Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[dca319]

I do, very clearly, understand that you obviously see "we" to be nothing more than underserving beggars, but feebly and pathetically scratching at the mighty company's door. We differ in our estimations of the current conditions.

I see your memory is short and you've already forgotten about casting wide nets and risk/reward.

 

[Bill Brasky]

By the way, the MOU rates of pay are not correct. Here comes the first betrayal.

Then what are they? It might effect my vote if you could show me where they are wrong.

 

[CallawayGolf]

So the problem was East pilots REFUSING TO ACCEPT BINDING ARBITRATION......
Think about that statement. If it is binding, as you always state.......then why can East pilots refuse to accept it?Hope you didn't contribute to Marty, cause he don't get it either.
By the way, the MOU rates of pay are not correct. Here comes the first betrayal.

That refusal has only led to a delay, not a new SLI or a JCBA. My reply was in response to an east pilot trying to place blame on Management for supposedly dividing the pilots and stalling negotiations for a new contract. The east hard liners are solely responsible for that. LOA93 or the NIC+JCBA have been the only two choices that will not equal a DFR for USAPA - unless of course they heed the Ninth's admonition to give the west pilots more than what was already awarded in the NIC. Of course that won't work either (shortsightedness on the part of the Ninth) because if the new list that doesn't" bring the harm the west fears" takes away from the east (which it would have to do) then the east pilots would, for the first time in this debacle, have a valid DFR claim against USAPA for discarding the NIC.

 

[EastUS1]

I see your memory is short and you've already forgotten about casting wide nets and risk/reward.

No frets over any wide nets there, as that observation was solely directed at your postings.

I'm open to further education regarding risk versus reward...especially since I've never personally seen any equation or ratio that ever produced zero risk being directly related to 100% reward.....?

 

[CallawayGolf]

i thought you already reminded us...
Paying labor more "is just the right thing to do!"

Doing the right thing even when doing so it not advantageous to you must be a foreign concept to some. I can see why you would have difficulty believing that people do things that are right, just and moral given your unwavering support for the east abrogating the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement that calls for binding arbitration to resolve a dispute.

 

[dca319]

i thought you already reminded us...
Paying labor more "is just the right thing to do!"

Thank you APA.

 

[dca319]

No frets over any wide nets there, as that observation was solely directed at your postings.

I'm open to further education regarding risk versus reward...especially since I've never personally seen any equation or ratio that ever produced zero risk being directly related to 100% reward.....?

And speaking of not seeing someone's numbers......

 

[Black Swan]

That refusal has only led to a delay, not a new SLI or a JCBA. My reply was in response to an east pilot trying to place blame on Management for supposedly dividing the pilots and stalling negotiations for a new contract. The east hard liners are solely responsible for that. LOA93 or the NIC+JCBA have been the only two choices that will not equal a DFR for USAPA - unless of course they heed the Ninth's admonition to give the west pilots more than what was already awarded in the NIC. Of course that won't work either (shortsightedness on the part of the Ninth) because if the new list that doesn't" bring the harm the west fears" takes away from the east (which it would have to do) then the east pilots would, for the first time in this debacle, have a valid DFR claim against USAPA for discarding the NIC.

Sorry . You are incorrect. One more time: tell us why the LOA 93 grievance decision was instantly binding at the ahead, and this isn't t? Why are all the other grievances binding ?

 

[nevergiveup]

So there's really no need to complain about it then. Everyone would try to do what they could get away with.

As it has been....as it shall be.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Sorry . You are incorrect. One more time: tell us why the LOA 93 grievance decision was instantly binding at the ahead, and this isn't t? Why are all the other grievances binding ?

So where is the JCBA that USAPA is responsible for negotiating? Have they not been in charge of that singular task for the last five years? What is the strategy to get Management to accept a non-NIC combined seniority list? What legitimate purpose can they come up with that convince Management that there is no legal risk in doing so. The Ninth put Management in a Hobson's choice and then Silver made it worse by making Management, instead of a federal court, in charge of deciding what is and is not a lawful list. They already know the NIC can be used lawfully and that USAPA's non-NIC list placed USAPA in legal jeopardy in Wake's court. So they know that any such list places Management in legal jeopardy if they are found to have colluded with Management in a DFR scheme. Unless the Ninth gives Management immunity in their DJ appeal, they won't touch a non-NIC list ever.

 

[luvthe9]

Dean,

As a result of the increased scrutiny now applied to Paragraph 2.C.1.iii of the APA Contract, I respectfully insist that we disseminate the following information to the pilot group:

1) That several pay rates published in the mailing “Flight Plan to a Merger” are incorrect, some to the tune of nearly $11/hour.
2) That the published Group 1 pay rates for 2016 are completely reliant on the hope and sincere wish that United doesn’t start flying that particular fleet type. Should United start operating a single E190, the pay rate – as you stated in yesterday’s Q&A – will drop from $147 to $139. We will also have to remind pilots that should this come to pass their 2017 and 2018 pay will be adversely affected because their raises in those two years will be based off of this significantly lower rate.

In the interest of time, I urge you to work with the former NAC Chairman on determining the actual errors in 2016 pay rates that were published in “Flight Plan to a Merger.”

As for the Group 1 situation, I find it borderline negligent on the part of APA to have negotiated something that exposes pilots to such whimsy. However -- and please don’t take offense, none is intended here by any stretch-- you and your committee have exasperated that negligence by publishing a 2016 Group 1 pay rate of $147. In reality, we now know that if United chooses to operate the type, the pay rate will be $139, and our pilots must be alerted to this possibility if for no other reason so that they can plan accordingly. Incredibly, if United starts flying E190’s, AA’s Group 1 Captain rate will then be significantly lower than even our own Group 2 First Officers. That’s some fine negotiating on APA’s part, isn’t it? They have set up as situation that might reduce Group 1 captain pay by $8,000 in 2016, and it’s completely out of our hands, tied to the whims of United’s fleet planners.

I will concede that the disclaimer you placed below the 2016 pay rates in “Flight Plan to a Merger” covers you. It says “Parity rates on 1/1/2016 are subject to known comparator contractual rates and ASM weighting at that time.” However, you publically explain this disclaimer’s purpose to be tied to the fact that DAL doesn’t yet have a 2016 contract and that you expect the rates to be higher. But as you and your team, as well as Neil Roghair and Roland all clearly admitted yesterday, those rates might in fact be significantly lower, and I find it unconscionable that we would mislead any of our pilots to the tune of a $11,000-to-$8,000/year pay cut.

Therefore, please do the right thing, and do it quickly. Please investigate how the Parity caps have caused errors to be published regarding 2016 pay rates. Let’s find out what the rates actually are and get the information out there ASAP. As for Group 1, if and when United orders E190’s, I would think you’ll feel much better that you at least warned your Group 1 pilots that their 2016 W2’s would be some $8,000 shy of what they expected after reading “Flight Plan to a Merger.”


This dumb ars pilot group better wake up and take a look at what you are voting on, thank God there seems to be only a few that are willing to vote yes on something they know nothing about and believed Hummels BS, pretty stupid. VOTE NO or at least urge the BPR to delay the vote till we find out what's right and not right in the MOU.

 

[luvthe9]

Dear NAC,
APA 2012 contract specifies that jumpseat priority is by seniority. Therefore is it correct that under the MOU, the jumpseat reservation system will be eliminated?
Xxx Xxxxxxxx
USAPA #XXXXX

Sorry all you commuters or should I say you "JUNIOR" commmuters.
This leads me to a couple of other questions:

1.) Why didn't we just have the MOU specify that we keep our jumpseat reservation system & policy?
2.) What specific thing did we receive in exchange for agreeing to give up the ability to reserve the jumpseat?
3.) I understand that all unresolved JCBA items are subject to binding arbitration 90 days after JCBA talks begin. Could you please estimate the probability of success of negotiating keeping our jumpseat reservation system within the agreed to 90 day timeframe?
4.) Since negotiations are quid pro quo, what contract item of ours do you intend to offer management in exchange for being allowed to keep the jumpseat reservation system?
5.) Finally, in the event that no agreement is reached within the 90 day negotiations time limit to keep the current system, please estimate the probability of us winning this matter and keeping this valuable benefit of keping the jumpseat reservation system if/when it goes to the agreed to binding arbitration?

 

[dca319]

I see McKee has you working overtime fabricating emails.

 

[dca319]

"Dumb ars pilot group" - those words are very unifying.

 

[Black Swan]

So where is the JCBA that USAPA is responsible for negotiating? Have they not been in charge of that singular task for the last five years? What is the strategy to get Management to accept a non-NIC combined seniority list? What legitimate purpose can they come up with that convince Management that there is no legal risk in doing so. The Ninth put Management in a Hobson's choice and then Silver made it worse by making Management, instead of a federal court, in charge of deciding what is and is not a lawful list. They already know the NIC can be used lawfully and that USAPA's non-NIC list placed USAPA in legal jeopardy in Wake's court. So they know that any such list places Management in legal jeopardy if they are found to have colluded with Management in a DFR scheme. Unless the Ninth gives Management immunity in their DJ appeal, they won't touch a non-NIC list ever.

You dodged the question. Why is the Nicolau Award not in effect now if it was a binding arbitration?