Council 94 Letter From John Brookman
September 8, 2004
To the Pilots of Pittsburgh,
I realize that the pilots of the Council are anxious concerning the events
that have taken place over the past 2 weeks. I will try and lay out a
timeline, while at the same time explain the actions and decisions that we
made. Fred and I have heard from the pilots of this council, and we
appreciate those of you who have whole-heartedly supported us, and hope that
those of you who have some doubts will please read the following letter,
stay informed and contact us if you have questions or concerns.
Membership Ratification
Your PIT and PHL representatives have consistently advocated membership
ratification of any Letters of Agreement or changes to the collective
bargaining agreement that affect our pay, job security, working conditions
or retirement. We will never vote for or amend the policy manual to allow
for anything other than membership ratification of tentative agreements.
In the past week the MEC Chairman, Officers and Communication Committee have
been misleading and misrepresenting the facts concerning the Negotiating
Committee and Company proposals. The MEC policy manual clearly states
“….upon the presentation of an acceptable tentative agreement to the MEC by
the Negotiating Committee. Membership ratification shall be mandatory….†The
pilots of this airline will get a vote, if and when the company and the
negotiating committee reach an agreement that is acceptable to the majority
of the members of the MEC. Our manual calls for a three-step process;
1. The Negotiating Committee and Company reach an agreement.
2. The MEC reviews the agreement for a minimum of 7 days, and
a. accepts the agreement
b. rejects the agreement
3. The pilot group only gets to vote on an agreement if the MEC accepts it.
What the Officers and Communications Chairman of this MEC are trying to
convince this pilot group, is that the PIT and PHL representatives are not
allowing you to vote on your future, this is a LIE and they know it.
This is a completely different scenario than what happened during the loss
of the Pilots Defined Benefit Plan. The MEC accepted a tentative agreement
that eliminated the Defined Benefit Plan and then voted (Brookman voted not
to amend) by 2/3rds to override the Policy Manual requirement of membership
ratification and did not send it out for a vote to the pilot group.
If we get an acceptable tentative agreement – you will get to vote. The
pilot group is the last and final authority.
Expense of Special Meeting called on August 25, 2004
The MEC Chairman, Bill Pollock, called a special meeting which began on
Wednesday, August 25, 2004 and adjourned Monday September 6, 2004. The MEC
was in continuous session to the call of the Chairman. However, from Tuesday
August 31, until Monday September 6, no meetings where held, no phone calls
were received, and no negotiating committee reports were given. Bill Pollock
did not even update the members of the MEC as to the dates and times of
negotiations. Your representatives where listening to the code-a-phone just
as you were to receive information. The MEC did absolutely nothing except
rack up huge expenses. Here is a breakdown of expenses incurred during this
MEC meeting.
1. Flight pay loss of 5 hours per day/ per MEC member, officer, invited
committee members - $15,000/day
2. Hotel and meeting rooms - $5,000/day
3. Meals and incidentals - $2,000/day (minimum)
At a very minimum this MEC Chairman spent over $110,000 for 6 days when
absolutely no work was being conducted.
This from an MEC that ALPA National has been rightfully scrutinizing the
expenditures of. We have ongoing, serious financial concerns and, as a
result, have been placed on a flight pay loss matrix, we are currently under
the control of ALPA National.
Company’s proposal of September 6, 2004
After being in recess for 6 days at the call of the MEC Chairman, the MEC
went into session at 3:30 on Monday, September 6. The Negotiating Committee
gave an update of their past weeks worth of work, which took approximately 2
hours. We broke for about an hour while the Company sent over their next
proposal. After the Negotiating Committee reviewed the latest Company
positions, they discussed the provisions with the MEC. First Officer Garland
Jones (BOS) asked for a 5 minute recess while he passed out a resolution
that would send this company proposal out for membership ratification. The
motion was seconded by First Officer Ray Belz (LGA). I then made a point of
order that the resolution was not valid. The US Airways policy manual
clearly states that tentative agreements are sent to the pilot group for
membership ratification, not proposals. Not surprisingly, after much debate
between the advisors and Chairman Pollock, my point of order was overruled.
I then challenged the chair; this would allow the MEC members to vote on the
point of order. However, once again, Chairman Pollock then made the decision
that a challenge of the chair was not in order. Should we be surprised? The
same parliamentary procedures where used by Chris Beebe, as MEC Chairman, to
prevent the MEC from allowing this pilot group the ability to vote when a
Tentative Agreement was reached and the MEC (I voted NO) surrendered of our
Defined Benefit Plan.
After approximately 1 hour of discussion concerning the resolution, we
voted. I immediately called for a roll call. PIT and PHL voted NO,
BOS, LGA, CLT, DCA voted, YES.
Why we voted against sending out a proposal to the pilot group
1. We did not have a tentative agreement, as required by the policy manual,
just a proposal from the Company that did not address any of the financial
needs, returns, and job security of our pilot group.
2. What was stated over and over as the sole reason for this MEC to accept
the Company’s proposal of September 6, 2004 and send it out for membership
ratification was; to obtain Chapter 1113, 1113(E), 1114, 1114(h) protection
if the Company entered bankruptcy. This protection would prevent the company
from asking the judge for further concessions from the pilot group. However,
the one important element that all other representatives, (PIT & PHL
excluded), the MEC Chairman and Communications Committee are failing to tell
the pilot group is: The protection the company was offering dropped dead
after 60 days in bankruptcy. The proposal states “neither the company nor
any affiliated debtor shall, on or before November 12, 2004, file or
otherwise support any motion … seeking rejection of or modification of or
relief or interim relief from, the Pilot Agreement.†Under federal
bankruptcy laws; the Company is required to negotiate with us for 60 days.
Folks, they offered us the sleeves off their vests! It is our opinion that
the Company will be back for MORE, the 60 days gives them the ability to
take advantage of our massive concessions, go after all the other unions,
and then come back after us. Make no mistake, as Arnold say’s “I’ll be
BACKâ€, history does repeat itself. The ink is never dry before they are
stealing more.
3. None of the provisions that were required by the MEC Charging Resolutions
had been fulfilled. The charging resolutions were passed by unanimous vote
of this MEC. PIT and PHL are the only representatives who are living up to
their commitments to this pilot group.
4. No meaningful returns. The company’s own documents state that any profit
sharing is unlikely to survive a bankruptcy filing.
5. No furlough protection – up to 775 potential furloughs
6. Elimination of retiree medical benefits. This will cost each pilot (in
today’s dollars) approximately $2,000/month. They offered to offset it by a
maximum of $462.50/month, only if you are fortunate enough to have a full
sick bank at retirement.
7. Complete elimination of retiree dental coverage (access and subsidy) – we
can’t even buy it!!
8. Eliminate all medical and dental coverage for all current and future
retirees over age 65.
9. Eliminate all drug coverage for current and future retirees.
10. Elimination of the Pilot Disability Plan – a pilot would only be able to
collect disability for a maximum of 2 years. All pilots would have to pay
for 25% of disability premiums. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached an all
time low when we attack the old and crippled. The company would not even
indemnify the Association against laws suits that are sure to arise from the
elimination of retirement and insurance benefits.
11. 23% pay cut, 50% reduction in Defined Contributions – ALPA’s first
proposal for a 12 ½ % pay cut, and minor work rule changes = $220 million.
We are very well informed and the numbers just do not add up!! The company
constantly values our contributions well below what they are worth. Our
Negotiating Committee has been chasing a moving target for the past 3
months. Until now, no other MEC has ever held the Company’s feet to the
fire.
12. 106 seat jet aircraft at express carriers – correct me if I am wrong, I
think we have those parked in the desert!!
Please read the Company’s proposal dated September 6, 2004. I tried to
outline a dozen items; it is a 30 page document and grows more onerous with
turn of each page.
What is unbelievable to me is that the other 8 members of the MEC could
actually accept this.
Communication Committee
It is the opinion of your Pittsburgh Representatives that the communications
that have been released by the MEC Chairman, Officers and Communication
Committee Chairman, Jack Stephan, have been a concerted effort designed to
create doubt and uncertainty as to the intentions of your elected
representatives. He has intentionally misled and misinformed the pilots of
US Airways. Jack Stephan has acted in a manor which has caused and fostered
a contentious and divisive atmosphere designed to effectuate an outcome
contrary to the best interest of this pilot group. He has actively
encouraged and participated in divisive activities. He has censored
communications between the Negotiating Committee and the pilot group. The
actions of the Communication Committee Chairman have jeopardized the
creditability of the US Airways MEC and the relationship between the elected
representatives and their constituents.
Where do we go from here?
Your representatives will continue to work toward attaining the stated goal
of transforming the airline, and making us competitive with the low cost
carriers. We know we can meet this objective without surrendering our entire
working agreement, and we will fight hard to preserve the benefits for all
pilots on the seniority list and for those pilots who left us this airline
and career in our hands.
The Negotiating Committee is ready to engage the Company, and has a
negotiating charge unanimously passed by the MEC on August 30, 2004.
Please stay informed, question everyone, and call us with your questions and
comments.
Fraternally,
John M. Brookman
First Officer Representative, Council 94
September 8, 2004
To the Pilots of Pittsburgh,
I realize that the pilots of the Council are anxious concerning the events
that have taken place over the past 2 weeks. I will try and lay out a
timeline, while at the same time explain the actions and decisions that we
made. Fred and I have heard from the pilots of this council, and we
appreciate those of you who have whole-heartedly supported us, and hope that
those of you who have some doubts will please read the following letter,
stay informed and contact us if you have questions or concerns.
Membership Ratification
Your PIT and PHL representatives have consistently advocated membership
ratification of any Letters of Agreement or changes to the collective
bargaining agreement that affect our pay, job security, working conditions
or retirement. We will never vote for or amend the policy manual to allow
for anything other than membership ratification of tentative agreements.
In the past week the MEC Chairman, Officers and Communication Committee have
been misleading and misrepresenting the facts concerning the Negotiating
Committee and Company proposals. The MEC policy manual clearly states
“….upon the presentation of an acceptable tentative agreement to the MEC by
the Negotiating Committee. Membership ratification shall be mandatory….†The
pilots of this airline will get a vote, if and when the company and the
negotiating committee reach an agreement that is acceptable to the majority
of the members of the MEC. Our manual calls for a three-step process;
1. The Negotiating Committee and Company reach an agreement.
2. The MEC reviews the agreement for a minimum of 7 days, and
a. accepts the agreement
b. rejects the agreement
3. The pilot group only gets to vote on an agreement if the MEC accepts it.
What the Officers and Communications Chairman of this MEC are trying to
convince this pilot group, is that the PIT and PHL representatives are not
allowing you to vote on your future, this is a LIE and they know it.
This is a completely different scenario than what happened during the loss
of the Pilots Defined Benefit Plan. The MEC accepted a tentative agreement
that eliminated the Defined Benefit Plan and then voted (Brookman voted not
to amend) by 2/3rds to override the Policy Manual requirement of membership
ratification and did not send it out for a vote to the pilot group.
If we get an acceptable tentative agreement – you will get to vote. The
pilot group is the last and final authority.
Expense of Special Meeting called on August 25, 2004
The MEC Chairman, Bill Pollock, called a special meeting which began on
Wednesday, August 25, 2004 and adjourned Monday September 6, 2004. The MEC
was in continuous session to the call of the Chairman. However, from Tuesday
August 31, until Monday September 6, no meetings where held, no phone calls
were received, and no negotiating committee reports were given. Bill Pollock
did not even update the members of the MEC as to the dates and times of
negotiations. Your representatives where listening to the code-a-phone just
as you were to receive information. The MEC did absolutely nothing except
rack up huge expenses. Here is a breakdown of expenses incurred during this
MEC meeting.
1. Flight pay loss of 5 hours per day/ per MEC member, officer, invited
committee members - $15,000/day
2. Hotel and meeting rooms - $5,000/day
3. Meals and incidentals - $2,000/day (minimum)
At a very minimum this MEC Chairman spent over $110,000 for 6 days when
absolutely no work was being conducted.
This from an MEC that ALPA National has been rightfully scrutinizing the
expenditures of. We have ongoing, serious financial concerns and, as a
result, have been placed on a flight pay loss matrix, we are currently under
the control of ALPA National.
Company’s proposal of September 6, 2004
After being in recess for 6 days at the call of the MEC Chairman, the MEC
went into session at 3:30 on Monday, September 6. The Negotiating Committee
gave an update of their past weeks worth of work, which took approximately 2
hours. We broke for about an hour while the Company sent over their next
proposal. After the Negotiating Committee reviewed the latest Company
positions, they discussed the provisions with the MEC. First Officer Garland
Jones (BOS) asked for a 5 minute recess while he passed out a resolution
that would send this company proposal out for membership ratification. The
motion was seconded by First Officer Ray Belz (LGA). I then made a point of
order that the resolution was not valid. The US Airways policy manual
clearly states that tentative agreements are sent to the pilot group for
membership ratification, not proposals. Not surprisingly, after much debate
between the advisors and Chairman Pollock, my point of order was overruled.
I then challenged the chair; this would allow the MEC members to vote on the
point of order. However, once again, Chairman Pollock then made the decision
that a challenge of the chair was not in order. Should we be surprised? The
same parliamentary procedures where used by Chris Beebe, as MEC Chairman, to
prevent the MEC from allowing this pilot group the ability to vote when a
Tentative Agreement was reached and the MEC (I voted NO) surrendered of our
Defined Benefit Plan.
After approximately 1 hour of discussion concerning the resolution, we
voted. I immediately called for a roll call. PIT and PHL voted NO,
BOS, LGA, CLT, DCA voted, YES.
Why we voted against sending out a proposal to the pilot group
1. We did not have a tentative agreement, as required by the policy manual,
just a proposal from the Company that did not address any of the financial
needs, returns, and job security of our pilot group.
2. What was stated over and over as the sole reason for this MEC to accept
the Company’s proposal of September 6, 2004 and send it out for membership
ratification was; to obtain Chapter 1113, 1113(E), 1114, 1114(h) protection
if the Company entered bankruptcy. This protection would prevent the company
from asking the judge for further concessions from the pilot group. However,
the one important element that all other representatives, (PIT & PHL
excluded), the MEC Chairman and Communications Committee are failing to tell
the pilot group is: The protection the company was offering dropped dead
after 60 days in bankruptcy. The proposal states “neither the company nor
any affiliated debtor shall, on or before November 12, 2004, file or
otherwise support any motion … seeking rejection of or modification of or
relief or interim relief from, the Pilot Agreement.†Under federal
bankruptcy laws; the Company is required to negotiate with us for 60 days.
Folks, they offered us the sleeves off their vests! It is our opinion that
the Company will be back for MORE, the 60 days gives them the ability to
take advantage of our massive concessions, go after all the other unions,
and then come back after us. Make no mistake, as Arnold say’s “I’ll be
BACKâ€, history does repeat itself. The ink is never dry before they are
stealing more.
3. None of the provisions that were required by the MEC Charging Resolutions
had been fulfilled. The charging resolutions were passed by unanimous vote
of this MEC. PIT and PHL are the only representatives who are living up to
their commitments to this pilot group.
4. No meaningful returns. The company’s own documents state that any profit
sharing is unlikely to survive a bankruptcy filing.
5. No furlough protection – up to 775 potential furloughs
6. Elimination of retiree medical benefits. This will cost each pilot (in
today’s dollars) approximately $2,000/month. They offered to offset it by a
maximum of $462.50/month, only if you are fortunate enough to have a full
sick bank at retirement.
7. Complete elimination of retiree dental coverage (access and subsidy) – we
can’t even buy it!!
8. Eliminate all medical and dental coverage for all current and future
retirees over age 65.
9. Eliminate all drug coverage for current and future retirees.
10. Elimination of the Pilot Disability Plan – a pilot would only be able to
collect disability for a maximum of 2 years. All pilots would have to pay
for 25% of disability premiums. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached an all
time low when we attack the old and crippled. The company would not even
indemnify the Association against laws suits that are sure to arise from the
elimination of retirement and insurance benefits.
11. 23% pay cut, 50% reduction in Defined Contributions – ALPA’s first
proposal for a 12 ½ % pay cut, and minor work rule changes = $220 million.
We are very well informed and the numbers just do not add up!! The company
constantly values our contributions well below what they are worth. Our
Negotiating Committee has been chasing a moving target for the past 3
months. Until now, no other MEC has ever held the Company’s feet to the
fire.
12. 106 seat jet aircraft at express carriers – correct me if I am wrong, I
think we have those parked in the desert!!
Please read the Company’s proposal dated September 6, 2004. I tried to
outline a dozen items; it is a 30 page document and grows more onerous with
turn of each page.
What is unbelievable to me is that the other 8 members of the MEC could
actually accept this.
Communication Committee
It is the opinion of your Pittsburgh Representatives that the communications
that have been released by the MEC Chairman, Officers and Communication
Committee Chairman, Jack Stephan, have been a concerted effort designed to
create doubt and uncertainty as to the intentions of your elected
representatives. He has intentionally misled and misinformed the pilots of
US Airways. Jack Stephan has acted in a manor which has caused and fostered
a contentious and divisive atmosphere designed to effectuate an outcome
contrary to the best interest of this pilot group. He has actively
encouraged and participated in divisive activities. He has censored
communications between the Negotiating Committee and the pilot group. The
actions of the Communication Committee Chairman have jeopardized the
creditability of the US Airways MEC and the relationship between the elected
representatives and their constituents.
Where do we go from here?
Your representatives will continue to work toward attaining the stated goal
of transforming the airline, and making us competitive with the low cost
carriers. We know we can meet this objective without surrendering our entire
working agreement, and we will fight hard to preserve the benefits for all
pilots on the seniority list and for those pilots who left us this airline
and career in our hands.
The Negotiating Committee is ready to engage the Company, and has a
negotiating charge unanimously passed by the MEC on August 30, 2004.
Please stay informed, question everyone, and call us with your questions and
comments.
Fraternally,
John M. Brookman
First Officer Representative, Council 94
CWA will meet 8/9 not going to give 1 penny back
