July - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[700UW]

There was two loans. One was GECAS and one was multi-banks, one was used to pay off the ATSB and then they took another loan out to pay off the loan used to pay off the ATSB.

 

[BoeingBoy]

US got its ATSB loan when US emerged from the first chapter 11. Siegel was CEO at the time, so the merger wasnt in the works during chapter 11 part I.

While I still don't know why this was originally brought up except as an attempt to sleight the west, the whole story is that US applied for the ATSB-backed loan and got tentative approval prior to BK1. When US filed BK1, the tentative approval became contingent on US emerging with a POR showing the ATSB that US would be able to repay the lenders. That requirement is what ultimately led to termination of the pilot's pension - the ATSB wasn't satisfied that US could repay the loan with all the DB pensions intact - and US getting the loan.

For nic4us: the loans are generally referred to by the name of the underwriter, who acts as a liason between the various lenders and US. That was GECAS and now it's Citi prov

The ATSB never guaranteed the entire loans they authorized, only 80%. That led to there being multiple loans which collectively fell under the ATSB moniker, with those being divided into Tranche A (the 80% guaranteed principal) and Tranche B (the non-guaranteed 20% of principal). For the original ATSB-guaranteed loan, RSA provided the 20% portion ($200 million) along with buying all the shares that carried multiple votes/share, thus giving RSA control of US. A group of banks provided the guaranteed loans (the other $800 million in principal). When people say "...repaid the ATSB" they really mean repaid the various lenders, taking the ATSB off the hook for the Tranche A loans.

Jim

 

[N924PS]

Using your analogy of investment, you should be able to see the flaw in your reasoning. Different investments always produce different results. Some profitable and some not so much. Sometimes investors know when to take a loss and move their money (time/experience/etc.) where they will make better returns over time. Sometimes investors ride out a bad investment right into personal bankruptcy.

So you seem to think the person who secures a risky interest only mortgage, who subsequently defaults and loses his home, should be made whole again by those who made better choices and borrowed more conservatively, simply because the first person stuck out his situation longer?

That theory does not hold water. I chose to stick it out since at my age and position, the risk to benefit ratio led me to that choice. I CHOSE to keep my caboose hitched to this train, and accepted the outcome of binding arbitration. For those on the bottom, who stayed at the bottom for so many years hoping for a better return on their investment, and found themselves in the same position as they were, or worse, made a CHOICE. The west pilots who chose to work for AWA, made a better investment. The time for their return on investment is a function of an inherently better investment to begin with. Should we ask all the investors in Apple to fork over some stock and money to those who invested in Enron?

And let's try to remember that if their decision was based on attrition, the arbitrated award gave us our share based on a reasonable ratio. The "train" some refer to amounts to not much more than my HO scale model set gathering dust in my basement.

Now let's consider another number besides YEARS. How about DOLLARS. I can't speak for everyone, but this job is a means to an end. It is a paycheck and benefits to afford my family a reasonable standard of living. The quickest road to returning some of what was lost for ALL of us is a contract. The one that the Boogie Man wants you to believe is unattainable, yet is afraid (or more likely unwilling) to even try for or put out for a vote. Checking out benefits a small minority. Same with the move to the 330. It is insanity, especially when you consider that a contract would have gotten everyone very close to the same DOLLAR amount as checking out, and would have done so years ago. This fight was never about fairness, or LOS, or gold standards, or rational thought, or sensible investment, or attrition. It is all about ego, control, and letting junior pilots return on the backs of west pilots, all while being fueled by antagonism, peer pressure, censorship, and many other questionable tactics.

Thank you for this cogent well written post.

Of the milliions of words that have been written on this issue since 2005, this is one of the most succinct and honest posts I have read to date.

 

[BoeingBoy]

On the Trump merger I thought ir was crazy to spend that much money to integrate around 150 pilots. I thought we should give them their EA date if hire. There was the issue of them resigning fron EA, but I thought that was a formality. When the award came out I saw that for the guy slotted beside me that I was in the 3rd grade when he was hired and he must be piased. Now I know.

Fair enough on how your felt the Shuttle pilots should have been integrated. As an aside, the sale of the Shuttle to Trump fell under the fragmentation policy of the EA pilot's contract. So while they resigned from EA, it was as a part of the transfer of EA assets to Trump and their contract gave them the same protections as you have in the east contract if there was a fragmentation. So just as you would expect your fragmentation rights under the east contract, the Shuttle pilots had every right to expect their rights with the sale of the then Trump Shuttle to US. That the Shuttle changed hands is immaterial - they worked for the owner of the Shuttle continuously from the time they were hired by EA.

Myself, in keeping with my principle that the ability to hold a certain job the day before a merger transpires should remain the same the day after on the integrated list, think that overall the Shuttle pilots got a reasonably fair shake - merged by relative position in equipment/seat.

However, none of that answers the question I posed to you - were you as verbal about how the Shuttle pilots were treated as you have been about what you see as the unfairness of the Nic? Not how you felt, but your actions based on how you felt.

Jim

 

[oscarjazz]

That is one of the most ridiculous thoughts thrown around on this board. As YOU said, we hired Nicolau to produce a fair and equitable SL. We had already shown that we couldn't do it. Why did us not "changing our minds" have anything to do with it?

The Pan Am arbitrator said he could not continue the slot at the bottom of the list because the disparities in age and LONGEVITY would not be fair. Sound familiar?

Here is where you are wrong. Many pilots view an arbitrator's job is to measure your intensity, and thus they adopt extreme positions in SLI arbitrations. Also, many merger committees and MEC's don't have the guts to take a reasonable view and instead wimp out and take popular if indefensible positions. It is easy to pound your chest and demand the moon, but it does not serve your pilots.

An aribtrator like Nicolau starts an arbitration with a general idea of how the lists will be integrated but needs to work through the particulars of the case. If the pilots want a more favorable outcome, they help the arbitrator work through the problems and provide solutions. Taking an extreme positions like date of hire in this case did nothing to help, it only made the East look stupid. When asked to help come up with solutions, the East MEC chose to punt and abandoned the interest of their pilots in exchange for their own political survival.

In this case the arbitrator had several issues to define the case. First, the airlines were fairly similar except for a small international operation in the East. The East had much more longevity but financially the airline was in extremis, with liquidation the only alternative to a merger. The West had a more survivable airline but it certainly wasn't setting the world on fire. They were adding positions but the future for AWA was not all sunshine.

The arbitrator was going to make a slotted list of some kind. His problem was trying to account for the East's age and longevity disparity. He was asking for some help in dealing with this problem and instead of helping the East MEC abandoned their posts and stuck on an untenable position of date of hire. Therefore he had to come up with a solution all on his own.

His solution was to slot the East wide body F/O's above the 757 Captains. This was his way of dealing with the longevity differential. The problem was that he helped the wrong guys. Those senior captains were in their retirement jobs for the most part and whatever problems came with a slotting could be solved with a short term fence. The guys that needed help were the long time F/O's that were at the bottom of the list, either furloughed or close to it. The East should have proposed to slot up at the top of the list, but give the junior F/O's and senior furloughed pilots help by getting pushed up the list. Something like the Delta pull and plug might have worked.

This is why the East made their bed. Taking stupid positions in arbitration doesn't make you a tough negotiator. It makes you an idiot that abandons the interests of the pilots in favor of their own political butt covering. They had a chance to get in the game, help solve the problems along with the arbitrator and help the right pilots. Instead they cowered behind a politically popular position and abandoned their pilots.

 

[767jetz]

The East should have proposed to slot up at the top of the list, but give the junior F/O's and senior furloughed pilots help by getting pushed up the list. Something like the Delta pull and plug might have worked.

oscarjazz,

Can you please expand on the pull and plug concept that Delta used?

 

[Claxon]

Once again you totally misunderstand the situation, yet comment and show your ignorance.

1. The entire pilot group is bound to the Nic.

2. usapa owes every pilot in the group a DFR.....not just me.

3. If usapa negotiates a new contract, I am indeed held hostage by the terms of the agreement they reach.

4. If usapa breaks the law...or violates my rights under the RLA and the NLRA..I can and will promote my own best interest.

5. Who wants to destroy usapa? I know I don't want to go back to ALPA. I also know that AOL's goal is to OWN not destroy usapa. With ownership comes control....(Just as an aside before I reply to 700UW)...kind of like how AWA senior management OWNs LCC.

Bound to the Nic. Say it again, until you believe it. Then the 9th slams home reality.......



[7] Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated.

 

[Claxon]

There's your latest lie, oh constantly lying, scum sucking POS in chief...

Jim

What a nasty, disconnected old codger.....

 

[nic4us]

Bound to the Nic. Say it again, until you believe it. Then the 9th slams home reality.......



[7] Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated.

I have read the entire decision Claxole.

Not once...ever...in the entire decision... including your above quote.....does the 9th say that the class and craft usapa represents is not bound to the Nic.

The only time they even come close to addressing the matter is in answere to the dissenting opinion.


.3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-

nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA.

So there you have it young Wien nephew. Two federal judges stating that they don't comment...but, note, that the other two federal judges who have commented, and called uspa scabs.

Get it...they are not saying it was ALPA's deal, usapa can forget about it..they are saying usapa is indeed bound by the contracts and processes of ALPA or any former bargaining agent, just ask the district court and the dissent...who were free to comment.

 

[luvthe9]

Subj: For the masses. UAL ALPA Washington council 11 NIMBY resolution 08/06/2010


A regular meeting of the UAL Council 11 was held at 10:00 am at the Dulles Airport Marriott on August 6, 2010.

Protections Against Unexpected Windfalls in SLI – Scanlon/Ferguson

WHEREAS binding arbitration results in merger seniority integrations have resulted in unexpected windfalls and damage
to thousands of pilots, such as in the US Airways/America West merger, and

WHEREAS negotiation can produce a better result for a pilot group (US Airways pilots turned down a better offer in
negotiation than they got in binding arbitration), and

WHEREAS the US Airways pilots’ cure for the binding arbitration decision was to leave ALPA, prevent implementation
by not signing a JCBA, and then overturn that binding arbitration in court, and

WHEREAS the United pilots and Continental pilots should be able to agree on the limits of the decision to be made in
binding arbitration, and

WHEREAS the change to ALPA Merger Policy took away the tool that was used by the US Airways pilots to stop the
binding arbitration award, and

WHEREAS the pilots of United Airlines refuse to throw their seniority at the mercy of a single person in binding
arbitration without reasonable limits,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of C11 direct their C11 officers to require a negotiation with
Continental pilots to arrive at reasonable limits for the authority of the arbitrator, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of C11 direct their C11 officers to refuse to accept any contract until an
arbitration agreement is established with protections against unexpected windfalls and damage, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of C11 direct its chairman to establish a committee of C11 members
from both sides of the “politics” that exist in the MEC and LEC to advise the C11 members’ officers on this issue.

Ruled untimely by the chairman.

 

[luvthe9]

What the heck are these "compass correction morons" doing? We are going to take it in the shorts, AGAIN.

 

[doh nogo]

Subj: For the masses. UAL ALPA Washington council 11 NIMBY resolution 08/06/2010

Ruled untimely by the chairman.

Sounds like a poorly written resolution littered with inaccuracies and biased preconceptions that went nowhere since it was ruled untimely. Unless you have additional facts. According to you it was 2 years ago. If it had any traction whatsoever, more than enough time has passed for it to be rewritten and submitted as timely. Do you even understand how union rules and procedures work? You sound like someone who has never attended a union meeting. More over, you sound like someone who is not actually on his claimed vacation.

So what's your point...Mr. I'm-obsessed-with-all-things-United? Or do you just like posting irrelevant snippets. Utterly pathetic.

 

[oscarjazz]

oscarjazz,

Can you please expand on the pull and plug concept that Delta used?

In recognition of the extra longevity of the NWA pilot group, our list was constructed as if the oldest 274 NWA pilots had already retired. Then those pilots were placed back on the list one number senior to the pilot who was just junior to them on their own seniority list.

 

[aquagreen73s]

How did the three arbitrators come up with the 274 number? Did they provide their reasoning or was it NWA's proposal?

 

[BoeingBoy]

What a nasty, disconnected old codger.....

Coming from an idiot like you, I take that as a compliment. Did your mom give you help with the big words?

Jim