US Pilots Labor Thread 1/13-1/20

[NiceLandingCaptain]

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

That's pretty much correct. Our #1 bidding F/O on the baby bus has been awarded a Captain slot, but is not receiving the left seat training since the award occured within 12 months of his 58th birthday. He does get full Capt. pay and all the other advantages of bidding #1 though. There are now a number of silver haired devil F/O's enjoying this feature of the west contract.

I believe the company wants to modify this on account of the age 60 ruling - but of course is prevented from doing so - unless the collective bargaining unit, aka usapa, were to agree to it.

There-in lies the potential problem.

 

[Megasnoop]

That's pretty much correct. Our #1 bidding F/O on the baby bus has been awarded a Captain slot, but is not receiving the left seat training since the award occured within 12 months of his 58th birthday. He does get full Capt. pay and all the other advantages of bidding #1 though. There are now a number of silver haired devil F/O's enjoying this feature of the west contract.

I believe the company wants to modify this on account of the age 60 ruling - but of course is prevented from doing so - unless the collective bargaining unit, aka usapa, were to agree to it.

There-in lies the potential problem.

Landing, I dont know your contract, but I did check out your section 22. It doesnt mention this age 58 rule. Is it somewhere else? If not, its not a contract issue. The FOM does, but the company modifies the FOM any way they want. If thats the case and its not in your contract, then your barking up the wrong tree again blaming USAPA for something they have no control over. If the company didnt change the policy to 63 and let someone 58+ bid, they would lose that one on age discrimination alone.

Im not sure what your mad about. Sounds like the 58+ers now have to actually bid and be trained to get CA pay, otherwise they lose that #1 FO slot with CA pay. If you a junior West FO, youd want him out of that senior slot, wouldnt you? Awaiting your reply, the snooper.

 

[cubfan]

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

thanks Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Landing, I dont know your contract, but I did check out your section 22. It doesnt mention this age 58 rule. Is it somewhere else?

Im not sure what your mad about. Sounds like the 58+ers now have to actually bid and be trained to get CA pay, otherwise they lose that #1 FO slot with CA pay. If you a junior West FO, youd want him out of that senior slot, wouldnt you? Awaiting your reply, the snooper.

You'll find it in section 24, "VACANCIES"

 

[nic4us]

Wow. Talk about "no idea".

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

Thanks for your concern, I do indeed have an alternate plan which I will implement rather than do a 180.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

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


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

Actually, it did. It REQUIRED change In every area affected by the change in retirement age.

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

I think you'll find that that clause was put in there for COMPANY convenience, not to allow a few apparently lazy folks looking for another windfall a "free ride". The company did not want to spend the resources to train people only to have them leave shortly thereafter.

If you don't like it, grieve it. You'll lose that, too.

 

[fodase]

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.

Captain John H. Prater
President
Air Line Pilots Association, International
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Captain Prater:

We have received the award of the ALPA arbitration board that was hand-delivered to us today by Captain Paul Rice. In accordance with the Transition Agreement between ALPA and US Airways, the Company has determined that the award satisfies the criteria specified for acceptance of a combined seniority list. Accordingly, the award is hereby accepted.

Pursuant to the terms of the Transition Agreement, the award will not be implemented by the Company until we have concluded negotiations over the terms of a single labor agreement covering both pilot groups.

Sincerely,

E. Allen Hemenway
Vice President
Labor Relations

 

[Megasnoop]

You'll find it in section 24, "VACANCIES"

Thanks, oldie. I found it. But clearly not an issue that USAPA could win on. For USAPA to take a stand that a pilot couldnt upgrade for the last 7 years of his career is absurd, but youll find plenty of westies willing to ague the absurd and illegal. Union contracts can override federal laws, but not if they discriminate based on age, race, religion, all that junk. Blaming it on USAPA. Got to love those guys.

AOBTW, I saw a quote from the army of leonidas, encouraging west pilots to join USAPA. Finally, a smart move out there. Their going to inheret this mess in 6 years, if we last that long. They might as well get some input now. Also, I cant wait for the snap-back in pay in December. Ill be making more than a west CA. THAT contract was negotiated with the old US Airways, not with Parker. Edit: Oops, forgot to put in a "Tic-Toc." Anyone who thinks the company is going to negotiate seriously before December is in La-La Land. Until we can do a Secton 6 on them, theyll just show up to fill the square. snooper

 

[cleardirect]

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.

OK someone beat me to it.

As you can see he quite clearly accepts the list. That letter also came with two checks written for $300,000. One for each MEC.

There were no negotiations going on in December 2007. The east MEC and pulled out of joint negotiations sometime in June or July 2007. So no Parker did not receive the list during negotiations. Paul Rice hand delivered it Parker.

Has USAPA received anything like this?

 

[fodase]

OK someone beat me to it.

As you can see he quite clearly accepts the list. That letter also came with two checks written for $300,000. One for each MEC.

There were no negotiations going on in December 2007. The east MEC and pulled out of joint negotiations sometime in June or July 2007. So no Parker did not receive the list during negotiations. Paul Rice hand delivered it Parker.

Has USAPA received anything like this?

What do you want to bet that our eastie friends won't comment further on the list being accepted by the company? after all it doesn't fit into their delusion. I guess they also forget that one of the reason's that the company is not in front of judge wake, is the fact that they have not touched the Nic.

 

[GuntherA320]

OK someone beat me to it.

As you can see he quite clearly accepts the list. That letter also came with two checks written for $300,000. One for each MEC.

There were no negotiations going on in December 2007. The east MEC and pulled out of joint negotiations sometime in June or July 2007. So no Parker did not receive the list during negotiations. Paul Rice hand delivered it Parker.

Has USAPA received anything like this?

Did I misread that last paragraph where it says, "The award will not be implemented until negotiations for a single labor agreement covering both pilot groups can be concluded'?" Maybe this is because negotiations could change this agreement. Just saying.

On another note, had dinner with a West Captain last night here in CLT. Just happened to meet him in the lobby of the eating establishment. He was easy to spot. He had on a leather jacket and got out of the Crown Plaza van. Asked him to join our party and he accepted. We had a great time. No politics other than the jumpseat issue discussed. Can't we all just get along?

 

[nic4us]

OK someone beat me to it.

As you can see he quite clearly accepts the list. That letter also came with two checks written for $300,000. One for each MEC.

There were no negotiations going on in December 2007. The east MEC and pulled out of joint negotiations sometime in June or July 2007. So no Parker did not receive the list during negotiations. Paul Rice hand delivered it Parker.

Has USAPA received anything like this?

Thanks, Clear and Fodase, I also have a copy of the letter in PDF format but was unable to attach to post.

This deserves more debate because I cannot believe the east is totally unaware of this letter. This letter was posted in the Phoenix crewroom, placed in the read file and a copy put in every West pilots v-file. The West is certainly aware of it, and I cannot believe the east has no knowledge of it. One thing missing from the letter is the date of 12-17-2007.

Either there is A.-someone-thing on the east keeping the rank and file intentionally uninformed, or B.-someone on the West is playing us with misinformation. I believe it to be huge problem on the east because my copy of this letter is a pdf of evidence in a federal court. However, there could be a third party C.-(i.e. company) playing games trying to manage some expectations. I figure it is most likely a combination of A and C.

 

[nic4us]

Did I misread that last paragraph where it says, "The award will not be implemented until negotiations for a single labor agreement covering both pilot groups can be concluded'?" Maybe this is because negotiations could change this agreement. Just saying.

On another note, had dinner with a West Captain last night here in CLT. Just happened to meet him in the lobby of the eating establishment. He was easy to spot. He had on a leather jacket and got out of the Crown Plaza van. Asked him to join our party and he accepted. We had a great time. No politics other than the jumpseat issue discussed. Can't we all just get along?

You are correct, that is what the last paragraph says, as spelled out in the TA. Perhaps negotiations could change the agreement, but any reordering of the Nic list would be detrimental to some group, and therefore the union would have actively failed in its DFR, as it persues harm to a minority.

Hope your cordial invite has helped open some doors to better relations as it pertains to jumpseat.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Im not sure what your mad about. Sounds like the 58+ers now have to actually bid and be trained to get CA pay, otherwise they lose that #1 FO slot with CA pay. If you a junior West FO, youd want him out of that senior slot, wouldnt you?

Would a more junior F/O rather have that senior F/O out of the F/O seat or get a Capt bid sooner because the senior F/O isn't filling that Capt slot? Just as under the East contract except for the length of time, the pay-no train results in 2 pilots getting Capt pay for each pilot that doesn't get trained - the pilot getting only the pay and the pilot trained to fill the vacancy. From the pilot's perspective it's the best of all possibilities except for those few that want to be trained to the new position but are prevented from doing so.

Of course, the last thing that the company wants is to pay 2 pilots for the same position unless it's cheaper for them. Hence the company desire to have a short enough pay-no train period that training cost outweighs the cost of paying someone but not training them.

Jim

PS added: As I recall, the law raising the retirement age only required contract changes if the contract contradicted the law - i.e. if the contract required retirement at age 60 the federal law would apply.

 

[Megasnoop]

PS added: As I recall, the law raising the retirement age only required contract changes if the contract contradicted the law - i.e. if the contract required retirement at age 60 the federal law would apply.

Well, Jimmy, if keeping someone out of the left for 7 years isnt a violation of seniority and federal law, I dont know what is. But for the Westies, if our "no-upgrade after 59 1/2" and there "no upgrade after 58" was allowed to stay, theyd get the next 2,000 or so upgrades. Easy to see why their whipped up over this and blaming usapa. snooper.