more IAM fleet service committeemen recommending a ''no'' vote

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/8/2003 743 PM Atlantic wrote:
[P]Biff,[BR]I think it was just the IAM that went on strike at EA.[BR]Am I wrong?[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]officially listed as an iam strike[BR]however alpa and twu honored the picket line....[BR][BR]

 

[Formatman]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 1005 PM chipmunn wrote:

Diogenes:

I disagree with your comment that I did not tell the whole story. But, if you want more than just a numerical analysis I'll provide you with more facts.

When ALPA approved their restructuring agreement the airline employed about 4,700 pilots who took a $465 million annual cost reduction. That is on average about a $100,000 per year per pilot cut.

After the next round of furloughs are complete, ALPA will have less than 3,900 pilots active who will have taken another $101 million in concessions.

If we are conservative, 4,700 divided by $566 million per year is over $120,000 per pilot.

In addition, ALPA is going to take a significant pension hit, while Airbus (both big and little) and supervisory pilots gave even more. In addition, some pilots went from Captain back to First Officer, block holders to reserve, bigger to smaller equipment, etc. and all of these groups sustained an even greater loss.

Dio, what's enough, should pilots give back 60, 70, 80, or even 90 percent of their pay and benefits to keep the company flying, so you and your colleagues do not have to take a cut? What's enough in this "socialized" system?

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]

I'll tell you what would be enough. Freezing your pension completely the way mine is frozen. That doesn't sound too attractive does it Chip? I dont' expect an answer...I know what it is.

 

[Atlantic]

Biff,
I think it was just the IAM that went on strike at EA.
Am I wrong?

 

[mlt]

Biffeman,[BR][BR]Did anyone ask if the severance pay was protected in the event of force majeure?

 

[Formatman]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 1005 PM chipmunn wrote:

Diogenes:

I disagree with your comment that I did not tell the whole story. But, if you want more than just a numerical analysis I'll provide you with more facts.

When ALPA approved their restructuring agreement the airline employed about 4,700 pilots who took a $465 million annual cost reduction. That is on average about a $100,000 per year per pilot cut.

After the next round of furloughs are complete, ALPA will have less than 3,900 pilots active who will have taken another $101 million in concessions.

If we are conservative, 4,700 divided by $566 million per year is over $120,000 per pilot.

In addition, ALPA is going to take a significant pension hit, while Airbus (both big and little) and supervisory pilots gave even more. In addition, some pilots went from Captain back to First Officer, block holders to reserve, bigger to smaller equipment, etc. and all of these groups sustained an even greater loss.

Dio, what's enough, should pilots give back 60, 70, 80, or even 90 percent of their pay and benefits to keep the company flying, so you and your colleagues do not have to take a cut? What's enough in this "socialized" system?

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]

Don't mean to be answering for Dio...but I'll tell you what's enough. Not just "taking a hit" on your pension, but completely freezing it, so that you don't have one. I don't have one. What would be the difference? That doesn't sound very appealing to you does it Chip?

 

[Tim Nelson]

first to address some housekeeping matters, then to answer a really good question that was presented to me about what do we do after voting NO.

First,
Pilots on this board are hammering away for you to believe that somehow your $14 million giveback is going to destroy over $2 billion in potential financing for this carrier.
Such a thought is nonsensical especially since the company's own liquidation analysis concluded that the company is better alive than dead to the parties. Simply put, ramp issues will never be big enough to make or break this airline, and that doesn't matter how you vote.

On the other hand, let me present a number over 200 times your $14 million...it is the number $3.1 Billion dollars and it is the number of the Pilot pension that STILL needs to be addressed.
There is no doubt that this number weighs heavy on the company, however, so far pilots have refused to come to a new agreement on it.
Now that's what I'm talking about!!!!

The ramp has shown tremendous leadership by its gracious giving over the last 12 years, however, we are 'give out'. It is no less than insulting and profane to hear a pilot tell you that you need to give $14 million more while many on this board have indicated that they are upset with how management and ALPA has failed the US AIRWAYS family by failing to resolve the Pilot pension issue.


1Question: Tim, what do you see happening if we vote NO?
This is a good question and I was surprised nobody has asked me this earlier.

Although some may think the company will not come back and ask again, I believe the company will in fact meet in an expeditious fashion with our union leadership to resolve this issue assuming a NO vote. I don't know what they will finally agree to but the following is what I would like to see and I believe could be passed.

1. Get the 3 billion dollar problem settled first before the $14 million dollar one.

2. Cut its losses with Wolf and get him out. This will show that our present management is accountable (in my eyes).

3. Keep the 5% defferral of wages in the contract. I believe this is reasonable in context.

4. Keep the increased medical cost in the new modification for the next 3 years.

5. Strike out the increased medical cost for the last 3 years of the modification since the company has projected profits in these years.
I believe the company is trying to steal your socks with your shoes still on with this one.

6. Strike out the new MDA modifications and "really" negotiate fair and equitable wage and benefits. So that our brothers and sisters in PIT and elsewhere can have a viable job opportunity if they lose their mainline job.

7. Sign a LOA addressing the mandatory overtime issues or safe staffing levels. It is a joke that the union hasn't addressed this for our brothers and sisters in PHL who are held over countless days.

8. Write language specific work rules for Express classification instead of handing us a "6 page enima". Those are real people in the small stations who have families and the union and company should negotiate fair work rules. If you want something to pass, treat people with fairness.

As you can see, my position isn't NOT to give more. And I believe it is a very reasonable one. However, I'm not sure if the majority of fleet service is there though. Time will tell.

Finally, I talked to several workers in PHL today and I think PA (both PIT & PHL) is going to be unified this time in their vote.

Sorry for the long post but thanks for reading.

Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman 1487
215-440-6392

 

[iamagent]

I, for one applaud Tim for his hard work to help properly inform all IAM members before they vote. At a class II station in PA not only have we recieved many of his flyer's about the upcoming vote, the majority of the station will be voting "NO". Anyone at a smaller station who would vote "yes" for this proposal is essentially voting to work for mainline/express at a reduced rate. Again thanks Tim for your hard work and keep up the great work, alot of IAM brothers are behind you!

 

[unit4clt]

You can count on Charlotte unit 4 being a bigger no vote this time also. Tim, I'm with you and I couldn't have said it better. I think most would give the company a current outlet but not in the future years where they told the judge they will be profitable.

Charlotte will have a better NO VOTE turnout than last time.

 

[wings396]

"8. Write language specific work rules for Express classification instead of handing us a "6 page enima". Those are real people in the small stations who have families and the union and company should negotiate fair work rules. If you want something to pass, treat people with fairness"
AMEN on this one, it is about time that somebody has the brains to recognize us. The IAM rep was in station the other day and he said his station which is a hub will be voting yes. Sure they won't be cut to $13 and will keep their pay...lets stick together on this one people and get the company to give us a fair wage since most in the small stations have anywhere from 20-40 years of service. I guess the YES MEN in HIS HUB don't think some of us senior people will show up there only to bump them to a lousy shift, or if they are lucky the Express Operation......

 

[Tim Nelson]

which IAM rep told you this? Or what station and I will reply.

 

[ANNother Voice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/8/2003 8:08:31 PM Tim Nelson wrote:

first to address some housekeeping matters, then to answer a really good question that was presented to me about what do we do after voting NO.

First,
Pilots on this board are hammering away for you to believe that somehow your $14 million giveback is going to destroy over $2 billion in potential financing for this carrier.
Such a thought is nonsensical especially since the company's own liquidation analysis concluded that the company is better alive than dead to the parties. Simply put, ramp issues will never be big enough to make or break this airline, and that doesn't matter how you vote.


1Question: Tim, what do you see happening if we vote NO?
This is a good question and I was surprised nobody has asked me this earlier.

Although some may think the company will not come back and ask again, I believe the company will in fact meet in an expeditious fashion with our union leadership to resolve this issue assuming a NO vote. I don't know what they will finally agree to but the following is what I would like to see and I believe could be passed.

6. Strike out the new MDA modifications and "really" negotiate fair and equitable wage and benefits. So that our brothers and sisters in PIT and elsewhere can have a viable job opportunity if they lose their mainline job.

8. Write language specific work rules for Express classification instead of handing us a "6 page enima". Those are real people in the small stations who have families and the union and company should negotiate fair work rules. If you want something to pass, treat people with fairness.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Tim - it appears that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say that the ramp's $14M is not big enough to put this company under and on the other hand you think you have enough leaverage that the company will meet again with the ramp and give you a better deal. They didn't renegotiate with the mechanics in the first round when they voted "no" and that is a group that will always have more leaverage either of our groups.

Also, you say that your MDA provisions on the ramp are not fair and equitable. How do you think that the ramp will negotiate better rules when all of the union groups were modeled after existing express carriers...resulting in better rules for ramp than my group...your $14.00 top of scale compared to my $13.50. What specifically do you think your MDA rules should be for top of scale, overtime rates, etc. Give me your statistics, since you have obviously done your research of the industry standards to make such a statement about fair and equitable.

Same argument with the express classification, which you copied from our group anyway. You don't even have the ability today to stay in these stations that the company closes to express. We already negotiated those rules for you...so be thankful that our groups are so much alike that you get to ride on our provisions. Your comments that make the small cities feel like they are being screwed in this deal are way off the mark. Today, the company could close (and have closed) many cities without any provisions in the contract. If you vote this agreement in, you'll have more options, not less.

So Tim, give me your detailed analysis. The only thing consistent about your message is that it is all based on speculation and not facts.

 

[us10]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/9/2003 12:30:53 PM Tim Nelson wrote:

To ANnother voice.

I will address 3 things so the readers can be fully informed of your statements.

Question 1 Can the ramp liquidate this company?

I believe the point has been beaten to death about if the ramp has the power to shut this company down or if they don't. My persuasion is well known. Without rehashing the argument presented on the floor, to suggest that the ramp can somehow force this company to pick its ball up and go home is nonsensical.
If you choose to believe the ramp will liquidate things then so be it. Your argument is heard and the jury will decide. Believe what you wish.

Question 2.
You suggested that since the rampers aren't as strong as the mechanics that it should naturally follow that the ramp won't get a better deal since the mechanics didn't.

I'm not understanding your logics. Let me explain.
It isn't that the ramp wants a new deal. We have a contract that goes until 2009, along with a 1113 letter. Last I heard it was the company that came to us because they are the ones that want something. The fact is that the ramp doesn't have to give a thing because we have a contract.
But in the goodness of our "hearts and interest" and realizing the current situation I told you that I believe most rampers including me would approve a new contract if the company cleaned up the "6 page enema" (My 8 points printed above).

If the company doesn't want to settle on, let's say, $7million instead of $14 million than fine, I will keep the modification we already have. What power do I need to have to cheerfully give more other than a willing heart?

Personally I think it would be in the company's interest to take what the majority of rampers is willing to give them.

Question 3
You suggest that management will break its promise backed up in a binding letter and run back to the judge if we vote no.

Now the facts.
1. No Judge has thrown out an 1113 letter from an airline in chapter 11. Nuff said.
2. But precedents are set so for arguments sake, let's say our current management lies again and convinces the judge to throw the 1113 out.

Now you have a work force that is free to do alot of things and it will present troubles to investors of this company, ie., the investors want signed contracts to protect their intere$t, the last thing they want is a "majorly" pissed off and disgruntled work group that is free to take "legal" self help actions at any time.
How does that protect the investment community?

So that, even though US AIRWAYS might put such a statement out that they will seek to abrogate a contract, it clearly isn't in their best interest. They will be better served to ask for a revote on the same thing or improve the enema.

Besides, other groups have gone through the bankruptcy process in fairly similar situations and come out better. For instance at America West, the pilots were given a poor proposals in Bankruptcy [didn't have an 1113 letter] and they chose not to accept them.

[They leafletted with information pickets at major airports around the America West system although they didn't resort to other self helps.
The end result was a report of a Tentative agreement with America West that provided improvements from what they had (December 23rd I believe). I don't know if the pilots ratified the T/A or if they are voting on it or what at this moment.]


As I said, the last thing the company wants is to provoke a situation with a group that gives the group legal self helps in a situation that is volatile for the company. The company wants organization and contracts so it can project years ahead.

Regards,

Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman 1487
215-440-6392
----------------
[/blockquote]


Tim

You are unbelievably loose with your "facts". For your information America West hasn't been in BK since 1994!!

 

[autofixer]

I am sure the judge will be gentle.

 

[A320 Driver]

And if your wrong, it goes bad for fleet service, and these guys hand you back your head for recommending a no vote...what say you then?

A320 Driver

 

[chipmunn]

Tim:

Tug_Slug posted that the IAM's Bill Freiberger told LAX mechanics (I believe yesterday) that if there is a "no vote" the company could still use the S.1113 process to terminate your contract and/or seek deeper concessions.

In addition, USADispatcher posted (the TWU) attorney) said, "The Bankruptcy Judge is not there to assure fair and equitable treatment of employees, he is there to see that creditors get their money. If he feels any group is an obstacle to a successful reorganization he will steamroll right over the top of them. He will simply set aside the 1113 letter and any scope or work rules he deems necessary to protect the creditor, not employees. The other option is simply for the Company to liquidate under Chapter 7. The Company also made it very clear there will be no renegotiations."

Tim, it appears if the IAM-FSA rejects their TA, or any other union for that matter, the company is going to seek a S.1113 hearing to terminate your contract. Therefore, a "no vote" could do even more and deeper damage to your membership.

As US Airways senior vice president of corporate affairs Chris Chiames said, "(Jim Root's and presumably your recommendation as well) represent dangerous and irresponsible recommendations."

Chip