BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
As long as any integration is done by seat/equipment using the Nic & APA list it doesn't matter - everybody keeps the same seniority (or nearly so).
Jim
AUG/SEPT 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
As long as any integration is done by seat/equipment using the Nic & APA list it doesn't matter - everybody keeps the same seniority (or nearly so).
Jim
I repeat. Pompous, arrogant easthole.
Res Judicata
Veteran
It is. It was profitable enough to save PIT, PHL, BOS, LGA, DCA and CLT from certain death. More profitable than all six COMBINED. Any other questions you want me to blow up in for face for you scab?
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Hooray! I'm am relieved that you have made a full recovery and are feeling all chipper and that. Welcome back!
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,430
- Reaction score
- 1,143
Phoenix said "Now we have found out that Hummel, Woody, Lance, and you have contacted One World alliance with your personal agendas, all because the BPR unanimously voted to reject the MOU (Ok, gee, lets make up a few more rumors. Your turn.).
The ALPA sycophants always squealed about switching horses in the middle of the stream... and they never had any unanimous votes.. accept to give away our pension. Now they can't find enough rumors and horses to switch fast enough."
DeWitt's little excursion (no harm, just made him look like an ...) is not a "rumor."
And the fact you manage to bring up both ALPA and the loss of your pension in the same post is why we probably will never say "yes" to any win, even an ugly one. ALPA, the pension loss, your outdated personal references...none of them should have anything to do with how we view our situation. And I know all about the "deal with the devil." There were BPR members that were going to vote to recommend a yes vote, but they caved to the CLT reps to at least get the MOU out for a vote. Unanimous indeed.
But continue to shake your fist in anger about all you are owed, what you lost, all those that took it; and we will all end up sitting on LOA 93 pay while the transaction (and everything you fear) happens....anyway.
Greeter
The ALPA sycophants always squealed about switching horses in the middle of the stream... and they never had any unanimous votes.. accept to give away our pension. Now they can't find enough rumors and horses to switch fast enough."
DeWitt's little excursion (no harm, just made him look like an ...) is not a "rumor."
And the fact you manage to bring up both ALPA and the loss of your pension in the same post is why we probably will never say "yes" to any win, even an ugly one. ALPA, the pension loss, your outdated personal references...none of them should have anything to do with how we view our situation. And I know all about the "deal with the devil." There were BPR members that were going to vote to recommend a yes vote, but they caved to the CLT reps to at least get the MOU out for a vote. Unanimous indeed.
But continue to shake your fist in anger about all you are owed, what you lost, all those that took it; and we will all end up sitting on LOA 93 pay while the transaction (and everything you fear) happens....anyway.
Greeter
I never claimed to have suffered. Nice try, Dr. Spin.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Scope: Did the BPR's MOU actions provide US Airways' employees even less Scope protection?
PHL Domicile Update: September 18, 2012: PHL Reps said, "Grievance Chairman Dave Ciabattoni provided an eye-opening review of the pertinent sections of both East and West contracts to include: Scope; Contingent Acquisition Rights (CARs); Code Share; relevant sections of LOA 84, LOA 93, Transitions Agreement; and Change of Control. Any and all of these may play a role in a merger going forward, and the education and the chance to ask questions were very helpful to the BPR. Both contracts contain specific protections for our pilots that are the result of years of bargaining history, and Chairman Ciabattoni offered us several examples of how to best utilize these protections in the coming months should the merger proceed."
Contingent Acquisition Rights (CARs): During the BPR's last meeting in Grievance Committee Chairman Dave Ciabbatoni's scope presentation he indicated regarding Contingent Acquisition Rights (CARs), which would require the company to pay us $250mil in a COC transaction, actually expired on June 30, 2012. His comment was we could probably get a good lawyer to win that for us.
Labor Protective Provisions (LPPs): USAPA's Communications Committee wrote a What's Up on the Line comment on June 20, 2012. The Committee said,"
Q – What is the McCaskill-Bond Amendment?
A – Unlike previous mergers, a merger with American would be governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment. In 2007, U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond secured a provision to the Senate’s omnibus spending bill that guarantees airline employees not already covered by some other arrangement (such as the Air Line Pilots Association Merger Policy) a process for integrating seniority. McCaskill-Bond incorporates sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions which require "integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner" either through the agreement of the parties or, absent agreement, through binding impartial arbitration.
Q - Then, what are the protections of sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions?
A - Sections 3 and 13 provide for the fair and equitable seniority integration and a specific time table for final and binding arbitration."
Change of Control Clause: IAM Loses US Airways-America West Merger Change of Control Clause - January 7, 2008
See Story: http://local1781.org/US%20Airways%20-%20Arbitration%20Panel%20Denies%20Change%20in%20Co ntrol%20Grievance.htm
Arbitration Panel Denies Change in Control Grievance
To: All IAM Members Employed By US Airways
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
The System Board of Adjustment created to resolve the Machinist Union’s Change in Control grievance today issued its decision. The neutral arbitrator, Richard I. Bloch, sided with US Airways and denied the grievance.
Full Decision
The issues surrounding the grievance were very complex. Arguments to the System Board involved different interpretations of the contract language, bankruptcy law and Delaware corporate law (where US Airways is incorporated). The Machinists union received differing opinions from legal experts regarding our chances of ultimately prevailing in the grievance. Because the potential stakes were so high, however, we had to go forward with the case even if our chances of winning were slim. Yet, the IAM never viewed the Change in Control grievance as the solution to all the membership’s issues.
While the IAM fought for a favorable resolution of the grievance, we simultaneously worked to reach negotiated transition agreements to improve pay, benefits and working conditions for all IAM-represented employees. Even winning the Change in Control arbitration would not have addressed pay inequities between East and West employees, fair seniority integration, job security improvements, and better and more secure pensions. Our bargaining efforts resulted in a tentative agreement for Fleet Service that, although ultimately rejected by the membership, would have significantly improved wages and job security in exchange for withdrawing the Change in Control grievance for Fleet Service employees.
Traditional Railway Labor Act bargaining is not scheduled to begin until late 2009 when the current East agreements become amendable. With the National Mediation Board having ruled that both East and West employee groups are combined under a single carrier, any efforts to reach an agreement that does not cover both groups would be fruitless and impractical. Only the current transition negotiations for the combined groups can achieve any gains prior to traditional negotiations, which won’t start until nearly two years from now.
Airline industry conditions, and the situation at US Airways in particular, have deteriorated in the last year, and those conditions could be even worse when traditional bargaining begins. The America West-US Airways merger presented a unique opportunity to address many of the membership’s issues prior to the amendable dates in our agreements, and that window still exists, but the bargaining environment is changing daily.
Therefore, in an attempt to improve the financial and working conditions of IAM members, direct negotiations with US Airways will resume. District 141 will return to the bargaining table January 22, 23 and 24 2008 and District 142 will continue bargaining January 29, 30 and 31, 2008.
Full membership solidarity is essential for the IAM to succeed in this bargaining. East and West, Fleet and Maintenance – we must all be united in our common goal of retrieving what was taken from us and making a career at US Airways a long-term, profitable endeavor.
Sincerely and fraternally,
S.R. (Randy) Canale
President & Directing General Chairman
District Lodge 141
Tom Higginbotham
President & Directing General Chairman
District Lodge 142
LOA 96 Transition Agreement Minimum Hulls/Block Hours: The APA-US Airways Term Sheet has a provision for APA to become our union, which could happen without a vote, and provides a specific time line for APA to negotiate a JCBA. This negotiation could eliminate our minimum block hours/hulls and without MOU protections adversely hurt our pilot group since we are no longer have the MOU TA guaranteed seat at the joint negotiating table.
USA320Pilot comments: How ironic it would be if the pilots do not obtain a pay raise when the merger closes, they may lose all of their Scope protections, they may have lost their MOU pay protection, they may have lost their MOU no furlough clause, and APA could negotiate US Airways' pilot's next contract and force it upon East and West pilots that could eliminate their Scope, which could adversely effect our pilot group -- especially the junior/younger pilots. And, oh by the way, Roland Wilder indicated without the MOU economic increases the pilots could obtain a very bad seniority integration with APA when the Arbitrator compares our contracts, which would be LOA93/C2004 vs. APA's Term Sheet.
Would MOU contractually required pay protection, a no furlough clause, and US Airways having fleet flexibility that could boost pre-merger US Airways widebody flying, in exchange for the LOA 96 minimum block hours/hulls, LPPs (that are covered by the McCaskill-Bond amendment), non existent CARs, and the CoC (that would make an acquisition of US Airways by AMR probably cost prohibitive), been a good MOU horse trade?
PHL Domicile Update: September 18, 2012: PHL Reps said, "Grievance Chairman Dave Ciabattoni provided an eye-opening review of the pertinent sections of both East and West contracts to include: Scope; Contingent Acquisition Rights (CARs); Code Share; relevant sections of LOA 84, LOA 93, Transitions Agreement; and Change of Control. Any and all of these may play a role in a merger going forward, and the education and the chance to ask questions were very helpful to the BPR. Both contracts contain specific protections for our pilots that are the result of years of bargaining history, and Chairman Ciabattoni offered us several examples of how to best utilize these protections in the coming months should the merger proceed."
Contingent Acquisition Rights (CARs): During the BPR's last meeting in Grievance Committee Chairman Dave Ciabbatoni's scope presentation he indicated regarding Contingent Acquisition Rights (CARs), which would require the company to pay us $250mil in a COC transaction, actually expired on June 30, 2012. His comment was we could probably get a good lawyer to win that for us.
Labor Protective Provisions (LPPs): USAPA's Communications Committee wrote a What's Up on the Line comment on June 20, 2012. The Committee said,"
Q – What is the McCaskill-Bond Amendment?
A – Unlike previous mergers, a merger with American would be governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment. In 2007, U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond secured a provision to the Senate’s omnibus spending bill that guarantees airline employees not already covered by some other arrangement (such as the Air Line Pilots Association Merger Policy) a process for integrating seniority. McCaskill-Bond incorporates sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions which require "integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner" either through the agreement of the parties or, absent agreement, through binding impartial arbitration.
Q - Then, what are the protections of sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions?
A - Sections 3 and 13 provide for the fair and equitable seniority integration and a specific time table for final and binding arbitration."
Change of Control Clause: IAM Loses US Airways-America West Merger Change of Control Clause - January 7, 2008
See Story: http://local1781.org/US%20Airways%20-%20Arbitration%20Panel%20Denies%20Change%20in%20Co ntrol%20Grievance.htm
Arbitration Panel Denies Change in Control Grievance
To: All IAM Members Employed By US Airways
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
The System Board of Adjustment created to resolve the Machinist Union’s Change in Control grievance today issued its decision. The neutral arbitrator, Richard I. Bloch, sided with US Airways and denied the grievance.
Full Decision
The issues surrounding the grievance were very complex. Arguments to the System Board involved different interpretations of the contract language, bankruptcy law and Delaware corporate law (where US Airways is incorporated). The Machinists union received differing opinions from legal experts regarding our chances of ultimately prevailing in the grievance. Because the potential stakes were so high, however, we had to go forward with the case even if our chances of winning were slim. Yet, the IAM never viewed the Change in Control grievance as the solution to all the membership’s issues.
While the IAM fought for a favorable resolution of the grievance, we simultaneously worked to reach negotiated transition agreements to improve pay, benefits and working conditions for all IAM-represented employees. Even winning the Change in Control arbitration would not have addressed pay inequities between East and West employees, fair seniority integration, job security improvements, and better and more secure pensions. Our bargaining efforts resulted in a tentative agreement for Fleet Service that, although ultimately rejected by the membership, would have significantly improved wages and job security in exchange for withdrawing the Change in Control grievance for Fleet Service employees.
Traditional Railway Labor Act bargaining is not scheduled to begin until late 2009 when the current East agreements become amendable. With the National Mediation Board having ruled that both East and West employee groups are combined under a single carrier, any efforts to reach an agreement that does not cover both groups would be fruitless and impractical. Only the current transition negotiations for the combined groups can achieve any gains prior to traditional negotiations, which won’t start until nearly two years from now.
Airline industry conditions, and the situation at US Airways in particular, have deteriorated in the last year, and those conditions could be even worse when traditional bargaining begins. The America West-US Airways merger presented a unique opportunity to address many of the membership’s issues prior to the amendable dates in our agreements, and that window still exists, but the bargaining environment is changing daily.
Therefore, in an attempt to improve the financial and working conditions of IAM members, direct negotiations with US Airways will resume. District 141 will return to the bargaining table January 22, 23 and 24 2008 and District 142 will continue bargaining January 29, 30 and 31, 2008.
Full membership solidarity is essential for the IAM to succeed in this bargaining. East and West, Fleet and Maintenance – we must all be united in our common goal of retrieving what was taken from us and making a career at US Airways a long-term, profitable endeavor.
Sincerely and fraternally,
S.R. (Randy) Canale
President & Directing General Chairman
District Lodge 141
Tom Higginbotham
President & Directing General Chairman
District Lodge 142
LOA 96 Transition Agreement Minimum Hulls/Block Hours: The APA-US Airways Term Sheet has a provision for APA to become our union, which could happen without a vote, and provides a specific time line for APA to negotiate a JCBA. This negotiation could eliminate our minimum block hours/hulls and without MOU protections adversely hurt our pilot group since we are no longer have the MOU TA guaranteed seat at the joint negotiating table.
USA320Pilot comments: How ironic it would be if the pilots do not obtain a pay raise when the merger closes, they may lose all of their Scope protections, they may have lost their MOU pay protection, they may have lost their MOU no furlough clause, and APA could negotiate US Airways' pilot's next contract and force it upon East and West pilots that could eliminate their Scope, which could adversely effect our pilot group -- especially the junior/younger pilots. And, oh by the way, Roland Wilder indicated without the MOU economic increases the pilots could obtain a very bad seniority integration with APA when the Arbitrator compares our contracts, which would be LOA93/C2004 vs. APA's Term Sheet.
Would MOU contractually required pay protection, a no furlough clause, and US Airways having fleet flexibility that could boost pre-merger US Airways widebody flying, in exchange for the LOA 96 minimum block hours/hulls, LPPs (that are covered by the McCaskill-Bond amendment), non existent CARs, and the CoC (that would make an acquisition of US Airways by AMR probably cost prohibitive), been a good MOU horse trade?
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 2,148
I think she likes me!
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Demagoguing again but no denials that the ALPA "BPR" voted unanimously to give away our pension. The USAPA "MEC" set a date for you to vote, but the company decided to stick you with a hot poker for shiites and giggles.
And you are now assuming you know my opinions and demeanor , you are telling me how to vote, and you are warning me of the blame I will bare for the dire outcomes should I fail to vote according to your wishes.. Gee why does it feel like you are my ALPA MEC?
You bring back great memories! (You do remember the company took the opportunity to vote away? Are you lecturing me about how I should vote because you are confident the company will soon swoop in with a crisis opportunity that we have to vote on immediately?)Neither you or I will be responsible for the outcome, if the company ever lets us vote (you do remember the company pulled the MOU).. any vote we take will be a majority thing. Blame the majority, or blame the company for a choice of two evils. Pick your side.
Don't fret too much. I get it. The premise of a union is to overthrow the ones in power. When the company proves to be immune to unions (for decades) the infantrymen get restless and train their guns on whoever else they see in power.
Thus it will always be. Carry on soldier.
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,430
- Reaction score
- 1,143
Phoenix said "Demagoguing again but no denials that the ALPA "BPR" voted unanimously to give away our pension. The USAPA "MEC" set a date for you to vote, but the company decided to stick you with a hot poker for shiites and giggles.
And you are now assuming you know my opinions and demeanor , you are telling me how to vote, and you are warning me of the blame I will bare for the dire outcomes should I fail to vote according to your wishes.. Gee why does it feel like you are my ALPA MEC? You bring back great memories! (You do remember the company took the opportunity to vote away? Are you lecturing me about how I should vote because you are confident the company will soon swoop in with a crisis opportunity that we have to vote on immediately?)
Neither you or I will be responsible for the outcome, if the company ever lets us vote (you do remember the company pulled the MOU).. any vote we take will be a majority thing. Blame the majority, or blame the company for a choice of two evils. Pick your side.
Don't fret too much. I get it. The premise of a union is to overthrow the ones in power. When the company proves to be immune to unions (for decades) the infantrymen get restless and train their guns on whoever else they see in power.
Thus it will always be. Carry on soldier. "
I don't pretend to know, nor care about your demeanor or how you will vote on any matter. What I can say this certainty is you are uninformed, angry, and have not a clue about what just occurred over the last two weeks. Are you serious about the "entire" MEC voting away our pensions? And your use of the word "power" is telling. Yet another of Cleary's grasshoppers.
There is no political future or power to be had by the pilots of US Airways. I want to throw the bums in CLT out because (apparently like you) they are acting on emotion and past events in choosing a path forward, one that absolutely includes no plan B and only a screaming demand for "more, more, and more."
Greeter
And you are now assuming you know my opinions and demeanor , you are telling me how to vote, and you are warning me of the blame I will bare for the dire outcomes should I fail to vote according to your wishes.. Gee why does it feel like you are my ALPA MEC? You bring back great memories! (You do remember the company took the opportunity to vote away? Are you lecturing me about how I should vote because you are confident the company will soon swoop in with a crisis opportunity that we have to vote on immediately?)
Neither you or I will be responsible for the outcome, if the company ever lets us vote (you do remember the company pulled the MOU).. any vote we take will be a majority thing. Blame the majority, or blame the company for a choice of two evils. Pick your side.
Don't fret too much. I get it. The premise of a union is to overthrow the ones in power. When the company proves to be immune to unions (for decades) the infantrymen get restless and train their guns on whoever else they see in power.
Thus it will always be. Carry on soldier. "
I don't pretend to know, nor care about your demeanor or how you will vote on any matter. What I can say this certainty is you are uninformed, angry, and have not a clue about what just occurred over the last two weeks. Are you serious about the "entire" MEC voting away our pensions? And your use of the word "power" is telling. Yet another of Cleary's grasshoppers.
There is no political future or power to be had by the pilots of US Airways. I want to throw the bums in CLT out because (apparently like you) they are acting on emotion and past events in choosing a path forward, one that absolutely includes no plan B and only a screaming demand for "more, more, and more."
Greeter
L
luvn737s
Guest
The company did not pull the MOU. It did not present a MOU to the Board for their approval that the BPR shot down, but if the pilot's vote YES, the Board will likely do so as well.
You are a bulimic USAPAian who comes here to purge what the BPR has fed you. It's not healthy, you know.
You are a bulimic USAPAian who comes here to purge what the BPR has fed you. It's not healthy, you know.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
If only we'd gotten the opportunity to vote on it we'd still have our pensions.
If only we didn't let daddy vote we'd be making more money.
As long as we don't vote on the MOU we won't lose anything.
Did I miss anything?
.
Anyone.....that's absolutley A N Y O N E who has a different opinion than your fuked up idea is called a scab by you, nic! No one else on this board is as adamant as you about name calling.
Your greed shows with every post that you make!
breeze
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
For all puposes the pension had been gone for months by the time that vote was taken. There wasn't anything for them to give away but your job.
We had our chance...the BPR in all it's wisdom told you to vote NO against every advisor's council.
Driver...
- Status
Similar threads
