Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Crzipilot]

Sorry,  but the explanation I got today was.   We were notified in the Iron Compass,   that ONLY credited hours would be applicable to retro pay.     So if you deposited money into  your bank,  and kept it in that bank.   Guess what?   You don't get retro pay for that,   they converted it as though you got a pay raise.   This is what the NAC supposedly discussed with the company with how to handle pay bank.   BUT if you deposited hours, one month,  and used it the next month,  then of course you would get paid retro pay.      You see,  if you get a pay raise your hours in your pay bank get converted.   THAT was the NAC explanation.    Really? YGTBSM    I mean with this,  than any PNC time shouldn't be paid retro either.   WTF are these guys thinking,   it's as bad as the J4J hold arbitration.
 
"Everyone is going to see an adjustment in the bank.

In our discussions on the retro piece it was based in what your credited time for the month is. The time that goes into the bank is not credited for the month so it doesn't fall in to the retro pay.

Conversely if you withdrew from the bank it was credited time so it was covered by the retro. It was done this way to be consistent that all credited time was covered by the retro pay.

We communicated this to the pilots a couple months ago in the Iron Compass."
 
So I'm guess that they saved the company a cool Mil or so.

 

[Reed Richards]

Sorry,  but the explanation I got today was.   We were notified in the Iron Compass,   that ONLY credited hours would be applicable to retro pay.     So if you deposited money into  your bank,  and kept it in that bank.   Guess what?   You don't get retro pay for that,   they converted it as though you got a pay raise.   This is what the NAC supposedly discussed with the company with how to handle pay bank.   BUT if you deposited hours, one month,  and used it the next month,  then of course you would get paid retro pay.      You see,  if you get a pay raise your hours in your pay bank get converted.   THAT was the NAC explanation.    Really? YGTBSM    I mean with this,  than any PNC time shouldn't be paid retro either.   WTF are these guys thinking,   it's as bad as the J4J hold arbitration.
 
"Everyone is going to see an adjustment in the bank.

In our discussions on the retro piece it was based in what your credited time for the month is. The time that goes into the bank is not credited for the month so it doesn't fall in to the retro pay.

Conversely if you withdrew from the bank it was credited time so it was covered by the retro. It was done this way to be consistent that all credited time was covered by the retro pay.

We communicated this to the pilots a couple months ago in the Iron Compass."
 
So I'm guess that they saved the company a cool Mil or so.

Think that is what I said. If you made 5 hours and put it in the bank, and did not use it until December, it would NOT be paid retro, and indeed (like is always the case) stay at the same dollar value but be worth less hours. But if you took OUT 5 hours in November to bring you up to the cap (and you have no choice in that, it just comes out) it would be elegible for retro. Other than what they did to us on the 15 December check the company is consistant. I took OUT positive bank time in three different months prior to the POR, and the Company shows ALL of those moneys being paid retro. Not saying they still won't screw us, but they did not until this episode after the changeover. RR

 

[Crzipilot]

Yes it's pretty much what you said.    But in my instance.   20 hours of bank.   didn't pull any out.    now have 14 hours bank.   So 6 hours gone. 

 

[Reed Richards]

Yes it's pretty much what you said.    But in my instance.   20 hours of bank.   didn't pull any out.    now have 14 hours bank.   So 6 hours gone.

The important thing is to check the dollar amount in your bank on your "white" sheet you get on the 15th of each month, not the hours. Remember, you just got a large pay raise, so they should have converted your bank to a new "hour" value without touching the dollar amount. Not saying they still could not have screwed it up but what you say...20 to 14 kind of looks good, without knowing your pay rate. Again, make sure your dollar amount did not change from Nov to Dec. RR

 

[Crzipilot]

Well I understand what you mean, but I think you are missing it.     Looking at the white sheets.  Yup...the amounts are the same BUT here's the kicker,.   The original amount was based on 85/hr.      Well guess what.   It wasn't supposed to be paid at 85/hr   it was supposed to be paid at the 111/hr (or whatever it is)  
 
So in reality.   I'll go look at the actual hours and see.    18:20 hrs in bank.  at 83.04  Nov 15.         Then14:01 hours at 111.49 on Dec 15.         Yes the amounts are the same.    BUT      if we had been GETTING the mou pay rates starting at Feb 9th.     Then my 20 fucking hours would be 2029.   NOT 1500.   So screw the dollar amounts because that is BS. 
 
If I was getting paid the rate of 111.49 since Feb.   and had a 20 hour pay bank.   That would be worth 2229.80     The white sheet says my pay bank is worth 1500.    So why is there a 700.00 difference?

 

[nevergiveup]

Well I understand what you mean, but I think you are missing it.     Looking at the white sheets.  Yup...the amounts are the same BUT here's the kicker,.   The original amount was based on 85/hr.      Well guess what.   It wasn't supposed to be paid at 85/hr   it was supposed to be paid at the 111/hr (or whatever it is)  
 
So in reality.   I'll go look at the actual hours and see.    18:20 hrs in bank.  at 83.04  Nov 15.         Then14:01 hours at 111.49 on Dec 15.         Yes the amounts are the same.    BUT      if we had been GETTING the mou pay rates starting at Feb 9th.     Then my 20 #### hours would be 2029.   NOT 1500.   So screw the dollar amounts because that is BS. 
 
If I was getting paid the rate of 111.49 since Feb.   and had a 20 hour pay bank.   That would be worth 2229.80     The white sheet says my pay bank is worth 1500.    So why is there a 700.00 difference?

Shouldn't it depend on whether or not the bank time was earned prior to or after Feb 8th? If after, I think you have a good case; I as well.

 

[Reed Richards]

Well I understand what you mean, but I think you are missing it.     Looking at the white sheets.  Yup...the amounts are the same BUT here's the kicker,.   The original amount was based on 85/hr.      Well guess what.   It wasn't supposed to be paid at 85/hr   it was supposed to be paid at the 111/hr (or whatever it is)  
 
So in reality.   I'll go look at the actual hours and see.    18:20 hrs in bank.  at 83.04  Nov 15.         Then14:01 hours at 111.49 on Dec 15.         Yes the amounts are the same.    BUT      if we had been GETTING the mou pay rates starting at Feb 9th.     Then my 20 #### hours would be 2029.   NOT 1500.   So screw the dollar amounts because that is BS. 
 
If I was getting paid the rate of 111.49 since Feb.   and had a 20 hour pay bank.   That would be worth 2229.80     The white sheet says my pay bank is worth 1500.    So why is there a 700.00 difference?

No. If your bank dollar amount stayed the same, you are getting it as advertised. Remember, your positive pay bank sits there month after month, before Feb 8th, and through the POR and onward. It does not change in a dollar amount even with the raise. IF you had used some of it Feb 8-Dec9 then any hours PAID OUT would indeed get the retro. That is exactly why I tried to drain my bank in November, because that was the only way to get the retro ADDED to the pay amout. This is pretty much a one time deal, so no sense in me saying much more, other that if your bank dollar amount did not change (assuming you used none of it) that is all you get, no retro. And I have to add again, there is always the chance the liars and thieves will not do as I say.RR

 

[Crzipilot]

No. If your bank dollar amount stayed the same, you are getting it as advertised. Remember, your positive pay bank sits there month after month, before Feb 8th, and through the POR and onward. It does not change in a dollar amount even with the raise. IF you had used some of it Feb 8-Dec9 then any hours PAID OUT would indeed get the retro. That is exactly why I tried to drain my bank in November, because that was the only way to get the retro ADDED to the pay amout. This is pretty much a one time deal, so no sense in me saying much more, other that if your bank dollar amount did not change (assuming you used none of it) that is all you get, no retro. And I have to add again, there is always the chance the liars and thieves will not do as I say.RR

 
 
Ok not reading all of this as your cow toeing the line of the  NAC,       But all of the bank time was earned after Feb 8th.      SOOOOOOOO   any of that time was earned at a rate of 111.49    But only paid and recorded at a rate of 83.      So when the retro came out,   they reduced the bank by 5 hours or whatever.     FOR WHAT?   
 
TELL me why it should not be paid at the actual pay rate from the the MOU if it was EARNED AFTER the MOU was in effect?   
 
Your making as much sense as Dean.   Or is that you?

 

[luvthe9]

Good Letter............If you are confused as to what this recall is all about, there are some things being hidden from you.  Hummel, Bradford and Streble have demanded that the company (Allied) that is putting out the letters from the BPR that they are paying for have only Paul DiOrio's email address on it so that you will think these letters are just from him.  In other words, if the other 8 reps put a letter out, it will still only have Paul DiOrio's email address on it.
 
This is done so you think that he is the only one that is pushing for this recall.  Another in a long line of dirty tricks that are being played on you.  It is done so you will be confused who is behind all of this and who is calling for the recall.  Just so you know.  All 9 Reps have voted for the recall.
 
Both the BPR and Gary are not supposed to send out campaign letters unless they pay for it themselves.  But this week, you got just that from Gary Hummel but paid for by your dues.  But that's not all, USAPA had hired a PR company to help with the MOU, instead, Gary used that PR firm to write that letter.  Again, with your dues.  Again, one set of rules for the BPR and another set that Gary makes up as he goes.
 
I read Mark King's attack letter.  No where in the letter does he address the problems that Gary's secrecy has caused or his severe health problems.  Instead, it is a personal attack that besides insulting Paul DiOrio's integrity, it also insults all other 8 Reps that also voted for the recall.  As if those other 8 Reps don't have enough integrity, honesty and understanding of what is happening to decide on their own.  King neglects to say that many of those Reps have watched how the BPR has been removed from any involvement of the negotiations and meetings and pleaded with Gary to be transparent and open about what he is doing and have met with no success.  Their frustration is driving this recall.
 
You can read all these attack letters signed and unsigned (don't you just love the heroism of someone that writes an attack letter and doesn't sign it)? Don't just read the words, look at what is happening with your own eyes.  Censorship of the entire BPR, forcing Allied to use only Paul DiOrio's email address, the secret meetings with the company that Gary admits to, the witnesses that tell you that he was secretly in touch with Scott Kirby, Gary's undermining of the previous administration, his severe health problems hidden from you, his efforts to stop the retro active pay raise, etc.  I could go on and on.  Mark King and some others can tell you what they think, but they can't change the facts, so they use personal attacks instead.
 
If you want secret negotiations, deals made without any input by you or the elected reps you voted for, if you want someone that ignores the USAPA Constitution, By-laws and UOM, than by all means vote to keep Gary.  Because if you vote to keep Gary in office, you are telling him that you want secret meetings and secret deals.  Votes matter.  In this case, a vote to keep Gary in office is a vote of confidence in his leadership tactics.
 
In some ways, this is the ALPA-USAPA vote all over again.  Do you want one person to make secret deals or an open and honest union to represent you.  It's up to the pilots to decide. 
 RECALL HUMMEL NOW!!!!

 

[Reed Richards]

Good Letter............If you are confused as to what this recall is all about, there are some things being hidden from you.  Hummel, Bradford and Streble have demanded that the company (Allied) that is putting out the letters from the BPR that they are paying for have only Paul DiOrio's email address on it so that you will think these letters are just from him.  In other words, if the other 8 reps put a letter out, it will still only have Paul DiOrio's email address on it.
 
This is done so you think that he is the only one that is pushing for this recall.  Another in a long line of dirty tricks that are being played on you.  It is done so you will be confused who is behind all of this and who is calling for the recall.  Just so you know.  All 9 Reps have voted for the recall.
 
Both the BPR and Gary are not supposed to send out campaign letters unless they pay for it themselves.  But this week, you got just that from Gary Hummel but paid for by your dues.  But that's not all, USAPA had hired a PR company to help with the MOU, instead, Gary used that PR firm to write that letter.  Again, with your dues.  Again, one set of rules for the BPR and another set that Gary makes up as he goes.
 
I read Mark King's attack letter.  No where in the letter does he address the problems that Gary's secrecy has caused or his severe health problems.  Instead, it is a personal attack that besides insulting Paul DiOrio's integrity, it also insults all other 8 Reps that also voted for the recall.  As if those other 8 Reps don't have enough integrity, honesty and understanding of what is happening to decide on their own.  King neglects to say that many of those Reps have watched how the BPR has been removed from any involvement of the negotiations and meetings and pleaded with Gary to be transparent and open about what he is doing and have met with no success.  Their frustration is driving this recall.
 
You can read all these attack letters signed and unsigned (don't you just love the heroism of someone that writes an attack letter and doesn't sign it)? Don't just read the words, look at what is happening with your own eyes.  Censorship of the entire BPR, forcing Allied to use only Paul DiOrio's email address, the secret meetings with the company that Gary admits to, the witnesses that tell you that he was secretly in touch with Scott Kirby, Gary's undermining of the previous administration, his severe health problems hidden from you, his efforts to stop the retro active pay raise, etc.  I could go on and on.  Mark King and some others can tell you what they think, but they can't change the facts, so they use personal attacks instead.
 
If you want secret negotiations, deals made without any input by you or the elected reps you voted for, if you want someone that ignores the USAPA Constitution, By-laws and UOM, than by all means vote to keep Gary.  Because if you vote to keep Gary in office, you are telling him that you want secret meetings and secret deals.  Votes matter.  In this case, a vote to keep Gary in office is a vote of confidence in his leadership tactics.
 
In some ways, this is the ALPA-USAPA vote all over again.  Do you want one person to make secret deals or an open and honest union to represent you.  It's up to the pilots to decide. 
 RECALL HUMMEL NOW!!!!

Or..you could all just go to votenorecall.org The letters there have sigs on them, unlike the above post. Looks like Paul is feeling the heat. He just sold out the Founder to settle his own political score. Can someone please tell me what happens when Hummel is recalled, and we go to election? I predict a new USAPA President, named Eric. And after a week, still no real debate here about the suggested changes to the CBL. RR

 

[Reed Richards]

Ok not reading all of this as your cow toeing the line of the  NAC,       But all of the bank time was earned after Feb 8th.      SOOOOOOOO   any of that time was earned at a rate of 111.49    But only paid and recorded at a rate of 83.      So when the retro came out,   they reduced the bank by 5 hours or whatever.     FOR WHAT?   
 
TELL me why it should not be paid at the actual pay rate from the the MOU if it was EARNED AFTER the MOU was in effect?   
 
Your making as much sense as Dean.   Or is that you?

I actually tried to help you. You are too dumb to appreciate that or anything I actually told you. You get what you deserve, how about that? RR

 

[Crzipilot]

I actually tried to help you. You are too dumb to appreciate that or anything I actually told you. You get what you deserve, how about that? RR

 
Really ####?     Lets see,   I'm supposed to be paid 111 an hour.   and bank 20 hours.     that is how much?
 
Now they pay retro pay at 85/month and don't include any of the bank. 
 
thank bank amounts your talking about as far as dollar amount.    Is 85 x 20.   BUT it was supposed to be paid at 111/hr.     is there not a difference there?  
 
I guess your the same person that handled the J4J arbitration?  
 
 
I agree there shouldn't be a reduction in dollar amount on the white sheet.   But that should reflect a 20 hour bank at 111/hr not 81....
 
 
Ok.   Lets take this one step at a time.      your paid 81/hr ...and deposit 20 hours into the bank.   that equals 1620.    
 
but the kicker is.....the pay was SUPPOSED TO BE 111/hr      So in effect that 20 hours should reflect a dollar amount of 111/hr.   That is 2220.   a difference of 500.00.
 
How is this hard to understand.   You said you tried to help.   And the answer you gave would be an example of money earned under one rate, and then a pay raise after the fact.   The problem is......the hours earned were actually at 111/hr   but paid at 81.    It really isn't hard to understand.   

 

[Reed Richards]

If you are confused as to what this recall is all about, there are some things being hidden from you. Hummel, Bradford and Streble have demanded that the company (Allied) that is putting out the letters from the BPR that they are paying for have only Paul DiOrio's email address on it so that you will think these letters are just from him. In other words, if the other 8 reps put a letter out, it will still only have Paul DiOrio's email address on it.
 
Dumbass. That is the way it has been. Remember DeWitt's name appeared on all the CLT election messages. Otherwise each person has to pay to set up a separate account. Has nothing to do with any Officers. King's name is on the Hummel Bradford stuff and he is not even holding office. It just plain stupid for a bloc of people with the same views to each pay for a new account. You need to lay off the paranoia, you are making me paranoid. RR

 

[Reed Richards]

 
I guess your the same person that handled the J4J arbitration?  

 
If the shoe fits.....
 

 
Really ####?     Lets see,   I'm supposed to be paid 111 an hour.   and bank 20 hours.     that is how much?
 
Now they pay retro pay at 85/month and don't include any of the bank. 
 
thank bank amounts your talking about as far as dollar amount.    Is 85 x 20.   BUT it was supposed to be paid at 111/hr.     is there not a difference there?  
 
I guess your the same person that handled the J4J arbitration?  

Ok dumbass, one more time. YOU DON'T GET RETRO FOR MONEYS GOING into YOUR BANK 8 FEB - 9 DEC. ONLY out.  "Hello, McFly!"  RR

 

[Reed Richards]

I called two posters here "dumbass" tonight.  What is wrong with me?  Surely I can come up with a more politically correct term.  I would hate to get kicked off this forum with a mere 12 days left!  RR