Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[A320 Driver]

Not long they are other pilots that want there thoughts known. Sorry they do not agree with you.

You aren't sorry. I can see that #### eating grin from here.

 

[A320 Driver]

Not long they are other pilots that want there thoughts known. Sorry they do not agree with you.

Hey, what is the current website for the other malcontents anyway? I'd like to look at it.

 

[luvthe9]

I don't think we will lose anything. Also, I look forward to being anything but a US Air pilot. It was a #### outfit when it bought Piedmont and it is a #### outfit now.

I don't think we will lose anything..

You are so wrong go ask half the senior 330 boys in PHL, this is not a good deal, I just found out about the jumpseat yesterday, I don't commute but giving that up got us what, tell me if you know, the pay scales are wrong also, the list goes on. take off your blinders I would bet you and I want the same things but this MOU is wrong and this vote should be delayed till we find out what is really or vote NO on it now.

 

[luvthe9]

You aren't sorry. I can see that #### eating grin from here.

Driver, I'm telling you we want the same things. But this is not right. I wish you were at the two PHL meetings.

 

[nycbusdriver]

"You can't get an equity stake in a bankrupt company,.." Exactly so sir, thus; any such stake must be predicated on future value afterwards, which necesarily includes any/all value that the US side brings to the transaction and subsequent operations. What were those figures being bandied about?...Something like 1.2-1.5 BILLION dollars in annual synergies/etc? Aww heck! Why should any on the US side expect to equally benefit? 😉

"...all for the benefit of the old AA pilots and to the exclusion of the LCC pilots." Yep. ".. to the exclusion of the LCC pilots." How that can possibly seem entirely or even at all reasonable to anyone here escapes me.

This equity stake bothers me a bit, too. But why are we not complaining about subsidizing the equity stakes that the AA flight attendants and mechanics are getting? Or the other members of the UCC? The fact is, the UCC (of which the pilots are a member) really "owns" American Airlines right now, and bankruptcy allows them to do this.

Our sacrifices during our BK proceedings were for naught simply because we did not have a seat at the UCC table. Nor do we have a seat at this one.

SOMEONE has to own the New AA. Would it be more reasonable for the AA pilots (and flight attendants and mechanics) to forgo their rights and let Hewlitt Packard, Boeing and the bond holders just take it all? Would WE do that? (Well, maybe if we put it to a vote we would...at least CM and his buddies would vote in favor.)

We don't have equity as a group in either airline, nor do we hold unsecured debt as a group in either airline. We are simply not legally entitled to simply claim equity because a company (LCC), which we do not own, will increase the value of AA.

This is truly and apples vs. oranges thing. Or, apples vs. sour grapes thing might be more descriptive.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Seriously? Umm...." in the history of mankind" huh? Well...that eliminates even the smallest chance that the American Revolution was even the least bit a moral endeavor. I suggest we properly tear down all monuments to the immoral likes of Washington, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson immediately and replace them with statues of St Nic and selected "heros" of the "Army" of leonidas. 😉 I almost forgot Mr. Lincoln's monuments as well, since slavery had long and agreeably existed within the law of his times. It further goes without saying that any options for people to ever divorce must needs now be stricken from the law as well. Need we continue here?

A gentle suggestion would be to first learn at least something, even anything at all about "the history of mankind" before spouting off such patently absurd nonsense.

By all means, please show me the legal document that was signed and agreed to by the colonists or their representatives whereby they agreed to be subjected to the king of England.

Read more carefully and you will discover your blatant mistake in your response - my point/claim was - where do you find a historical written civil, moral, or theological code that expressly states breaking an agreement without the mutual consent of the other (injured) party is not only morally acceptable but encouraged? Conversely, maybe you could also show a similar historical document that states that abiding by one's lawfully conducted contractual or covenanted agreement is a crime or recognized as an act of moral depravity.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It was a #### outfit when it bought Piedmont and it is a #### outfit now.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[eastcoast]

The argument that I heard in the roadshow was that the AA guys are unsecured creditors (and have a seat on the UCC). Since the cuts and givebacks they suffered constitute 'credit' extended to the company and not compensated for, they are taking a negotiated portion of the equity in the new company as that compensation to clear their claim, same as any other creditor.
Our group does not have that status in the proceedings.

That is exactly right. We are not unsecured creditors in AA's bankruptcy. Too many people are still trying to use this merger to recoup our loses from a decade ago. APA's equity as unsecured creditors is a separate subject from synergies gained from this merger. The synergies are a valid point. APA owns a large part of those synergies IN ADDITION TO their status as unsecured creditors. The value of our synergies and those of APA's is reflected in the MOU and the eventual JCBA. The equity stake APA gets is a reflection of their status as unsecured creditors. It's really that simple.

Now if anyone thinks that the MOU does not compensate us sufficiently for the synergies we bring to the merger, and they think we have the leverage to gain some equity in addition to the MOU, then by all means vote no. But to connect the dots and say we should get equity just because APA got equity is an obfuscation of the facts.

I would love to get more from this. I do not see a viable path to get there. Additionally, even if there was a path and it takes another year, I do not see the net gain being more than what we give up during that time. (ie: the time value of money). We have already lost enough over the past 5 to 7 years chasing a fools errand, following what amounted to false promises of a quick payback. There is no denying that. Those are the grounds for my yes vote. I go to work to be compensated and provide the best quality of life for my family. It is a means to an end. This MOU represents the best opportunity I've seen in a long time to reap some very tangible improvements for everyone during my remaining time here. I'm not willing to gamble that away by rolling the dice one more time, hoping for just a little more. It's time to take my chips and push back from the table. Just like Vegas, it's the constant lure of just one more good hand that results in most people leaving with less than they came with. Gambling is an addiction. Just one more hit.

We all get one vote. I don't see the benefit of arguing about this day after day. And I certainly don't see the need to attack and call people childish names just because you don't like someone's opinion. (...luvthe9)

 

[dca319]

You are so wrong go ask half the senior 330 boys in PHL, this is not a good deal, I just found out about the jumpseat yesterday, I don't commute but giving that up got us what, tell me if you know, the pay scales are wrong also, the list goes on. take off your blinders I would bet you and I want the same things but this MOU is wrong and this vote should be delayed till we find out what is really or vote NO on it now.

And what about the other half?
Wonder why you want the delay? Waiting for something?

 

[Metroyet]

The latest CCC update has me thinking. I've never been comfortable with the 13.5% equity stake which the APA is getting in the New American Airlines. You can't get an equity stake in a bankrupt company, which is why we received two separate cash payments in our bankruptcy. No one knows what the value of the new company will be and our part of the synergy equation will certainly increase that value, all for the benefit of the old AA pilots and to the exclusion of the LCC pilots.

just because YOUR idiotic group can't get an equity stake has no bearing on the APA or any other competent unions ability to negotiate benefits for their dues paying membership.
USAPA and East pilots are alone on the island of incompetence and failure.

 

[Beancounter]

Driver, I'm telling you we want the same things. But this is not right. I wish you were at the two PHL meetings.

If you really wanted a good contract, why on God's green earth did you help create USAPA? USAPA (previous leaders) have:

• Gotten us parked
• Used safety as a bargaining tool
• An injunction
• Lost unity by attacking the west and driving a wedge between the pilot groups.

You go on and on about proper negotiating techniques, so please enlighten me as to how the above actions have helped us get closer to a contract or put us in a good bargaining position.

Bean

 

[cactusboy53]

Good Morning US Airways pilots, lurkers & guests!

Are your sick & tired of Courtney's hair-on-fire hyperbole?

Did you not have the chance to read the MOU and attend one of the road shows?

Well, here's your chance to be educated on the MOU. USAPA has put together 9 videos with 3 Q&A videos from your very own. Pilots in attendance included pilots from CLT, PHL, & PHX and I believe DCA.

Take the time to watch the presentation & Q&A's. Write down your notes and questions. PLEASE e-mail your NAC at nac@usairlinepilots.org

GO HERE: https://www.youtube....svideo/featured

While these guys (the NAC) are busy, they will field your questions as quickly as possible.

To those that are serious about these proceedings and want an improvement from your current contract & wage: Thank you for taking the time to become educated and informed!

CB

 

[Metroyet]

FROM AN AA PILOT.......

I think a bit of clarification is in order here with regard to that equity stake we got and why we got it.

When you look at what our guys lost with our new contract in expected pensions at retirement compared to what we'll now get with just a 14% 401k contribution, it was significant, particularly for the younger guys who didn't have a chance like I did to build up their A fund and are now forever frozen at F/O average pay and fewer years in the plan. Then when you look at what the productivity concessions due to expected career progression and quality of life, all but the most senior guys are harmed. Again, the more junior guys are really taking it in the shorts. Then the more senior guys like me just lost our possibility of a big lump sum payout on the A fund when we retire and are now butt-jammed with an annuity that ends when we (or a designated survivor) die, leaving nothing of that money to our estate. That one REALLY chaps my ass because I had an expected payout of between $500-600k coming from that lump sum which I hoped to bank and pass on to my kids. All of these things combined represent a significant loss to us as a result of AA's manufactured bankruptcy. The reason we have a seat on the UCC is that we have a significant claim against the company for those losses. And they know it. The 13.5% stake was offered to us to compensate us for our legal claim of damages that we could pursue in court. In return, we agreed to take that as full settlement of our damages claim, even though none of us believe we'll be anywhere nearly fully compensated for our losses. Bottom line, that stake represents a damages award. It was not just a windfall payout we got in negotiations. If we'd turned down the second TA, they'd have withdrawn that offer and we'd have had to go through a lengthy and costly court battle to extract our damages with no assurances we'd get even that much and very little chance of getting any more. Facing that choice, most guys took the bait and voted yes.

APA now has a committee determining how that pot of equity will be split up. First they're going to divide the money into several smaller pots (which they call silos) and then come up with formulas to determine how much each guy gets from that specific pot. For example, a guy with half my seniority will get twice what I get from the pension loss pot, more than me for the career progression loss pot, but less than me for the loss of lump sum pot. When all of these separate pots are calculated, we'll each learn what percentage we'll get of that 13.5% equity. It remains to be seen whether we'll be able to roll that money into IRA or 401k accounts or if we'll be forced (as Delta was) to take it in one lump sum as compensation, which would have major tax implications. APA's legal guys are working hard on getting appropriate legislation in place to allow us to defer the tax liability by rolling it into retirement accounts.

APA made it clear to us that the stake we were getting would be based upon whatever company exits from bankruptcy. Your guys are absolutely correct that we'll get more value from that equity if we merge because the value of the "New American" will very definitely be worth more merged than it would as a standalone company. Estimates I heard were that a merged company would likely boost the value of the equity stake by roughly 50%. My understanding is that if we merge after we exit BK, our equity will be in the standalone AA. If we elect to keep our shares instead of cashing out that equity, they may jump in value if a merger occurs later, but from all the indications I've heard, it seem more likely we'll merge before we exit.

Where USAPA may have a problem on getting a similar slice of the pie is that unlike APA there are no damages I'm aware of that you can claim so far as this deal is concerned. Where I personally think you guys have a claim is to compensate you for that successor clause you have in your current contract. That your union just gave that away is unconscionable to me. I hope that if your MOU approval goes down, you guys make it clear to Parker that was the main reason you voted no. You have that money coming and equity is probably his easiest way of dealing with it.

I know you told me this before, but when will the results be announced on your vote? Sounds from what you're sending me like there's a lot of NO momentum growing. Hopefully your guys will make the effort to educate themselves enough to make an informed decision rather than just follow like sheep.

Good luck,

You guys love fake, manufactured "evidence". MOU passing in a LANDSLIDE...Glass/Parker/Hummel win again!

 

[dca319]

Jamie,

I'm disgusted by your voting record as PHL Vice Chairman. I don't support you, or this MOU. Sadly, the NAC has left us vulnerable to numerous risks under this MOU and given up too much in the process. Even more sad is the fact certain members of the BPR (you, DCA, & PHX) did not have the guts to fix the problems when you had the opportunity. Instead of taking a stand and getting an acceptable agreement, you push it on to the membership to do the the dirty work for you.

You say, "We have been told "no" by the company, "no" by the NMB, and now "no" by the UCC". Well, I say "NO" to the MOU!

Furthermore, I've lost faith in this union under Hummel's leadership. God help us.


Another happy customer !!!!!

McKee has kept you busy writing these things.

 

[cactusboy53]

McKee has you busy writing these things.

I would guess that's because his calendar had been recently freed up.