US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nycbusdriver]

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.

The very fact that our contracts do not expire, but become amendable, is the reason that our pay rates will revert to what is currently alive in that contract when the LOA 93 pay rate expires. Yes, LOAs can and do expire (especially when the language includes an end date.) If this were not true, there would be no arbitration taking place at all.

BTW, I don't know who you work for, but neither the east or west contract have an "end" date on them. The language specifies an automatic renewal date if neither side wishes to change anything by that date.

From Section 30 of the East contract:

"This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 1998, unless otherwise
specifically provided herein, and shall continue in full force and effect through January
2, 2003, and shall renew itself without change until each succeeding January thereafter
unless written notice of intended change is served in accordance with Section 6, Title I
of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by either party hereto at least sixty (60) days
prior to January 1 in any year."

From Section 30 of the West contract:

"This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of signing, and
shall remain in full force and effect until December 30, 2006, and shall
renew itself without change each succeeding December 31 thereafter,
unless written notice of intended change is served in accordance with
Section 6, Title I of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by either party
hereto at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the date the parties may
commence negotiations pursuant to Subsection 30.B. or a
subsequent anniversary of such date, unless the parties agree
otherwise."

 

[767jetz]

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

I guess I read more than you do. I also talk to my reps personally. By phone I was told that Morse and Pierce talked, and relations are once again warming. Then The following message was issued, AFTER the ones you selectively posted:

"I spent the latter part of the week in New York attending an Association of Star Alliance Pilots (ASAP) meeting which was hosted by the CAL-MEC. During this meeting, Continental MEC Chairman Captain Jay Pierce and I continued to exchange ideas on the resolution of the compensation issue. While no solution was reached this week, the dialogue continues in a search of a mutually agreeable solution.

This is simply among the challenges that we have the skill set and leadership ability to solve. We will get there. As you will see below, this issue did not deter the JNC from continuing its work this week on the various other issues that are before us in attaining a JCBA."

As usual, you and others love to quote whatever supports your opinions, while conveniently omitting anything that contradicts your point of view. Nice try though. 🙄

Care to try again and answer the question I posed, which is to explain how the CO pilots will do what you were inferring?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Okay. Let us quibble, then.

Bad example - the membership card doesn't say anything but if you paid for only a calendar year of membership it's understood that it's only good for a calendar year. LOA 93 does say something, just not "Expires").

Here's a better example which happens to match the language in LOA 93:

Take an ice tray full of water, freeze it, remove 20% of ice and throw it away, then "unfreeze" the remaining ice. Do you still have a tray full of water or only a partially full tray?

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

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

Actually it was an odd document. We all know that contracts in this business become amendable, right? Then why this strange language? From LOA 93:

Amendable date December 3 1 , 2009.
Other than as specifically modified in these documents, all terms and
conditions of the ALPA-US Airways Collective Bargaining
Agreement effective January 1, 1998, as amended, shall remain in
full force and effect.
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 effective 5/01/04 through 12/3 1/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section
3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18.0% for transoceanic trips;
eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.
The following lump sums shall be paid by the Company:
January 1,2010 - $35 million
January 1,201 1 - $35 million
Such lump sums will be allocated to individual pilots according to a
formula to be provided by the Association to the Company, along
with each pilot’s individual allocation, no later than two (2) months
4


So, it says that unless specifically modified in these documents everything remains in full effect, then it modifies the pay rates with a specific date. Odd, since we know the rest of the contract does not expire. When something is no longer frozen, doesn't it revert to it's former state?

Who knows what will happen, anything is possible with an arbitrator!

 

[luvn737s]

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.

Nicolau valued active pilots equally based on their relative positions within their respective airlines. He did value the top 517 East pilots somewhat more and the furloughed pilots (including those employed at MDA) somewhat less.

And the west pilots would have accepted the arbitrators decision. I have absolutely no doubt about that. The only reason the east fought it was because of the superior numbers which insured that they could use their majority to quash the minority. What they were unable to do through the procedures of negotiation, mediation and arbitration, they chose to do by disenfranchising the west. The crux of the DFR is that the union now represents all US pilots and cannot choose sides vis a vis the implementation of a totally new seniority list that was created from whole cloth rather than through the process outlined in the mutually accepted TA. USAPA came along a little too late to change the rules of the road, a different sort of un-ripeness if you will.

 

[BoeingBoy]

When something is no longer frozen, doesn't it revert to it's former state?

Yes it does but not necessarily to the same amount. If something is frozen and then reduced does it revert to it's former amount when unfrozen?

Who knows what will happen, anything is possible with an arbitrator!

That's something no one can argue with.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Actually it was an odd document. We all know that contracts in this business become amendable, right? Then why this strange language? From LOA 93:

Amendable date December 3 1 , 2009.
Other than as specifically modified in these documents, all terms and
conditions of the ALPA-US Airways Collective Bargaining
Agreement effective January 1, 1998, as amended, shall remain in
full force and effect.
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 effective 5/01/04 through 12/3 1/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section
3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18.0% for transoceanic trips;
eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.
The following lump sums shall be paid by the Company:
January 1,2010 - $35 million
January 1,201 1 - $35 million
Such lump sums will be allocated to individual pilots according to a
formula to be provided by the Association to the Company, along
with each pilot’s individual allocation, no later than two (2) months
4


So, it says that unless specifically modified in these documents everything remains in full effect, then it modifies the pay rates with a specific date. Odd, since we know the rest of the contract does not expire. When something is no longer frozen, doesn't it revert to it's former state?

Who knows what will happen, anything is possible with an arbitrator!

Contract language.

1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/3 1/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section
3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18.0% for transoceanic trips;
eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.

You see that period at the end ong the line there? That ends that statement. Those are seperate lines. That date does not carry on to the other 3 lines.
Now look at the lump sum portion. It defines when and how much that payment will be. LOA 93 does not say the pay rate goes to anything. It does not say that it goes to LOA 84. It does not say anything.

usapa decided to arbitrate this for political reasons. It keeps all of you east guys hoping that usapa will be able to deliver on the first promise in 2.5 years. If they were so sure why the delay? This was done in Feb. Did not close until June because of usapa. then the delay with the letter exchange wit the arbitrator.

 

[CallawayGolf]

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?

Thanks PI

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. It seems that we both agree then that all relevant moral codes and the laws of civilized societies expect agreements to be honored. If that’s true then it seems that we also agree that breaking a moral code would, by definition, be immoral. I fail to see how someone can claim that all moral codes and societies expect agreements to be honored but that it is not immoral to break an agreement; this seems to be a disconnect.

We all know that agreements are broken regularly, but the volume of broken agreements doesn’t change the fact that the right and moral thing to do is to honor an agreement that was made even if you decided later that you wish you had not made the agreement or don’t like the results of the agreement. So, you may not like the TA or the NIC, but the agent that legally represented you during that transaction bound the pilots (collectively and individually as long as they are employed by US) to the TA, the merger policy, and the resulting NIC award. The moral course of action is clearly to honor those agreements or to leave the employment of US Airways.

It’s not like honoring these agreement violates some higher moral code. If the agreement asked you to renounce your religious beliefs, to sacrifice your child to a demon, or to be unfaithful to your spouse then I would fully support your right to violate the agreement because honoring that agreement is morally worse than breaking the agreement. Of course the TA and the NIC don’t ask pilots to do anything inherently immoral, but rather to accept the terms of the binding processes until a JCBA is ratified. So there is nothing immoral about honoring the TA/NIC and there is something immoral about not honoring the same. To me the choice seems clear – black and white even.

If the NIC stapled the west pilots to the bottom of the east list, I would be just as strongly opposed to the NIC being violated as I am now. I don’t base my moral decisions based on my own interpretation of fairness or for personal gain. So, no it would not be morally acceptable for the west pilots to fight that award unless there was shown to be some sort of illegal manipulation of the process (a bribe or something like that).

I don’t see the west pilots working to see USAPA fail as a moral issue any more than I would challenge the rights of the east pilots to decertify ALPA. As long legitimate and lawful processes are followed, I wouldn’t project my beliefs into that situation. Now, was/is it immoral not to pay dues? Yes, I always believed that dues should be paid because USAPA was elected as the exclusive bargaining agent and the law requires dues to be paid even from objectors. If I had the ear of every west pilot I would counsel them to take the highest moral ground possible in this situation. Pay dues, don’t break the law, stay in the good graces of Management, the courts and even USAPA other than to vigorously pursue the rights which USAPA has unashamedly tried to subvert at every turn.

That probably answers your question about my personal finances but let me be explicitly clear – since I became a Christian I have paid every bill I ever owed on-time (so long as the debtor sent me the bill on time). I even sent money to businesses and people that I thought I owed money to more than a decade after I failed to pay them or stole something because of my teenage indiscretions that I felt convicted about years later. I know of no one who can claim that I owe or have owed them anything that was “past due”.

USAPA has informed management and the courts that it has no intention of honoring the NIC. In this context, that is a violation of the TA and that is what I would expect every person with a proper sense of right wrong and a moral fabric to their souls to be up in arms about.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You guys really need to give up that "you don't honor your agreements" BS. If ALPA had honored its agreement not to award either side a windfall, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Think of a new argument. Your old one is stale.

Oh, and by the way, the Nic is still dead.

 

[Schultz]

You guys really need to give up that "you don't honor your agreements" BS. If ALPA had honored its agreement not to award either side a windfall, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Think of a new argument. Your old one is stale.

Oh, and by the way, the Nic is still dead.

Well Said!

 

[mikey60]

The only thing that would make it more fun would be for EAST US to return from the cornfield and challenge us to a dogfight.

OHHHHH.I'm shaking....from laughter.

 

[767jetz]

You guys really need to give up that "you don't honor your agreements" BS. If ALPA had honored its agreement not to award either side a windfall, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Think of a new argument. Your old one is stale.

Oh, and by the way, the Nic is still dead.

You really do like to play fast and loose with facts. Read ALPA merger policy again and quote the EXACT verbiage of the part pertaining to windfall. It says no windfall at the expense of the other side. When you leave that part out it changes the entire meaning. The Nic award, and the resulting slotting of pilots based on category and class is not a windfall. And even if you personally consider it one (however irrelevant your opinion is to the process), it didn;t come at anyone's expense, since it keeps everyone about where they were the day before the merger.

So you are wrong. ALPA very much did honor and follow it's policies to the letter. Sorry, but you can't blame anyone else for what you have done except yourselves. I will say that you oldie, do have a persistent denial of reality and fact, and seem to favor an alternate reality you've fabricated in your mind. Keep clicking your heals. You'll never get your DOH pipe dream. And you'll never convince anyone of your propaganda, outside of your band of brothers.

 

[mikey60]

Maybe I find it entertaining to keep you guys trying to "figure it out." Hysterical that you waste your time.

Steady jetz, we just like the fact that the veins in your neck are buldgeing and your b/p is 200/120. Calm down we don't care we know we will win. Now go watch

some cartoons on the tv.

 

[aquagreen73s]

we don't care we know we will win.

Yeah! Victory is right around the corner, isn't it! Snapbacks, 90 day contract with DOH, seniority is like crew meals, pink elephants and lemonade for all!

 

[crazystnic]

You really do like to play fast and loose with facts. Read ALPA merger policy again and quote the EXACT verbiage of the part pertaining to windfall. It says no windfall at the expense of the other side. When you leave that part out it changes the entire meaning. The Nic award, and the resulting slotting of pilots based on category and class is not a windfall. And even if you personally consider it one (however irrelevant your opinion is to the process), it didn;t come at anyone's expense, since it keeps everyone about where they were the day before the merger.

So you are wrong. ALPA very much did honor and follow it's policies to the letter. Sorry, but you can't blame anyone else for what you have done except yourselves. I will say that you oldie, do have a persistent denial of reality and fact, and seem to favor an alternate reality you've fabricated in your mind. Keep clicking your heals. You'll never get your DOH pipe dream. And you'll never convince anyone of your propaganda, outside of your band of brothers.

********************************************************

yeah ALPA does need to follow their own policy.
No windfalls and do not diminish the career expectations ......

it's that or make it DOH...

I lay this mess clearly on the desk of ALPA and Prater... (spinless POS)

what a disaster...