US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

I think you are wrong. I've been there. I've seen the humming and hawing and the body language when they are asked if the so called "Kirby" proposal is still a solid offer. You should have seen the look on DP's face when asked "If there are only $40 million in synergies left in this merger, then why would you want to spend $120 million to get a pilot contract" (loose quote, but right in there). DP's response: "because it's the right thing to do". You could see it all over him. It was all he could think of. No facts, no numbers, no business plans, no payback...nada, nothing.
You need to look at the negotiating minutes and see just how far the company has backed away from that proposal.

The company is happy just the way things are: big bonuses, nice profits, good numbers on the operation, and the financial community completely charmed.

Driver <_<

You are right Driver, a very observant post. There is absolutely no incentive for this company to do things other than the way they are being done right now. They have successfully used east vs west and vice versa. Both pilot groups are locked in an epic dogfight. They will exploit this until they need to do otherwise, sell or merge. Until then, expect them to drag their heels. I think some of this board are way off the mark as to the company wanting anything.. They want nothing except what they have right now.

 

[Freighterguynow]

So, in your infinite wisdom, explain to us all how anyone, on either side, can do what you are claiming.

As a United pilot I figured you read your own MEC Chmn updates:

"a member of the CAL-MEC issued an ultimatum to the United MEC that if there was no agreement that included pay banding suitable to the CAL-MEC, the CAL-MEC was content to wait for years without a JCBA until the United MEC relented."

Or your local:

"We are further compelled to ask why Captain Baron points the finger at the United MEC as being the root of the problem, but fails to publish in his Magenta Line his statement¾made during a joint session of the UAL and CAL MECs in September 2010¾that if the United pilots don’t give him what he wants, he will hold up negotiations for years, forcing the United pilots to work under our current draconian pay and working conditions until we capitulate to his demands. Where we come from, these words would be more of a management tack than those of a trusted unionist brother. Captain Baron’s threatening and offensive outburst led to the UAL MEC walking out of the meeting."

 

[Black Swan]

Despite you signature line, your observation skills are lacking. Nowhere did I say that the west was entitled to or should even be considered to be entitled to LOA84 rates under separate contracts. What I said and implied was that if USAPA wins on this and then avoids future negotiations for a JCBA, then this could expose USAPA to not fulfilling its duties to all its constituents. Saying “we got enough to keep us satisfied and will gladly retire without a new JCBA” violates the intent of the TA and perhaps opens up new DFR suit that has nothing to do with the NIC. The risk of not honoring agreements still resides over USAPA’s and the east pilots collective heads.

Using your logic with pay disparity, what exempts the west from a lawsuit for damage in their lack of fulfilling pay parity? Your maintaining the pay disparity has encouraged the company from moving forward with a contract for a long, long time.

 

[A320 Driver]

You can think I am wrong all you like, but what you have is your feeling about what was behind Doug's words and body language. What I have is sworn testimony on the record in a federal court. Now what I think is that Doug was being honest - he does believe the Kirby proposal is the right thing to do. Of course the Kirby proposal set the bar – if USAPA cannot get above or anywhere near that bar already set by Management, then they are a complete failure at everything except lining the pockets of $eham.

Then challenge him to settle all sections but the section that deals with seniority.Tell him to bring REAL proposals to the table to get this done. He will not. He was asked that very question and he ducked it. Suggest it on your next round of golf if you are on such good terms with him. He will give you 10 reasons why it won't happen...all centered around the seniority issue. Any port in a storm.

I probably have just as much to gripe about regarding USAPA as you do. But you cannot negotiate with a company that doesn't want to. Obviously we will never agree and that is OK, but at least take an objective look at recent Crew News and listen to what they DON'T say as much as what they do.

Driver <_<

 

[CallawayGolf]

Using your logic with pay disparity, what exempts the west from a lawsuit for damage in their lack of fulfilling pay parity? Your maintaining the pay disparity has encouraged the company from moving forward with a contract for a long, long time.

How about the fact that west pilots are not the CBA and do not have, nor have they ever had, a legal responsibility regarding the east pilots' pay. Wouldn't that be like suing your neighbor for installing a pool using his company bonus but not offering to put one in for you too?

 

[Black Swan]

How about the fact that west pilots are not the CBA and do not have, nor have they ever had, a legal responsibility regarding the east pilots' pay. Wouldn't that be like suing your neighbor for installing a pool using his company bonus but not offering to put one in for you too?

How about the fact the west pilots never operated under LOA 93, yet were included in the profit sharing section of same? We had no legal responsibility for that either, yet it was done. It is called good faith.

 

[LSS]

What he nailed was restating the misconception that Management doesn’t want a contract and that they are the only reason for the five-year delay in getting to a JCBA. The truth is that they do want a new pilot contract and have already offered $120M annually to get it. That may not be the winning number, but are you really suggesting that if USAPA agreed to use the NIC and to accept the Kirby proposal that Management would back away from that offer? If Management would accept the NIC/Kirby then Driver’s post lacks veracity as the only real impediment to a JCBA at the $100M+ level is USAPA’s stated intention to violate the TA and use another seniority system. As always, every one of these problems and issues can be attributed to USAPA being incompetent, insolent, disingenuous, and generally bringing spit wads to arm themselves for battle with a well fortified “enemy”.

YHGTBSM.... Do you consider $120M annually anywhere near the ballpark?... So in your way of thinking... USAPA should readily agree to the $120K BS offer by Kirby... with the NIC as the seniority list for a CBA...

I don't know where you are located... but from all appearances... you are seriously suffering from heat stroke!

 

[CallawayGolf]

Then challenge him to settle all sections but the section that deals with seniority.Tell him to bring REAL proposals to the table to get this done. He will not. He was asked that very question and he ducked it. Suggest it on your next round of golf if you are on such good terms with him. He will give you 10 reasons why it won't happen...all centered around the seniority issue. Any port in a storm.

I probably have just as much to gripe about regarding USAPA as you do. But you cannot negotiate with a company that doesn't want to. Obviously we will never agree and that is OK, but at least take an objective look at recent Crew News and listen to what they DON'T say as much as what they do.

Driver <_<

It’s not my responsibility to convince Doug/Management to do anything. USAPA has the exclusive right/responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the pilots. I maintain that until USAPA shows that it is willing to really hammer out a JCBA – which includes accepting the NIC – then Management has no reason to believe that any section of the contract is worth discussing.

Seriously, what is the point? I would say that a very probable outcome of all this mess is that USAPA loses the fight against the NIC which in turn leads to the decertification of USAPA. If that happens, then what good did it do to negotiate on the other sections with a CBA who was removed from the property? Even USAPA says that they have or intend to re-open all sections of the contract because the previous CBA no longer represents the interests of the pilots.

Management will continue to affirm the Kirby offer and will give USAPA virtually no negotiating time until USAPA accepts the NIC. If that should ever happen, I believe negotiations will accelerate rather nicely because most everyone, including Management, is genuinely tired of having the pilots and FAs on separate contracts. if it doesn't happen, then no contract will be in the works and USAPA is fully and soley responsible for the failure.

 

[Freighterguynow]

until USAPA accepts the NIC. If that should ever happen, I believe negotiations will accelerate rather nicely

I think you're going to continue to see 1800 pilots trying to blow the union out of the water.

Just a different group of badge backers.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Do you consider $120M annually anywhere near the ballpark?... So in your way of thinking... USAPA should readily agree to the $120K BS offer by Kirby... with the NIC as the seniority list for a CBA...

I don't know where you are located... but from all appearances... you are seriously suffering from heat stroke!

I didn’t initiate the $100M figure in today’s posts – Driver did. He maintains that even $100M is now too high for USAPA to achieve. The $120M is the estimates released by Management for the Kirby proposal. No need to attack me for using the numbers presented in the post I was responding to.

Now, I have said before that I think the Kirby proposal was a reasonable and good faith offer. The major hub and spoke airlines are highly cyclical in terms of operating profit meaning a few years with many hundreds of millions of dollars of profit followed by several years of equal or worse levels of operating losses. Given that historical perspective, it seems that the $120M was probably just about right given US Airways profit & lost history over the past five years. If Doug and Scott were as devious and underhanded as many out there seem to think, what they would have done is offered the pilots whatever they wanted to get the JCBA done and then went back into bankruptcy to shed the extra costs they didn’t want, mostly in the pilots’ contract. Contrary to this false understanding of our leadership, Management negotiates in good faith and has put an offer on the table that is a very reasonable starting point if nothing else. Doug has spent ten years as the CEO of a major airline and has never led a company into bankruptcy court. I trust this is one the things he takes great pride in and it gives him a lot of credibility when he talks to investors and congress as one of the leading spokesmen for this industry.

Please let me know what annual pay increase defines your ballpark. Is it $200, $300, $400, or $500 million or more than that? Surely you must have a number in mind. Let's dicuss that and where the operating income will come from to pay for that new contract.

 

[nycbusdriver]

BTW, I see a lot of the E word thrown around concerning the LOA 93 pay issue - expire and it's variants. Isn't it interesting that the E word isn't in the pay section of LOA 93...

Jim

Okay. Let us quibble, then.

Say you have a country club membership (since you're always here, use your imagination.)

Your membership card says 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2010.

It doesn't say "expire" anywhere on the card.

Do you think it will get you past the C. C. door on, say, 1/15/2011? Do you think the receptionist will buy your argument that my card doesn't expire because it doesn't have the word "expire" printed on it?

 

[luvthe9]

Okay. Let us quibble, then.

Say you have a country club membership (since you're always here, use your imagination.)

Your membership card says 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2010.

It doesn't say "expire" anywhere on the card.

Do you think it will get you past the C. C. door on, say, 1/15/2011? Do you think the receptionist will buy your argument that my card doesn't expire because it doesn't have the word "expire" printed on it?

Exactly NYC. Why would there even be a LOA unless it addressed a certain period. All the other sections were not included except the pay. And it has a date on it. Just like the little date they put on your milk, yogurt, and other food products. The end date means something, regardless of what Jim says. He should work for Glass and Co. Try running a store, and sell the stuff after the date on the product. See what happens when you try and argue your way out of that. Example- I am looking at my company ID, it has an exp date on it. My PHL parking card date just has MAY 12. Both mean the same thing. I guarantee when I try to go through the gate on May 3 2012, the gate does not go up, even though it does not specifically say EXP. The date does not mean I go into the PHL parking office and begin to explain why I should still park even though my pass only says MAY 12. This is not a day to begin negotiating. It means it is OVER. EXPIRED. Jim is so biased against East pilots he cannot even admit to a truth in any avenue if it means a break for an east pilot. That is why I choose to ignore his posts. 😛 Jetzzz falls into the same boat. The fact USAir probably turned him down when he applied has turned him into a constant "guest" who has an agenda, regardless of the right or wrong.

 

[cleardirect]

Exactly NYC. Why would there even be a LOA unless it addressed a certain period. All the other sections were not included except the pay. And it has a date on it. Just like the little date they put on your milk, yogurt, and other food products. The end date means something, regardless of what Jim says. He should work for Glass and Co. Try running a store, and sell the stuff after the date on the product. See what happens when you try and argue your way out of that. Example- I am looking at my company ID, it has an exp date on it. My PHL parking date just has MAY 12. Both mean the same thing. I guarantee when I try to go through the gate on May 3 2012, the gate does not go up, even though it does not specifically say EXP. The date does not mean I go into the PHL parking office and begin to explain why I should still park even though my pass only says MAY 12. This is not a day to begin negotiating. It means it is OVER. Jim is so biased against East pilots he cannot even admit to a truth in any avenue if it means a break for an east pilot. That is why I choose to ignore his posts. 😛 Jetzzz falls into the same boat. The fact USAir probably turned him down when he applied has turned him into a constant "guest" who has an agenda, regardless of the right or wrong.

Really????

So a store that has milk expire. Do they send it back and get new milk from the dairy for free or does the store eat the cost?

Your parking pass expires. Do you automatically get a new one or do you have to renew it? If the price changes do you get the old price because you had one or do you pay the new price? Our contract have an end date on them. They don't expire they become amendable. We do not get a new pay rate without neg.

LOA 93 had an end date. Time to start neg for a new pay rate.

 

[luvn737s]

Anyone who wants more than the Kirby proposal has to devote themselves to securing the leverage necessary to get any more than what the company is willing to offer - UNITY. And that means abandoning the continued abuse of the West.

If you want more than Kirby, you have to demand better than Cleary

 

[Pi brat]

Calloway golf,

I’m back, so I will try to answer the question you posed. You said:

“Which moral code was that again? I seemed to have misplaced the response where you cited a long-recognized moral code which explicitly states that breaking agreements is considered moral. I would greatly appreciate knowing that since I haven't come across any yet in my own studies.”

I don’t know of any, or at least any that I would want to be a part of. What you ignore is human nature. We set a pretty high standard of honoring agreements in the country, but they are broken every day. A good part of our legal system and our union’s time is spent trying to determine if an agreement was broken, and what to do about it. That’s what we have here. I have had considerable heartburn over what the TA says and what we should do about the Nicolau award because I do not believe it followed the spirit of the TA or the ALPA merger policy (and it was flawed, IMHO), but I saw no way around it other than to avoid a joint contract. I did not pick the road we are on now, but have to deal with just like you.

Let me put this to you: What if Nic did not value AWA or their pilots as high as US and had stapled you all to the bottom of the list. Would it be morally acceptable for the west pilots to fight that, or should they just accept it as the outcome. How about the election of USAPA? It was a legal election. Was it immoral for west pilots to try and do everything possible to make it fail? To refuse to accept them as their CBA? Was it immoral for them to not pay their dues, as it is required as a condition of employment (BTW, did you and have you paid all of yours?)? If the Nic had not been favorable to the west , would it have been morally okay for the west to use the veto provisions allowed by joint ratification, as we know the intent of the TA was to merge two groups, right? Is it ever acceptable to you to break an agreement?

With us, what is it that you think was broken, the intent of the TA, or the letter of it?