US Pilots Labor Thread 1/13-1/20

[Richard]

Let's continue here---

 

[cleardirect]

Last week the theory was put forward that with the end of LOA93 the east would snap back to previous wage rates.

Is that still believed or has that theory been discredited?

 

[Captain Underpants]

Last week the theory was put forward that with the end of LOA93 the east would snap back to previous wage rates.

Is that still believed or has that theory been discredited?

Officially USAPA is negotiating for pay rates that are slightly higher than the previously negotiated East restructuring agreement rates. USAPA is also requesting 4 pay groups with the 757/A321/767 rates over $200/hr. and 737/A320 rates over $190/hr. plus increases to the transition agreement E190 rates. The goal is to achieve a contract that brings all pilots East and West to the same higher rates before the LOA 93 pay freeze ends on 12/31/09. However if the Arizona court chooses to interfere with contract negotiations USAPA may be obstructed from obtaining contract improvements to the detriment of all USAirways pilots.

underpants.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Officially USAPA is negotiating for pay rates that are slightly higher than the previously negotiated East restructuring agreement rates. USAPA is also requesting 4 pay groups with the 757/A321/767 rates over $200/hr. and 737/A320 rates over $190/hr. plus increases to the transition agreement E190 rates. The goal is to achieve a contract that brings all pilots East and West to the same higher rates before the LOA 93 pay freeze ends on 12/31/09. However if the Arizona court chooses to interfere with contract negotiations USAPA may be obstructed from obtaining contract improvements to the detriment of all USAirways pilots.

All that being said, LOA 93 rates do indeed expire on 12/31/2009, and the rates would go to restructuring rates which raise (for captains) Group 1 rates by about $27/hr, 757/767 by about $32/hr, and 330 by about $39/hr.

 

[BoeingBoy]

All that being said, LOA 93 rates do indeed expire on 12/31/2009, and the rates would go to restructuring rates which raise (for captains) Group 1 rates by about $27/hr, 757/767 by about $32/hr, and 330 by about $39/hr.

As I said in last week's thread (or maybe the one before that), that is the most generous interpretation, except for one minor change - the LOA 93 rates don't expire but are just not frozen beyond 12/31/2009.

The first pertinent line - "1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/3 1/09" - merely stops the rate increases that were still due under LOA 84. It doesn't say that the rates snap back to LOA 84 rates (although that would be my interpretation).

Then the second pertinent line from LOA 93 - "2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%." On it's face, that merely says that the rates as frozen by #1 are reduced by 18%. It doesn't say that the reduction ends when the rates are unfrozen - it gives no ending date for that 18% reduction. So it could be that rates snap back to LOA 84 levels but those are still reduced by 18%.

Barring a combined contract that supersedes LOA 93, I wouldn't be surprised if this issue became fodder for a grievance unless the negotiating notes clearly indicate the intent one way or the other. Heck, even if the notes were clear that rates would snap back to LOA 84 I wouldn't be surprised if it took a grievance to enforce that intent.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Underpants

As you say USAPA is negotiating for higher rates. From your response I would assume that they do not snap back but do indeed need to be negotiated.

Bus driver,

All that being said, LOA 93 rates do indeed expire on 12/31/2009, and the rates would go to restructuring rates which raise (for captains) Group 1 rates by about $27/hr, 757/767 by about $32/hr, and 330 by about $39/hr.

I don’t know the answer to the question. Could you point out in the LOA or contract when it specifies snap back. My sources say that USAPA does not believe that they do snap back.

My reading of the LOA93 indicated that this amended the east contract. Just because the freeze ends does not automatically mean that they return. If they do then that is what was agreed to. But unless it is in writing I would guess that new rates need to be negotiated.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Underpants

As you say USAPA is negotiating for higher rates. From your response I would assume that they do not snap back but do indeed need to be negotiated.

Bus driver,



I don’t know the answer to the question. Could you point out in the LOA or contract when it specifies snap back. My sources say that USAPA does not believe that they do snap back.

My reading of the LOA93 indicated that this amended the east contract. Just because the freeze ends does not automatically mean that they return. If they do then that is what was agreed to. But unless it is in writing I would guess that new rates need to be negotiated.

ALPA negotiating policy is very explicit that concessionary rates not ever be permanent. Assuming that the negotiators were following ALPA policy at the time (and ALPA advisors overseeing the process), it's likely that the notes will show the intent that the rates snap back. The policy is in place specifically so that,

1. there will not be a need in the future to start over at a lower rung, and
2. other ALPA groups will not need to race to the bottom to meet those rates.

And, I'm told, that one of the basics of contracts is that no extraneous verbiage be included; i.e. if verbiage is included, it must have a reason for being there. Assuming this to be the case, it reads: "Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09." If the rate was intended to remain past 12/31/09, then why was that date included? Once the freeze is over, the current rate is taken from LOA 84, which continues in force indefinitely, or until superceded.

 

[cleardirect]

ALPA negotiating policy is very explicit that concessionary rates not ever be permanent. Assuming that the negotiators were following ALPA policy at the time (and ALPA advisors overseeing the process), it's likely that the notes will show the intent that the rates snap back. The policy is in place specifically so that,

1. there will not be a need in the future to start over at a lower rung, and
2. other ALPA groups will not need to race to the bottom to meet those rates.

And, I'm told, that one of the basics of contracts is that no extraneous verbiage be included; i.e. if verbiage is included, it must have a reason for being there. Assuming this to be the case, it reads: "Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09." If the rate was intended to remain past 12/31/09, then why was that date included? Once the freeze is over, the current rate is taken from LOA 84, which continues in force indefinitely, or until superceded.

I don’t know that answer. I don’t think that anyone knows for sure right now. As BB said it may well become a grievance.

I do find it ironic that you are quoting ALPA policy. After all of the evil that has been placed at ALPA’s feet. USAPA entire reason for being is because ALPA was evil and the Nicolau was done under ALPA therefore those policies do not apply. Yet you now are now relying on ALPA policy to implement an undefined pay raise.

I would agree that any extra verbiage is to be avoided. But something as specific as going back to previous pay rates probably should be spelled out very clearly. Not left to interpretation or policy or past practice.

ALPA has a merger policy that is spelled out clearly. The results are to be final and binding. We all know how that policy has worked out so far. IMHO the snap back is something to be confirmed prior to any further negotiations. Leaving something like that to chance is irresponsible by any leadership.

Your question about why put in a date to end the freeze. One reason. In order to get it past the union. Placing an open ended pay freeze on the table would be hard to sell. By the same token why is there an amendable date on airline contracts? They don’t expire just become amendable. Unless it is specified there is no pay raise implied on the date. Only a date to start talking about changes to the current agreement.

This is an important subject that needs to be addressed by the legal experts for a definitive answer. It would be a shock to expect a raise on Jan 2010 and find out that it is not coming.

But then again USAPA is going to get us all a big fat contract prior to December 2010 anyway. They have management right where they want them. So none of this is going to matter right.

 

[V1cut]

It's pretty clear that the East and West aren't going to get along. One of our ex-CEO's was aboard recently, and he profferred his opinion about the pilot merger:

It ain't gonna happen.

Now, I don't know if he's right, but he was speculating about shared cockpits. and shared metal...

I tend to agree with him.

( It was S. Scoffield)sp. He introduced himself, although I'd never met him before. You guys can all speculate yourselves into infinity over this...

A few things are certain: regardless of the outcome, appeals are to follow. As long as the company is uninspired for a contract, we will be in seperate ops...(don't hold your breath) Somebody is going to run out of money...and time.

I wonder who?

 

[Pacemaker]

I think you would have had a better chance, in 1940, of the RAF & Luftwaffe declaring cease-fire and Hitler & Churchill sharing tea aboard the Royal Yacht in the Channel, than you will of ever seeing these two pilot groups integrated.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I don’t know that answer. I don’t think that anyone knows for sure right now. As BB said it may well become a grievance.

I agree.

I do find it ironic that you are quoting ALPA policy. After all of the evil that has been placed at ALPA’s feet. USAPA entire reason for being is because ALPA was evil and the Nicolau was done under ALPA therefore those policies do not apply. Yet you now are now relying on ALPA policy to implement an undefined pay raise.

At the time, ALPA was the bargaining agent. USAPA was merely an unnamed concept beginning to congeal in the minds of some. LOA 93 is fact and was signed by all involved parties in 2004; Nicolau is a possible bargaining position (per your attorney at Wye River) with no contract on which to hang its hat.

I would agree that any extra verbiage is to be avoided. But something as specific as going back to previous pay rates probably should be spelled out very clearly. Not left to interpretation or policy or past practice.

No matter how meticulously a labor contract with USAirways is crafted, the company always seems to come up with novel interpretations. No doubt we will see this here, too. At any rate, the company will likely be hungry for a contact during the second quarter. They don't want to be in Section 6 with ALL of us, and they don't want to stall around waiting for the economy to improve because we pesky pilots will have more reason to seek more $$$.

 

[electricjet98]

And, I'm told, that one of the basics of contracts is that no extraneous verbiage be included; i.e. if verbiage is included, it must have a reason for being there. Assuming this to be the case, it reads: "Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09." If the rate was intended to remain past 12/31/09, then why was that date included? Once the freeze is over, the current rate is taken from LOA 84, which continues in force indefinitely, or until superceded.

Was that simply the point at which section 6 could be started? That rates were frozen up to that point but negotiable after that point?

 

[electricjet98]

At any rate, the company will likely be hungry for a contact during the second quarter. They don't want to be in Section 6 with ALL of us, and they don't want to stall around waiting for the economy to improve because we pesky pilots will have more reason to seek more $$$.

When the west requested section 6, management said they would only negotiate a joint contract outside of section 6. Furthermore, FO Bradford said that USAPA was not interested in discussing section 6 negotiations for the west. With that kind of precedent and the TA addressing joint negotiations still in effect, why would you think any of us will be in section 6 prior to having a joint contract in place.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Was that simply the point at which section 6 could be started? That rates were frozen up to that point but negotiable after that point?

LOA 93 reset the amendable date of the east (1998) contract to 12/31/09. Frozen pay rates mention a specific date ranges apart from the amendable date (although it is the same date.) I think USAPA would be foolish to not take the stance that the pay goes to LOA 84 (Restructuring) rates, and then take it to grievance if necessary. Since the amendable date is 12/31/09, I believe either side can open Section 6 sometime in the second quarter. The dispute of the pay rates on 1/1/10 MIGHT be considered a major dispute, and, while past the amendable date and in Section 6, may lead the way to self-help sooner rather than later.

When the west requested section 6, management said they would only negotiate a joint contract outside of section 6. Furthermore, FO Bradford said that USAPA was not interested in discussing section 6 negotiations for the west. With that kind of precedent and the TA addressing joint negotiations still in effect, why would you think any of us will be in section 6 prior to having a joint contract in place.

Interestingly, I agree with you. I think we will have a contract before year's end. The union and company may agree to keep Section 22 (however it is formulated) in abeyance and maintain status quo (separate ops) until the Addington case is resolved. Who knows?

 

[toganoflex]

Interestingly, I agree with you. I think we will have a contract before year's end. The union and company may agree to keep Section 22 (however it is formulated) in abeyance and maintain status quo (separate ops) until the Addington case is resolved. Who knows?

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the thread.