US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

Well...yes and no.

The profit sharing is in the east contract only, and the company is not offering a share of the profits to the west pilots out of the goodness of their hearts. The west pilots don't have profit sharing in their contract, yet they will receive it. Why? Because the east ALPA MEC voted to divide up the money among all the pilots (not just the east.)

I agree that profits should be shared equally. I also think that pilots doing the same job should be paid equally.

But that is not occurring here at US Airways. Why? Because the pay rates in the east contract are, for the majority, less than the pay rates in the west contract. Somehow, in this case contractual restraints are the controlling factor, but not in the case of profit sharing.

So, yes, I agree in theory that profits should be shared equally. But not in this case. Parker has told us we get what we negotiate in the contract. Okay. Let's do exactly that.

You are also ignoring a little document that you may have heard of. The transition agreement. The sharing of the profits is in there. Also to be clear the east and west MEC’s negotiated that provision. You say that the profit sharing is in your contract. Is block hour minimum also in your contract? No that comes from the transition agreement.
Once again you guys are trying to change the deal after the fact. The pay parity was not negotiated in the T/A therefore the east does not get it. You guys should have fought for that at the time. Now 5 years later like trying to negotiate after the arbitration award is too late.

We did negotiate profit sharing in the T/A you did not negotiate pay parity in the T/A.

BTW we also agreed to arbitration in the T/A. But you east guys are having trouble understanding that simple provision also.

 

[cleardirect]

The West does not think that way, remember, they should not get a dime!!!

How about this. You call your rep and tell him to do just that.

Let's see how far you get and what fall out that would have.

Go ahead, give it try.

 

[Freighterguynow]

There is one fly in your ointment. In the East contract the LOA 93 language provides profit sharing for the pilots of US Airways - not East pilots, pilots on the US Airways seniority list as of some date, whatever, but rather US pilots. Consequently, the East contract gives profit sharing to a new hire who wasn't on the property at the time LOA 93 was ratified as long as that new hire was on the property during the year the profit was made. Likewise, the language also now applies to West US Airways pilots even though they weren't US Airways pilots when LOA 93 was ratified. The only real effect of the TA profit sharing language is to include West pilots immediately instead of having to have a single certificate first (at an unknown point in the future when the TA was negotiated).

Of course, the TA does give the union more latitude to determine how the profit sharing is distributed than LOA 93. But trying to eliminate it for West pilots could certainly be fodder for another DFR suit.

Jim

The West pilots do not work under LOA 93.

 

[nic4us]

Well...yes and no.

The profit sharing is in the east contract only, and the company is not offering a share of the profits to the west pilots out of the goodness of their hearts. The west pilots don't have profit sharing in their contract, yet they will receive it. Why? Because the east ALPA MEC voted to divide up the money among all the pilots (not just the east.)

I agree that profits should be shared equally. I also think that pilots doing the same job should be paid equally.

But that is not occurring here at US Airways. Why? Because the pay rates in the east contract are, for the majority, less than the pay rates in the west contract. Somehow, in this case contractual restraints are the controlling factor, but not in the case of profit sharing.

So, yes, I agree in theory that profits should be shared equally. But not in this case. Parker has told us we get what we negotiate in the contract. Okay. Let's do exactly that.

Well..yes and no.

Profit sharing is spelled out in the TA. The TA is the contractual restraints that are the controlling factor. The TA states that the east will operate on the east contract and the West will operate on the West contract until there is a joint contract. Further, the TA states that the pilots portion of the company profit sharing pool will be 36% of the total pool. That the two MECs will determine a distribution method etc. If your arguement that the east voted to "give" the West profit sharing were controlling, how do you explain the profit sharing from the remaining 64% of the pool that goes to other West employees?

The West pilots portion is contractually spelled out in the TA. The West pilots signed off on the TA in exchange for modifications and supplements to our CBA. Also, the language says that distribution will be determined by the two MECs. When the TA was signed, a method had not been determined yet. So, it would be left to the MECs to decide that method, they did, we now have that method of distribution. The TA does not say that the method will be determined annually, or upon every instance of disbursment, or reconsidered once established. Just that the MECs will decide, they did, done deal.

I would say that if usapa tries to adjust the method of distribution, the end result will be that neither side will recieve a check. The company will either be allowed to keep the money with a future iou to the pilots, or have to put it into escrow, while the pilot group fights over the distribution method.

If the east wants pay parity for all pilots, we have to have a joint contract, so says the TA. If we want to have a joint contract, we have to use the Nic, so says the TA. If we want to recieve profit sharing, it will be distributed to "all USAIrways pilots, east and West", so says the TA.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The West pilots do not work under LOA 93.

Doesn't matter. For example, if the "old" company had agreed LOA 93 could have had language giving profit sharing to the "civilian" staff at the union offices (PIT at the time, CLT now) and they don't work under the LOA 93. Since LOA was one of the first of that round of concessions, it actually created the profit sharing pot of money for non-pilots as well - the amount that goes into the profit sharing pot is set by LOA 93 as well as language giving a portion of the pot of money to the pilots. So the pot of money that every employee gets profit sharing from is specified even though the other employee groups don't work under LOA 93 either.

Of course, the TA supercedes portions of the original contract/LOA's on both sides including profit sharing, so that language would be controlling anyway.

The TA does give the union more leeway in determining how to split the profit sharing money among the individual pilots than LOA 93 did, but trying to use that leeway to give no profit sharing to the West pilots could be a DFR violation.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

The West pilots do not work under LOA 93.

Therefore, we certainly will not retire under it.

Also, loa93 is not the direct source of the West's profit sharing.

 

[Pi brat]

So using the same logic that the WB deserve to be senior. Than a small 170 jet that payed less than the NB mainline should go to the bottom. Furloughed or not it does not matter. The logic still holds.

The 75/76 pays more on the east than the rest of the aircraft. He didn't put all 76 C/Os and F/Os ahead of all other 737 and 320 pilots, did he? Or was the 517 supposed to account for them too?

 

[BoeingBoy]

The 75/76 pays more on the east than the rest of the aircraft. He didn't put all 76 C/Os and F/Os ahead of all other 737 and 320 pilots, did he? Or was the 517 supposed to account for them too?

The 517 was for the 767 and 330 capt, f/o, and iro positions. There were, at the time, 400 & something 767/330 jobs (the 330-200's hadn't arrived). That turned into the 517 pilots when the inactive among the 400&some were put back in the combined list. Since the West also had 757's, they were split from the 767/330's for constructing the list.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

The TA does give the union more leeway in determining how to split the profit sharing money among the individual pilots than LOA 93 did, but trying to use that leeway to give no profit sharing to the West pilots could be a DFR violation.

Jim

Jim,

I would argue that usapa has very little if any "leeway" over profit sharing distribution. Unless of cource by "Lee-way" you mean the method Seham would use to continually divide the pilot group and guarantee his paycheck.

As far as "could be a DFR violation", I would think that even the 9ths Graber would side with the West, this touches exactly where she had an issue, "what if usapa negotiated to pay men more than women? would those female pilots have no recourse?" And, of course, this is outside the CBA and trying to get a future contract ratified, and the three prongs of a unions DFR. i.e. it would be ripe immediately, no need to be "unquestionably ripe".

Profit sharing is seperate from the CBAs for the two groups. To use it in the manner posters are describing would be a blatant undefendable DFR violation. However, if past performance is any indicator, Seeham will advise usapa that for the West that would be really expensive and hard to win.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Last question. The ninth circuit has stated that without a contract there is no harm so it is not ripe. We do not have a contract. There is no harm to the MDA pilots. How is this case ripe?

$175,000,000.00 for damages because you got a furloughed letter and went to fly for a commuter. Then were placed at the bottom of an integrated list. Really $583,000.00 each is what you think you are entitled to. Sure good luck with that.

Clear,

I agree the MDA case is not ripe because the damages to the MDA pilots would only accrue if the Nicolau list were to be actually implemented. ALPA knew the MDA pilots were active mainline. The MDA suit alleges that ALPA is guilty of a DFR against the MDA pilots for knowingly allowing a false uncertified list to be used changing their status from working mainline to furloughed. The 175 million is the calculated transfer of earnings from MDA pilots to West pilots if the MDA pilots are eventually damaged by ALPA's DFR violation which resulted in the Nicolau list.

The only "certified" East list was produced by the East merger committee and showed the MDA pilots as working mainline. The statement you posted showing the opposite is false. It simply proves the scheme to introduce the fraudulent list was successful.

We already know that Nicolau was confused about the status of the MDA pilots and about which list was the valid list. That is what can happen when knowingly false information is given to a judge and he assumes it to be true. Garbage in garbage out.

The only thing USAPA can do to fulfill their DFR obligations to all pilots is to prevent the fraudulently derived Nicolau list from being used and causing damage.

underpants

 

[cleardirect]

Clear,

I agree the MDA case is not ripe because the damages to the MDA pilots would only accrue if the Nicolau list were to be actually implemented. ALPA knew the MDA pilots were active mainline. The MDA suit alleges that ALPA is guilty of a DFR against the MDA pilots for knowingly allowing a false uncertified list to be used changing their status from working mainline to furloughed. The 175 million is the calculated transfer of earnings from MDA pilots to West pilots if the MDA pilots are eventually damaged by ALPA's DFR violation which resulted in the Nicolau list.

The only "certified" East list was produced by the East merger committee and showed the MDA pilots as working mainline. The statement you posted showing the opposite is false. It simply proves the scheme to introduce the fraudulent list was successful.

We already know that Nicolau was confused about the status of the MDA pilots and about which list was the valid list. That is what can happen when knowingly false information is given to a judge and he assumes it to be true. Garbage in garbage out.

The only thing USAPA can do to fulfill their DFR obligations to all pilots is to prevent the fraudulently derived Nicolau list from being used and causing damage.

underpants

No what usapa would have to do is PROVE that the arbitration was fraudulently done. The statute of limitations for that is gone. When you say all pilots we know that you mean all EAST pilots.

When you say that ALPA knew they were mainline do you mean ALPA national or ALPA AAA? I guess you only have yourselves to blame for once again screwing up the simple things like keeping a list.

It is funny when you say the the arbitrator was confused. Funny how everyone seemed to be confused except you east guys. It is the responsibility of your MC to un confuse the arbitrator. If your side could not do that than to bad for you. Not ALPAs fault, not the west. Time to man up and live with your choices.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

I would argue that usapa has very little if any "leeway" over profit sharing distribution. Unless of cource by "Lee-way" you mean the method Seham would use to continually divide the pilot group and guarantee his paycheck.

The leeway I mentioned is comparing the TA to LOA 93. LOA 93 specifies how an individuals share will be calculated = individual W2 income divided by the groups total W2 income times the money to be distributed to the pilots. It does allow the union to include or exclude furloughees and retirees if they had W2 income during the year the profit was made, but that's the only choice the union had. The TA, on the other hand, basically says "here's the money the pilot group gets for profit sharing, tell us how how to distribute it to individual pilots."

Of course, as I also said as well as you, the TA language is controlling as it supercedes that part of LOA 93. I'm guessing that the ad hoc committee is trying to find a way to minimize the West share and maximize the East share.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

And the "real" mainline not only cared nothing about the MDA folks but complained about them "suing us" until the Nic came out, then were cheering you on since they thought a victory would help get rid of the Nic

Jim

Speak for yourself Jim.

USAPA (that would be the “real” mainline that includes MDA pilots) was never about "using" MDA for any purpose. Our own ALPA Cronies, along with the crooks at Herndon had made a real mess of the bottom of our list long before Nic even had the first brief in his hand.

DOH with conditions and restrictions was, and still is the only possible way to address that mess. I know of few that could actually get their heads straight, even now, on how the list got so messed up with J4J and MDA, but we know they each had a DOH at mainline, and DOH sorts out the mess just fine. MDA was addressed from that angle and only that angle early on in the new union. There was never any doubt they were US Airways pilots, and they are addressed accordingly in the current section 22 proposal created by our Merger Committee.

So what if there is some sort of good friendly fire from the entire MDA affair. Your own reverse logic is perverse in that once again you want to blame individual East pilots (same ones that pulled your gear) for all the problems of the world, including your false and demeaning blanket statement about their treatment of MDA pilots. I instead praise them, for finally (apparently not soon enough for your liking) doing what was necessary to correct the evils and disgrace that was ALPA National. Remember, all of us, including the MDA and J4J guys voted in the NMB election. Thanks to USAPA for at least trying to sort this all out, instead of sitting in a Lazy-boy and spouting hate mail about how awful your own fellow pilots are/were. It was those same individual line pilots that voted in USAPA and will ultimately lead to the correct placement of MDA pilots on the combined list.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'd just ask where all that support was when the pilots voted to allow the company to sell the E-170's out from under the pilots flying them? Where was that support when the E-170 pilots were being refurloughed as the E-170's were transferred to Republic? Where was all that support during seniority integration negotiations? Where was all that support during the arbitration process? Why was it only after the Nic award came out that there was suddenly a lot of support for the MDA suit against ALPA?

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

It was those same individual line pilots that voted in USAPA and will ultimately lead to the correct placement of MDA pilots on the combined list.

How? By clicking your heels together and wishing it to be true while another three years plus under bankruptcy wages pass by?