2014 Pilot Discussion

[end_of_alpa]

 
I agree.  Years ago it was "take the concessions and live to fight another day."  We did.  Now, it's "take the money and live to fight another day."
 
We are incredulous that the flight attendants walked away from a better deal than they could possibly get in arbitration, even after APFA (reportedly) made great efforts to educate their membership that the vote was a take-it-or-leave-it deal, and not a Section 6 type of negotiation.  
 
I flew back from Europe on the day after the vote closed, and incredibly, the "no" voters on the crew thought either: 1) now the company will give us something better since we "showed them" our resolve, or 2) the arbitration will use the rejected company offer as a starting point.  I told them to talk to their union and find out for themselves that they had shot themselves in the foot.
 
Now, the APA is in the hotseat, but the APA Board is thinking like to no-voter flight attendants.  We get the knee-jerk RJ response that it will mean loss of mainline jobs.  Prove it.  Show us the analysis.  Although I hate to agree with Kirby, he does have a point that every extra seat in an RJ brings that many more customers into our hubs where they stand a good chance of making a mainline flight necessary in place of what had been RJ routes.  It makes some sense.
 
Parker has publicly stated that the flight attendant offer is still on the table if the APFA wants to send it out for another vote.  I think that's a generous offer that he has no obligation to make.  (I hate it that I am defending him, but he could certainly save money by telling the APFA to go pound sand and "see you in arbitration.")
 
The APA arbitration will be far less lucrative than the company offer, and,  since the deadline has passed, we are treading on thin ice because tomorrow morning Parker might just say: "Sorry guys, the timeline dictates arbitration now and that is where we are going.  You get what you negotiate, and arbitration is it."
 
With retirement attrition at historical highs, and the barriers to new entrant pilots also at historical highs, I cannot imagine how giving up on scope here can possibly endanger APA jobs any time soon.  The numbers just don't add up the way they did a decade and a half ago when RJs were a real threat.  Let's think 2014, and not 1999.
 
 
 
I think you mean APFA.   AMFA is a mechanics union, I think.

You're right.  Sorry Padre.  Well said, BTW.  This story isn't going to bode well for APA.

 

[end_of_alpa]

 
No need to post on an anonymous web board now that we have a union that has a forum and isn't afraid of dissent.

Yep.  From what I heard the guys over there are planning job actions.  You go for it!

 

[end_of_alpa]

 
No question the company is doing their typical sleaze-bag act by attempting to pull a Section 6-type "negotiation" outside of Section 6..  But does anyone really think Parker and Kirby care deep down whether or not they alienate the pilots?  The pilot can do nothing of substance.  APA and USAPA have both seen what the federal courts will do when the company goes crying to the judge.
 
We are claiming the "moral high ground" from people who have no morals to begin with.  Let's show them what a real pyrrhic victory is.
 
The company is under no obligation to "give" us anything.  Forcing an arbitration might well have been their plan all along...we will never know.
 
But having the "big" raise a year early certainly makes the pilots' lives that much easier, as well as making the follow-on 3% raises that much larger, also raising the 401K contributions by that much more, and getting a larger salary look-back when some of us geriatrics find us medically disqualified.
 
But "let's show 'em" anyway.  We have zero leverage in this situation, other than to say: "No!"  By saying that we walk away from substantial quids, for which the quos are minor in light of the present industry situation.  I must admit that, during the conference call last night, I anxiously waited to hear the response to one pilot's question on our leverage in this situation.  The answer from the board member was ludicrous; all old-time-union boilerplate, with really no chance of effectiveness.  Pilots waging battle against the company in the "court of public opinion"?  Get real, APA.

You ..... QUITTER!  You......BAD PERSON!  You .....MEAN MAN!  You....oh wait, I thought I was at a union meeting for a minute.
 
Well said.
 
That court of public opinion is going to bite them real good: 
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/mitchell-schnurman/20141117-union-trouble-at-aa-say-it-aint-so.ece

 

[crazystnic]

Current rate on

1/1/15

Group 2 f/o

126.84 x 85 = 10,781

Company offer

149.80x 85= 12,733

Parity

Even with no DL raise

1/1/16
146.04 x 85 = 12,413

And our current MTA is 3.5 percent every jan thru 2018.

Company wants an extra year to not improve your working conditions.

So your giving up just under 2000 a month for one year.

Check your math

 

[crazystnic]

No question the company is doing their typical sleaze-bag act by attempting to pull a Section 6-type "negotiation" outside of Section 6..  But does anyone really think Parker and Kirby care deep down whether or not they alienate the pilots?  The pilot can do nothing of substance.  APA and USAPA have both seen what the federal courts will do when the company goes crying to the judge.
 
We are claiming the "moral high ground" from people who have no morals to begin with.  Let's show them what a real pyrrhic victory is.
 
The company is under no obligation to "give" us anything.  Forcing an arbitration might well have been their plan all along...we will never know.
 
But having the "big" raise a year early certainly makes the pilots' lives that much easier, as well as making the follow-on 3% raises that much larger, also raising the 401K contributions by that much more, and getting a larger salary look-back when some of us geriatrics find us medically disqualified.
 
But "let's show 'em" anyway.  We have zero leverage in this situation, other than to say: "No!"  By saying that we walk away from substantial quids, for which the quos are minor in light of the present industry situation.  I must admit that, during the conference call last night, I anxiously waited to hear the response to one pilot's question on our leverage in this situation.  The answer from the board member was ludicrous; all old-time-union boilerplate, with really no chance of effectiveness.  Pilots waging battle against the company in the "court of public opinion"?  Get real, APA.

The disability is capped at 8000 and 60 percent of gross. So you are already there

 

[nevergiveup]

So what is the motive behind the company's offer? A=They believe it will save them $$$ over the long term. They're not stupid. They don't want the MOU rates. If you are in your last years here, then you will want to take the money and run. 60 and younger(est), let it go to arbitration. We know this management far too well.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Current rate on

1/1/15

Group 2 f/o

126.84 x 85 = 10,781

Company offer

149.80x 85= 12,733

Parity

Even with no DL raise

1/1/16
146.04 x 85 = 12,413

And our current MTA is 3.5 percent every jan thru 2018.

Company wants an extra year to not improve your working conditions.

So your giving up just under 2000 a month for one year.

Check your math

But you have to work the numbers in value for ALL the pilots from BOTH PERIODS and compare their values side by side.
 
Secondly, that extra year will give us more time to bring the pilots together.  Many say we ARE together.  You mean, like we said at.....ALPA?  Like we said at......USAPA?  Like we said......I think you get the point.

 

[nevergiveup]

Is the company trying to trick us into signing something?
 
Yes.
 
Can we trust them?
 
Based on the 3% issue, absolutely not!

 

[nycbusdriver]

The disability is capped at 8000 and 60 percent of gross. So you are already there

 
I am one of, what?, 14,000?
 
Do we not have f/o's going out on disability?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Is the company trying to trick us into signing something?
 
Yes.
 
Can we trust them?
 
Based on the 3% issue, absolutely not!

 
We are far from being able to trust them.  However, they did say they wished to work within the framework of their own proposal.  Okay, then...demand rock solid language before signing.
 
Are they trying to "trick us"?   Maybe.  Don't we pay very expensive lawyers to avoid just that?  Where are they?  Golfing?

 

[nycbusdriver]

So your giving up just under 2000 a month for one year.

Check your math

 
...and you're giving up the more valuable "3% of the higher figure" in following years.
 
...and the larger 401K contributions.

 

[Piedmont1984]

EOA

You should know this.

Does a change in bargaining agents automatically trigger Section 6 negotiations?

Does a card drive and subsequent representational election take precedence over arbitration?

Is the wooden card box still available and will it hold 15,000 cards?

'84

 

[Hawkhunter]

Working conditions? Why would we give back anything? Oh well, enough said.

 

[end_of_alpa]

EOA

You should know this.

Does a change in bargaining agents automatically trigger Section 6 negotiations?

Does a card drive and subsequent representational election take precedence over arbitration?

Is the wooden card box still available and will it hold 15,000 cards?

'84

Nope.  Nope.  Nope. And....NOPE!  I know nutting, nutting, nutting.  OK Sgt. Shultze....get back to work.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Nope.  Nope.  Nope. And....NOPE!  I know nutting, nutting, nutting.  OK Sgt. Shultze....get back to work.

Bummer. Okay thanks. Just for my edification, what I meant was does the card drive and subsequent election delay the JCBA arbitration until the election results are in?