US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[BoeingBoy]

Important things first...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the loa,'s seem to have been removed from wings.....hmmmmm?

so I am unable to look up the actual loa wording, if you have it I would appreciate your posting of it, thx in advance.

< oops, I see that Crzipilot posted the language while I was typing and correcting typos>

<Catching up on reading the posts made while I was doing that I see that Best Guess also posted the language>

As I said back when, #1 is pretty clear in one respect - LOA 84 rates are frozen through 12/31/09. What happens when those rates are unfrozen is the big question that's unanswered by the language - do they return to the LOA 84 rates, pick up at the point LOA 84 rates were frozen, or remain the same subject to negotiation? The meaning of #2 depends on the interpretation of "as frozen" - does it mean that the reduction only applies while the LOA 84 rates are frozen, or does it mean that the rates frozen by #1 are reduced until some unspecified date (i.e. removal of the language in #2 through contract negotiation)?

Eventually an arbitrator will decide - if you believe an arbitrator's ruling is final and binding.

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

LOA 93

“The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:

1. Freeze current rates effect 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18%
Gentlemen, there is a specific end date for a reason.

Yes, and it's mentioned in point 1 which is then followed by a period. Point 2 is the actual reduction language and there is no date. Points 3 and 4 (not shown) also are separated by periods and like point 2, they have no dates. For the date mentioned in Point one to apply to all four, then the drafters should have either inserted the date in each of the points, or put the date in the preamble sentence itself. Furthermore, your bargaining agent has been trying for years to negotiate pay rates lower than LOA 84, and the logical inference from that is there was no expectation that the LOA 93 pay reduction had a sunset clause. (Otherwise, why negotiate a pay cut?)

Best of luck, though.

 

[bigbusdrvr]

I should have mentioned.

The frozen rates in sentance 2 refer to sentance 1.

No I don't expect it on Feb 15.
I expect it all after a period of time when we win the arbitration.
Pretty straightforward

-------------------------------------------------------

So if the "Rates as frozen" expire on dec 31, 2009, (can there be any question?"
the 18% reduction of rates that are no longer reductced due to it being beyond dec 31, 2009.....

This will take some serious "Splaining" that the reduction isnt from "This date tillThis date" NO??

 

[nic4us]

Oh but many were already back to work, on the profitable side (that would be the east)




Good


Senior to him? What by DOH?



Where do you get this stuff? Yea I’m just can’t wait to bid PHX, if it weren’t for those damn USAPA restrictions. Damn USAPA. Shoulda been a dispatcher.

They were not back to work prior to the merger, they came back to work because of the merger, and were working when the arbitraitor made his decision, but not prior to the PID. As to your comment about the profitable side, in the last quarters where seperate incomes were reported, I suppose the east did report greater earnings, but of course it is easy to be profitable when you shared no burden of cost of the merger (paid for by the aquiring West), have no senior management payroll, no corporate office rent, no reservations cost, etc. etc. etc.

Senior to him on the Nicolau seniority list, the only recognized seniority list to compare who would be senior to whom, when comparing east and west pilots.

You are welcome to bid PHX, just as soon as we get a joint contract and your seniority holds it, or you are furloughed from the east and the West recalls.
usapa's C&Rs are irrelevant, however, they would not have stopped you from bidding PHX, you would have had to wait for what amounts to about 50 openings a year for east pilots to come in on top. Just a metered theft of jobs.

 

[bigbusdrvr]

They were not back to work prior to the merger, they came back to work because of the merger, and were working when the arbitraitor made his decision, but not prior to the PID. As to your comment about the profitable side, in the last quarters where seperate incomes were reported, I suppose the east did report greater earnings, but of course it is easy to be profitable when you shared no burden of cost of the merger (paid for by the aquiring West), have no senior management payroll, no corporate office rent, no reservations cost, etc. etc. etc.

Senior to him on the Nicolau seniority list, the only recognized seniority list to compare who would be senior to whom, when comparing east and west pilots.

You are welcome to bid PHX, just as soon as we get a joint contract and your seniority holds it, or you are furloughed from the east and the West recalls.
usapa's C&Rs are irrelevant, however, they would not have stopped you from bidding PHX, you would have had to wait for what amounts to about 50 openings a year for east pilots to come in on top. Just a metered theft of jobs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, acording to the faa the furlughed pilots worked for usairways ?? furloughed yet workin for the company that your furloughed from?? sounds like the company saw a loophole alpa couldnt wait to fall into.....

 

[aquagreen73s]

So if the "Rates as frozen" expire on dec 31, 2009, (can there be any question?"
the 18% reduction of rates that are no longer reductced due to it being beyond dec 31, 2009.....

The question is whether each of the four subpoints operate independently. It appears so; for one, their plain meanings are different. A freeze is not the same thing as a reduction and you can have one but not the other, or you can have both a freeze and a reduction followed by an unfreeze or a snapback. Two, the drafters used periods to separate each of the four points which indicates severability among each. Had the points all been inter-dependent, then each point should have ended with a comma or a semi-colon, with the conjunction "and" inserted between points 3 and 4. However, I'd still have heartburn over that construction because the only date mentioned would still be in the freeze clause. It'll be up to the arbitrator, but you've got a real up hill battle to convince a lawyer that the only date mentioned somehow applies to anything other than the freeze clause. Good luck, though.

 

[BoeingBoy]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, acording to the faa the furlughed pilots worked for usairways ?? furloughed yet workin for the company that your furloughed from?? sounds like the company saw a loophole alpa couldnt wait to fall into.....

As far as the East MEC is concerned, I agree that they really dropped the ball in the MDA fiasco. Not in the initial negotiations that led to MDA being established, but when the company kept changing the status of MDA but kept using the rules that were to apply to a separate division of US Group. Until it was to the company's benefit to argue that MDA never really existed in the MDA change of control grievance arbitration.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

First, I believe the most senior furloughed pilot lost 17 years.

Close but no cigar. There just happened to be a permanent bid award for Sept 2005 that shows the most senior furloughed pilot was hired in July 1988. That's 17-1/4 years before the merger. Given that, wouldn't a pilot with less time in (hired later) also be furloughed? Or are you claiming that the furloughs happened out of seniority order?

Still, doesn't that "most senior furloughed pilot" at the time of the merger still have the advantage of his/her DOH for the things I previously mentioned?

Assuming the merger didn’t occur and the company never recalled….eventually there would only be two pilots….and a bunch of guys still furloughed (those that hadn’t turned 65).

Disregarding the fact that the company would be out of business long before it reached only 2 pilots, there would still be pilots retiring from furlough at the time of the merger. Heck, there are still pilots who will retire without "reaching the top of the list), even after the retirement age change. So your claim that every pilot would eventually reach "the top of the list" without the Nic award is not just false but absurd.

Oh but many were already back to work, on the profitable side (that would be the east)

Would you like to supply some hard evidence that the East was "the profitable side" at the time of the merger? Or even the only profitable side now?

 

[Crzipilot]

Just to confuse it a little more, here's the language from the restructuring agreement:


Revisions to Pay Rates [Restructuring pg 1]
The hourly pay rates contained in Section 3 of the Agreement will be revised as follows:
• The hourly pay rates in effect on June 30, 2002, will be known as the Book Rates. The actual rates will each be reduced on the Effective Date to the rates that were in effect on April 30, 2001. The parity review scheduled for May 1, 2003, and Letter of Agreement 47, as amended, will be canceled.
• Eliminate the LOA #61 1% lump sum increase scheduled for 2003.
• Hourly pay rates will be increased by a compounded 1% effective on May 1, 2003; May 1, 2004; May 1, 2005; and May 1, 2006; and further increased by a compounded 2% effective on May 1, 2007 and May 1, 2008; and 3% on May 1 of the succeeding status quo period (i.e., the period past the Agreement amendable date).
• Covered Pilots to receive override of 9% (including seniors, except for line check instructors who will receive an override of 10% per hour when performing training).
• Pay Covered Pilots according to the equipment they are training on.
• A330 equipment to be compensated at pre-parity rate of 205.85/hour (12th year captain rate/widebody LOA).
• A320 and A321 equipment to be paid at Group 2 rates.
Further Revisions to Pay Rates [LOA 84 Attachment A pg 1]
The actual hourly rates of pay to be paid to all pilots under the Agreement will in each year be less than or greater than the actual hourly rates of pay specified under the Restructuring Agreement (i.e., the actual hourly rates as increased each May 1) by the following percentage amounts. These percentages are not cumulative, but are in each instance an adjustment of the hourly rate of pay that would otherwise have been paid under the Restructuring Agreement in the
applicable pay period. Hence, in each year there will be two actual hourly rates of pay applicable to each position: the rate in effect from January 1 through April 30 and the rate in effect from May 1 through December 31.
YEAR PERCENTAGE CHANGE TO APPLICABLE
RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT RATES
OF PAY
2003 (8.0%)
2004 (6.5%)
2005 (5.0%)
2006 0.0% No Reduction
2007 2.0%
2008 2.0%
2009 and beyond As per Restructuring Agreement


A330 A330 Group 1 Group 1 Group 2 Group 2
Current New Difference Current New Difference Current New
205.85 189.38 -8.0% 185.98 171.10 -8.0% 161.50 148.58
207.91 191.28 -8.0% 187.84 172.81 -8.0% 163.12 150.07
207.91 194.39 -6.5% 187.84 175.63 -6.5% 163.12 152.51
209.99 196.34 -6.5% 189.72 177.39 -6.5% 164.75 154.04
209.99 199.49 -5.0% 189.72 180.23 -5.0% 164.75 156.51
212.09 201.48 -5.0% 191.62 182.03 -5.0% 166.39 158.07
212.09 212.09 0.0% 191.62 191.62 0.0% 166.39 166.39
214.21 214.21 0.0% 193.53 193.53 0.0% 168.06 168.06
214.21 218.49 2.0% 193.53 197.40 2.0% 168.06 171.42
218.49 222.86 2.0% 197.40 201.35 2.0% 171.42 174.85
218.49 222.86 2.0% 197.40 201.35 2.0% 171.42 174.85
222.86 227.32 2.0% 201.35 205.38 2.0% 174.85 178.34
Difference Eff. Date
1/1/03 -8.0%
5/1/03 -8.0%
1/1/04 -6.5%
5/1/04 -6.5%
1/1/05 -5.0%
5/1/05 -5.0%
1/1/06 0.0%
5/1/06 0.0%
1/1/07 2.0%
5/1/07 2.0%
1/1/08 2.0%
5/1/08 2.0%



330 Group 1 Group 1 Group 2 Group 2
Current New Difference Current New Difference Current New
129.35 -8.0% 127.02 116.86 -8.0% 110.30 101.48
130.65 -8.0% 128.29 118.03 -8.0% 111.40 102.49
132.78 -6.5% 128.29 119.95 -6.5% 111.40 104.16
134.10 -6.5% 129.57 121.15 -6.5% 112.52 105.20
136.25 -5.0% 129.57 123.09 -5.0% 112.52 106.89
137.62 -5.0% 130.87 124.33 -5.0% 113.64 107.96
144.86 0.0% 130.87 130.87 0.0% 113.64 113.64
146.31 0.0% 132.18 132.18 0.0% 114.78 114.78
149.24 2.0% 132.18 134.82 2.0% 114.78 117.07
152.22 2.0% 134.82 137.52 2.0% 117.07 119.42
152.22 2.0% 134.82 137.52 2.0% 117.07 119.42
155.26 2.0% 137.52 140.27 2.0% 119.42 121.80
Difference
A330
140.60
142.01
142.01
143.43
143.43
144.86
144.86
146.31
146.31
149.24
149.24
152.22
Eff. Date

 

[cleardirect]

Good Point.

If it is tyranny.

That’s the nature of democracy is it not? The losing side is always the minority by definition.

I don’t expect to convert you, only maybe to agree to disagree if I’m lucky.


Is it tyranny if the majority is correcting a horrible injustice? -I know, I don’t expect to sell you on that one.

So if we merge with United or America. Both larger airlines than us airways. If the majority of pilot decides to staple the minority (us airways pilots) that is OK by your definition.

To them mergeing with this mess would be a horrible injustice and they would be correcting that mistake.

Listen to the appeal hearing. The judge changed the situation and Seham could not answer the question. Because his logic only works in this single situation.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Phoenix]

Click the following link to listen to todays (December 8) 9th Circuit hearing in San Francisco.

Click here to listen to today's hearing.

Page link to above by clicking here.

Case Name😀on Addington v. US Airline Pilots AssociationCase Number:09-16564Case Panel:TASHIMA, GRABER, BYBEEHearing Location:San Francisco, CAHearing Date:12/08/2009Download:09-16564.wma

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Toward the end the female judge presents a hypothetical about ripeness: "If a union was negotiating to place all males above females, would a suit be ripe?"

The more important question is: "Even if the hypothetical case was admitted as ripe, could a judge legitimately deny the union opportunity to justify its position as a reasonable objective of the union? And would the judge legitimately prevent the jury from any consideration of the reasonableness of the negotiating position?"

Another interesting point was the painful silence after "page 279".

 

[cleardirect]

Toward the end the female judge presents a hypothetical about ripeness: "If a union was negotiating to place all males above females, would a suit be ripe?"

The more important question is: "Even if the hypothetical case was admitted as ripe, could a judge legitimately deny the union opportunity to justify its position as a reasonable objective of the union? And would the judge legitimately prevent the jury from any consideration of the reasonableness of the negotiating position?"

Another interesting point was the painful silence after "page 279".

Well that is a question that was not asked so I guess the court did not think it was to important. The judges ignored everything else that Seham had to say. Besides judge Wake did give usapa an opportunity to justify their position. However they were unable to do it. Still can't.

I really hope that usapa and the east pilots are not hanging your hat on a pause before answering a question. That lawyer is massively smart. His delay was in forming a great answer. Not because he did not have one.

If you are I think disappointment is headed your way.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Another interesting point was the painful silence after "page 279".

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the "painful silence" was merely time spent finding the quote the questioning judge presented to see the context. Recall that another judge remarked that "the paragraph begins on page 278" during the "painful silence". Why say that unless the West's lawyer was thumbing through pages?

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

I really hope that usapa and the east pilots are not hanging your hat on a pause before answering a question. That lawyer is massively smart. His delay was in forming a great answer. Not because he did not have one.

That pause reminded me of the scene in The Terminator when you're inside Arnie's eye looking out and you see the scrolling video calculations from the supercomputer as it processes the unfolding events. It doesn't take long to be around Andy before you figure out he's quite intelligent. It's probably fair to call him a genius.

 

[cynic]

The pause does show a lack of preparation on that particular point, though. That doesn't make it a win or loss on that issue, but that does mean it probably wasn't addressed in the written briefs.