Council 41 Letter To Pilots






Once again, the ALPA spin machine is running full tilt. The actions of the MEC at the recently concluded two-week long special MEC meeting in Washington need a lot of truthful explanation, something that has been sorely lacking.

After suffering for another three full months of “negotiations†with the company on what began a long, long time ago as the development of a supposed “transformation plan†to return US Airways to profitability, we discovered that, in fact, we were well past where we needed to be. You might rightfully ask, “How did we get here?â€

In December 2003, Dave Siegel (you remember him, don’t you? He was the person who wasn’t going to, “take my money and run,†yet that is precisely what he did) first began revisiting the Company’s supposedly good Plan of Reorganization. He first floated talk of additional concessions from employees. Remember the carrot of 60 brand-new Airbuses that evaporated as quickly as Siegel’s promise “not to take my money and run†when ALPA publicly announced that we were not interested in receiving any additional plans from Siegel involving more pilot concessions. Although Siegel was not invited to share any of his “plans,†Jerry Glass was eventually invited to do so by the MEC Chairman. This latest management proposal was to reduce CASM by an incredible 4 cents, with 2 of those cents coming from the employees.

This “Going-Forward†plan, as it was next dubbed, was pitched by none other than Mr. Bronner at a meeting in Charlotte that was held last February. Bronner made several statements at that meeting such as, “Those that give the most will share the most in the returns,†and, “We have only 15 to 45 days to execute this plan.†After that meeting the MEC passed a unanimous resolution directing the Negotiating Committee to “participate in developing a plan to return US Airways to profitability.â€

Even though we were told we didn’t have much time, things suddenly quieted down about the “plan†for the entire spring while the dust swirled around the passage of LOA 91 and Siegel’s decision to take the money and run. Once these issues were placed on the back burner, the bulldozer of transformation was once again started and shifted into high gear.

Just days after the votes on LOA 91 were tallied, and almost a full 90 days after Bronner and Lakefield met with the MEC in Charlotte, the Company finally unveiled their “Going Forwardâ€, now “Transformation Plan.†This was their strategy to cut costs at the airline by $1.5 billion; $800 million coming from the employees and the other $700 million from newfound efficiencies in the operation. The pilot’s share of their “pie†was announced as being $295 million.

Within the Company’s presentation were the targets the Company was seeking. Wage rates equal to America West, and productivity equal to JetBlue.

Once the Negotiating Committee began initial discussions with the Company during mid-May, NC Chairman Doug Mowery reported to the MEC in an update that “there’s no rush, we have the time to make sure we do this right,†indicating the Company had a target for completion of these negotiations as the end of September.

Yet, the very next day, MEC Chairman Bill Pollock arranged a special MEC conference call, telling us he had invited members of senior management to address the MEC to discuss the “urgency of the situation.†On this conference call, we were told that we needed to have a deal by the end of June.

For the next few weeks, the NC and Company engaged in preliminary informational exchange discussions. In fact, during this time period there were many times when the Company negotiators were either unavailable to meet or unprepared for discussing specifics at many meetings.

Once the NC made their first offer—an offer for a 12.5% pay rate reduction and forgoing of all raises for the duration of the agreement, there was virtually no acknowledgement by the Company of the value of this very significant move, and this then became the new “starting point†of negotiations—we could only go south from this opening position. They were interested only in what additional concessions we might offer; in other words, it was “business as usual†for them. It took several weeks for the Company to even begin working on a valuation of our proposal. Needless to say, they ultimately and incorrectly valued it at a significantly lower number than we did.

At that point in time, a discernable pattern also began to develop. Each new ALPA proposal was valued significantly lower by the Company than ALPA and our advisors had valued it. As the summer dragged on, each time Doug and the NC would move one step closer, the Company’s position would be to move one step back. The valuation would always drop, resulting in the now familiar, “We want more,†refrain from the Company.

In one negotiating meeting a bit of truth did slip out. When asked about the time frame for the Company’s $700 million share of the Transformation Plan’s cost cuts, Bruce Ashby and Dave Davis both stated that they would not get the $700M until the end of 2007. They then added that our ever-increasing share ($295M+) was needed right now.

ALPA’s proposal had now moved south from the original giveback to 16.25% pay-cuts, 10% lower DC contributions, and 10% lower vacation accrual. Management’s answer was, “Still not enough.â€

Finally, after a long summer of abuse at the hands of Ashby and others, as one deadline after another fell by the wayside, Doug Mowery declared on August 22, that the ability to reach an agreement with Management was not possible. At the time, MEC Chairman Pollock and all the advisors agreed. Doug informed the MEC in a telling metaphor that we had moved well past the 50-yard line, all the way to the Company’s 20-yard line, but they did not meet us there, they had backed into the end zone. Little did he know, they would soon continue backward—into the locker room, and then out to the parking lot.

In what was described as an attempt to move us from a deadlock, the MEC Chairman called yet another special MEC meeting in Washington, D.C. on August 25. The first order of business was a report from the NC. When the discussion began about the fact that the monetary figure the Company wanted was still increasing, several ALPA reps began a discussion about how we could make up more, thereby making excuses for the Company’s inexcusable behavior.

We then moved on to a re-charging of the Negotiating Committee. Your Philadelphia reps along with the Pittsburgh reps put forth a resolution attempting to limit the NC’s movements towards the Company’s ever more expensive positions. We felt that to do otherwise would only further whet the Company’s appetite for ever-increasing contractual concessions.

Once the debate began around the table, we were astounded to listen as the representatives from the other bases put forth an amendment to this resolution that would have directed the Negotiating Committee to, if unable to achieve a deal within those parameters, to simply obtain the best deal they could get. This action is tantamount to announcing publicly, “We will accept anything.†You wouldn’t get far if you approached even a car dealer with these words. This amendment was defeated by a roll call vote.

It was not a coincidence that the MEC Chairman called this meeting at a location in Washington that put us within a stone’s throw from Crystal City. The “Negotiations One†handbook states that it is a mistake to locate yourself in close proximity to your opponent. We should have been somewhere else, but there we were at the Key Bridge Marriott at a conservatively estimated cost of $15,000+ per day—a pretty high cost for an MEC that is allegedly broke. The meeting was finally recessed after the seventh day to the call of the chair, meaning until Pollock called us back into session. As a result, for the next six days, the entire MEC sat on a short leash in Washington awaiting the call to return to session. We had no idea that it would eventually turn into a thirteen-day siege.

As the Negotiating Committee continued, the Company’s proposals became even more draconian, 20% pay and 20% DC, then 21% pay and 40% DC. But, each time, the gap between ALPA and the Company would not close. No amount of money, pilot productivity, or contractual protections could possibly be shoveled into Ashby’s ever-changing bottomless pit. We were finally informed that the gap between the parties had decreased to “only†$30M. Yet, after Doug began shoveling even more into this gap, he was told the gap had now increased to $40M!

The last numbers that the Company put across the table were a 23% pay reduction, a 50% reduction in the DC percentage, onerous work rules and dependability programs, 50% pay for deadhead, 85/90/95 hour caps by position, no increase in the reserve guarantees, ad nausea. Several members of the MEC then offered a resolution to take this unacceptable proposal and send it out to the membership for a vote. Remember, the Negotiating Committee would not approve this proposal, and to bypass the MEC and put a proposal (not something the NC and MEC agreed with) out to the membership would effectively neutralize what little bargaining power your union demonstrated. In other words, we would be enabling the Company to bypass their bargaining agent and begin negotiations directly with the pilots themselves. “Separate the membership from their union representatives,†would become their rallying cry, a basic tenet of union busting, right out of the Lorenzo handbook.

If the foregoing isn’t enough, the content of this latest proposal was so far beyond what was originally proposed by the Company back in February (the America West wages and JetBlue block hours) that it played out, plain and simple, like a “land grab.†Please look this document over on the Pilot’s Only section of the ALPA website.

Keeping the interests of the Philadelphia pilots in mind, we could not sign off on this agreement. However, some MEC Officers and members are now attempting to paint these actions as an attempt to deny the membership a vote. THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!

What would have transpired under the foregoing scenario was a situation where the MEC could “wash their hands†of all responsibility and pass that on to the membership. “You signed on to it, not me,†and “You should have voted for/against it,†would become the buzzwords in defense of this indefensible action. We would not and will not be party to abrogation of our responsibilities as elected representatives. We felt it was the worst possible situation for the pilots, and voted that way.



Along the way, in order to keep the pilots informed, the MEC authorized the release of all confidential documents. Unfortunately, the only document to be released was the Glanzer Report. The Negotiating Committee notes from the negotiations were to be released also. These notes paint a very different, inside picture of what transpired behind the closed doors. Why just a partial release of information? This is a question for Chairman Pollock.


Along the way, the divide between the sides on the MEC became even more delineated. The MEC Chairman, using his bully pulpit and the Communications Chairman as his willing accomplice, have taken to using official communications such as the code-a-phone and press releases to misinform the pilots and the public of the intentions and actions of your representatives. To foster an atmosphere of such divisiveness at this time can only serve to weaken the position of the pilots as a group. You must ask these individuals why this is being done, for only they know the answer to that question.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lakefield has now stepped up to the plate to bash the PHL and PIT representatives. We are confident that MEC Chairman Bill Pollock will be asking the Department of Labor to have a look at what certainly appears to be management interference in the internal workings of our union. Please feel free to call Bill and ask him how and when he will be proceeding with this.


Your representatives remain committed to achieving the goal of truly transforming this airline into a viable competitor. However, we will not be party to what ultimately took the form of an opportunistic and wholesale rape of the US Airways pilots’ working agreement. Any successful transformation can only be accomplished through the efforts of an enlightened management, working in concert with its workers, not through the use of threats and attempted intimidation.

In closing, we would like to thank all the pilots that have made the effort to call or write us with your messages of overwhelming support and confidence. If you have not yet received a personal response, we ask your continued patience.


John Crocker, Chairman

Dan Von Bargen, Vice-Chairman

Ira Josephson


Across the board wage reductions of 23%, all future raises given up

DC Contributions reduced by 50%. Older pilots lose contributions up front. Younger pilots lose the power of compound interest to reach anywhere near their target.

Pay cap either 85, 90 or 95. Each base, airplane, and seat would have a different pay cap monthly dependent on the company’s needs. How can you plan your annual salary?

Deadhead at 50% pay. No IRO when not req’d by FARs.

This plays out to a situation where the IRO DHs to Europe, and then flies the return trip. A 12 hour three-day trip would result. Try getting your 85/90/95 in with a schedule like this.

No change to reserve guarantee – still 72/76

Elimination of retiree medical benefits. You can sell your sick bank back at retirement to buy this at the rate of $18 per hour of sick.

Elimination of retiree dental coverage. Eliminate drug coverage for all retirees, current and future

LTD will be limited to 2 years and you must pay 25% of the premium

Furlough protection gone – where do you think they might take this?

No meaningful returns, profit sharing will likely be wiped out in CH11

EMB 190/195s at other than mainline – these are 106 seat aircraft! Bruce Ashby has said he wants them for one reason…crew costs.

An onerous sick dependability program, only 60 hours of sick allowed annually, then your Chief Pilot will make a decision if you can continue to draw sick time or be placed on unpaid inactive status.

Hows come 320 won't chime in on this letter or the one from the PIT council?

Cat got your tongue bigboy?

This management has no intention of running this company as we know it. And the pilots of PHL and PIT have no intention of making their alter ego plan easier by signing our careers away freely.

If ANY pilot does not see what this management is doing he is blind. Are you blind 320?

“Separate the membership from their union representatives,â€￾ would become their rallying cry, a basic tenet of union busting, right out of the Lorenzo handbook.
sounds to me your elected representitives ought to wake up and smell the roses.
maybe you also have top shelf people in bed with bruce and jerry.
700UW said:
Sounds like a recall of Pollock needs to happen.

That would have happened last March except for the fact that MEC officers MUST be elected by senatorial balloting ONLY. Since the minority of the USAirways pilots are represented by 8 LEC officers (from CLT, LGA, DCA and BOS,) those 8 votes outweigh the 4 votes of the PHL and PIT reps. Pollock is snugly, and smugly, entrenched.

But that does not mean that all of the important committees are safe. I suspect the Communications Chairman will be out on his posterior within a week.
Machiavelli on Lies and "The Hidden Agenda"

Fellow Pilots,

I live in the D.C. area and as a negotiator and MEC Chairman for a number of years I felt it important to take the opportunity to sit in on the MEC meeting to glean some insights into the status of negotiations. I was of the opinion that negotiations were indeed progressing, that a deal could quickly be struck, and that our Negotiating Committee and MEC had developed some unique and "outside the box" approaches to cost reductions.

I was wrong and in Machiavellian fashion, we have been lied to and deceived by our reps in Philadelphia. We are in crisis. We are not negotiating in good faith with our employer. We are at grave risk of liquidation. It seems that thousands of pilot families are about to pay a horrible price because our representatives have made promises they cannot keep. They know they cannot keep those promises and they do not have the courage to come back to you and tell you that they cannot keep them.

They lack the courage to negotiate an agreement that hits the known economic target necessary to allow OUR airline to compete. All of the MEC members know what that target figure is. The Company knows what that target figure is. Both sides are in agreement as to the valuation of our current negotiating position, and we are $100 million dollars apart. So what's it take to make a deal? Courage -- Courage and the will to negotiate.

The Company's table position is ridiculous. Everyone knows that. Unfortunately, what everyone doesn't know is that once we hit the economic target…the attack on our quality of life issues would drop by the wayside. We would have the ability to negotiate perhaps a shorter length contract, and we would realize some real returns in profit sharing, and bankruptcy protections. Wouldn't it be nice to have a profit sharing plan that was set up in a cafeteria style…where each individual pilot could choose to be paid cash or increased pension contribution? This can only happen if we negotiate and reach a TA, which meets the necessary economic target.

You may say, we've given enough…I'd say, we've given a lot. I'd also say our low cost competitors have been given millions of dollars in capital from Wall Street to transform our air transportation system…either with us or without us…free market forces will prevail. I'd also say thank heaven we're still here and still flying, the result of real leadership by our pilots and representatives who faced our changing reality with solutions and wisdom.

The reality is that the pilot group is going to take a major haircut, and there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it because it is driven not by a recalcitrant management, but rather by the competitive forces of the industry - competitive forces that we can no longer run from. The best result for the pilots can be achieved by a consensual agreement BEFORE entering bankruptcy. The company has indicated they are willing to guarantee a minimum fleet size of 279 airplanes. This is HUGE for us! And we only get it with a pre-bankruptcy deal.

But wait a minute, our PHL reps are telling us that the Company has no intention of implementing their $700 million in cost saving measures until 2007! More lies from our reps…doesn't it make sense that our Company's cost saving initiatives won't be "Fully Realized" until 2007. Doesn't it make sense that a new hub in FLL is a good idea? Doesn't it make sense that the benefits of that new hub won't be "Fully Realized" until it gets bigger, more airplanes come on the property (2006 fleet plan), and South American and other routes get developed? Our reps it seems would have us believe that this should be accomplished overnight…how unrealistic and ignorant is that?

No, you see, our reps have to paint the Company as malevolent, and taking more from the pilots without doing their part to fix the company in order to advance an agenda that doesn't provide for a negotiated settlement. You see, our reps need a malevolent management to point at…so they can have someone to blame. Our reps need a boogieman so that they can shirk their representational responsibility to you. They can duck making the tough decisions. They can say in bankruptcy "We tried to defend your contract, but this greedy management has stolen from you again"…Can you see the theme? It is more palatable for our reps to put the company in the position to strip our contract and have someone to blame, rather then to make an agreement and defend it to their peers…even if the negotiated agreement is a far better and smarter deal…Why would they go to these weak and cowardly extremes while risking the entire airline? To save face and deflect criticism! Absolute cowardice and weakness! Intolerable cowardice and weakness!

Think about it. We enter bankruptcy without a promise by the company to waive their rights to file an 1113E action against our contract. What do we stand to lose? Some members of our pilot community believe we will do better making our case before the bankruptcy judge. No Way! Here's what we stand to lose absent a negotiated settlement with the company. An economic hit 25% to 50% greater than what's proposed by our management today. Say goodbye to a significant number of airplanes and the pilot jobs that go with them. How? Simple. GECAS holds the leases on our 737 fleet. They are below market leases. If they can, they will try to get them moved to FedEx. Any surprises so far? Guess what. Under 1113, with the airplanes gone, our management can make the case to the judge they can't afford the cost of furloughing in seniority order and simply furlough out of seniority…including the captains, including the lineholders! Ignoring system seniority and displacement rights. If you're on the wrong fleet type…you're gone. Why would we want this? Say goodbye to the DC plan and hello to a 401K. Say goodbye to Scope and Fragmentation protections. Say goodbye to duty rigs and other quality of life issues. There are other draconian measures that well befall us in an 1113 fight…but so what.

My point is not to be alarmist, but rather to express the importance of making a deal before we get into bankruptcy. Simply put, we take a haircut short of bankruptcy and we have a good shot at living to see better times. We get a piece of the upside. We have our fleet size guaranteed. We are all better off with a deal.

Without a deal…if we continue to operate at all, the stark reality is that nobody cares about us. If the decision should be made to try to continue operations, and not liquidate immediately, the ATSB and other stakeholders will require a super streamlined operation…That means much deeper cuts…Why would that be? Because they will want to secure their payback…and be paid back as soon as practicable with absolutely no regard for our contract and quality of life, and more importantly, with no regard as to maintaining sufficient mass to remain a viable competitor and going concern. No money for any fights to maintain market share, nor investments in airplanes, gates and cities. No new equity. No new financing. Just a small shell of an airline remaining…nothing of value, and no way to turn it around, just as was the case with TWA just a few years ago.

Isn't the decision obvious to you? Make the 50-cent investment in your future and call your reps in PHL and PIT. Send them an email. Tell them you release them from their promises to you and that you expect them to represent your professional best interests. Tell them you understand that they tried and that you know that they are not magicians. Tell them you want a chance for a future. Tell them you understand that circumstances are dire and that a reduced DC plan contribution is far better than no DC plan at all. Tell them you want a voice in your future and you don't want it dictated to you. They are a truly arrogant bunch who continue to ignore our professional advisors and the competitive reality we are being crushed under.

The numbers don't lie and they don't have emotion. They are what they are. We will step up to economic reality or we will be given a new economic reality, one that crushes us.

Here are some excerpts of the advice and guidance I heard our professional negotiators give to the MEC on Friday.

Our lawyers described various scenarios, which were likely to occur absent a negotiated settlement. Expect the company to file an 1113E motion followed by an 1113 process. A Chapter 11 filing has a very negative impact on the company and we can expect the company to negotiate from a much harder position. The stakeholders become empowered. The big "IF" is "If we survive, a very high premium will be placed on a reorganization plan which they KNOW will succeed. The company and stakeholders (ATSB, GECAS, etc.) will want to leave less to chance once in Chapter 11. The stakeholders will require a very, very, very, very streamlined cost structure. To improve the chances of a successful reorganization…our contract gets stripped. We get no returns. We get a smaller fleet. We get essentially no contract. We can expect furloughs out of seniority and furloughs by fleet type. We can expect no DC plan, No profit sharing plan, No equity - Nothing. We can expect to lose our fragmentation rights. Upon entering bankruptcy, the company will have potential desperation to deal with, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Circumstances and the bankruptcy venue will provide the management much greater leverage than they have now, and their business situation will worsen and their demands of us will be significantly worse. If it is the view that the membership should be included - then very little time remains to strike a deal. If there is any interest in letting the pilots decide this, then an agreement and MEC action must take place early this week.

Our investment banker was asked by the MEC for his analysis. He said that in his professional view, there was no serious prospect of striking a deal on the basis of the restrictions placed on the negotiating committee by the MEC (via Roll Call vote by PHL and PIT). If we do not strike a deal, there will be no returns. We can get significant returns, if we negotiate. The DC plan will be lost entirely in a Chapter 11 proceeding. However, we can keep a lot of it if we close a deal prior to going into Chapter 11. We cannot assume the fleet size will remain the same in Chapter 11 absent an agreement. We can expect a court-imposed contract to be bare bones. There will be no new money coming in. The ATSB will require a profitable cost structure and payoff regardless of the impact on the airlines ability to go forward. The ATSB will insist in an 1113 filing under the framework that the airline will be profitable, and thus pay them back, regardless of how much pain or quality of life it costs. The cost reduction target will change post Chapter 11 and will likely increase to 125% to 150% of the airlines pre Chapter 11 target and will be imposed. The company's cost reduction could also rise to infinity…which would be liquidation. He said he did not believe a deal could be struck with the restrictions placed on the negotiation committee by the MEC.

Don Hollerbach, who is a CPA and pilot member of the negotiating committee pleaded with the MEC to remove the restrictions and let the committee negotiate. He said, "Don't cut my leg off and then expect me to go in and kick somebody's ass!" He said to the MEC, "Make a decision! Do your job and make a decision and let the committee go in and do their job!" He thinks the company wants a deal and that one can be struck very quickly as long as there are no sacred cows and the committee is allowed to negotiate. He thinks the best deal for our pilots can be had pre-chapter 11 and that entering chapter 11 without a deal struck would be stupid.

There you have it. The PHL/PIT reps have an agenda that they are not sharing with the MEC nor the pilots. Their agenda flies in the face of good business judgment. Their agenda flies in the face of risk management. Their agenda flies in the face of getting the greatest protections and returns for the pilots that can be achieved. Their agenda flies in the face of fiduciary duty and common sense. So WHAT is the Hidden Agenda? Could it be that to touch the DC plan would undermine their lawsuit against ALPA? Could it be they have cooked up some scheme to drive the airline into bankruptcy so they can try to buy the airline? Could it be that they are just too arrogant to come back to you and say we made a mistake…circumstances require deeper cuts than we ever expected to bring back to you. I don't know what their motivation is and neither does anyone else. But whatever the motivation that blocks a negotiated pre Chapter 11 deal with appropriate protections and returns is simply not worth the alternative…professional suicide and a drastically lower bar set for the industry.

I choose the chance for success, how about you? Time is shorter than you know.


Peter J. Gauthier

Sounds to me like US Airways management has decided to take a page from the AMR playbook.

Step 1: Waste weeks/months/years (as applicable) "negotiating" with the union.
Step 2: At the deadline, come back with the original or an even more onerous proposal and say, "Accept this or we will file bankruptcy and then you'll be sorry."
I am curious, were the rules not changed after Lorenzo used these same tactics to void all the contracts? Or did he take CAL to Ch7, although that seems unlikely?
This letter is inaccurate. The efforts of the RC4, two of which are suing ALPA for multimillion dollars is claims over the DB Plan, is to not give in on the DC Plan. If they do, they will lose their lawsuit.

Interestingly the PIT Reps recalled Tim Baker as the Captain Rep because they did not get a vote on the DB Plan termination and their $2 million lump sum benefit.

The retirement is all that is important to people like Mwereplanes and older people, regardless of what it does to 30,000 people and their families. That's why he does not have the courage to identify him self and he is weak.

During Freshwater and Brookman's election they promised they would never prevent a vote, but that's what they did last Monday night on the company's proposal. During the meeting Brookman told the MEC that the body could not send out a proposal only a TA to the membership. Bill Pollock then asked both ALPA attorney's if that was true and the legal advisors said a company proposal could be sent out and there was a resolution permitting this action.

Therefore, the RC4 have denied the pilots to vote on their future and will thrust the company into bankruptcy. Not to worry though because once in bankruptcy the company can ask the court to furlough out of seniority according to ALPA's advisors.

Separately, NC Doug Mowrey told the company that day to raise the pay cut as high as necessary, but do not touch work rules.

The Council 41 (PHL) and Council 91 (PIT) letters are full of misinformation.


"Not to worry though because once in bankruptcy the company can ask the court to furlough out of seniority according to ALPA's advisors."

Maybe that is true, but would the pilot group go along with that, I hope not. If it happens, it will be a dog eat dog show of large proportions and management will be laughing their heads off as U ALPA falls apart. That is, if they are not already laughing.

Not to worry though, perhaps they will have a preferrential hiring list. You know, the people who helped them gets first crack at it. Who knows, they may even offer them "super seniority".
Dizel8 said:
I am curious, were the rules not changed after Lorenzo used these same tactics to void all the contracts? Or did he take CAL to Ch7, although that seems unlikely?

No, Lorenzo did not take CAL to Ch7--that is liquidation proceedings. Obviously CAL did not liquidate. Eastern was liquidated in Ch. 7, but only after it had ceased operation.

Now, in BK before a judge will abrogate the contracts, he/she must require some period (60 days, I think) of good faith bargaining on the part of both company and union. HOWEVER, good faith is a subjective judgement, the precedent is to lean toward the company's version of events.

In fact, it just occurred to me...
The company's last proposal to ALPA only guaranteed 60 days of effectiveness. That would give the company time to "negotiate in good faith" with the other unions, fail to get an agreement, then come back to the court with a motion to abrogate ALL the contracts including ALPA's. (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that some people aren't out to get you. :p )
So in other words, vis a vis the 60 days, the company really is not offering anything, since they would be legally required to do it anyway.

Amazing what a little slant on a subject can do.

It has been reported that the Wilson poll results indicated that the DC plan was considered "sacred" by this pilot group. So now it's supposedly a few who want to preserve the DC plan. Of course, the poll results were never released to the pilot group by those wanting "full disclosure".

Conflict of interest....

It's a fact that some sitting MEC members would benefit from going to a 10% company contribution to a 401K - it would increase their retirement benefits. Could that be considered a "conflict of interest" when they are determining whether to negotiate for pay or DC plan reductions? Oh, they're on the "good guy" side, so that makes it ok.

What "Machiavelli" fails to mention is that the company is only offering 60 days of 1113/1114 protection. Remember the DB pension? Any pilot who does not believe that the 60 day period would go by and then be immediately followed by another land grab lacks the judgement to hold an ATP......