Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nevergiveup]

Did he? There is nothing in the CLT update that said he did is there? The letter that changes it is on the USAPA website and I haven't seen anything from anyone involved with the union about it. Do you have any further information?

His signature. They even hid the date of the letter!

 

[Res Judicata]

As many have heard before, the difference between bacon and eggs is that the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

If the AMR BOD had voted before the MOU vote, as originally intended in Section 18-b of the MOU, then we would have known that AMR is committed. Further, we would also have had substantial insight into how the transaction would transpire. IOW, we would know if a CoC would be triggered. I think this would have had a material impact on the vote.

Unfortunately, we will instead learn today, as a result of the side letter amending the language of MOU Section 18-b, whether or not the USAirways pilots are committed. More importantly, AMR, UCC and LCC will learn the same.

After that I think it's all she wrote. I've made my decision. I figure I may be screwing myself, but at least it won't someone else doing it to me.

Best of luck to all.

Do you think Parker or the UCC are going to care if this MOU fails? What would a no vote on the MOU stop? Nothing. You must know by now that nobody cares about USAPA. They are now, and always have been, irrelevant.

 

[nevergiveup]

Do you think Parker or the UCC are going to care if this MOU fails? What would a no vote on the MOU stop? Nothing. You must know by now that nobody cares about USAPA. They are now, and always have been, irrelevant.

But we care about you and that is why we are voting "no."

 

[Portly Dorman]

Nope, I'm not a east sheepole. I think on my own and I've come to see you vote opposite of the east UEL's. LOA93 and the pension issues come to mind.

So if they voted "yes," you would vote "no." Brilliant!

 

[Res Judicata]

But we care about you and that is why we are voting "no."

Good. I hope the no voters prevail. You deserve the misery you scabs have earned.

 

[Pi brat]

His signature. They even hid the date of the letter!

Do your reps have an issue with it?

 

[mrbreeze]

Good. I hope the no voters prevail. You deserve the misery you scabs have earned.

AFO

 

[Piedmont1984]

I know you have taken the time to be informed and you have voted. I respect that.

I guess I see your point about the vote after the AMR boards decision made as it applies to the C of C, but that's it. Did you see the quote I put up from the C&BLs? The reps are required to put a yes or no recommendation out with anything that is voted on. Did they? Does their last minute(conveniently last minute enough to be after their recall closed) update change their recommendation? Where is their bullet point on this supposedly underhanded change. Did they have a part in it?

You're absolutely right. As Yogi Berra would say - this process has been tainted by political infighting since before it started. In a way that's fine, because in the end the BPR won't be a firewall at all. Rather it will be the membership deciding for itself. The BPR is kicking the can to you and me.

As far as last minute updates, is that kinda like a last minute side letter, only different 🙂

 

[Pi brat]

The BPR is kicking the can to you and me.

With a lot of real information missing and our individual biases guiding us. What can go wrong?

 

[cleardirect]

With a lot of real information missing and our individual biases guiding us. What can go wrong?

Oh I don't know.

LOA 93.
Voting for usapa.
Not freezing the pension fund.
Electing Mike Cleary.
Sticking with DOH even after the arbitrator told you that was not going to happen.

Nothing really. It has all been good.

 

[Beancounter]

11th hour plea......

Charlotte Domicile Update


February 7, 2013



Urgent Charlotte Domicile Update


The Sales Job


We firmly believe that it is not the job of your union to sell the pilots any bargaining agreement. We advocate and believe that it is our job to provide you with accurate information, data, and educational material that allow you to make your own informed choice. Unfortunately when we saw that "fancy" sales brochure show up in our mailboxes titled "Flight Plan to a Merger," we knew our concerns about swaying your vote were legitimate. The document contains many inaccuracies and unknowns. In this update we try to provide some of the other side of the story to provide more balance for your decision process.


Your Charlotte Representatives recognize that you all are seasoned contract warriors and know you can smell a con job a mile away – we all had years of schooling from ALPA in that regard.


That is precisely why we insisted prior to the first MOU road show, that the NAC and the Officers not 'sell' the MOU to you, but rather present you the unbiased facts and let you make up your own mind. Please don't misunderstand; we have no problem with the materials or format that was used to discuss the MOU. Our complaint and warning to you is that of accuracy, completeness, and true meaning of our post merger lives with the MOU as presented.


"But you voted unanimously for it to be sent to us for a vote right?"


Yes we did. Here's the problem. While the NAC updated us during the negotiating process, in the late afternoon of January 2, 2013, the BPR was shown the completed top secret MOU for the first time. We had a briefing from the NAC and then were given less than 12 hours (deadline written directly into the MOU itself) to try to understand the MOU and the intricate ways in which it binds to the APA Green Book Contract. There simply wasn't time to evaluate everything. We were forced to rely a great deal on what the NAC had delivered, because there was – you guessed it – a deadline looming. At the eleventh hour, we forced the issue of one last improvement (retrospective pay), and then complied with the wishes of numerous pilots who wanted desperately to vote on something - so we sent it out to you with a recommendation you approve the MOU.


Almost every day since that "deadline" has passed one or more grave problems have been revealed in the MOU and the APA Green Book contract that the BPR had no prior knowledge of.


The list includes:


Pay rates originally published for 2016 and beyond were inaccurate, although the NAC subsequently sent out a correction with the accurate rates.
Health insurance premiums, while in line with United and Delta, nevertheless cost more and have high deductibles.
The loss of survivor benefits after 5 years.
Contract language throughout that, although approved and written by our Professional Negotiator and other counsels, our Grievance Chairman says would be difficult to enforce.
When you add all of these unknowns to all of the things we already knew about the MOU, the entire document becomes almost impossible to gauge. When we've asked for clarifications on many of these serious issues, often the response from the NAC is "We're still waiting on the Company and APA to tell us what this means."


We believe there was not enough due diligence being done on this document before January, and the weeks since have been nothing but one disappointment after another. You should not fear the consequences of yes or no ratification of this agreement as your CLT leadership stands ready to take either course your collective will selects. We are prepared to proceed accordingly. It is not our duty or job to attempt to swing or sway your opinion and we completely understand the reasons for whatever your choice; be it "YES" or be it "NO". What we do ask is that your follow your own judgment and heart in the decision making process, ask the tough questions, remain informed and vote accordingly.


The MOU voting closes on Friday February 8, 2013 at 1400 hours ET. This is your opportunity to define the next steps in your career and our futures; regardless of your views or opinion of the process or the content; please VOTE!


Fly Safe; we are committed to keep you informed and we will never allow you to be lied to.


Captain Bill McKee Chairman (980) 875-7644
First Officer Steve Crimi Vice Chairman (980) 875-7645
First Officer DeWitt Ingram Vice Chairman (704) 497-7246

So it's not the unions job to tell the members how to vote, except when these guys say to vote no? What a bunch of hypocrites. Looks like the inmates are back in charge of the asylum. I sure hope this merger occurs, because without an infusion of brains and maturity into this pilot group we're going to be the lowest paid joke of the industry forever.

Bean

 

[traderjake]

I've made my decision. I figure I may be screwing myself, but at least it won't someone else doing it to me.

How'd that strategy work out in the past?

Might as well double down.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I don’t understand. A clarification was made (in our favor) that allowed the results of the vote to be published today. When we get a “clarification” of contract language from Grievance and the Company in our favor, do we “vote” on it? Of course not. You are just trying to deal with your own horror at actually having to pay attention and vote. You seem torn. If your big issue with this MOU is over an agreement that allows us to immediately see the results, you must really be confused. And If you are a CLT pilot you are really on your own, I feel your pain. Who knows what to think.
.
Greeter (and waiting for your reply, announcing to us all you still...vote no)

We would have had the advantage, but looks like Mr. Hummel went behind our backs and changed the MOU. Makes one wonder!

 

[Graceson]

I sense the insecurities of our pilots in the crewroom, concourse, and cockpit. Often the insecurities of either side, pro or con, manifest in illustrations of the extreme as a consequence of a yay or nay vote.

More moderately, I believe now that the MOU has been filtered for impurities, screened, and scrutinized by way of every conceivable scenario permiation of outcome. This all done from every productive perspective of healthy debate. I believe the NAC, BPR, GC, and lawers have benefited by this and have a better grasp of this agreement's strengths and vulnerabilities.

Conversely, I believe the company, as is their practiced nature, have taken meticulous notes on every official and unofficial interpretation of perceived vulnerabilities in the language. It will be their strength if they are unable to meet projections going forward as a merged entity. Poor language will become their relief valve. Their fall-back plan should ther be unforseen perils in their plan or reorganization. For themselves, the company makes no official or unofficial comments or offers no interpretations for the same reason. They strictly control and prohibit private or public release of such expressions in in emails and unsecured communiques.

I believe the company might honor the spirit and intent of this formal understanding, but they will part from it using its pour language as a weapon against us if their business plan encounters unforseen serious jeopardy.

At this last hour, I simply consider this MOU a first draft. I believe our BPR has learned a great deal from our input. I don't believe the company would protest further affirmation of understanding in a document that uses "understanding" as its title and basic foundation.

I vote "yes" for a second draft, but I vote "no" on this draft.

 

[Phoenix]

So now you think you have the power to scuttle the $1B/yr deal?

Scuttle? Ha, the USAir pilots could never unify to the point where they could say no enough times to chase away those investors. When have USAir pilots ever said no the first time? Ever?

However the UCC and AMR board indeed have shown that the USAir pilots do have the power to delay the consummation of the $1B/yr merger. That is what is happening right now, though I question our fortitude to do so.

If we accept the present offer then negotiations will immediately terminate and the UCC and AMR BOD will smile with glee that we don't have half the stomach as the FAs.

I find it incredulous that the UCC would walk away from a $1B/yr deal just because the pilots expected a second offer, but if folks are persuaded that we would scuttle their interest so easily then by all means we should all vote yes at any cost. 🙂