2014 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

I'm on sick leave about to go on LTD. So even though I have 2 years and 3 months left, nobody can accuse me of 'pulling up the ladder'.

 
 
I pray it's nothing of the life-threatening nature and that you'll see the better ending of it. Take care, heal fast, if at all possible and may God Bless. My personal "checklist", for what very little it's worth sir? Wow!...Woke up again!/Ain't dead yet! = Check (Whoda' thunk?) Opposable thumbs and a regular pulse? = Check. Another day of life? = Check/etc....All the rest is gravy. I find all I really need to do's a check back in time to recall the more "iffy" times in which the aforementioned happy circumstances might well have not now prevailed...Just sayin' Brother.

 

[Claxon]

.
12/04/2014     Marty Harper Letter to O'Dwyer
12/16/2014     O'Dwyer Letter to Marty Harper
12/23/2014     Marty Harper Letter to O'Dwyer

 

[luvthe9]

Found on the Internet.......some valid points.





I have been contacted by many pilots on here and talked to quite a few more and there are opinions all across the spectrum as to whether this offer by the company should be taken or rejected. I appreciate everyone that has contacted me for giving me their opinions. It helps when I get them so I can pass some of that information to the Reps.

First of all, the APA BOD HAS NOT SEEN THE OFFICIAL PROPOSAL. What they have seen is press releases from the company in their effort to by-pass the union and persuade you to take their deal sight unseen. They will get the official document along with recommendations by the Negotiating Committee and lawyers as well as the opinions of the other Board members in an effort to decide their next move.

So, it was disconcerting to say the least when out of no where and without input from the Reps, USAPA decided to place itself into the middle of the negotiations. Remember, USAPA is no longer a union and does not represent you in these negotiations. It is now just a company whose sole purpose is to fight for our seniority rights and has no leadership direction except what Gary Hummel dictates. Who paid for this so called 'study?' Where did the information come from that they know for a fact is correct? If this is not a violation of any protocols, it is at the very least bad form. The information that came out of it is incomplete, could very well be misleading and could harm any future negotiations with the company. In fact, it plays into the hands of the company to influence you before the APA has seen the official document.

Sounds once more like Gary Hummel, who obviously OK' d this, to help the company at the expense of the pilots. The pattern continues. USAPA should keep their noses out of APA business and stick only to items concerning our seniority. They no longer represent the pilots here but represent the sole views of Gary Hummel and maybe the company with no oversight from a BPR.
What is Hummel's motivation for getting so involved in a contract dispute that he is not a part of, unless it's to sway you to sign off on something that the company needs? I don't trust him and never will with what I know. Take my word for it, you shouldn't either and at some point in the future, I will explain why. But all litigation needs to be completed first.

Let me give you some examples of what we may be giving up by just signing off on this proposal.
There is limited wide-body protection for US Airways pilots meaning there will be a reduction in Group III without the A-321 being considered a Group III airplane so many pilots will take a downgrade and many more will end up on reserve. Also, furloughed pilots will have limited credit for their Length of Service. This is just two examples that need to be discussed at the next meeting.

So, let me once again emphasize this. The APA BOD has not seen any official document from the company and has only seen a press release by the company. The devil is always in the details. What we have not seen is what we are giving up, how much this will cost us in quality of life issues and we are being told we have no time to discuss it or ask questions or even put it out to a vote by the pilots as was contemplated in the MOU and signed by both the company and the unions. Oh, how history repeats itself.

I know the Reps feel that they are disappointed with the quality of life issues that the company refuses to address. But that does not mean they will reject it. Nothing has been decided!

There is also the problem of signing off on this proposal and not having every detailed spelled out in contract form before hand. We have seen how the company has had us sign off on an incomplete document in a rush only to implement the contract in ways we never intended. Then we when object, we are told to "Grieve it." That is how we ended up with over 500 grievances. We definitely don't want to repeat that mistake.

The meeting of the APA Board in January 2, 2015. At that meeting, they will listen to the Negotiating Committee, read the actual document, listen to advisors and the other Board Members and have a change to ask their own questions. Then, they will vote on what they believe is best for the pilots here. Make your opinions known, but remember that neither you nor they have seen anything official that can be trusted. These men are pilot advocates and they understand everyone wants more money. But after the dust settles, will you blame them if you insist on more money only to find that your quality of life has substantially deteriorated? Give them a chance to do what you elected them to do.

 

[EastUS1]

You guys gonna sell cheap to a purple tutu?  

 
 
Be fair to our fellows! Consider the fearful awe necessarily inspired by the purple wig alone! You best watch yourself, lest any readers even incorrectly assume you've less than the fullest "proper respect" for a purple-wigged-and-tutu attired, cross-dressing-washout....Just sayin'....  
 
The Duke of Wellington: "I used to say of him [Napoleon] that his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men."   Given that?....Just even TRY to imagine the inestimably vast "leadership" worth of purple wigs and tutus?...Or drunken-frat-boy Gangnam style "suits"?
 
Perhaps the announcement protocols for the "new American Airlines" should be amended somewhat: "Hello Ladies and Gentlemen...and welcome aboard/etc...even though we work for purple-wigged-cross-dressing/gangnam-styled, greed-soaked, infantile narcissists, without so much as a clue as to how to fly a plane, or even personally drive without getting arrested, well...you folks are now in the hands of actual adults at the moment"....? I'd think there should be some bonus for that last part...but I've no tutus, so what do I know?
 
P.S. An immediate "minus vote"? I now see my moral error. First thing tomorrow, I'll go see about getting some purple wigs and tutus.  A man's gotta' command at least some slight "respect" in life, after all.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
 
Maybe we need to go to arbitration so we can hurry up our next two pay raises.

 
If we are to reject the company proposal, then we should NOT go to arbitration, immediately accept the current Green Book as the JCBA (which is always an option since the contract is not yet amendable) and move on from there.
 
I see no sense in buying what we want from ourselves in a cost neutral arbitration.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
 
He must buy them from us.  

 
That is a false statement.  He must submit to arbitration, which is cost neutral for him.  That is all he MUST do right now.  We are not in Section 6 negotiations, and the sooner that sinks in, the better.
 
(And he will get to submit his own cost profiles to the arbitrator, who will give the company preference...they always do...to those figures.)

 

[Phoenix]

 
That is a false statement.  He must submit to arbitration, which is cost neutral for him.  That is all he MUST do right now.  We are not in Section 6 negotiations, and the sooner that sinks in, the better.
 
(And he will get to submit his own cost profiles to the arbitrator, who will give the company preference...they always do...to those figures.)

 
 
As long as he is asking for contract concessions then we can ask for contract improvements.  That is a fact.  The  "Crew News" bullet about "Section 6 Negotiations" and "cost neutral"....  Both are misleading misrepresentations by Parker.
 
He wants 7 concessions and the only way he gets them is buying them from us.  That is why he didn't go to arbitration more than a month ago when he could have.  Those concessions are not in the Green Book and the Green Book is the back stop for us in arbitration.   

 

[A320 Driver]

i

As long as he is asking for contract concessions then we can ask for contract improvements.  That is a fact.  The  "Crew News" bullet about "Section 6 Negotiations" and "cost neutral"....  Both are misleading misrepresentations by Parker.
 
He wants 7 concessions and the only way he gets them is buying them from us.  That is why he didn't go to arbitration more than a month ago when he could have.  Those concessions are not in the Green Book and the Green Book is the back stop for us in arbitration.

As long as he is asking for contract concessions then we can ask for contract improvements.  That is a fact.  The  "Crew News" bullet about "Section 6 Negotiations" and "cost neutral"....  Both are misleading misrepresentations by Parker.
 
He wants 7 concessions and the only way he gets them is buying them from us.  That is why he didn't go to arbitration more than a month ago when he could have.  Those concessions are not in the Green Book and the Green Book is the back stop for us in arbitration.

So, you are saying $1.8 BILLION is not enough money to buy $120 MILLION in concessions?
You need a new calculator...

 

[Piedmont1984]

Luv posted:

"Let me give you some examples of what we may be giving up by just signing off on this proposal.
There is limited wide-body protection for US Airways pilots meaning there will be a reduction in Group III without the A-321 being considered a Group III airplane so many pilots will take a downgrade and many more will end up on reserve. Also, furloughed pilots will have limited credit for their Length of Service. This is just two examples that need to be discussed at the next meeting."

____________________________

The whole issue of widebody flying, protecting it, sharing it, accessing it, allocating it, etc will be the subject of SLI arbitration. If our widebody flying is moved to LAA bases then our pilots should be able to follow that time, both for current block hours and future deliveries. Same goes for LOS credit. It too will be addressed, after all, what was the last ten years all about?

Let's not forget that the issues of pay and QOL will be determined not only by the JCBA, but also the SLI to follow on its heels. Upgrades and movement to bigger equipment are pay increases. In fact, what the LUS group missed out on in the MOU (equity payout for example) could conceivably be recaptured in the SLI in other ways.

It's certainly a big if and will certainly be a hot topic - just sayin, strap in.

 

[A320 Driver]

We are losing the 767s. That had nothing to do with contractural language. My guess is that bringing INTL and DOM together WILL cost some positions, but it won't be on our side of the house. Maybe it will even level the playing field somewhat... Who knows?

The 3 for 1 widebody protection was in MOU I. It's gone as will this offer if we fumble it. Elevating the A321s to 757 was a bargaining position, not a given.

 

[A320 Driver]

So, it was disconcerting to say the least when out of no where and without input from the Reps, USAPA decided to place itself into the middle of the negotiations. Remember, USAPA is no longer a union and does not represent you in these negotiations. It is now just a company whose sole purpose is to fight for our seniority rights and has no leadership direction except what Gary Hummel dictates. Who paid for this so called 'study?' Where did the information come from that they know for a fact is correct? If this is not a violation of any protocols, it is at the very least bad form. The information that came out of it is incomplete, could very well be misleading and could harm any future negotiations with the company. In fact, it plays into the hands of the company to influence you before the APA has seen the official document.
Sounds once more like Gary Hummel, who obviously OK' d this, to help the company at the expense of the pilots. The pattern continues. USAPA should keep their noses out of APA business and stick only to items concerning our seniority. They no longer represent the pilots here but represent the sole views of Gary Hummel and maybe the company with no oversight from a BPR.
What is Hummel's motivation for getting so involved in a contract dispute that he is not a part of, unless it's to sway you to sign off on something that the company needs? I don't trust him and never will with what I know.

OMG! How the heck did you ever come up with THIS? John does us a favor and does a breakdown and all of a sudden it's the great USAPA "Who done it?"?

 

[luvthe9]

OMG! How the heck did you ever come up with THIS? John does us a favor and does a breakdown and all of a sudden it's the great USAPA "Who done it?"?

Don't shoot the messenger......dude, Just something to think about.

 

[TBONEJ4J]

OMG! How the heck did you ever come up with THIS? John does us a favor and does a breakdown and all of a sudden it's the great USAPA "Who done it?"?

Not a favor and not a breakdown. John's 'breakdown' is no more than a sales-pitch. An online version of the glossy 'Flight Plan to a Merger' brochure.  Focusing exclusively on the shiny payrate surrounded by verbal fluff.  No genuine comparative analysis, no genuine evaluation of concessionary values, no objective assessment of any of the cons of embracing the company's bullet points.
 
John is an MBA wannabe.  He idolizes those who call themselves businessmen and desperately wants two things: more money and to be a
suit wearer on a regular basis.  He is so blinded by these desires that he can't see the used car salesman in the mirror.  In case the self-adulation gets in the way John, 'used car-salesman' is a businessman of sorts I suppose, but not really. 
 
No savvy businessman would sign on to an unwritten contract by agreeing to the other parties bullet-points only, with details to be determined. later.  To do so makes one a 'sucker', not a 'businessman'.

 

[EastCheats]

Be fair to our fellows! Consider the fearful awe necessarily inspired by the purple wig alone! You best watch yourself, lest any readers even incorrectly assume you've less than the fullest "proper respect" for a purple-wigged-and-tutu attired, cross-dressing-washout....Just sayin'....  
 
The Duke of Wellington: "I used to say of him [Napoleon] that his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men."   Given that?....Just even TRY to imagine the inestimably vast "leadership" worth of purple wigs and tutus?...Or drunken-frat-boy Gangnam style "suits"?
 
Perhaps the announcement protocols for the "new American Airlines" should be amended somewhat: "Hello Ladies and Gentlemen...and welcome aboard/etc...even though we work for purple-wigged-cross-dressing/gangnam-styled, greed-soaked, infantile narcissists, without so much as a clue as to how to fly a plane, or even personally drive without getting arrested, well...you folks are now in the hands of actual adults at the moment"....? I'd think there should be some bonus for that last part...but I've no tutus, so what do I know?
 
P.S. An immediate "minus vote"? I now see my moral error. First thing tomorrow, I'll go see about getting some purple wigs and tutus.  A man's gotta' command at least some slight "respect" in life, after all.

While others are debating arbitration and the contract, you obsess and spew gobbledygook.

At least you don't have to worry about someone stealing the package UPS punted to your doorstep.

View attachment 10544

 

[luvthe9]

Not a favor and not a breakdown. John's 'breakdown' is no more than a sales-pitch. An online version of the glossy 'Flight Plan to a Merger' brochure.  Focusing exclusively on the shiny payrate.............


 
No savvy businessman would sign on to an unwritten contract by agreeing to the other parties bullet-points only, with details to be determined. later.  To do so makes one a 'sucker', not a 'businessman'.

Geez, the boys signed on to LOA93 and the MOU in that fashion.