2014 Pilot Discussion

[luvthe9]

Subj: Parkers pay now versus the MOU rates

Bill
I did a cost analysis on what's being offered on the table by Parker for six years and what the MOU rates are with the potential 16% parity review so I added 2% for an 18% parity review pay increase and at the end of the life of each contract the F/Os
would be $20,000 behind parkers offer. To break even with what Parkers offering we're going to need a 22% parity review pay increase in 2016 otherwise we're losing money and that's just for the FO's.
And for a group 2 block holding Captain at 85 hrs per month, they will loose $61,200 over the 6 yrs and that's with an 18% parity review pay increase on 1/1/2016. Again we are going to need a 22% parity review pay increase just to break even with what Mr. Parker is offering!

We need to all able to vote on this.

 

[luvthe9]

Pretty decent turnout at the PHL APA meeting today, including several third-listers. I'm sure they'll have thoughts to add, but here's my (possibly too long) take-away from the meeting...
Most of what was talked about was really a rehash of the updates and conference calls we've had, with very little new information. The bit of information that was new to me, and that I think is pretty significant, is that there is a third option available to us besides reaching an agreement on a JCBA or going to arbitration. Apparently, according to both DiOrio and APA counsel, we can also simply accept the Green Book as is, with no arbitration required. Should we fail to reach a TA, this option would allow us to avoid potentially losing anything in the arbitration, as any work rule changes we ask for would come along with off-setting changes in the company's favor to remain cost-neutral. Agreeing to the Green Book would keep all of AA's language in place, including "reasonably available by ground transportation" on the positive side, and the company's ability to assign R30s out of base on the negative side.
Keeping the Green Book as-is would also, in DiOrio's view, cause the company to come back to us very quickly to negotiate the change to HBT that they are seeking through the JCBA talks. There seems to be a lot of confusion over what the HBT issue entails, so I'll pass along my understanding of it... While FAR 117 calls for the use of local time to establish duty time limits if you're acclimated to the theater, APA negotiated a side letter that requires AA to use Home Base Time instead. As an example, AA's flight HKG-DFW reports at 1240 local time, but that's 0140 DFW time. Using local time, as the company would like to do, allows a 19-hour FDP for a 4-pilot crew using Class I rest facilities; using the contractually mandated HBT only allows a 17-hour FDP. According to a few L-AA guys present, there are already a few routes where using HBT leaves only a very small buffer for delays (about 20 minutes, apparently), while using local time would give more padding for possible delays. According to DiOrio, there are new routes the company would like to start that are either very close to or beyond the limits using HBT. Therefore, the change is very important to the company, and they would be likely to revisit the issue if we keep the Green Book. A separate negotiation on this topic alone would likely allow us to extract more value out of the concession than we currently can in JCBA talks, as we would have significant leverage to value the change in our favor, since it's such a critical issue for the company.
Another change we would see on the US side if we kept the Green Book without arbitration would be that establishment of separate Domestic and International divisions not just for the widebodies, but also for the Airbus fleet. While the company has portrayed joining the divisions as cost-neutral, the reality is that there would be a definite expense to the company, in both staffing and schedule efficiency/optimization, to split the Airbus fleet in each base. Whether any individual pilot values split divisions or not, the fact is that moving away from separate divisions on the AA side saves the company significant money both through improved efficiency/lower staffing on the AA side and through not incurring the expense to establish separate divisions on the US side. Thus, if we entertain giving this up, we should do so only if they are willing to pass on that savings to us through other improvements. Again, we might be able to extract more value from this if we agree to the Green Book in its current form, then allow the company to come back asking us for changes when they realize they won't have an arbitration through which to force the concession.
All of this is not to say that we should be unwilling to entertain these or other changes through the JCBA negotiations; rather, that we should only entertain such changes if they are accompanied by commensurate (or greater) gains. Aside from the reserve callout, most or all of the company's asks, including the HBT and Domestic/International changes, are pretty much industry standard. I'm open to the possibility of changing some of our better than standard provisions to match standard, but not without pay also going up to industry standard. The company's current offer isn't adequate on this front, as it only gives us industry standard-ish pay for the first year, while leaving us to fall farther and farther behind standard in subsequent years of the agreement. Without both a mid-contract adjustment (2018-ish, at least after DL signs their new PWA), and a higher than offered additional percentage to compensate for lack of profit sharing, we should not even be considering concessions to other areas of the contract. Further, whatever percentage we agree on to be added to hourly rates in lieu of profit sharing need to be added not just to the initial rates, but also to the rates that would be established during any mid-contract parity adjustment. For example, if we settle on 7% above DL in lieu of profit sharing, then we need to also add 7% to the rates established in a theoretical new mid-contract review.
I know there's the contingent who believes that we should take the company's final offer, whatever it may be, because it gets us money sooner. While I'm open to voting in favor of a JCBA that, while higher paying than the MTA, doesn't have DL-level pay throughout its duration, I would do so only to the extent that the agreement doesn't also include concessions that would last, in all probability, for the rest of our careers. We collectively decided two years ago, however, that we could accept the MOU/MTA as our contract for the next four years, and I'm ready to stand by that decision if the company chooses not to make modifying it worth while for us.
Finally, DiOrio's view, and I hope he's right, is that enough of the APA BoD is willing to turn down a bad agreement rather than send it out to the pilots for a vote. While it would be fantastic if we could reach an agreement that is worthy of a yes vote, failure of the company to provide an adequate agreement should not be rewarded with a vote. Rather, the negotiating committee and BoD should take responsibility for stopping the offer in its tracks if it doesn't provide more value than it takes away."

 

[Pi brat]

IYou might want to have a chat with Anthony on the C&R's or have 57 relay the info from AP Central.

I'd like to, he seems like a pretty sharp guy!

 

[EastCheats]

I'd like to, he seems like a pretty sharp guy!

He has his moments

 

[oscarjazz]

Idle
Stick aft
Determine direction
Rudder
Stick forward

Can't remember the order

Throttles - Idle
Rudder and Ailerons - Neutral
Stick - Abruptly full aft and hold
Rudder - Abruptly full rudder opposite spin direction (opposite turn needle) and hold
Stick - Abruptly full forward one turn after applying rudder
Controls - Neutral after spinning stops and recover from dive

 

[Piedmont1984]

Throttles - IdleRudder and Ailerons - NeutralStick - Abruptly full aft and holdRudder - Abruptly full rudder opposite spin direction (opposite turn needle) and holdStick - Abruptly full forward one turn after applying rudderControls - Neutral after spinning stops and recover from dive

Show off. Okay so what was the entry speed and G range for a T-38 loop?

 

[Zone5]

Show off. Okay so what was the entry speed and G range for a T-38 loop?

In the F-14,, you just push up the throttles to zone5 afterburner and pull back on the stick! No problem.

 

[Piedmont1984]

In the F-14,, you just push up the throttles to zone5 afterburner and pull back on the stick! No problem.

Yeah well.

Okay, but did you ever do it without a g-suit? It starts to get a little dark coming out of the back side in the 38

 

[oscarjazz]

Show off. Okay so what was the entry speed and G range for a T-38 loop?

You got me there hombre. I think the last time I flew the T-38 I had to drive my Model A to work. I bet if you started at 400-450 and put 4-5 g on your first pull you could make it over the top, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. As a cranky old man now, I am pretty sure I would have to put my checklist on the g-suit test button to give that extra little pressure to make sure I didn't black out in the first fifteen seconds. Ahh, to be young again.

 

[nevergiveup]

I don't recall the J-3 requiring as much effort.

 

[luvthe9]

.Good letter"..................




I am getting letters from Pilots that believe we should take Parker's cost neutral offer now rather than wait until we can improve our contract and take the average of Delta and UAL for pay.

REMEMBER: Parker does nothing out of the goodness of his heart. We are being offered this pay increase now because he believes he can play to our short sighted greed and he gets to enjoy a cost competitive advantage with Delta and United later. Remember in his own words, he has said that for him to successfully compete, he needs at least a 10% cost advantage. That is money out of your pocket.

In the letter "Parker pay verses the MOU Rates," the author only looked at one side of the equation because we have very little information on the value of the company's give back request. Ron was just adding the numbers of the offer and could not give a complete cost analysis without full information. The company designed it's offer that way.

Mark King's letter is also being circulated but I will not publish it since Mark can't be trusted to be accurate and as is usual with him, he politicizes his letter. In fact, he tries to blame the 4 current East APA Board Members as being there when the MOU was signed. Of course, that isn't true and he knows it.

What we do know is that Parker is asking for give backs that will total MORE than the compensation he is now offering. In fact, in an effort to keep the true value hidden, he has refused to give valuations on those give backs, using the excuse that they don't have that information.

Does anyone with half a brain believe this? This company doesn't buy toilet paper without doing a cost analysis on it. They know, but prefer not to divulge this information, least we recognize the deal being offered.

But you can bet your salary next year that they know and they are offering us a substandard contract because they understand that if they wait until next year, it will cost them much much more.

Why have they not just taken the offer off the table and just give us the 3% on January 1st, 2015? Because they need something from us. If we give in to their offer we take inadequate compensation now that is off-set by give backs in this cost neutral contract and leave a great deal more on the table for at least 5 to 10 years. Add that into the equation, and you can see that you are giving up a great deal of money while giving back a greater amount in valuation.

Every contract is a give and take. But now we are asked to give, have no idea how much and take a substandard industry contract for 5 to 10 years. Can you see now why our people and a majority of the APA is standing firm?

We have seen this movie before. i.e." LOA 93, MOU, Pension. Each time we were tricked into taking what we thought was the best offer at the time and found out later, we were short sighted to our detriment and billions of our dollars. Time to change that pattern. We have very good, experienced Reps on the APA BOD. In fact, I have it on good authority that our people have pointed out many fallacies to this offer to the APA that they didn't catch and now realize the lousy offer we are given.

So, if no agreement is reached, we get a 3% raise on Jan. 1st, wait until later in the year to get the average DAL, UAL contract that will in all likelihood, give us a substantial raise and only give up what we want to give up rather than the cost neutral contract that is being offered right now. For many of our pilots that have little time left, taking the money now sounds good (I am included in that list, but I believe we should wait and get a better deal). For those that have years left, we need to do this right because for many, it's the last contract they will ever see.

Unity now more than ever. Parker needs something from us. I believe the APA needs to stand united and firm. If he truly needs us to relax some work rules, we should make him pay dearly for them. He can afford it.

I also believe we should get a vote. But the APA should put it out to a vote only when they are satisfied it is the best deal we can possibly get. If it isn't the best deal we can get, no vote is needed. Otherwise, the company will by-pass the APA and try to convince you that this is not only a good offer, but the best offer. If they do that, you can bet, it is not the best offer.

 

[A320 Driver]

I too would love to have an additional 15% raise on January 1st. But every shred of information I've been able to garner tells me we are financing our own raise. I am still waiting for some official valuations but I am guessing we won't get any help from the company on this and likely won't see any numbers until arbitration where they will most certainly be used against us.
 
I do have a question to throw out there. With all the talk about accepting Green Book as is, the company is going to incur a significant increase in operating cost splitting the groups into Domestic/International. Will that increase be used against us in arbitration? Can the arbitrator reduce our pay to finance additional operating costs having to do with our work rules?
 
Thanks in advance...

 

[end_of_alpa]

I too would love to have an additional 15% raise on January 1st. But every shred of information I've been able to garner tells me we are financing our own raise. I am still waiting for some official valuations but I am guessing we won't get any help from the company on this and likely won't see any numbers until arbitration where they will most certainly be used against us.
 
I do have a question to throw out there. With all the talk about accepting Green Book as is, the company is going to incur a significant increase in operating cost splitting the groups into Domestic/International. Will that increase be used against us in arbitration? Can the arbitrator reduce our pay to finance additional operating costs having to do with out work rules?
 
Thanks in advance...

Ahhh....you mean LIKE THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS????
 
APA and LOA93.1.  The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Phoenix]

..
Mark King's letter is also being circulated but I will not publish it since Mark can't be trusted to be accurate and as is usual with him, he politicizes his letter. In fact, he tries to blame the 4 current East APA Board Members as being there when the MOU was signed. Of course, that isn't true and he knows it.
 

 
I once heard about a neighbor that would lie no matter what question you asked.  Apparently it was so helpful to know he was consistent.  

 

[Phoenix]

I too would love to have an additional 15% raise on January 1st. But every shred of information I've been able to garner tells me we are financing our own raise. I am still waiting for some official valuations but I am guessing we won't get any help from the company on this and likely won't see any numbers until arbitration where they will most certainly be used against us.
 
I do have a question to throw out there. With all the talk about accepting Green Book as is, the company is going to incur a significant increase in operating cost splitting the groups into Domestic/International. Will that increase be used against us in arbitration? Can the arbitrator reduce our pay to finance additional operating costs having to do with our work rules?
 
Thanks in advance...

 
 
The Green Book is our contract.  The company is saving money as they work through the really difficult <<sarcasm>>  process of getting everyone on it (sorta like the reserves getting screwed out of their off days).  If the company wants to argue that we have to pay for the cost of bringing us up to the contract, that would not be abiding by the contract.  And that is why they would try to make us pay for it!