Seems that your ego's the one struggling here, and there's no need to fret over your form of personal address...just so long as you do deliver those dozen boxes of Thin Mints on schedule. 😉
No one's much buying your supposedly "east" pilot persona, and that's hardly my fault here...so...sniffle...be gentle with my fragile feelings! 😉
Tell ya' what; If you can come up with even ANY slghtly plausible reason why an "east" pilot would, especially within context of the current scenario that's finally approaching and end of some form, be flashing pom poms around for the nic as you routinely do, well...we'll then talk.
You may want to think again about the vote. This MOU is way to open ended in favor of the New company / APA. How about the grievance committee report that just came out.
Subject: “Grievance Committee Analysis.” BLOCKED BY HUMMEL
From: Gary Hummel
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Board of Pilot Representatives
Cc: Officers (Officers@usairlinepilots.org); Grievance Committee; 'NAC@usairlinepilots.org' (NAC@usairlinepilots.org)
Subject: FW: yesterday's meeting
BPR Members,
Today you received an email from Dave Ciabattoni titled “Grievance Committee Analysis.” I ask that you keep this email confidential until we are able to discuss this issue with the attorneys who were present. Below is an email from General Counsel indicating that this analysis should not have been distributed.
Gary
From: Bjodwyer@aol.com [mailto:Bjodwyer@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:35 AM
To: Dave Ciabattoni
Cc: Gary Hummel
Subject: yesterday's meeting
Dave: I was most appreciative of the opportunity to participate in yesterday's meeting with the officers ,your committee, and the committee's assigned lawyers. It was most valuable and will provide a strong basis for the ongoing work of your committee. I look forward to further meetings of the committee. It has given me a renewed appreciation of the valuable efforts that you, your committee and the assigned lawyers perform for the Association and its members.
On the way to the airport, Laura Sue and I discussed the meeting and their role in the ongoing work of the committee. During the meeting the committee and the officers were given valuable insights by the assigned lawyers as to the provisions of the memorandum of understanding and its future administration in the context of the grievance and arbitration procedures therein. As such, the the meeting and the interchange between the attorneys and the participants were covered by lawyer client privilege. The three of us are the unanimous opinion that the breaking of the privilege would be enormously detrimental to both the Association and the individual grievants going forward. It would also severely compromise Matt, Sue and Laura in their ongoing work of representing the Association in grievances, mediations, and arbitrations.
Accordingly. I ask that you caution your committee that the discussions yesterday were confidential and should not be released or discussed with anyone other than the participants involved. I will similarly caution the three officers present.
I look forward to working with you and your committee on these and other matters in the future
02-05-13
Board of Pilot Representatives,
Your USAPA Grievance Committee has finished a preliminary review of the MOU for the proposed merger between the New American Airlines and US Airways and has identified a number of areas of concern.
Overwhelmingly, we believe this MOU provides for disparate treatment of USAPA members and inadequate protections from future decisions by both the APA and Management of the New American Airlines. The language overall is convoluted and ambiguous. The process in developing this agreement was flawed by not having all parties present during all negotiations. This negotiating practice can raise suspicion of collusion amongst the parties to the detriment of the US Airways pilots.
The following is a narrative of our concerns:
A) Lack of a Single Operating Certificate
Of primary importance is the lack of language compelling management to form a “single carrier” with a “Single Operating Certificate”. Paragraph 9 of the MOU expressly gives flexibility by using the term “may move forward with obtaining and utilizing a single operating certificate, and otherwise combining the operations of the two carriers,”
A review of Attachment “C” – timeline, will show no reference to a Single Operating Certificate in the planed negotiations and implementation of a MTA, JCBA and an Integrated Seniority List.
¶ 8 provides certain protections for a limited time lasting from the POR until 18 months after a single operating certificate, or the date on which a JCBA and integrated seniority list are in effect. The “or” once again provides the ability to avoid the SOC and possibly comply with the JCBA and integrated list aspects of the agreement.
The definition of “integrated” is:
Combined or composite - made up of aspects or parts that work well together –
The term that should be used here is, “single list”.
In ¶ 27, the author chooses his words carefully when describing the duty of the certified organization to negotiate a JCBA “applicable to the carrier that will be the product of the merger”; how much simpler it would have been if he had written, “applicable to the single carrier”.
Further evidence is found in the bargaining history and by examining earlier proposals. In the proposal dated 7/18/12 paragraph 8 reads in part: When the carrier obtains a single operating certificate and operational integration, all active pilots... This entire paragraph was struck. The current language “may move forward with obtaining and utilizing a single certificate”…appeared in an August 3rd company proposal…in addition, the company authored the following language: “and otherwise combining the operations of the two carriers,” which was struck by USAPA, but reinserted by the company and survives in the current MOU. A clear intent is gleamed from this history that it is the company’s option as to whether they will work towards a single operating certificate, or not!
While the potential of whipsawing may be reduced with a joint contract (JCBA), it is not eliminated for either pilot group if management and the APA decide to promote two certificates within an “operationally merged carrier”. This would be no different than PSA or AA Eagle operating as wholly owned carriers within their corporate identity. The company may incite battling factions within the Union with aircraft orders or aircraft retirements and the resultant pilot stagnation.
More importantly, APA and the company can wait to see what the results of a McCaskill-Bond list is, and decide whether a single carrier, with a single operating certificate and a single seniority list is in their best interest.
B) Lack of Representation during the pre-merger process and beyond
The MTA shall consist of the 2012 CBA between American Airlines and the APA and not USAPA. Enforcement of this agreement, which USAPA was not a party to, will be extremely difficult. There is no authority or process described to change the MTA for USAPA.
USAPA will not have equal status in negotiating a JCBA. The economics for the JCBA have been previously agreed upon without USAPA present. The East contract, West contract and TA will no longer be in effect after the POR; will East and West Pilots interchange flying and who will enforce that prohibition if not allowed, and based on what language in what agreement?
If APA is certified as the new CBA, who will represent and finance US Airways Pilots in McCaskill-Bond process? If new aircraft are delivered, who will represent US Airways pilots in determining which pilot group will operate such aircraft? Who will determine the distribution of the $87 million per year per MOU paragraph 24?
Nothing precludes APA from agreeing to remove all widebody aircraft from the US Airways operations after the POR. The widebody equipment is not protected, only pay protection for wide body positions up until the effective date of the JCBA. Nothing precludes APA from agreeing to send all EMB-190/195 aircraft to US Airways hubs/operations after JCBA. These moves would be especially damaging to US Airways pilots if operating under two FAA certificates.
C) Disparate Treatment
Why was the language below from previous proposals eliminated in the current MOU?
“If any funding is required to maintain the frozen retirement plan for AA pilots, an equal amount shall be afforded to the Pilots US Airways.”
Dollars required to fund the AA Pilots frozen pension on an ongoing bases will be derived from the revenues of the New American Airlines. These dollars from the company will be disproportionately distributed to pilots working for the same company.
APA will receive under a plan or plans of reorganization of the Debtors equity in the reorganized entity (the “APA Settlement Consideration&rdquo
😉 equal to 13.5% of such equity issued to the holders of allowed prepetition unsecured claims (including APA) against the Debtors (including any equity issued with respect to other unions) (collectively the “Unsecured Claims&rdquo
😉. “APA will be focused on maximizing the value of its claim for the benefit of the pilots.”
If plots are furloughed from AA and take a position at US, they take a position with their relative position from AA on the list at US. If US pilots get furloughed and take a position at AA they take a position at AA relative to when they come to work for AA.
Why do the pay protections for the AA pilots last beyond the JCBA while the pay protections for the US Airways Pilots last only as long as the effective date of the JCBA?
While in bankruptcy and working towards a POR, AA pilots will receive hourly wages and benefits far superior to US pilots working with the promise of an IOU (interest free loan to the company) on wages only, no DC contribution.
D) Seniority integration between East and West is ambiguous at best.
E) Indemnity for USAPA is needed relative to this transaction and TWA supplemental CC dispute.
F) Protection from 1113 bankruptcy action, and POR adjustments to MOU.
MOU AREAS OF CONCERN
The following is a list section by section of potential areas with the current MOU. These sections and paragraphs are in the same sequence as the MOU. Not all paragraphs had issues; thusly not all paragraphs are included below.
¶ 1 § (a) The merger transition agreement (MTA) is between the APA and the new American Airlines, Why is there no mention of USAPA? It is in violation of the RLA to have another union negotiating our contract with our company. What terms have been made to prevent disparate treatment with any changes made to the MTA prior to the implementation of the MTA.
§ (B) JCBA – “merged workforce” – should be single workforce
¶ 2. Any changes made to the MTA will apply with equal force to all pilots. Contractually, USAPA has no authority to negotiate or change the MTA see ¶ 1 §(a) - only the APA. Also, how can we have a joint contract at this point with two different unions? The MOU/MTA is a joint contract, between two different unions, just called by another name. This is illegal under the RLA
¶ 3 Generally applicable? Why is the word “generally” used? What is the definition? Need a strict interpretation of “eligible” Compensation
¶ 4 Reiterates terms and conditions will be set according to 1 (a) we are still under USAPA, and yet 1 (a) states the MTA is between the APA and the New American.
No definition of what or how long a “period of time” will last. This is open ended. Only pay and DC have to start at POR
We cannot agree to allow the APA to be our collective bargaining agent until they have been duly elected as our new representative. Once the MTA is fully implemented, who will enforce the working agreement?
¶ 5 What happens if the APA is elected as the bargaining agent prior to a JCBA? How will our interests be looked after? Why does the JCBA replace the USAPA collective bargaining agreement, yet only modify the APA’s. If we are all working under the MTA with the 2012 APA CBA, should it not be a modification of both?
¶ 71.5 million for expense or both FPL and expenses? 4 Million for the merger Representatives? – USAPA and APA or? List who the funds are for.
¶ 8 Nothing in this entire section references a combined list or retention of a combined (single) seniority number. The term used is “integrated seniority list”. The “or” allows for no single operating certificate.
§(c) The “or” between (ii) and (iii) allows for no single operating Certificate…what is (ii) needed for?
§(B) We need to see a list of all current and ordered aircraft, along with any options there might be, prior to signing off on the MTA, not two days afterwards. Why would the company not want us to know this information that could affect the outcome of this vote? We also need to know all of the anticipated returns. Attachments A and B.
§ (c) What defines a replacement aircraft? Can a 190 be a replacement for an A320?
§ (d) Why are the New American Airlines and US Airways listed separately? When determining which pilot group will operate the new equipment, does that mean the APA during the MTA period or after they are certified as the exclusive bargaining agent by the NMB? Why is USAPA excluded?
§(e)Tacit approval to violate and then just pay widebody protection…ie do not have to keep wide-body A/C at US Airways operations…just pay protect
§(f) Is this block hour number a combination or only American? What is “mainline New American”?
§ (g) The APA, see 2, what would stop the APA from changing this ratio, since they can change the MTA, along with the Company?
§(h) The difference between “Scheduled” and actually flown is very easy to manipulate. See Scope Notes for an example. No way to verify scheduled hours for sale 30 days prior to the 1st of the month. PBS load on the 8th of month allows for reduction of scheduled flying from the 1st to the 8th. Block hour protection is Unenforceable.
§(i) If on furlough a US Airways pilot must comply with the terms of the FLO-0108 opinion and award as well as the Preferential Hiring Agreement. What are these agreements? Contract language still needs to be worked out to determine the order in which any such offers shall be made to US Air pilots. This needs to be worked out before the MOU is ratified. Recall rights?
(1) Furloughed US Airways pilots on the bottom of the New American seniority list will be listed in order of their acceptance of positions. Contrast this to (j) in the MOU and (j) (1) below.
(8) Airways pilots must meet employment requirements for returning furloughed American pilots. What are these requirements? In previous mergers it was stated that the pilots automatically met these requirements.
§ (j)
(1) American pilots accepting positions at US Airways will be ranked among themselves in seniority order.
§ (k) Will not close a pilot base before October 2013 other than STL. (Iron clad stuff)
§(m) East or West? Unless a single negotiated contract takes care of this.
§(n) East or West? Unless a single negotiated contract takes care of this.
§ (o) Asia flying represents the needed and only real growth of the New American, this flying is done by AA pilots exclusively.
¶ 9 Upon the effective date, the company “MAY” move forward with obtaining and using a single operating certificate. This language should read, “Shall” or “Will”. Code share is allowed even if MOU is nullified.
¶ 10...“pilots at both airlines” should be both “Unions” pick panel of arbitrators. Term is used again “merged seniority list” should be single seniority list “The panel of arbitrators will render its award”…no requirement or date to use this award JCBA first the integrated list with no requirement to use the list.
§(f) We need to see the protocol agreement prior to signing the MOU.
§ (g) States it does not guarantee any allocation of flying, or any job entitlements or equities that arguably underlie the construction of an integrated seniority list. In other words if we have an “operationally merged” instead of the traditional merger, we are not entitled to any job entitlements.
§ (h) Does not protect against an Arbitrator changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways
§ ¶ 11:
(a) The language “or” “operationally merged carrier” is used. This MOU gives the company the option to merge or not. Remember, operationally merged is not the same as merged as seen from a pilots perspective. The term- “single carrier” should be used.
What is the definition of “successor agreement” and how will /could it be applied?
What happens to the furlough language if we do not merge?
§ ¶ 12:
§ (a) Pay protections from the 190, including duration, for Airways pilots only will be the same as the MTA. When the MTA is superseded, our pay protections are gone. Must have a list in 24 months and must have JCBA before list…
§ (B) For New American pilots this protection only expires when they can hold higher paying equipment.
(2) For New American pilots, if you can hold a higher pay position in a different base and elected not to be displaced to it, your pay protections expire.
¶ 13 ...single operating certificate not required…if no single operating certificate no pay protections for group 1 pilots.
¶ 14 The word subsequent has been removed from earlier language but bargaining history on this scope wavier shows intent to give min fleet and daily utilization before POR…word “condition” should be removed. conditioned “upon the occurrence of the effective date”… to preclude giving up protections before POR “condition”- needs to be struck.
¶ 15 The inverse is that the East, West, and TA no longer enforceable after POR…can west fly east metal, can east fly west metal? They can be modified by MOU as in 14.
§ ¶ 18:
§ (B) Will the MOU remain in full force and effect given the discrepancies of the ratification vote by the BPR? AMR must vote to approve merger before USAPA…(no free peak)…looks like AMR vote will not happen, that will and should nullify MOU….Multiple reasons the MOU can be deemed null and void or unenforceable
§ (c) What kind of merger, the kind pilots envision, or the optional “operationally merged” as envisioned by the company? Flexibility for APA and management.
§ (d) Allows for a merger regardless of its corporate structure. See (c) above.
§(e) If this MOU is deemed unenforceable or nullified after the effective date we still lose all of our scope protections and will work under the APA 2012 CBA.
¶ 19 expanded codeshare allowed even if MOU nullified
¶ 22 Supplement A language – if one of the airlines ceases to exist. Pay parity with our rates if two certificates…
¶ 24...“APA is entitled” - should say CBA is entitled
§ (B) Why does Arbitrator consider balance sheet liability…management has that information no way to verify.
§ (c) profit sharing gone - At POR…US Pilots lose – and no added DC
§(d) Pay protection valued at 12 million per year will come from this money. Remember, the American pilots are pay protected indefinitely; Airways pilots are only pay protected for the duration of the MTA.
§ ¶ 25:
§(a) The total number of commuter aircraft can go to 75% of the mainline fleet.
§ (B) The total number of large RJ’s will go to 40% in 3 years. Does mainline narrow-body fleet include EMB 190’s?
§(c) Modifies code share plus 15% exclusive of AS and HA. CBA 2012 has 50% in APA agreement?
§ (d) 76 large RJ with more than 76 seats grandfathered… do they count towards RJ limits on %?
¶ 27... “If and when the NMB” - “if” gives flexibility to APA and Management and shows contemplated intent. ...“applicable to the carrier that will be the product of the merger” – Should use the term –JCBA applicable to the “single carrier”. Shows intent. The Arbitrator’s...“shall adhere to the economic terms of the MTA” – no second bite at the apple.
¶ 28 This makes USAPA pilots liable for lawsuit against APA - need indemnity.
¶ 30 Agreement needs approval from bankruptcy court…POR can change the terms.
In addition, the side letter, in reference to “Retrospective pay,” should read PAY HOURS. The current wording is not precise enough. What does “active duty” mean? With the new FAR flight time/duty time, sitting reserve is NOT considered “active duty.” Also, for a check airman, is simulator training considered “active duty?”
From the side letter.
“ For purposes of this letter, the Applicable Time shall be the pilot's total hours of active duty...
Fraternally,
Dave Ciabattoni Dave Shyrack John Karas Derek Allen
Grievance Chairman Grievance Committee Grievance Committee Grievance Committee
