US Pilots Labor Thread 1/13-1/20

[Piedmont1984]

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

Well I too can envision management de-linking Section 22 from the rest of the contract, at least until some resolution is reached in court.

That way they can lock in the other important sections before the cost to them goes up.

Two installments totalling $70 million plus LOA 84 rates. Pretty soon your talking the whole $120 million management was prepared to pony up for just the east and in just two years.

 

[luvn737s]

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.

USAPA has set many precedents for doing foolish things. The latest is giving away the west's Age 58 bypass in exchange for (drum roll please)........ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Instead of keeping this piece of contract leverage which would benefit younger captains and allow older F/O's to retain their bidding position and be paid as captains, they casually toss it away. BRILLIANT!

 

[nycbusdriver]

USAPA has set many precedents for doing foolish things. The latest is giving away the west's Age 58 bypass in exchange for (drum roll please)........ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Instead of keeping this piece of contract leverage which would benefit younger captains and allow older F/O's to retain their bidding position and be paid as captains, they casually toss it away. BRILLIANT!

USAPA is far from perfect. This incident follow in the long tradition of the east ALPA MEC giving the store away for quids that are nebulous at best, and rarely evey materialize after the company has gotten what they want (like the promised "commuter policy" from LOA 91, and the security bypass at every crew base.)

Maybe this huge leverage you speak of was misconstrued by USAPA as being insignificant. If someone from the west would actually participate in the process, things like this might be avoided. No on on the east can interpret the west contract as well as someone from the west (because the west pilots have the institutional memory that goes with their own contract.) If you guys won't help USAPA defend your own contract with that institutional memory, then you get the results like you point out.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

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

Why is that? Is it because you don't like it, that it doesn't give you your windfall? Thought so.

I actually think that the company and USAPA already have a section 22, and that even though the court may modify it, more discussion is not required on either side. In essence, it's already been "delinked" to use another poster's term.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

USAPA has set many precedents for doing foolish things. The latest is giving away the west's Age 58 bypass in exchange for (drum roll please)........ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Instead of keeping this piece of contract leverage which would benefit younger captains and allow older F/O's to retain their bidding position and be paid as captains, they casually toss it away. BRILLIANT!

Since the age 58 bypass deal was based on age 60 retirements, all the company would have to do is move it to 63. That would be their prerogative under the changed law. Then, in RLA fashion, the union could grieve it. They would obviously lose. Why fight losing battles?

 

[Freighterguynow]

If someone from the west would actually participate in the process, things like this might be avoided.

If you guys won't help USAPA defend your own contract with that institutional memory, then you get the results like you point out.

And that is exactly what happened. Several age 58 West pilots became members and got involved while the rest of the West - did not.

 

[nic4us]

Why is that? Is it because you don't like it, that it doesn't give you your windfall? Thought so.

I actually think that the company and USAPA already have a section 22, and that even though the court may modify it, more discussion is not required on either side. In essence, it's already been "delinked" to use another poster's term.

I agree. The company already has a section 22, as stated in their letter of acceptance, seniority at USAirways will be based upon the Nicolau decision, but will not be implemented until there is a joint contract.

USAPA has a wish seniority list they passed to the company. A one sided dream to get a windfall for the east at the West expense. That is their desire for section 22, I doubt they get their way.

But this is all off topic. As to a snap back from LOA93 I sincerely hope you get it, but if 12-31-2009 is simply the new amendable date, you would not snap back to a prior contract. You simply have an amendable agreement, and a countdown to self help could start, and under the current circumstances I am pretty certain that would go nowhere.

As to the age 58 rule, America West was one of the few majors in favor of raising the age 60 rule according to ALPA polling. Believe me when I tell you that the "institutional memory" of those in favor of the change (and are more likely to become involved with USAPA in an attempt to look out for number 1) are in stark contrast with the majority of West pilots. But this begs the question, why would USAPA grant any contract changes, especially West, they should have said no we will change that in the new joint contract. Just like the company did when east asked for parity. Something smells fishy here.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Never mind - answered my own question.

 

[sharktooth]

I agree. The company already has a section 22, as stated in their letter of acceptance, seniority at USAirways will be based upon the Nicolau decision, but will not be implemented until there is a joint contract.

USAPA has a wish seniority list they passed to the company. A one sided dream to get a windfall for the east at the West expense. That is their desire for section 22, I doubt they get their way.

But this is all off topic. As to a snap back from LOA93 I sincerely hope you get it, but if 12-31-2009 is simply the new amendable date, you would not snap back to a prior contract. You simply have an amendable agreement, and a countdown to self help could start, and under the current circumstances I am pretty certain that would go nowhere.

As to the age 58 rule, America West was one of the few majors in favor of raising the age 60 rule according to ALPA polling. Believe me when I tell you that the "institutional memory" of those in favor of the change (and are more likely to become involved with USAPA in an attempt to look out for number 1) are in stark contrast with the majority of West pilots. But this begs the question, why would USAPA grant any contract changes, especially West, they should have said no we will change that in the new joint contract. Just like the company did when east asked for parity. Something smells fishy here.

Wow. Talk about "no idea".

Please have an alternate plan, because you seem headed for a giant, unanticipated, 180.

 

[cubfan]

And that is exactly what happened. Several age 58 West pilots became members and got involved while the rest of the West - did not.

what is age 58 bypass, and how does it work?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I agree. The company already has a section 22, as stated in their letter of acceptance, seniority at USAirways will be based upon the Nicolau decision, but will not be implemented until there is a joint contract.

USAPA has a wish seniority list they passed to the company. A one sided dream to get a windfall for the east at the West expense. That is their desire for section 22, I doubt they get their way.

Okay, I'll bite. Could you please reprint the company's "letter of acceptance" as you call it, of the Nic award. I've been here through most of the process, and don't recall what it says. Oh, and no fair paraphrasing. Just print the contents of the letter. I suspect you'll be looking for it a long while, since the company didn't send one.

The company accepted the USAPA letter just as they did the ALPA one, during the negotiation process.

 

[sharktooth]

Okay, I'll bite. Could you please reprint the company's "letter of acceptance" as you call it, of the Nic award.

Good call. Love to see it also.

 

[luvn737s]

quote name='oldiebutgoody' date='Jan 14 2009, 02:39 PM' post='662922'

Since the age 58 bypass deal was based on age 60 retirements, all the company would have to do is move it to 63. That would be their prerogative under the changed law.

The law change did not permit companies to unilaterally change their labor contracts.

Why fight losing battles?

You'll have to ask Seham that yourself, and hopefully soon. If USAPA couldn't see the bargaining leverage of letting the company off the hook for paying 2 captains for one captain's work for 5 additional years, then perhaps you need to get some more perceptive people at the helm of your, ahem, union

 

[luvn737s]

USAPA is far from perfect. This incident follow in the long tradition of the east ALPA MEC giving the store away for quids that are nebulous at best, and rarely evey materialize after the company has gotten what they want (like the promised "commuter policy" from LOA 91, and the security bypass at every crew base.)

Wha??? They were told it was all ALPA National's fault. USAPA was supposed to be the savior from all the ALPA ills, not merely a rehash of the worst of the worst of AAA ALPA. What else will USAPA give away to "help" the west and encourage participation?

Your exhortation to the west to assist USAPA in the demise of the their own careers is like asking them to give the hijacker some dual instruction rather than try to wrest control from him.

 

[BoeingBoy]

what is age 58 bypass, and how does it work?

It sounds like the same as the East pay-no train. Within X years of retirement, a pilot is paid for an awarded position but not trained to it.

[Edited to delete incorrect info]

Jim