Company Provides Alpa With New Proposal

[ITRADE]

God bless free labor markets...

 

[cubfan02us]

I just read that an ESOP might be in the works.That it would
require more cuts yet.Wachovia Bank could be the underwriter,a
Charlotte based bank they might rename the airline Piedmont...
Now before you complain you have to admit that it would be
better than "bama air".

Also in a related story reports have been received that Hurricane
Ivan caused extensive damage to the tobacco farms in western
Cuba.Cigar prices could be on the way up,especially hard hit
was the Cohiba farms.You might remember that's Dr. Bronner's
favorite smoke...

 

[Justme]

This Just In: US Airways union leadership votes to continue negotiations (1:39 PM EDT on Wednesday, September 22, 2004)

While US Airways pilots said the agreement they got Tuesday morning from the airline is not what they expected and not what they hoped for, union leadership voted Wednesday afternoon to send its negotiators back to the bargaining table.

Story Right Here (registration req'd)

 

[Justme]

AND further edification:

Union leaders, meeting Wednesday in Charlotte, voted unanimously to direct negotiators to resume talks with the company in an effort to reach an agreement. The two sides had not talked since US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection Sept. 12.

Unlike previous talks, union leaders have placed no restrictions on negotiators, union spokesman Jack Stephan told The Observer. Negotiations could resume in the next few days, he said.

Story here

 

[sfb]

Someone said here there would have been Ch. 11 even with a deal two weeks ago- that does not absolve the ALPA of fault for delaying negotiations to early Sep so management could not finish negotiations with other unions.

Whoa, wait just one minute here. Who chose to try to use the pilots as pressure on the other unions to reach agreements. Oh, wait, that's right, MANAGEMENT. UAIR management certainly did not have to wait for an agreement with the pilots before engaging in serious negotiations with its other unions. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. It is unfair to blame ALPA for management's failed strategy in approaching its negotiations.

It remains entirely irrelevant for people to claim management is not negotiating in good faith by reducing offers with passage of time. Their past offers are no benchmark when the process is now in bankruptcy court and creditors control the company.

From the way the bankruptcy statute is written, this is indeed true; however, this cuts both ways. The company cannot claim to have engaged in good-faith bargaining in front of the court, either.

It remains irrational for people to suggest that the pilots are better off "taking their chances" with a bankruptcy judge; they continue to want to fight even as the odds decline at every step to salvage a deal similar to management's original summer offer. This is irrational and proves the extent to which emotion has seeped into the decision process.

Look, management's original summer offer had so little protection as to be laughable. The Section 1113 "protection" offered by management only lasted for 60 days since it was clear to anyone with half a brain that there was no way that the IAM would consensually agree to open its contract given the egregious violations of same since the previous bankruptcy. Chances are, given the track record, management would have chosen to go through the 1113 process with the pilots come November 11 to get what they're asking for now.

As pilots, the group or its proxies have not listened to objective appraisals from bankers, the history of how business works in bankruptcy court, or anything else rational. There remains no plausible outcome posited by the militants as to how continued intransigence results in a better financial outcome than agreeing to a deal now.

I'm not sure an appraisal from a so-called investment banker with no real company and being paid a bonus by the company if ALPA capitulates can be called "objective." I mean, do you believe "analysts" at securities firms who stand to profit from hyping the stocks of certain companies? The actual financial information provided to the pilots to try to make intelligent decisions for themselves seems to amount to little more than "You'd better give us what we want OR ELSE!"

What's truly missing here in all of the negotiations between US Airways management and its unions is trust. Moving targets, rhetoric, executives like Jerry Glass, failures to live up to past contracts, and half-a$$ed business plans don't lead to the employees putting much trust in top management.

 

[AgentOrange]

Acting (as you say) rationally to maximize financial outcomes is not always what is best for the profession. ALPA pilots, being members of both a union and professional organization , overall are probably better off by not having a large labor group capitualate to the demands of unreasonable (my judgement) management.

[post="183079"][/post]​

The union's job is not to protect some intangible subjective concept like the 'profession'. It is to look out for the interests of its specific members- US Airways pilots. When the two seem to be in conflict, the more common and urgent attribute wins out- pay and job.

 

[AgentOrange]

Whoa, wait just one minute here. Who chose to try to use the pilots as pressure on the other unions to reach agreements. Oh, wait, that's right, MANAGEMENT. UAIR management certainly did not have to wait for an agreement with the pilots before engaging in serious negotiations with its other unions. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. It is unfair to blame ALPA for management's failed strategy in approaching its negotiations.

[post="183140"][/post]​

It was a reality of the situation that the other unions would not negotiate before the pilots budged. That reflected the senior position of prestige and responsibility implicit on the pilots. To suggest otherwise would be abrogating the responsibility of the pilots while still granting the union default representation- i.e. I'm a parent of this beautiful kid, but it's not my problem to feed him.

From the way the bankruptcy statute is written, this is indeed true; however, this cuts both ways. The company cannot claim to have engaged in good-faith bargaining in front of the court, either.

[post="183140"][/post]​

That doesn't matter- this is not a beauty contest. Cuts are happening one way or the other; there is no requirement to look good in doing it. The optimal solution for the airline should not be affected by like or dislike between labor and management- if it is, then one side is being emotional and irrational.

Look, management's original summer offer had so little protection as to be laughable. The Section 1113 "protection" offered by management only lasted for 60 days since it was clear to anyone with half a brain that there was no way that the IAM would consensually agree to open its contract given the egregious violations of same since the previous bankruptcy. Chances are, given the track record, management would have chosen to go through the 1113 process with the pilots come November 11 to get what they're asking for now.

[post="183140"][/post]​

Whether this is true or not does not matter- the ALPA had a responsibility to its membership to act in their best interests, which was to choose the least bad outcome, and they put way too much value on "how much we gave back before" and "what other unions are doing". There are no bonus points given on the scoreboard for best relative deal- it's an absolute game here. The dispatchers understand that- you don't. Trying to blame management gives you no bonus points either.

I'm not sure an appraisal from a so-called investment banker with no real company and being paid a bonus by the company if ALPA capitulates can be called "objective." I mean, do you believe "analysts" at securities firms who stand to profit from hyping the stocks of certain companies? The actual financial information provided to the pilots to try to make intelligent decisions for themselves seems to amount to little more than "You'd better give us what we want OR ELSE!"

[post="183140"][/post]​

Glanzer was not working for US Air. It was working for the pilots. It had no such incentive that you seem to believe above. You won't get very far if you make up things so you can believe what you want and dismiss what you don't feel like believing.

What's truly missing here in all of the negotiations between US Airways management and its unions is trust. Moving targets, rhetoric, executives like Jerry Glass, failures to live up to past contracts, and half-a$$ed business plans don't lead to the employees putting much trust in top management.

[post="183140"][/post]​

Trust is not necessary for labor union representation to do its job and act in the best interests of its membership. You can blame the cards if you are dealt a bad hand, but you still have to play it and accept the consequences if you lose.

 

[PITbull]

Agent Orange,

I promise you that if the pilots would have come to a T/A before BK, AFA would not have even come close. We met with the co. a total of 3 times. Period.

There is no way we are even close on any provision.

Trust me on this one. If AFA was first, managment and wallstreet, the analysts, and A320 would have been blaming the two PA reps at AFA for a "roll call" vote and creating an excuse for a Bk filing.

 

[copilot]

If U ALPA agrees to furlough out of seniority; fine thats their choice. But just hand in your ALPA wings you selfish individuals.

Just remember in '83, Frank tried this same stuff and CO ALPA went on strike, for themselves and the rest of the industry. All the while Piedmont, USAir, etc., etc. expanded at CO's loss. At the same time members of the US ALPA union would, and still does, call a CO pilot who chose to continue to work to pay the bills a "SCAB".

Again in '89 the Eastern pilots supported the IAM against Frank. Once again US pilots benifeted, while fellow Airline pilots carried the load. And again someone who had to work for a sick relative, or to keep a home was not a real "Union Pilot"

I guess I should expect this. Was it not this pilot group that continued to fly, while the US IAM was on strike in '94?

U pilots will have to look in the mirror and live with what they have become. US320 and other pilots who are willing to bring the whole industry down for themselves can see what the the rest of us see.

HYPOCRITES!

 

[700UW]

The IAM strike at US was in October of 1992.

And ALPA made a deal with the company not to honor the picket line and all pilots would get paid regardless if they flew or not.

DC-9, MD-80, F28 and F100 were grounded.

 

[PITbull]

If a judge releases labor to self help...we should strike and put this airline to rest once and for all.

When U can profit the second quarter, decide to go into bk without any DIP financier and think they can stirip their employees of everything and leave them with a job that they can't even live....that means there is no business plan. Bronner made sure he finished the airline when he opened his mouth in August and killed the bookings for August and going forward. According to the DOT for August, U's bookings were 3 from the bottom of the list. United is 3 from the top and they are in BK.

23% paycut puts us way below America West. And for the f/as, we are below JetBlue who is a 5 year airline. We have all been stripped of our Longevity seniority.

Labor is at war with this management. Both will not survive. Either a trustee is appointed by the courts, or the employees take deeper pay cuts and buy the damn airline.

GET RID OF THIS MANAGMENT.

 

[ddcharlie]

"- 19.5% pay cut
- Ability to furlough pilots, REGARDLESS of seniority, if fleet is reduced.
- Reductions in retirement
- $1.9 billion in savings from its pilots through 2009, well above the company's earlier request of $1.5 billion from that group.

- OK, I'm no math major, but let's try to figure this out. 1.9B/3500 pilots. Equals $542,857.14 PER PILOT!!! Divide that by 5 years. $108,571.43 per pilot/per year.


Nice. Management is just setting this up to blame the pilots when they close the doors."

I found this on another board. Maybe this is what the RC4 were looking at. And were trying to protect the profession. Unlike the other members who cannabilize their young to save their own hide.

DD

 

[sfb]

It was a reality of the situation that the other unions would not negotiate before the pilots budged. That reflected the senior position of prestige and responsibility implicit on the pilots. To suggest otherwise would be abrogating the responsibility of the pilots while still granting the union default representation- i.e. I'm a parent of this beautiful kid, but it's not my problem to feed him.

This excuse simply does not wash. All the unions aside from the IAM said that they were willing to negotiate with management on concessions. I think it's more that management needed to make an example of the pilots being willing to accept worst-in-the-industry pay and benefits even while the company still enjoys highest-in-the-industry mainline yields.

That doesn't matter- this is not a beauty contest. Cuts are happening one way or the other; there is no requirement to look good in doing it. The optimal solution for the airline should not be affected by like or dislike between labor and management- if it is, then one side is being emotional and irrational.

I'm not talking about looks. The burden of negotiating "in good faith" falls on both parties under Section 1113. "Accept this or else" might not be viewed by a bankruptcy judge as negotiating in good faith.

Whether this is true or not does not matter- the ALPA had a responsibility to its membership to act in their best interests, which was to choose the least bad outcome, and they put way too much value on "how much we gave back before" and "what other unions are doing". There are no bonus points given on the scoreboard for best relative deal- it's an absolute game here. The dispatchers understand that- you don't. Trying to blame management gives you no bonus points either.

I suppose it depends on what the ALPA membership and their elected representatives feel is the least bad outcome. Their decision certainly could have repercussions on the rest of the company, but trying to blame them won't fix the problem either. It's not like the company had a snowball's chance in He!! of getting the concessions it wanted from the IAM.

I guess what it all boils down to is whether the pilots choose to give a group of seemingly dishonest people the wherewithal they need to prosper. For some people, standing on principle happens to be more important than a job. I can't say I know what I'd do if faced with the same choice.

Glanzer was not working for US Air. It was working for the pilots. It had no such incentive that you seem to believe above. You won't get very far if you make up things so you can believe what you want and dismiss what you don't feel like believing.

See if you can find any "investment banking" firm called Glanzer & Company. You'd imagine that a reputable firm would have at least some modicum of a web presence or evidence of past activity. The only references to this so-called firm are in news articles relating to the US Airways pilots' negotiations. Holly Hegeman noted in one of her newsletters that "Glanzer & Company" stood to gain a million-dollar bonus, paid by US Airways, for convincing the pilots to go along with the concessions back in 2002. So if you truly believe "Glanzer & Company" is legit, I have some real estate that I'd love to sell you.

Trust is not necessary for labor union representation to do its job and act in the best interests of its membership. You can blame the cards if you are dealt a bad hand, but you still have to play it and accept the consequences if you lose.

Trust is essential -- otherwise it's impossible to accept that management might well be telling the truth. The company's operating losses from 3Q03 to 2Q04 work out to $170 million, and that includes high jet fuel prices for Q1 and Q2 of this year. Net losses were $331 million, and about $240 million of that is non-cash for depreciation & amortization. How exactly does all that translate into $800 million in pay cuts for the unions when management claims to have $700 million in operational savings just waiting to be unleashed?

I can't say that I would counsel any US Airways employee to reject the givebacks without being acutely aware of the consequences to his or her own life. But each one is given a vote for a reason. And the ALPA RC4 had the right to block management's proposed contract from going to the membership, again, whether or not others agree, as long as they felt they were acting in the best interests of the pilots they represent.

 

[luvn737s]

I think USA320Pilot is dead right.

His [her] arguments are logical, valid, and [gasp] define the best interests of the pilots as their job security and their pay, not their egos and irrational desire to claim subjective victory in a negotiation.

[post="183073"][/post]​

Obviously the voice of someone who has no investment in their career, financial or otherwise.

The combination of the seniority system, forced retirement and tacit age discrimination prohibit anyone from rebuilding even a remnant of their career once they're past 45 or so. Pilots are, for better or worse, "married" to their airline. It is in their best interest to defend that marriage rather than accepting an ever-decreasing level of fidelity, especially when the crisis wasn't their fault. When no other satisfactory resolution exists, the pilot chooses to end the marriage on their terms as they have far more to lose than anyone else involved.

"My D-I-V-O-R-C-E became final today. Me and little E-M-B, are a goin' away..."

 

[AgentOrange]

Agent Orange,

I promise you that if the pilots would have come to a T/A before BK, AFA would not have even come close. We met with the co. a total of 3 times. Period.

There is no way we are even close on any provision.

Trust me on this one. If AFA was first, managment and wallstreet, the analysts, and A320 would have been blaming the two PA reps at AFA for a "roll call" vote and creating an excuse for a Bk filing.

[post="183158"][/post]​

It may be that the flight attendants don't get blamed because they never got a chance to act irrationally, but the pilots are still at fault because they did. Swinging and missing to end the game is still worse than being on the on-deck circle at game's end.