the "pilots really want to save the company some money."
Where did you stand on the pilot non rev boarding priority issue?

[post="234975"][/post]​

Well it could be because the pilots still have a future in this industry.

While we all gave up at least 25% of our compensation in 2003 the pilots took pretty much a straight pay cut. And they also got other concessions from the company while other work groups got absolutely nothing, for instance the fine that they owed the company was put towards their figure and forgiven. WE got absolutely nothing because the TWU wanted to preserve their $3.1 million kickback.

After the first year the pilots already got back over 9% of what they gave up.

Here are the pilots pay scales for 777-300;
Effective;
05/01/03 142.91
05/01/04 159.85 an increase of $16.91 per hour!
05/01/05 162.80 an increase of $2.95
05/01.06 165.80 an increase of $3.00
05/01/07 168.94 an increas of $3.04
05/01/08 171.93 An increase of $2.99

So over the course of this agreement the pilots pay will have been restored, increased by $28.89/hr. They will be within 7% of what they had before the concessions.

Lets compare that to the highest paid TWU reprsented group (Outside of DFW and Tul).

AMT pay rates;

05/01/03 25.25
05/01/04 25.63 an increase of 38 cents
05/01/05 26.01 an increase of 38 cents
05/01.06 26.40 an increase of 39 cents
05/01/07 26.80 an increas of 40 cents
05/01/08 27.20 an increase of 40 cents

So our entire increase of $1.95 over the term of this agreement is $1 less than the pilots smallest increase. While I'll admit this is not a truly equal comparasion in that there are many other relevant conditions and the pilots pay rates are only for flight hours and not for all hours consumed by the job it does show the huge difference and sheds some light on why some pilots are so eager to go above and beyond while other work groups just show up until they find something else.

Another factor for the pilots is that if they help the company to recover and expand its 777 fleet they can more than make up for their pay cuts because of the availability of more 777 captain slots. So despite the concessions pilots could end up making more money than ever before. This is not true for any other work group, even if AA doubled in size it would not provide any such opportunities for us, we would still be making less than we were in 2003. Even if the expansion provided promotional opportunities.


PS, the next time a pilot brings up the fact that they never got Holiday Pay, ask him about their vacation scedule. So while they dont get Holiday Pay, a whopping 4 hours extra for eight hours worked they get at least five more paid vacation days and up to two and a half weeks more vacation. You can equate that to double time because in effect they are getting a comp day.They still get at least two weeks and max out at over 8 weeks. We have as little as one week and max out at 6.

I'm not trying to fault the pilots for what they got. Good for them, but please dont come here and try and pass off that you guys have been hit as hard as everyone else because its simply not true. Obviuosly the lower you go as far as pay the harder they were hit. This would mean that our Flight Attendants and baggage handlers were actually the hardest hit. I say this because of the "loaf of bread" theory. There is a minimum level of income needed to provide the essentials, and no matter who you are we all pay the same for those essentials. The loaf of bread costs us all the same. The lower you are to start with the more a paycut hurts to the point where we are not discussing lost luxuries, but an inability to aquire the essentials. To say that a person whose was making $200,000 a year that gets cut to $100,000 a year is suffereng as much as someone who went from $20,000 to $10,000 a year is ludicriuos. At $100,000 a year one can still cover the expense of sustinance and shelter, $10,000 is way below poverty.

Did the pilots give up a lot? Yes. But most are still very well paid compared to just about any other blue collar job, and lets face the fact that you operate a machine, just like a crane operator or truck driver.

 

[Boomer]

Bob Owens,

We gave the TWU M&R negotiations teAAm a fully researched Scope Clause six months prior to the openers for the 2001 Negotiations.

As imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, we patterned much of the language from the APA.

Scope never made it to negotiations.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens,

We gave the TWU M&R negotiations teAAm a fully researched Scope Clause six months prior to the openers for the 2001 Negotiations.

As imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, we patterned much of the language from the APA.

Scope never made it to negotiations.

[post="235286"][/post]​

Of course it didnt, Don Videtich was the leading proponent against it, now of course he is an International rep.

 

[Boomer]

Bob Owens,

Yeah, he was sitting next to your buddy, Gless.

"We'll Get'em Next Time!"

 

[olyinaz]

UAL, only recently, post ESOP has had any meaningful DC plan.

[post="234849"][/post]​

Not true. The UAL pilots have had a DC plan for decades.

During the esop days, that money was tied up in the esop, and ultimately was lost if you weren't able to retire during the esop.

[post="234849"][/post]​

That is partially true. From 1994-2000 the UAL pilot's DC plan was filled with ESOP stock and only 1% of cash on top of pay.

At the end of the ESOP the UAL pilot's DC plan reverted to 9% cash and their Contract 2000 raised it to 11%. Contract 2003 reduced it back to 9%. The current contract under consideration (Contract 2005) would raise it to 15%.

Good luck keeping your DB plan (seriously). You're going to need it.