AUG/SEPT 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Move2CLT]

I Don't appreciate your name calling either, rather immature?!

Said the idiot....

 

[EastUS1]

* Our Furloughed West Pilots who have not returned to work (even as EAST new hires). When presented with the MOU for consideration in August and WITH scheduled meetings the following week in DFW with US Airways, your Phoenix Representatives voiced outrage that our 40 Pilots would not be covered by the FURLOUGH protections of the MOU, while pilots substantially junior to them would be covered.

How truly amusing....in a rather sad sort of way. Was it not the west's position that any furloughed have not even the slightest value when combining groups?....After all...they don't "bring a job", and should be stapled to the bottom of any combination? So....What's so conveniently and suddenly changed within the west's "moral" position lately?

Wasn't it then/isn't it still "fair and equitable" to place "pilots substantially junior to them" (by even 14+ years!) ahead of them when combining any lists? Some of you folks have some amazingly flexible notions of morality and integrity out there.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I'm a bit dubious as to the pilot group having an unduly great deal of influence here, but one way to ensure that it has none whatsoever would be to toss coc and scope out the window....just sayin'....

Not "tossing them out." Cashing them in with an understanding there is always risk. Pat and Roland both said it best at one of the BPR meetings. "You cannot make every decision based on the worst that could happen. You should make them based on the most likely outcome." But even they understand why this pilot group is so negative, we are living proof the worst indeed seems to happen, But at some point we have to move on ,take an educated chance.    In my opinion, and that of our entire Officer Core, NAC, and Legal staff it is (past) time to do just that. Time to claim an ugly win. By the way, an "ugly win" is.....a win. We have not had any wins (of any type) around here in over a decade.Greeter

 

[EastUS1]

Not "tossing them out." Cashing them in with an understanding there is always risk. ......Time to claim an ugly win. By the way, an "ugly win" is.....a win. We have not had any wins (of any type) around here in over a decade.Greeter

Understood Greeter. I believe where we differ is in our respective evaluation of said risk versus the possible gain. Having said that...I must confess to an almost visceral response towards the idea of furthering the entry of foxes into the coop here, which you correctly address by noting the negativity present. In fairness though; said negativity has substantially reasonable roots in history.

 

[CallawayGolf]

How truly amusing....in a rather sad sort of way. Was it not the west's position that any furloughed have not even the slightest value when combining groups?....After all...they don't "bring a job", and should be stapled to the bottom of any combination? So....What's so conveniently and suddenly changed within the west's "moral" position lately?

Wasn't it then/isn't it still "fair and equitable" to place "pilots substantially junior to them" by even 14+ years ahead of them when combining any lists? You folks have some amazingly flexible notions of morality and integrity out there.

Seniority isn't measured in years; rather it is measured in terms of a position on a particular list. Combine two lists and both sides get a new number on a new and larger list. The arbitrator did just that because he understands the difference between seniority and other inconsequential measures of a person's tenure in such a case as this.

 

[EastUS1]

Seniority isn't measured in years......inconsequential measures of a person's tenure.....

Uh huh....How very convenient a notion for opportunists everywhere. You and yours clearly have no problem using ANY attempted means of "justifying" the disgusting notion that you're somehow, as if by magic, "worth" a jump over 14+ years of other persons' working lives...which will never cease to amaze me. Again; I feel as if I'm speaking with an entirely alien species here...and I keep vainly waiting for any possible translation that at all allows for anything other than just plain, pure disgust.

 

[nic4us]

Not "tossing them out." Cashing them in with an understanding there is always risk. Pat and Roland both said it best at one of the BPR meetings. "You cannot make every decision based on the worst that could happen. You should make them based on the most likely outcome." But even they understand why this pilot group is so negative, we are living proof the worst indeed seems to happen, But at some point we have to move on ,take an educated chance. In my opinion, and that of our entire Officer Core, NAC, and Legal staff it is (past) time to do just that. Time to claim an ugly win. By the way, an "ugly win" is.....a win. We have not had any wins (of any type) around here in over a decade.Greeter

Greeter,

The east's problem is simple. You don't even recognize a win when you have one. And, the same holds true for a loss.

The east absolutely won with the merger and the NIc. Top 517, lopsided relative slotting in your favor. Guys with 25 years about to lose their jobs instantly moved up in seniority with financial career protection for the remainder of their career.

And what do you do? See it as a devastating loss because you did not get ALL the West positions, and you throw the entire pilot group into a stalemate that guarantees LOA93 and Contract 2004.

The flip side. The east and usapa lost in Addington and at the 9th, and what do you do? Claim victory and go back to square one and turn that win into further loss.


The MOU can sit for a while. The company won't talk while under the NDA.

Around 4 pm today, we will have some insight into where we are going as a pilot group. Time to figure look at the scoreboard and figure out exactly what counts as a win, and which are losses.

 

[nic4us]

Uh huh....How very convenient a notion for opportunists everywhere. You and yours clearly have no problem using ANY attempted means of "justifying" the disgusting notion that you're somehow, as if by magic, "worth" a jump over 14+ years of other persons' working lives...which will never cease to amaze me. Again; I feel as if I'm speaking with an entirely alien species here...and I keep vainly waiting for any possible translation that at all allows for anything other than just plain, pure disgust.

Here is the translation.

Nobody jumped anybody. You continued BS stating otherwise is really getting tiresome.

The scab union is not the least bit interested in LOS...only stealing West jobs for east pilots. Actually, usapa is totally opposed to LOS because that does not allow them to steal the maximum from the West, being that many of the scabs spent more time on furlough than actually employed.


If Silver goes anywhere near the West's favor.......you guys are going to freak out at what is coming next. Let me know if you need a translation of bump and flush.

 

[EastUS1]

Nobody jumped anybody.

Let me know if you need a translation of bump and flush.

Seriously...how is any semblance of a human mind even capable of placing those together? 😉 That's enough chuckles for now. 😉

 

[high*flyer]

Callay said:" The only deviation from this was to protect the top 517 east pilots flying WB which results in every west pilot losing seniority status in relation to their east counterparts with an equivalent pre-merger status. The east gained seniority at the expense of the west under the NIC ".
Could you please explain exactly what the west pilots "lost" since they have no WB aircraft, and what exactly the 517 "won" since in therory they were already flying WB aircraft?

 

[Keroseneuser]

Callay said:" The only deviation from this was to protect the top 517 east pilots flying WB which results in every west pilot losing seniority status in relation to their east counterparts with an equivalent pre-merger status. The east gained seniority at the expense of the west under the NIC ".
Could you please explain exactly what the west pilots "lost" since they have no WB aircraft, and what exactly the 517 "won" since in therory they were already flying WB aircraft?

That was my question. just in the last 2 pages of the thread we have west guys saying "furloughees do not bring anything to a merger" AND stating that "they are outraged that furloughees are not included in a merger" Their opinion flip flops depending in the discussion being about east furloughs or west furloughs.

Now I support their notion that all their current furloughed guys should have protection under the MOU.....only problem is that means I support the same notion concerning east furloughs as it applied to previous furlough/merger...which means the west both agrees and disagrees with me I guess.

Now we have another west guy shouting "bump and flush"....yet that is the prime reason they are so against the DOH scenario without protections...it could cause a bump and flush on their side.

Will everybody please stick to one "moral high ground" please. this constant flip flopping is making me think I am reading a thread on the presidental race! 🙂

 

[CallawayGolf]

Callay said:" The only deviation from this was to protect the top 517 east pilots flying WB which results in every west pilot losing seniority status in relation to their east counterparts with an equivalent pre-merger status. The east gained seniority at the expense of the west under the NIC ".
Could you please explain exactly what the west pilots "lost" since they have no WB aircraft, and what exactly the 517 "won" since in therory they were already flying WB aircraft?

The number one pilot on the west list drops to 518 (or 520) on the combined list. That's not a gain or a status quo retention in a person's seniority position, it's a loss on any objective measure of logic, reason and mathematics.

Number 517 on the east list went from having more seniority than roughly 83 percent of the 3000 or so east pilots to having more seniority than 90 percent of the combined east & west 4800 pilots using the NIC. That's not a loss or a retention of status quo; that's a gain in seniority resulting from the award.

It's a zero sum equation so where did the gain to the east and loss to the west come from? Every gain in seniority on the east came at the expense of the west. The west didn't jump over anyone on the seniority list. The same cannot be said of the top 517 on the east. I have no complaints about this, just pointing out the mathematical facts as it relates to seniority and the award.

 

[end_of_alpa]

The meeting came to order around 0915 local time and adjourned at 1600. Present were the Phoenix Chairman, both Vice Chairmen, the USAPA President, the entire Negotiating Advisory Committee (along with the NAC Professional Negotiator, Roland Wilder), the Grievance Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, as well as the USAPA Communication Committee Chairman. This, in addition to at least twenty Phoenix-based pilots.

1264 pilots based in PHX last bid. Curious, but it seems there are almost more "west" officers at the meeting then constituents. At least twenty say 25 plus 3 reps plus 2 negotiators plus 1 grievance equals 31 out of 1264 equals %2.45. Probably be a higher turn out in court today.

Several important facts were brought up during the ensuing discussions:

* It was reinforced that the MOU is NOT a Contract and should not be thought of as such. The MOU is simply a vehicle designed to reach a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement.

* The MOU is STILL available for vote, but it is currently TABLED (NOT “Off the Table&rdquo😉 as far as US Airways is concerned. Due to its “Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with American, US Airways management is currently unable to discuss the merits of the MOU, provide clarification, or negotiate additional provisions at the present time. Therefore, if USAPA were to conduct a vote on the MOU before the NDA expires, it would have to be considered an “as is” document.

Then WHY BOTHER WITH A VOTE? It is enforceable as it is if the President signs off on it and we all go to arbitration under the term sheet.

* The much-touted “Change of Control” (COC) provision (if triggered) in the East contract would only result in an overall pay increase of 4% when compared with the rates included in the proposed MOU, but these rates would not include DAL/UAL pay-parity three years later. Furthermore, the COC clause would NOT include the additional 4% contribution to the Defined Contribution Retirement Account (which would total a non-elective 14% as part of the MOU).

So the MOU is a PAY CUT. Let alone all the other provisions (land mines) contained in the rest of the MOU AND term sheet.

* The three-year SHORT TERM DISABILITY “bridge” for West pilots begins on the date we transition to APA’s LTD plan, (which would be several months or as long as the next open enrollment effective date following the Plan of Reorganization (POR) date. This singular issue has caused much consternation amongst West pilots, and we must point out how the NAC, (particularly your West Members of the NAC) have done everything they could to preserve this part of Contract 2004. It is important to remember that this is a WEST ISSUE only, as neither the East pilots, nor the AA pilots have a Short-term disability program- they already have basically the same plan an accrual of Sick Time up to 1000 hours that is used get to LTD (Long Term Disability). It is also important to remember that the former West Pilots are a minority within the minority. Without the MOU, the STD would most likely change outright on the effective date of the JCBA, (and without WEST Pilots at the Negotiating Table), so it seems unlikely that this will be a pivotal item and could go overlooked.

* Our Furloughed West Pilots who have not returned to work (even as EAST new hires). When presented with the MOU for consideration in August and WITH scheduled meetings the following week in DFW with US Airways, your Phoenix Representatives voiced outrage that our 40 Pilots would not be covered by the FURLOUGH protections of the MOU, while pilots substantially junior to them would be covered. The plight of the West furloughees illustrates again that the West is truly a minority whose interests are easily overlooked, by both USAPA and US Airways. The Transition Agreement is very clear in that a recall to the opposite coast (whether it is an East furloughee going West or vice versa) is NOT a recall. Speaking frankly, the West furloughees represent the “bodies buried in the desert” in the sense that they should not be furloughed in the first place except for a lot of deliberate actions by certain parties who ironically are not well served by bringing up the past, yet are doing exactly that by not acknowledging the plight of the West furloughees.
*
The MOU allows for several protections regarding furlough and pay. Please download and review the “ATTRITION/Hull Loss” slidehere. Please note that allowing for the WORST CASE SCENARIO under the conditions agreed upon in the TERM SHEET and MOU, when comparing this to the KNOWN and COMBINED Attrition it becomes evident that the FURLOUGH/PAY POSITIONS are a little if no cost item to the Company. The WORST case is stagnation, only if the company LOSES all the Aircraft allowed under the agreement.

Better read TA-9 opinion and award pg. 14,15. Remember the Transistion agreement was negotiated by BOTH equally East and West MEC NAC.

The NAC and our Professional Negotiator suggest a YES vote for the MOU.

Obviously the turnout that day proves overwhelming support for a document that is tabled for a vote for something that is set down by "Morgan and Bartholemew, where: "First. Your return to shore (contract) was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, and so I 'must' do nothing. Secondly: you must be a pirate (AMR pilot)for the pirate's code to apply. And you're not. And thirdly ... the code (read MOU) is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner." Funny how fiction mirrors real life....

It is the pledge of your Phoenix Representatives to do everything we can to bring about a handful of positive changes to the document and have it put to the membership for a ratification vote so that YOU can decide what is in your own best interests.

pledge

1. a solemn promise or agreement to do or refrain from doing something: a pledge of aid; a pledge not to wage war.

2. something delivered as security for the payment of a debt or fulfillment of a promise, and subject to forfeiture on failure to pay or fulfill the promise.

3. the state of being given or held as security: to put a thing in pledge.

4. Law .
a. the act of delivering goods, property, etc., to another for security.
b. the resulting legal relationship.

5. something given or regarded as a security.

Interesting.

 

[Pi brat]

If Silver goes anywhere near the West's favor.......you guys are going to freak out at what is coming next. Let me know if you need a translation of bump and flush.

nic, I have no idea what will happen in Judge Silver's courtroom today but I will put $100 down that says you won't see bump and flush.

 

[Pi brat]

The number one pilot on the west list drops to 518 (or 520) on the combined list. That's not a gain or a status quo retention in a person's seniority position, it's a loss on any objective measure of logic, reason and mathematics.

Number 517 on the east list went from having more seniority than roughly 83 percent of the 3000 or so east pilots to having more seniority than 90 percent of the combined east & west 4800 pilots using the NIC. That's not a loss or a retention of status quo; that's a gain in seniority resulting from the award.

It's a zero sum equation so where did the gain to the east and loss to the west come from? Every gain in seniority on the east came at the expense of the west. The west didn't jump over anyone on the seniority list. The same cannot be said of the top 517 on the east. I have no complaints about this, just pointing out the mathematical facts as it relates to seniority and the award.

I've always said Nicolau screwed up the WB protection.

If anyone loses relative seniority on a shrinking system it comes at someone's expense. So, when the east loses relative seniority moving forward, who gained?