More On 9/28 Alpa Proposal

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways and ALPA are close to obtaining a tentative agreement.

After discussing the issue with other informed people, it appears yesterday's ALPA proposal provides a retirement plan similar to America West. America West has a 7% company contribution plus a 3% match, for a total company contribution of 10% with the employee adding 3%. ALPA’s proposal provides for the company to provide a 10% contribution applied to total gross earnings. Either way the company will provide 10% of a pilot’s total earnings.

Major differences between the most recent company and ALPA’s September 28 proposal are:

ALPA - 17.5% pay cut versus Company proposal of a 16.5% pay cut.

ALPA - 21 days vacation versus Company proposal of 28 days.

ALPA - no vacation flyback and the Company one-week of vacation flyback.

ALPA – Company to pay for pre-petition DC Plan payments and DC Plan notional monies, which are not included in the company’s last proposal to the pilot group.

Scope with some items remaining that the company took out of the current contract on September 10.

90-seat RJ - EMB-190/195 & CRJ-900 not included in ALPA’s proposal and included in company’s proposal. With the 279 minimum fleet count gone, the 90-seat RJ is a major threat to mainline flying/jobs.

Meanwhile, the will be a special MEC Meeting in CLT, at the Marriott Executive Park (same hotel as last week), starting at 10am Sep 30 & concluding on Friday, Oct 1. Agenda is a Negotiating Committee update.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

Are you going to apologize for the incorrect comments you made due to your incorrect reading of the proposed DC plan changes?

This is the post I composed, but was unable to post (the "reply" was showing "closed")

"Therefore, if I understand the proposal correctly, the new pilot retirement plan would provide 10% of the current DC Plan monies, versus the company’s proposal for a 10% 401(k), for pilot's who continue to work." - USA320Pilot

Since the latest ALPA proposal isn't on the web-site yet, I have to go by what USA320Pilot has posted.

Given that, he appears to understand the proposal incorrectly. Providing for a "10% contribution rate" is different from "providing 10% of the current DC plan monies". Very few pilots (possibly none by now) have a 100% contribution rate and most have a rate that is well below that. What was the average contribution rate that the company put out - something like 38%? That means that the average pilot would see company contributions (going forward) reduced less than 75% and many younger pilots (and all furloughees who would be recalled someday) would see no reduction since they already get a 10% company contribution.

"Again, it appears the RC4/NC are protecting the top of the seniority list and leaving the remaining pilot’s with virtually no further retirement monies." - USA320Pilot

Makes a good sound bite, but doesn't even come close to reality. As I said above, the younger pilots would see little or no change in the DC plan except for the payout schedule for the "notational account" money (currently paid as a single lump sum) since their "contribution rate" is already 10%. So actually the reverse is true. The older pilots (no matter what their seniority) take a hit of varing degrees while the younger pilots escape pretty unscathed (at least for the retirement).

For all pilots, it is an improvement over the company proposal for a maximum 10% contribution, since only 7% was required to be contributed and the other 3% depended on the pilot contributing 6% of income.

As for UseYourHead's charge that the RC4 don't represent the majority, they were elected by the majority of voting pilots in their councils. The PHL reps defeated a recall with the votes of the majority of voting pilots in their council (and I believe that well over 50% of the eligible pilots voted in the recall effort). Maybe that "silent majority" is silent for a reason - they like the representation they have.

"They told everyone they would save the DC retirement plan...well guess what, they did not, and now have opened a contractual Pandora's Box." - UYH

Again, nice sound bite but no resemplence to reality. The company has insisted on drastic changes to the DC plan except for their first proposal where keeping it was accompanied by very large pay cuts. And who have been the most vocal in calling for a vote on the company proposals, particularly the later ones offering a DC plan worse than this? None other than those like UYH and USA320Pilot. No, the company opened the "Pnadora's Box" and those now blaming the RC4 were cheering the company on.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

Late last not I misunderstood ALPA's proposal and today obtained clarification. As a 57-year old pilot, which I believe you said you were, it's clear where your priorities lie.

Screw the rank-and-file as long as I get mine. You sir, fit in well with the RC4.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's what I thought - no apology for the misrepresentations.....

And you, sir, don't know me and it's obvious you don't know my feelings on this subject.

Far from Respectfully,

Jim

 

[PITbull]

Boeing,

Thanks for clearing this up. I am not real clear on it, but its much more lear than the original post.



MOD NOTE: DON'T QUOTE THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS POSTING.

 

[UseYourHead]

Jim,

There are 1200 pilots in PHL, and 250 voted in the election for these misfits...about 18-20% of the pilots. After a release of confidential information on more than one occasion to garner support through fear, they had a better showing at the first recall.

They do not represent the majority of sane pilots.

And they did tell everyone they the DC plan sacrosant (sp?), and brought us into BK with no agreement, that is the path of a coward, not making the best choice in a bad situation....

Lets see with NO Agreement, we lose, scope, min a/c count, furlough outa seniority, etc. It is hard to believe that you would even attempt to defend these actions.

Duh, they were told for 6 months this would happen, they would lost the DC plan, and far more by just saying no...well, advisors batting 1000, RC batting ZERO.

What did you expect the company to do under these condition? Not declare BK, just go straight to liquidation...would that be your choice Jim?

One way or another the costs are coming down, we can pick through a series of tough choices, or we can have our heads handed to us on a plate. Again, the advisors have been 1000% dead on, RC 4 are cowards and have lead us to disaster!

Good luck to us all....

As for UseYourHead's charge that the RC4 don't represent the majority, they were elected by the majority of voting pilots in their councils. The PHL reps defeated a recall with the votes of the majority of voting pilots in their council (and I believe that well over 50% of the eligible pilots voted in the recall effort). Maybe that "silent majority" is silent for a reason - they like the representation they have.

"They told everyone they would save the DC retirement plan...well guess what, they did not, and now have opened a contractual Pandora's Box." - UYH

Again, nice sound bite but no resemplence to reality. The company has insisted on drastic changes to the DC plan except for their first proposal where keeping it was accompanied by very large pay cuts. And who have been the most vocal in calling for a vote on the company proposals, particularly the later ones offering a DC plan worse than this? None other than those like UYH and USA320Pilot. No, the company opened the "Pnadora's Box" and those now blaming the RC4 were cheering the company on.

Jim

[post="185868"][/post]​

 

[fatherabraham]

BoebingBoy,

You seem to have a clear understanding of the going on's with the "RC4" and phl representation. Could you answer any of questions i posed on the closed thread?
Re-posted below: All questions concerning phl fo rep

Above post(s) seem reasonable enough.

However I gotta question his real motives.....after all he is human.

1. He appears to be much closer to age 45 than 55.

2. Other posters indicate that around 2/3 of seniority list is under 55.

3. Would have to guess the majority of First officers in any base to be under 55.

4. What does he and those he represent gain from a defeated ta?

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

There was no misrepresentation. There was conflicting information from different MEC Reps last night and when I obtained the accurate information/proposal, I clarified my post.

I attempt to provide accurate information and if I make a mistake, I admit the error, which I did here.

Separately, it's clear where your priorities lie and you sir are in denial. If things are so bad, why don't you resign and leave?

From day one the company sought America West pay adjusted for time of service, LTD, retiree health care, and retirement, and Jet Blue scheduling.work rules. The RC4 directed NC provided that yesterday and the MEC anticipates the company's response today, which is why Bill Pollock called the Special MEC meeting.

This proposal will pass muster and if you do not like the results than complain to your Reps because ALPA's advisor's told the MEC that if the pilot's obtained a deal last summer, it would have been for 80 to 85% of the ask.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

UYH,

You'll notice that I didn't mention percentages in the original election of the PHL reps - I said that over 50% of the eligible pilots voted in the recall. If the majority of PHL pilots truly believed as you do, the recall would have been successful, wouldn't it?

It's interesting to note that there hasn't been a recall attempt in PIT - if the majority of PIT pilots believe as you, why not? Surely those who orchestrated the attempt in PHL could do the same in PIT. Absence of action speaks very loudly.

"And they did tell everyone they the DC plan sacrosant"

Isn't that what the Wilson poll reported as the sentiment of the pilot group? I know it's hard to believe that the PHL reps would try to represent the expressed wished of the pilots they represent, but stranger things happen.

Ok, so which company proposal would have kept the DC plan intact? Not the one you were so hot to vote on.

And finally, it's getting a little old hearing about the "advisors batting 1000". It's simply not true. I know it and you should know it, but you're too busy preaching the "talking points" of others - some of who have a vested interest in the elimination of the current DC plan in favor of a 401K match since it would give them a larger retirement to look forward to. Now there is a conflict of interest for a MEC member.

You blame the RC4 for this BK? Apparently Pollock and Lakefield disagree, as do I. This BK was locked in before the NC made the first offer to the company. To think otherwise is truly "burying your head in the sand". You think it was just an accident that the company's 1113 proffer left lots of loopholes for getting anything and everything they desired in BK? The company knwew exactly what it was doing - leaving to door open to take what they couldn't "negotiate".

I guess human behavior shouldn't surprise me at my age, but it does. Those that say "We must have an agreement at any cost" are befuddled that management takes them up on the offer - especially the "at any cost" part. Pure negotiating 101. If one party is willing to "pay any price", the other will charge accordingly. And that, in a nutshell, is why we're where we are today. All the rhetoric won't change that.

Jim

 

[EyeInTheSky]

BoeingBoy:

Late last not I misunderstood ALPA's proposal and today obtained clarification. As a 57-year old pilot, which I believe you said you were, it's clear where your priorities lie.

Screw the rank-and-file as long as I get mine. You sir, fit in well with the RC4.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="185871"][/post]​

You're 49! Are you in denial about the FIVE-OH? And, don't "go there" about as you say "screw the rank-and-file" because your Internet dissertations do not reflect the majority of the pilot group. Find a new hobby.

 

[BoeingBoy]

1. He appears to be much closer to age 45 than 55.

2. Other posters indicate that around 2/3 of seniority list is under 55.

3. Would have to guess the majority of First officers in any base to be under 55.

4. What does he and those he represent gain from a defeated ta?

[post="185884"][/post]​

1 - I could look up his age, but don't really know if that's appropriate to divulge without his permission. I don't know him so can't answer from personal knowledge.

2 - I once posted a breakdown of the seniority list by age groups (55 & up, 50-54, etc). Going only on memory, about 1000 pilots are 55 and older as of the end of this year out of about 3700. So over 2/3 of the pilot group is under 55.

3 - I've never looked at the data this way so don't know. My guess would be that you are right, but the same may apply to captains (or nearly so). I do know that it's not unusual for me to fly with a F/O about my age or older (nearly 58 now). My guess is that the average F/O isn't much younger than the average C/O, but that's only a guess.

4 - I certainly can't speak for them, but only myself, and the answer is "nothing". Before you think that is in line with those calling for a vote, look at what you asked - "a defeated ta". We have never had a TA to vote on. If we had, I feel sure that it would have gone to the membership for a vote as required.

My primary concern (and disagreement with) sending a company proposal out for a vote it that it violates long-standing ALPA policy, not to mention good sense. ALPA has long advised against letting the company negotiate directly with the individual pilots, thus bypassing the NC and MEC. Why? Because to do so allows the company to offer the least possible. Secondary to that is the fact that the company says it wants competitive costs (the oft mentioned "LCC type contract") while they propose significantly worse than even those LCC's we compete little with. All the while, they "nibble around the edges" of the changes that are needed if this company is to survive - a prospect that is getting dimmer every day.

Jim

 

[delldude]

BOEING BOY:
i believe lakefield made a comment shortly after the filing that it wouldn't have mattered anyway if they had t/a's in effect before filing.....wouldn't have prevented it.... like it was in the cards anyway.

 

[BoeingBoy]

"From day one the company sought America West pay adjusted for time of service, LTD, retiree health care, and retirement, and Jet Blue cheduling.work rules." - USA320Pilot

Exactly - they cherrypicked the LCC contracts looking for the lowest cost. Something I've been saying all along but that you gloss over with the "LCC type contract" jargon.

"obtained a deal last summer, it would have been for 80 to 85% of the ask"

And given the fact that the company has never backed off the "ask", what makes that statement true? You have said yourself that various ALPA proposals have been within 80% of the ask - why did not the company accept them? Could those advisors be wrong - again.

Jim

 

[fatherabraham]

BoeingBoy,

Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. Being from another post and out of context did,nt make it easy.

Still do not have a clue as to phl fo's true agenda given his likely relative "youthful age" and low seniority #. Much easier to make assumptions about motives when you see TA's that reflect bennies to particular segments that the particular MEC rep directly benefits from.

If only I could get this crystal ball to work!

 

[BoeingBoy]

fatherabraham,

"If only I could get this crystal ball to work!"

I'd loan you mine but it's been in the shop for repairs since the day I got it.

Jim