The Story Of The Missing Fragmentation Rights

[USA320Pilot]

Earlier today ALPA Boston F/O Rep wrote the following comments:

In the company's Sept.6 proposal that 8 members of the MEC tried to send out to the pilots for a membership vote, an effort shot down by the PIT/PHL Reps' Roll Call vote, we had Fragmentation Protection.

By that Friday, Sept. 10, the company's offer to include Fragmentation Protection in our TA had disappeared, along with many other provisions in our contract, just as our advisors had predicted would happen if we procrastinated in reaching a deal with the company.

Why did the company's "ask" go up, be that "ask" in dollars or in contractual protections, as we approached bankruptcy, and then continue to go up after we entered Chapter 11? Because, according to our advisors, since the investment community believes that we are thus becoming more and more of a bad investment risk, the company's position is that they must take increasingly more out of our contracts in order to attract DIP financing. And without DIP financing, all investment community bets appear to be on our liquidation.

What else besides Fragmentation has disappeared in the company's offers, and remains gone in our present TA, from where we were in the company's Sept. 6 proposal?

1. DC Plan went from 50% to 10%.
2. Equity participation (stock) went from 19.33% to 8.5% of the total shares issued.
3. Minimum Aircraft (279) and minimum block hour guarantees are gone.
4. Contingent Acquisition Rights (protections in the case of a buyout) are gone.
5. Special Training Relief has been granted, allowing training out of seniority.
6. No MDA Displacement Rights while we are in bankruptcy.
7. J4J Displacement Rights are gone
8. Vacation went from maximum of 28 to 21 days.

Not bad enough? Try this. If we don't stop this carnage of what is left in our contract with this TA, every one of our financial and legal advisors are of the unanimous opinion that the company will take more, and significantly more, than this away from us during the 1113 process.

Moreover, if the company must use the 1113 process, the risk of liquidation also rises significantly due to the negative message that this sends the investment community.

So there's a trend here that only is going to stop with a ratified Agreement, and on Tuesday, Oct 5, two days before the company's request for a 1113(e) interim relief of a 23% paycut is heard before Judge Mitchell, the MEC will meet in PIT to see whether or not the PIT and PHL Reps will allow this pilot group to vote on this Agreement.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The ALPA president, ALPA financial advisors, ALPA economists, ALPA attorney’s, ALPA professional negotiators, ALPA contract administer (an attorney), all 3 MEC officers, 8 MEC members, and now the entire ALPA Negotiating Committee recommend that the TA be sent out for membership ratification.

The ALPA constitution and by-laws now state that any TA, MOU, or LOA that significantly changes pay, work rules, or benefits must have membership ratification. This new mandate was passed by an 89 to 11 percent margin. Will the RC4 break this mandate and further subject them self to another lawsuit?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[fatburger]

Why send it out? It won't pass.

-fatburger-

 

[USA320Pilot]

Fatburger:

The only way to know if the TA will pass is to send it out for vote. There is no other way to know, period. If the RC4 are so sure it will fail then why not send it out and not have the "heat applied", even from the U.S. Senate?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[fatburger]

The US Senate? Are you kidding me? A loose lipped Senator with no respect! Give me a break. I feel sorry for you.

-fatburger-

 

[PITbull]

USA320,

As you reported abvove...tell your Bos Rep that I said that the co. increased your cost target and worsened the proposal, because that is what Jerry Glass is good at. Whether you see him at your table, or never...he is behind all these propoals.

He understands the psyche of the employee and labor. He knows instinctively when to "turn it on" in order to strip the worker of his/her self-worth to a company, by instilling profound fear of losing ones job or having worse conditions inmposed.. By escalating the severity of the concessions, he knows that labor will weaken in the knees...just as you do, and the ALPA 8 have manifested.

You have learned NOTHING from your history here. The company has threatened liquidation twice, and uses BK as a tool for the company to demand sever concessions on its workers. Is a scheme and a strategy, and the government can now see this clearly. U uses BK to bust contracts. They use BK to hammer at union leaders so that they can captitulate, whereby the membership now focus on blaming the leadership .

Jerry's plan/goal accomplishes three goals...

1. to weaken the worker to submission and give up all protection/benefits/wages.

2. Train managers and supervisors to institue severe punitive policies in order to expidite the discipline process..whereby terminating employees, focused on those who are older and/or with chronic illness.

3. Bust the unions in the "end game", and become wealthy during and after this process.

Glass has your type on our knees.

This is, IMO, appalling to witness to the employees, and why I stay and fight like hell.

You and your ALPA legal eagles need to start reading books on union busting strategy and learn how to "combat" these schemes and have a "plan"... for Geezus sake.

 

[AAviator]

The ALPA president, ALPA financial advisors, ALPA economists, ALPA attorney’s, ALPA professional negotiators, ALPA contract administer (an attorney), all 3 MEC officers, 8 MEC members, and now the entire ALPA Negotiating Committee recommend that the TA be sent out for membership ratification.

The ALPA constitution and by-laws now state that any TA, MOU, or LOA that significantly changes pay, work rules, or benefits must have membership ratification. This new mandate was passed by an 89 to 11 percent margin. Will the RC4 break this mandate and further subject them self to another lawsuit?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="187113"][/post]​

There's no mandate that requires this one to be sent to the membership. Do you understand what you write?

Where's the requirement? If it doesn't make it past the MEC, the NC goes back to work. Pretty simple isn't it? Why do you do this?

 

[us10]

There's no mandate that requires this one to be sent to the membership. Do you understand what you write?

Where's the requirement? If it doesn't make it past the MEC, the NC goes back to work. Pretty simple isn't it? Why do you do this?

[post="187194"][/post]​

AAviator,

According to the negotiating committee ,our paid advisers and
ALPA Nationals lead economic analyst there is no better deal to be had under our current circumstances.You need to take the time to attend the meetings.You post false information based upon a lack of knowledge.You appear to be in a complete panic at the prospect of your fellow pilots getting a chance to VOTE on their future.

I'm including additional BOS F/O rep information that addresses "going back for more".

US10



Armchair Warriors,

Why don't you get off your butts and do as Ray Catlett says, come on out to a MEC Meeting and learn something for a change.

As usual, the shills on this Board are wallowing around in a sea of ignorance.

Fast Eddy, your statement on the 1113(e) process should disqualify you from ever coming back to the MEC holding John Crocker's proxy, but then again, maybe it wouldn't make much difference anyway since Crocker has only attended one day in the last two months of MEC meetings.

The 1113(e) process is an interim relief filing only, there can be more than one 1113(e) filing if the company feels the necessity to do so, and the 1113(e) filing that will be heard on Oct. 7 only deals with a 23% paycut, 95 hour cap, no DC Plan and no 279/minimum block hour guarantee.

But no, Eddy, this does not mean that the company is through with us, and that after this Oct. 7 hearing we get to live happily ever after. This 1113(e) is only the beginning of the 1113© process when the company comes back with a request to the judge for the abrogation of our complete contract, from cover to cover, to be replaced by a new contract written by the company.

And what, under law, are the judge's options? Up or down, boys, yes or no. No "cherry picking" from our proposal and the company's proposal, no "splitting the baby," just up or down.

And as the judge is, again by bankruptcy law, charged with protecting the creditors' interests first, and as the creditors' interests are best served by keeping the business alive if at all possible, which way do you think the judge will rule?

How bad can it get from where we are now with our TA? Without an Agreement preventing it, furlough out of seniority is next, as stated in the company's Sept. 20 proposal, and if and when airplanes start leaving this property you can count on the company going there next.

And what is the company offering us along with this TA? In addition to protecting all the notional monies owed ($60 million worth) and to fund the July, August and 1/2 Sept. DC Plan qualified monies ($17 million worth), they have agreed to not go forward with the 1113(e) interim 23% paycut request if the TA ratification process is started before Oct. 7.

And if we ratify this Agreement, then the company will be obligated to honor a 1113 waiver letter which states that they will not go back to the judge for a 1113 action of any kind for the duration of our time in bankruptcy.

And what would you have heard our Negotiating Committee state to the MEC and some 50 pilots in the room today at our meeting in CLT if you had attended? That this TA, according to every NC member, was "the best deal that you're going to get under the circumstances."

And what are those circumstances? Second bankruptcy in 2 years, no assets that are not hocked, no cash but the taxpayers, no DIP financing, entering the two worst quarters of our revenue year with oil around $50 a barrel, and every business section in every paper in the country predicting our demise.

So why else (besides that it was their job to do so), might have the NC brought you this deal? Because if they hadn't, and this outfit liquidates, which is the consensus of opinion in that case, you same chest beaters would be lining up to sue them for taking the "airline that you loved" into liquidation.

What a circus. And the next act will be in PIT on Oct. 5 when the PIT and PHL Reps will decide whether or not the pilots of this airline will even have a chance to vote on their own futures.

By the way, I wonder which cameo John Crocker will choose for that appearance? At this rate, every Captain in PHL is going to get a chance to be a Rep for a day.

Garland

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Garland, don't you realize that you make ALPA look even more stupid by coming on a public forum and spewing like a can of beer? For God's sake, if you're going to do this stuff, do it on the internal ALPA board. People like you and USA320Pilot are scary and are the biggest threat as far as I am concerned.

 

[AAviator]

us10, I'll ask it again, where's the requirement for the MEC as alluded to by a certain captain to send this to the membership?

 

[us10]

us10, I'll ask it again, where's the requirement for the MEC as alluded to by a certain captain to send this to the membership?

[post="187239"][/post]​

AAviator,

Why are you in such a panic over the prospect of the pilots being given the opportunity to VOTE on their future?

US10

 

[justaumechanic]

Many of us understood that the PIT/PHL group blocked the original T/A because it was not a T/A.. It had not been agreed to by the Negotiating committee..

A proposal from the company that no one agreed to being sent out to the membership for a vote!! Why have a MEC at all if thats the way you want to play?

Are many of us under the wrong impression.. Was the agreement they blocked something the negotiating committee agreed should be send out for a vote? Is it something the MEC felt should be sent out?

Hey they FedEx'd us this proposal, nice paper, lets send it out for a vote!!

Sounds like panic to me.

 

[Rico]

AAviator,

Why are you in such a panic over the prospect of the pilots being given the opportunity to VOTE on their future?

Because he is all for another pilot group "holding the line" all the way into our liquidation, thus causing a chance for his own company to grow.

And even though APA n the past caused severe downward pressure on wages and rules by agreeing to a B-Scale in return for just plain growth...

Apparently is it not acceptable (to AAviator) for Airways pilots to agree to concessions on pay/rules, nor have our own pilots fly a 90 seat A/C (at what is nothing more than our own verison of a B-Scale) in return for survival.

 

[kiowa]

The US Senate? Are you kidding me? A loose lipped Senator with no respect! Give me a break. I feel sorry for you.

-fatburger-

[post="187153"][/post]​

i do believe the senator's pay and pension are quite intact. it's easy for him/her to tell someone it's in everybodys best interest to accept more pay/pension cuts. "oh-let's all vote ourselves a pay raise today, taxpayers will pay for it even without jobs."

 

[AAviator]

AAviator,

Why are you in such a panic over the prospect of the pilots being given the opportunity to VOTE on their future?

US10

[post="187262"][/post]​

I'm not. 320 lied. He lied to further an agenda. He's deliberately lying to create monentum where there seems to be none. The RC4 recall failed (miserably) from what I understand. They seem to have their eye on the ball more so than a certain bed wetting captain. False bravado. Hey, where did I hear that before?

Rico, why not agree to a 2+3 yr deal where everybody sucks it up to the tune of a 40% paycut, for 2 years then gets raises based on profitability? Equal pain, equal gain, sort of seeing if the plan works. Better than gutting the profession,, after all IF U liquidates wouldn't you prefer to find work in an industry that hasn't been screwed up the way you're trying to screw it? eh? :huh: :blink: