Edward
Veteran
Here is the new West thread. Thanks in advance for staying on topic & not making it personal.
AWA ALPA thread 10/26-11/1
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Note: I'm reposting this to the new thread in case the AWAforUSAPA jokester decide to re-appear.
FYI:
The FO who submitted the resolutions to recall all the AWA MEC reps has officially rescinded them. He wants the MEC to be focused on the fight against the East MEC and USAPA.
source: his own posting on the ALPA board on October 23.
FYI:
The FO who submitted the resolutions to recall all the AWA MEC reps has officially rescinded them. He wants the MEC to be focused on the fight against the East MEC and USAPA.
source: his own posting on the ALPA board on October 23.
Instead of East MEC, it should be "East pilot group", because it's the vast majority of the East pilots, they will be fighting.
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Fair enough. Consider it so.
Cactus737
Advanced
- Jun 15, 2007
- 188
- 0
"Vast majority" remains to be seen. My friends over there were swearing to me that LOA93 was going to fail by a vast majority also.
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
As for LOA93. I am not conspiracy theorist, however, after talking to members of the MEC at the time and pilot inputs, the statement of vast majority to reject the LOA seemed to be correct. The problem is, the votes were counted by ALPA and amazingly it passed by a very slim majority. Then rumor has it that a lot of no ballots were rejected for one reason or the other. To add further insult, yes ballots with the same supposed problems were not rejected, but that is all rumor and innuendo. Proof? None. And no way for the lowly line pilot to verify it either.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
Is the West pilot group included in profit sharing this year?
Cactus737
Advanced
- Jun 15, 2007
- 188
- 0
I won't comment on that, but I didn't mean for my example to imply that the "rhetoric versus roll-call " phonemonen is unique to US Airways. Our current contract passed by 4 votes, and at the time, based solely on my conversations out on the line, I had my bets hedged that our TA would fail and AWAPA would prevail. I still can't find anybody who voted for our current agreement.
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
Amazing how that happens, isn't it?
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Yes. And if I stuck my head up an elephant's arse high enough I could grab a shiny tusk. Both statements have the same relevence.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
AWA320
Veteran
ONLY 77 VACANCIES ON THE EAST NEXT YEAR, WHERE IS ALL THAT ATTRITION THEY CLAIM?? THE ARB PANEL SAW THE SAME THING, EAST PILOTS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE UP FOR THEIR LOSSES AT THE EXPENSE OF AWA PILOTS CAREERS!!!
MEC CHAIRMAN’S LETTER
October 28, 2007
Fellow Pilots:
As you are aware, we have been trying for months to get someone to the negotiating table from the AAA MEC so we could complete joint negotiations. You are also well aware of the positions taken by both MECs, but I realize that my last letter evoked a stark realization in many of our pilots’ minds that we have a lot of unanswered questions in our quest.
Before launching into a discussion of recent developments, I would like to say that I am disappointed in some of the hysteria manufactured over the last week. Some of the current rumors and accusations are absolutely shocking and dismaying. There are no “secret†fence deals in the works. Instead, there are many complex questions out there, and I owe it to all of you to state the problems, provide you with information, and ask the tough questions aloud to ensure that we start the dialogue toward developing the correct solutions. It is my job to ensure that you are all well aware of all the various risk/reward scenarios so then you can provide constructive guidance and direction to the MEC going forward.
This MEC wants to carefully dismantle the permanent fence erected by the Transition Agreement, which can only come down when we obtain a ratified joint contract. Until then, we will continue to operate under two separate contracts, and in essence, under a strict fence. This is especially troubling given the recent talk about more consolidation in the airline industry, and it is important that we have a single, unified pilot group with a good contract, rather than two pilot groups divided under separate, bottom-of-the-barrel contracts. Remember, the primary goal of this MEC, which has not changed, is the:
Ratification of a fair, single contract that provides all pilots with substantial pay and retirement gains, better work rules and enhances job security and merger protection, and that implements the merged seniority list.
Your leadership recognizes that solely conceding or mitigating parts of the award would not solve the ratification issues, as it would only shift “no†votes from the East to the West. Any solutions we explore would need to generate “yes†votes on both the East and the West. To ensure that these issues on both sides are not based primarily on emotions, we need to explore if the concerns are better addressed by objective operational data rather than by mere speculation. Also, many West pilots have expressed their concerns about the negative effect the Nicolau Award might have upon them, and have asked us to consider solutions that address their concerns.
In my last letter to you, I detailed that we would pursue a data-driven approach in an effort to drive this merger to a solution that both pilot groups could embrace. We wanted to try this approach with the East MEC as a full participant, but if this failed, we would work hand-in-hand with an appointed trustee and any willing East pilots to achieve solutions for both groups.
As we were working to acquire this data, officers and members of both MECs were working feverishly on both sides to simply put emissaries from both groups together in a room on Monday, October 29, 2007, so we could begin this dialogue to re-start JNC talks. Our approach was to start with the five-year pilot staffing model provided by management and use that as a potential basis for solutions as we would all be able to see how the projected growth and attrition could solve some of the problems. Under this backdrop, we wanted to try and reach agreements to resume joint negotiations by addressing concerns of both pilot groups. We have always been and continue to be willing to talk to anyone that the East MEC decided to send to this meeting in recognition that without talking face-to-face, there is no chance for solutions to develop.
Then on Thursday night the AAA MEC passed a resolution by a vote of 7-5 affirming their previous stance on the Blue Ribbon Committee, and informed us that they will not attend the meeting on Monday.
The ball is now squarely in ALPA President John Prater’s corner.
One of our goals coming out of Monday’s session was to jointly communicate with both pilot groups about the objective data previously discussed in this message. Since we will not be in this session next week, I still believe this data must be shared with all pilots in order to start putting things into perspective and to demonstrate that solutions are possible.
The following chart is contained in a five-year pilot staffing model, the remainder of which is covered by a confidentiality agreement between ALPA, the two MECs and the Company. This data has not yet been validated by either MEC as yet, but I asked for this portion to be unclassified in hopes that both MECs could review it, validate it, and use it to foster discussions on potential solutions.
As you can see, the 2008 chart is broken down by seat and equipment for both East and West pilot groups. On the East, a total of 77 active captain positions will become vacant as a result of age 60 attrition (nine A330, 13 B737, 29 B75/6, 25 A320, and one E190). On the West, a total of 26 active captain positions will become vacant (seven B737, four B757, and 15 A320). The difference is 77-26 = 51 NET active captain positions due solely to age 60 active pilot attrition in 2008.
Of course, there are other issues as well. The East MEC wants preferential furlough and merger protections. We believe that these are issues shared by all pilots, which can only be resolved by extracting such protections from management in joint negotiations. Additionally, by solving our labor problems, we are helping to provide a framework for management to engage in additional growth and expansion, as well as allowing the company to hopefully meaningfully participate in future industry consolidation. I tend to think that this would help to protect all pilots.
Keep in mind that we only asked for 2008 data because we predict that the age 60 rule will likely change in 2009. There may be more attrition out there, but we only used the number of active pilots retiring as pilots removed from the staffing model due to a leave of absence do not create vacancies that need to be filled. Also, first officer vacancies tend not to create economic value for any pilots except perhaps those moving from reserve to lineholder status, or to higher paying widebody first officer positions. Obviously, we are not discounting these positions, but rather needed a focus point to begin our discussions.
Now, before anyone gets upset, I am not suggesting that we simply grant anything over and above the current conditions and restrictions that are in the Nicolau Award. I am only pointing out that when people jointly study and discuss data, perhaps mutually acceptable solutions supported by that data will materialize, which is much better than getting ready for war. Also, just from a technical aspect, we need to come to a three-way agreement on how the Nicolau Award is implemented in a joint agreement.
Of course we will continue to gather data and keep you informed to the extent possible. We have a very blunt Wilson Center poll asking the questions we need answers to so we can better represent you. No more beating around the bush. We want to know what our pilots are thinking in aggregate so we can reach an acceptable, ratifiable agreement. We are well aware that any agreement needs to pass the test with all the line pilots, and I have faith in our pilots and their ability to properly review and vote upon any agreement reached.
Based on my discussions with other ALPA leaders, it now appears that some form of trusteeship on the East might be unavoidable. I want to state clearly that I know there are good people on both MECs and within both pilot groups who truly want to find solutions. As I stated in my last letter, we had hoped to avoid this situation; unfortunately, that does not seem possible at this point. As a result, I fully expect that we will end up in a representation fight. Perhaps this is the fight that needs to occur for us to move on.
In the meantime, the West will continue to prepare to negotiate for a single and fair agreement that we hope all pilots—East and West—can get behind. As we all know, management just banked a net profit of $177 million last quarter and they are laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.
As always, please continue to fly safely and securely.
Fraternally,
Captain John McIlvenna
Chairman, AWA MEC
MEC CHAIRMAN’S LETTER
October 28, 2007
Fellow Pilots:
As you are aware, we have been trying for months to get someone to the negotiating table from the AAA MEC so we could complete joint negotiations. You are also well aware of the positions taken by both MECs, but I realize that my last letter evoked a stark realization in many of our pilots’ minds that we have a lot of unanswered questions in our quest.
Before launching into a discussion of recent developments, I would like to say that I am disappointed in some of the hysteria manufactured over the last week. Some of the current rumors and accusations are absolutely shocking and dismaying. There are no “secret†fence deals in the works. Instead, there are many complex questions out there, and I owe it to all of you to state the problems, provide you with information, and ask the tough questions aloud to ensure that we start the dialogue toward developing the correct solutions. It is my job to ensure that you are all well aware of all the various risk/reward scenarios so then you can provide constructive guidance and direction to the MEC going forward.
This MEC wants to carefully dismantle the permanent fence erected by the Transition Agreement, which can only come down when we obtain a ratified joint contract. Until then, we will continue to operate under two separate contracts, and in essence, under a strict fence. This is especially troubling given the recent talk about more consolidation in the airline industry, and it is important that we have a single, unified pilot group with a good contract, rather than two pilot groups divided under separate, bottom-of-the-barrel contracts. Remember, the primary goal of this MEC, which has not changed, is the:
Ratification of a fair, single contract that provides all pilots with substantial pay and retirement gains, better work rules and enhances job security and merger protection, and that implements the merged seniority list.
Your leadership recognizes that solely conceding or mitigating parts of the award would not solve the ratification issues, as it would only shift “no†votes from the East to the West. Any solutions we explore would need to generate “yes†votes on both the East and the West. To ensure that these issues on both sides are not based primarily on emotions, we need to explore if the concerns are better addressed by objective operational data rather than by mere speculation. Also, many West pilots have expressed their concerns about the negative effect the Nicolau Award might have upon them, and have asked us to consider solutions that address their concerns.
In my last letter to you, I detailed that we would pursue a data-driven approach in an effort to drive this merger to a solution that both pilot groups could embrace. We wanted to try this approach with the East MEC as a full participant, but if this failed, we would work hand-in-hand with an appointed trustee and any willing East pilots to achieve solutions for both groups.
As we were working to acquire this data, officers and members of both MECs were working feverishly on both sides to simply put emissaries from both groups together in a room on Monday, October 29, 2007, so we could begin this dialogue to re-start JNC talks. Our approach was to start with the five-year pilot staffing model provided by management and use that as a potential basis for solutions as we would all be able to see how the projected growth and attrition could solve some of the problems. Under this backdrop, we wanted to try and reach agreements to resume joint negotiations by addressing concerns of both pilot groups. We have always been and continue to be willing to talk to anyone that the East MEC decided to send to this meeting in recognition that without talking face-to-face, there is no chance for solutions to develop.
Then on Thursday night the AAA MEC passed a resolution by a vote of 7-5 affirming their previous stance on the Blue Ribbon Committee, and informed us that they will not attend the meeting on Monday.
The ball is now squarely in ALPA President John Prater’s corner.
One of our goals coming out of Monday’s session was to jointly communicate with both pilot groups about the objective data previously discussed in this message. Since we will not be in this session next week, I still believe this data must be shared with all pilots in order to start putting things into perspective and to demonstrate that solutions are possible.
The following chart is contained in a five-year pilot staffing model, the remainder of which is covered by a confidentiality agreement between ALPA, the two MECs and the Company. This data has not yet been validated by either MEC as yet, but I asked for this portion to be unclassified in hopes that both MECs could review it, validate it, and use it to foster discussions on potential solutions.
As you can see, the 2008 chart is broken down by seat and equipment for both East and West pilot groups. On the East, a total of 77 active captain positions will become vacant as a result of age 60 attrition (nine A330, 13 B737, 29 B75/6, 25 A320, and one E190). On the West, a total of 26 active captain positions will become vacant (seven B737, four B757, and 15 A320). The difference is 77-26 = 51 NET active captain positions due solely to age 60 active pilot attrition in 2008.
Of course, there are other issues as well. The East MEC wants preferential furlough and merger protections. We believe that these are issues shared by all pilots, which can only be resolved by extracting such protections from management in joint negotiations. Additionally, by solving our labor problems, we are helping to provide a framework for management to engage in additional growth and expansion, as well as allowing the company to hopefully meaningfully participate in future industry consolidation. I tend to think that this would help to protect all pilots.
Keep in mind that we only asked for 2008 data because we predict that the age 60 rule will likely change in 2009. There may be more attrition out there, but we only used the number of active pilots retiring as pilots removed from the staffing model due to a leave of absence do not create vacancies that need to be filled. Also, first officer vacancies tend not to create economic value for any pilots except perhaps those moving from reserve to lineholder status, or to higher paying widebody first officer positions. Obviously, we are not discounting these positions, but rather needed a focus point to begin our discussions.
Now, before anyone gets upset, I am not suggesting that we simply grant anything over and above the current conditions and restrictions that are in the Nicolau Award. I am only pointing out that when people jointly study and discuss data, perhaps mutually acceptable solutions supported by that data will materialize, which is much better than getting ready for war. Also, just from a technical aspect, we need to come to a three-way agreement on how the Nicolau Award is implemented in a joint agreement.
Of course we will continue to gather data and keep you informed to the extent possible. We have a very blunt Wilson Center poll asking the questions we need answers to so we can better represent you. No more beating around the bush. We want to know what our pilots are thinking in aggregate so we can reach an acceptable, ratifiable agreement. We are well aware that any agreement needs to pass the test with all the line pilots, and I have faith in our pilots and their ability to properly review and vote upon any agreement reached.
Based on my discussions with other ALPA leaders, it now appears that some form of trusteeship on the East might be unavoidable. I want to state clearly that I know there are good people on both MECs and within both pilot groups who truly want to find solutions. As I stated in my last letter, we had hoped to avoid this situation; unfortunately, that does not seem possible at this point. As a result, I fully expect that we will end up in a representation fight. Perhaps this is the fight that needs to occur for us to move on.
In the meantime, the West will continue to prepare to negotiate for a single and fair agreement that we hope all pilots—East and West—can get behind. As we all know, management just banked a net profit of $177 million last quarter and they are laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.
As always, please continue to fly safely and securely.
Fraternally,
Captain John McIlvenna
Chairman, AWA MEC
AWA320
Veteran
Oh but wait, it gets even more interesting as the years go on!!!! I saw the data all the way to 2013.
E
EastUS
Guest
Yup...they certainly are laughing at "our" expense...and how's that west outpouring of "support" for east pay parity coming? I'm always delighted to see fraternal Brotherhood at it's finest.
- Status
