Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Graceson]

I straddled the fence throughout the depate. I've read every document I'd had access to. I've listened to the roadshow presentation.

I don't subscribe to the "ready, fire, aim" voting style I've occasionally seen here. There's no harm in waiting until we verify, as best we can, if this MOU is friend or foe.

My impulse is to vote yes for a contract which has, on the surface, an exuberant spirit of good faith meaning and intent. As of yet, my Board of Pilot Representatives has not adequately discounted that the language of this agreement may be problematic, beyond any doubt, in effecting what we percieve as its good faith meaning and intent -- absent the less rational and euphoric "spirit" part of meaning and intent.

The BPR would have to delay the voting deadline and secure side letters of supporting language from the company which lends clarity and confirms spirit of meaning and intent of the MOU.

The BPR would have to agree that, with recent confirmation of possible unfavorable language within the agreement as leaked in private communiques, have now compromised the MOU.

In any regard, I will cast a vote of NO before the deadline because of the language. If management's design is to exploit the true meaning and intent of the MOU as evidenced by a protest to mere substantiation of meaning, then my NO vote was the correct one.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Says the guy who can't even vote because out of spite he quite the union he helped create.

Let's all follow his advice on a reasoned thought out approach.

I voted out of economic reason.

I expected the Recall woud fail.

Economic reason, huh. If you expected the recall to fail why join the movement to spend union resources for a failed belief? There is your economic reason.

As to why I quit, and why I will rejoin, is to make a protest point that: our current leadership is doing EXACTLY what most of us all fought against. We wanted transparency and that we ALL want a seniority solution first over a contract solution. The MOU will stand or fail on its own merits, regardless of whether I vote or not. In that fact I am fully prepared to accept either way.

Some will vote, like you, on the presumption that its game over and a bird in the hand. Just like LOA 93.

In fact, I KNEW the recall attempt would fail mainly because of what I already knew and experienced after last fall.

 

[cleardirect]

OK. Reason.

Why an MOU and NOT a TA?

The MOU gets us to the MTA which gets us to a JCBA.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I straddled the fence throughout the depate. I've read every document I'd had access to. I've listened to the roadshow presentation.

I don't subscribe to the "ready, fire, aim" voting style I've occasionally seen here. There's no harm in waiting until we verify, as best we can, if this MOU is friend or foe.

My impulse is to vote yes for a contract which has, on the surface, an exuberant spirit of good faith meaning and intent. As of yet, my Board of Pilot Representatives has not adequately discounted that the language of this agreement may be problematic, beyond any doubt, in effecting what we percieve as its good faith meaning and intent -- absent the less rational and euphoric "spirit" part of meaning and intent.

The BPR would have to delay the voting deadline and secure side letters of supporting language from the company which lends clarity and confirms spirit of meaning and intent of the MOU.

The BPR would have to agree that, with recent confirmation of possible unfavorable language within the agreement as leaked in private communiques, have now compromised the MOU.

In any regard, I will cast a vote of NO before the deadline because of the language. If management's design is to exploit the true meaning and intent of the MOU as evidenced by a protest to mere substantiation of meaning, then my NO vote was the correct one.

And that, everyone, is exactly why you are voting on the MOU.

Because you are intelligent enough to make sound and reasoned choices. Remember the FA's did it twice. Have they collapse yet?

 

[cleardirect]

Bullsh1t. USAPA was supposed to be transparent, not opaque. Open, not secretive. This is what I hated about ALPO, too. The back room deals, sales jobs by lawyers that had a stake in the outcome, and jobs promised to union leadership to bring home the bacon for the company.
I'm certainly happy this information came to light. It should have been revealed sooner. This gives me great concern about Mr. Hummel and his motivations, as well as Mr. Colello.
This confirms my suspicions that this agreement is nothing more than a short term buy-out to get rid of our contract(s) for pay increases that may or may not materialize. And if they do, they will be short lived.
If this doesn't convince the yes voters that there are holes in this thing wide enough to drive a semi through, I don't know what will.
Guys, this is an independent legal review of contract language - AND THE INFORMATION WAS WITHHELD FROM US. Time once again to do some critical reading. WHAT IS YOUR LIFE GOING TO LOOK LIKE IF THIS IS APPROVED? Short term it looks rosy, but medium to long term, it looks like a screw job. If this kind of crap were in the contracts you sign for houses, cars, etc., your lawyer would advise that you visit a sanitarium if you wanted to sign on the dotted line.
Not changing my vote now.
Big Time NO.

Independent LEGAL review?

I did not know that Caibottini was a lawyer.

The two people that actually went to law school have reviewed it and signed off on it.

I find it comical that you east pilots had no problem with the current T/A and have taken advantage of it to delay merger operations and harming the west. But now you are concerned that karma may come and do to you what you have been doing to the west for 8 years.

But hey keep voting no. You seem to enjoy LOA 93 stay on it until you retire. I have the feeling that no contract is ever going to satisfy you. Guess you don't trust anyone when you can't be trusted to keep your word on deals.

 

[Zone5]

I still have 50 hours of holding fuel.

Ya, and you remind me of the A-6 crew who took off out of NAS Oceana one afternoon and couldn't get the gear up. They drove around out in the warning area troubleshooting the problem until they ran out of gas WITH THE GEAR DOWN! Stupid is as stupid does.


seajay

 

[cleardirect]

The Grievance Committee report was presented to the BPR on Feb 5th. However, one day earlier on Feb 4th the BPR voted to approve the MOU and send it out with a YES recommendation. It seems to me that the report was not properly vetted by the BPR and certainly not disclosed to the membership in a timely manner in order to make an informed vote. In fact, the report was leaked - not released. We could have voted without ever knowing of its content.

The concerns and reservations articulated by the report should have been open to discussion during the roadshows. I think the BPR should delay the voting deadline.

Ummm! what?

BPR voted JAN. 4 the report was leaked FEB 5. It took the grievance committee a month to look at it and come up with all those fears.

 

[cleardirect]

Please notice the flurry of new "bombshells" here in the last two days of voting. Perfect timing, make accusations at the last minute hoping to snare the low info voter as he returns home from a trip.

As to our Grievance chair, who has always been personally against the MOU, please look at our success rate in that arena. We cannot even enforce our current contract. I would prefer to get paid more and have a successful Grievance Committee work on our (New AMR) issues. At any time they (APA) have less than 100 grievances pending. We simply cannot do the job, and having our chairman run to the masses with behind door discussions hurts us all. Maybe that is his goal, poison the whole process so he can stop the MOU, and stay on full FPL while he tilts at windmills and you get paid LOA 93 rates.

Also, do any of you think, at this juncture, that our Merger Counsel would be recommending this MOU if there was ANY CHANCE the NIC could be implemented upon signing? There is no chance even now, no method that breaths life into that list now. NONE.

Lets be clear, one thing the MOU does is move us all closer to ripeness. Just don't be fooled into thinking it is because of an East/West contract. That has not occurred , and barring the failure of the AMR transaction, will NEVER happen. But there is ripeness in the eventual completion of a seniority list that includes USAPA and APA pilots merged. And when that happens, ALL will be free to sue, not just a select group.

Greeter

I have to agree with you.

What the no voters seem to miss or ignore is that the APA also signed off on this MOU. They don't have the fear like the no voters do. But maybe they are better at enforcing contract or reading and understanding their actual rights.

 

[traderjake]

The MOU will stand or fail on its own merits, regardless of whether I vote or not. In that fact I am fully prepared to accept either way.

More "reasoned well thought out approach", no need for you personally to vote.

Is that why you come on this board and beg everyone to vote no?

 

[cleardirect]

Economic reason, huh. If you expected the recall to fail why join the movement to spend union resources for a failed belief? There is your economic reason.

As to why I quit, and why I will rejoin, is to make a protest point that: our current leadership is doing EXACTLY what most of us all fought against. We wanted transparency and that we ALL want a seniority solution first over a contract solution. The MOU will stand or fail on its own merits, regardless of whether I vote or not. In that fact I am fully prepared to accept either way.

Some will vote, like you, on the presumption that its game over and a bird in the hand. Just like LOA 93.

In fact, I KNEW the recall attempt would fail mainly because of what I already knew and experienced after last fall.

Guess what. You east pilots fu%^& that up and can't be trusted.

From now on contracts will be done first then seniority.

We had a seniority solution but you did not like it and walked away. Now we can never get to a contract.

So cooler heads have removed your ability to delay and damage mergers.

 

[PullUp]

Great post! I couldn't agree more. Releasing confidential working documents, in the eleventh hour, clearly in an attempt to drum up no votes, is just another example of the type of dysfunctional, backstabbing, intramural bickering that seems to pass for union representation here. Did the BPR vote unanimously to recommend the MOU or not!

The NC has not made it a secret that there are issues and problems with the MOU and that during the JCBA process there will be plenty to do in addressing those concerns, give it a rest already! :angry:


seajay

I don't sign a contract then work out the language later.
NO.

 

[PullUp]

I straddled the fence throughout the depate. I've read every document I'd had access to. I've listened to the roadshow presentation.

I don't subscribe to the "ready, fire, aim" voting style I've occasionally seen here. There's no harm in waiting until we verify, as best we can, if this MOU is friend or foe.

My impulse is to vote yes for a contract which has, on the surface, an exuberant spirit of good faith meaning and intent. As of yet, my Board of Pilot Representatives has not adequately discounted that the language of this agreement may be problematic, beyond any doubt, in effecting what we percieve as its good faith meaning and intent -- absent the less rational and euphoric "spirit" part of meaning and intent.

The BPR would have to delay the voting deadline and secure side letters of supporting language from the company which lends clarity and confirms spirit of meaning and intent of the MOU.

The BPR would have to agree that, with recent confirmation of possible unfavorable language within the agreement as leaked in private communiques, have now compromised the MOU.

In any regard, I will cast a vote of NO before the deadline because of the language. If management's design is to exploit the true meaning and intent of the MOU as evidenced by a protest to mere substantiation of meaning, then my NO vote was the correct one.

Unfavorable language? You betcha' - and it shouldn't have been leaked. It should have been disclosed!
Supporting letters? Rewrite the damn thing so that even pilots can understand it.
NO.

 

[cleardirect]

Portly, Clear, CactusBoy etc...,

Still no actual reply to my request? Though I see the superfluous East / West Rhetoric continues. I ask you again, and especially to Clear, please read the analysis and provide your non "east vs. west" advice? Setting aside any seniority issues, please tell me how you feel this new information may affect us in future years???

Thank You,

Kubota

New information? You mean the long opinion of the grievance chairman?

I would point to his record of wins and losses as far as his opinion goes. He was the one that "found" the LOA 93 grievance. How did that work out?

No I am not a fan of the MOU. As a matter of fact I think it sucks. It is a bad deal but the only other choice is even worse. Voting no on the MOU. usapa (east pilots) have put us all in an un-winnable position.

If this merger does not happen usapa is incapable of getting a contract and all of us will sit as we are until retirement falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world. The NMB has parked us and will not release us until seniority is decided. usapa refused to accept arbitration the courts refuse to decide until we have a contract. We will not ever get a contract.

If the merger does happen and the MOU is voted down the company will not talk to usapa and will simply wait for the APA to become the bargaining agent. The APA will put us on their contract sometime 12-24 months from now. The same contract BTW that we will end up on if we vote yes.

We remain on our current contracts living under the current T/A. No money, no bonus and light years behind going into seniority integration with an airline that is not in BK and has a much better contract. Ask Wilder how that plays out when you have one airline far behind and will get a huge raise. Ask Nicolau or Seham how that works. The arbitrator will BALANCE seniority against economic gain.

No I don't like this MOU but Parker assisted by east pilots has boxed us in with no good out. This MOU is a bad choice among worse choices.

This MOU moves us forward. Yes the language is poor but it is the best we are going to get and fear of what might happen or how Parker may try and screw is does not work. If we had a strong and unified pilots group Parker would be reluctant to violate the contract. But because east pilots have refused to accept arbitration and intentionally split this group Parker has no fear.

A 14000 pilot group unified or at least lead by rational leaders has a much better chance of giving Parker pause to violating or rights. But hey give into the fear vote no continue for another 1-2 years and watch events overtake us. Make that leap off the cliff without a parachute. Your choice.

Vote yes, vote no it does not effect the merger. It only effects US Airways pilots.

 

[cleardirect]

Unfavorable language? You betcha' - and it shouldn't have been leaked. It should have been disclosed!
Supporting letters? Rewrite the damn thing so that even pilots can understand it.
NO.

Do you want it written in crayon too?

 

[PullUp]

Guess what. You east pilots fu%^& that up and can't be trusted.

From now on contracts will be done first then seniority.

We had a seniority solution but you did not like it and walked away. Now we can never get to a contract.

So cooler heads have removed your ability to delay and damage mergers.

I want to merge. I think it could be a good deal for everyone.
I think it is necessary for the long term survival of both AA and US.
It's this agreement that is concerning.
This thing has ALL LCC pilots signing away everything for 'maybe's and 'when it pleases us to do so's.
They could have done better, and CAN.
NO.