Ramifications of Judge Mitchell''s ruling

[mlt]

Bob,
I'll give you a non-ALPA perspective:

1. ALPA "won" yesterday! What exactly did they win? All I can see is that US is one step closer to a 7 filing.
**They won in the eyes of their membership. The labor leaders know their pension underfunding is beyond resolution. But, they could not take the chance of agreeing to another cut and continue to maintain their elected positions. So, they allowed a judge/arbitration to do it for them.

2. What happens if ALPA wins the arbitration?
**They will still negotiate a DCP or the organization folds. Although it will be an enhanced version of what the company has already offered.

3. What happens if ALPA loses the arbitration?
**They will accept the company's original DCP proposal.

4. Are the pensions of the other groups now really in jeopardy?
**If ALPA continues the same argument as their motion and uses it as a gun against U's head.

5. What impact does ALPA's "victory" have on the already sagging morale?
**It gives their membership a feeling of comraderie. If the other labor groups are dragged in--the temperature will remain in the single digits in August.

6. Are we closer to liquidation or farther away today?
**No--ALPA always folds.

 

[Dea Certe]

Chips Place is a different Chip.

 

[IAM1776PHL]

Chip
You bore me with nonsence...where is your group now ...back at the Co. feet....They are going to tell you again that its terminate the pension or we will liquidate the Co. and now its your time to give your job up or shut up.It seems to me that the judge wants the pilot group to nego their own future as plots or unemployed ..and remember what you said if you choose to liquidate you  will  loose your term pass (I've lost many nights sleep over the loss of that). Wake up and smell the roses
all I'm hear you say is its about  me ..me...me....me.....me

 

[chipmunn]

The judge has agreed in principle that US Airways does not have the funds to emerge from bankruptcy and also properly fund the pilot's retirment fund. On that basis alone, Judge Mitchell agreed to terminate the ALPA Defined Benefit Plan.
But, the judge ruled he has no jurisdiction over the “possibleâ€￾ contract violation and agreed with ALPA that the System Board (the grievance process) is the venue to determine whether or not an infraction occurred. Another words, Judge Mitchell has “passed the buckâ€￾ to the PBGC and the System Board.
His ruling will permit the RLA and collective bargaining process to go forward in order to allow a follow-on plan by authorizing the Company, while in bankruptcy, to enter into negotiations to provide at least a $122 million per annum Defined Contribution Retirement Plan.
Therefore, this means that ALPA has the right to follow the tenets of the collective bargaining process to conclusion where either an accord is reached or the pilots can exercise the “self-helpâ€￾ option, which is the real meaning of the last sentence of the March 1 #2 code-a-phone message.
ALPA anticipated the Defined Benefit Plan was going to be terminated because of the financial test, but now ALPA has significant leverage to obtain a better Defined Contribution Plan. Why? ALPA should win the grievance and if the union does, this could hold up the proceedings, permit RLA process resolution, and could prevent the company from emerging.
However, I believe there could be a 12:00 accord with a sweetened Defined Contribution Plan because of the court’s ruling, if the company wants to emerge from bankruptcy by March 31.
Chip

 

[kate]

Chip,

You are the type of employee this company does not need -- weeks ago you were leaving your position for a sweeter deal -- what happened????

When a captain comes to the gate and can't tell an A319 from an A320, there is a problem. I've seen you do it.

My pension was frozen years ago and my pay, vacation and sick time were all severly cut - but I continued to work for the good of the company rather than dwell on what I was losing. You are still in a better position than I, and have many more $ to invest. Give it up - if you haven't learned how to invest well and live on what you make, than you don't deserve the unbelievable and undeserving pension some lunatics agreed to years ago.

 

[mlt]

Chip,
Is chipsplace.com your website or another pilot's?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 6:03:43 PM kate wrote:

Chip,

You are the type of employee this company does not need -- weeks ago you were leaving your position for a sweeter deal -- what happened????

When a captain comes to the gate and can't tell an A319 from an A320, there is a problem. I've seen you do it.

My pension was frozen years ago and my pay, vacation and sick time were all severly cut - but I continued to work for the good of the company rather than dwell on what I was losing. You are still in a better position than I, and have many more $ to invest. Give it up - if you haven't learned how to invest well and live on what you make, than you don't deserve the unbelievable and undeserving pension some lunatics agreed to years ago.
----------------
[/blockquote]
A bit harsh, I'd say. Your pension is what your group negotiated. ALPA had NOTHING to do with that. The ticket agents didn't even vote in a union until the early to mid '90's (if I remember right). That's YOUR fault, no one else's. Oh, and by the way, from a nose perspective, a 319 looks EXACTLY like a 320. The only REAL exterior difference is an extra over-wing exit on each side of the 320 and a small increase in length. From inside the cockpit, they ARE IDENTICAL! So is the 321, except for a sticker on each instrument panel, which is to remind the pilot not to hit the tail. Chip continues to perform his job in a professional manner, even through all these trying times. What more could the company ask? I, for one, appreciate the discussions that his posts generate, even if I don't totally agree with his conclusions.

 

[insp89]

You know what's the best thing about Judge Mitchell's ruling...? Chip can no longer post that the judge ALWAYS rules in the companies favor.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 6:52:03 PM IAM1776PHL wrote:

Chip
You bore me with nonsence...where is your group now ...back at the Co. feet....They are going to tell you again that its terminate the pension or we will liquidate the Co. and now its your time to give your job up or shut up.It seems to me that the judge wants the pilot group to nego their own future as plots or unemployed ..and remember what you said if you choose to liquidate you  will  loose your term pass (I've lost many nights sleep over the loss of that). Wake up and smell the roses
all I'm hear you say is its about  me ..me...me....me.....me
----------------
[/blockquote]
Personally, I hope the discussions are a bit more constructive than that. Remember, these discussions are going to be under the RLA banner; anything is still possible. All Judge Mitchell did was put this thing back where it belonged in the first place, at the NLRB. Looks like the 1113 letter really did work, or Judge M could have just unilaterally cancelled the pilot contract. Looks to me like the real losers are the folks that already retired, since no one will be representing them at the arbitration hearing on March 13th.

 

[Atlantic]

To All,
Don't go out a buy a new car yet. The pilots are not going to roll over on this one. Not after what we've given.
Sorry

 

[Atlantic]

Piney,
With resepect.
This is not your fight.

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 7:41:05 PM PineyBob wrote:

Why is it that when you ask a pilot a series of tough honest questions, that an hourly worker from one of the work groups takes the time to offer an intelligent well thought out response??

I mean after all with your superior intellect my questions should pose no problem to you or your group. Is it because I am just a lowly PAX?? Not worthy of your time? If that's the case then I would suggest you talk to some of the T/A's, G/A's, F/A's, Rez/A's, mechs and rampers who seem to have a much better grasp on exactly who ultimately pays their salary. They seem to have a firm grasp on the fact that the number of azzes like mine that sit in the seats determines the bottom line result for the company.

I am not trying to bait with the questions I seriously want to know as I am not knowledgable of the inner workings of all of this. Sorry that I am only a PAX who is interested in what happens to his carrier of choice.

I don't know why i am surprised to be ignored here, afterall I say good morning to the F/A and pilot as i board and the only one who usually responds is the F/A, the pilot stands there like a cigar store freakin indian. At least that's been my personal experience.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Bob - did it ever occur to you that some pilots are married to gate agents, flight attendants, ticket agents, etc. so you are insulting a whole family in some instances? Have you taken note that your slant on pilots is so heavily tainted in the negative that you've lost complete objectivity? Most pilots aren't going to bother with you (on here) after the things that you've said about the way they swagger, how they've always seemed to have an attitude? Why should they? What would it accomplish? You've already decided how you feel and what you've chosen to believe. To echo Atlantic, it's not your fight. Everyone that works for and/or has worked for US is acutely aware of the ramifications and consequences of each step they've been forced to take.

So, if the dust settles in an extremely negative manner you'll be forced to book with OAL, so did those that had once used Braniff, Eastern, TWA, et al. You're seriously expecting sympathy when you're expressing inconvenience while they're experiencing a complete shattering of former, current and future livelihoods?

Lastly, I have to hand it to the few pilots that continue to read and contribute. They're not baited by your statements. I supposed they've left that up to me; I've determined it will be the last time I, too, take the bait.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 7:53:56 PM Atlantic wrote:

Piney,
With resepect.
This is not your fight.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Atlantic,

Bob is right. Pax do have an impact on the Co. bottom line results. Sooooo, I'd say Bob has a vested interest in what happens to this co.

Fire away.....Bob!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 7:53:56 PM Atlantic wrote:

Piney,

With resepect.

This is not your fight.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Atlantic,
With all due respect to your groups situation...and that of the entire airlines future. I have to say that PineyBob has every right to ask anything he sees fit to ask about your/ our circumstance. He like millions of others , are in fact our soul focus for being around to provide our services too.

Censorship should only be used when it involves Safety , Security or pending issues that are under a gag order of the courts. This is an open book issue. You may not like Piney's views....because he does tend to take you/us to task at times....but afterall....He does do his part in paying our salaries at present. I hope this continues to be the case via progressive negotiations forth coming.

Next question?

 

[Hula Girl]

I just don't understand you Pinney Bob. My boyfriend is one of those pilots who as you say, stands there like a freakin' cigar store indian. HE is polite and says hello to everyone. So why don't you leave as you have nothing to offer here but nastiness. Don't you have a life? I come to this board as this is the company I work for and the people that I work with post important information here. I just keep reading the rantings of a lonely and bitter man who needs to feel like he has something important to contribute. It is sad really.