2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
EastCheats
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2012
- 1,944
- 6,141
You have a vote, use it. Those who don't, should not complain.EastUS1 said:
EastCheats said:
Thanks so very much for both your kind permission and sage advice youngster.
Vote "you'se" self a hearty Yes and don't mind me. I won't be the one complaining, but just left shaking my head (as i am at this moment) while pocketing a few more coins prior to exiting. "You'se" will later be complaining for many years to come.EastCheats: "Delta, Delta, Delta..give it a rest..." If this whole, pathetic scenario wasn't so just plain sad, it'd be worth some hearty laughs...
nycbusdriver
Veteran
EastUS1 said:
The sad thing is that, in the COST NEUTRAL arbitration, we will likely get most of these anyway. But, instead of being paid for them, we will be the ones paying for them.
EastCheats
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2012
- 1,944
- 6,141
With the industry leading contract USAPA provided, I should let you and Luv lead me to the promised land of the NO-it-alls.EastUS1 said:Thanks so very much for both your kind permission and sage advice.
EastCheats: "Delta, Delta, Delta..give it a rest..." If this whole, pathetic scenario wasn't so just plain sad, it'd be worth some hearty laughs...
EastCheats said:With the industry leading contract USAPA provided, I should let you and Luv lead me to the promised land of the NO-it-alls.
This has NOTHING to do with any time prior to the present, nor any hopelessly immature, adolescent angst that you can't seem to even momentarily part with. It's all about just what climate of rewards/constraints or lack thereof you will have for years to come. I'd previously noted that at least a few of the truly stupidest people alive must post/"vote" here. "You'se" needn't further substantiate the validity of that observation.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
I missed the part of getting over 42 days vacation in our new industry leading contract, can you show me where that is?EastCheats said:With the industry leading contract USAPA provided, I should let you and Luv lead me to the promised land of the NO-it-alls.
EastCheats
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2012
- 1,944
- 6,141
When was the last time US Airways had a profit prior to the acquisition in 2005?luvthe9 said:
Tell us what it's like to live under bankruptcy LOA 93 wages.
NIC will be presented.
No DOH got you upset?
AWE
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
Present anything you like, we know how that will work. Tell us what is it like to be locked in PHX with no future while the rest of us enjoy massive upward movement and upgrades.EastCheats said:
APA will not entertain you scabs. They are not your friends as much as you ars kiss them. You kids should sell some more ties for next suit against the APA.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
If anyone is going out on a medical you are so screwed............
IS GIVING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE MEDICAL BENEFITS IN RETURN FOR THE $$ A YEAR EARLIER REALLY WORTH IT?
INDIVIDUALLY, WELL ALL FIND OUT
Dear PHL Pilots,
As we approach the last few days of voting, we want to go over what we believe to be the most important issue before us: If we vote affirmatively for this JCBA, we shall, (without any question) be voting to completely lose, forever, the right and ability to negotiate our medical benefits, in exchange for a significant but very temporary hourly pay-rate advantage over our peers at Delta. As the Green Book is written, today, Supplement K allows the company to make some changes to our medical benefits. If the JCBA passes however, the company will then be permitted to make any changes it desires, including terminating the standard and/or core options and we will have ZERO recourse.
While the companys Dec. 23 ultimatum includes several troublesome concessions, it is our opinion that the most serious concession is the ability for this management team to reduce or eliminate the medical benefits of pilots, spouses and our dependents. Unlike today, we would be powerless to do anything to prevent it; that is the language of the JCBA on which we are now voting.
And before anyone criticizes us for not acknowledging the positive, we acknowledge the companys Dec. 23 ultimatum has industry-leading pay rates through at least 2015. Beyond that is anyones guess. By the same logic, it would be disingenuous to ignore the past and likely future successes of the pilots at Delta in their negotiations with management. Their last contract set the standard for compensation and benefits and their next contract will likely do so again this year. Did we mention that Delta traditionally settles their pilot contracts early in the negotiating process?
While no one ever believes illness will come knocking on their door, ask yourself this very simple question: Is waiting another year for a substantial pay raise worth the ability to provide adequate health coverage for yourself and your family? Just as important, ask yourself this question: By voting yes and thus giving away APAs ability to collectively negotiate many of your health benefits, do you really trust this management team to do the right thing and maintain medical coverage above the absolute minimum required by law, if by doing so will result in increased cost to the corporation?
The tease facing pilots is to accept the companys Dec. 23 take-it-or-leave-it proposal and with it, agree to a one-sided LOA 15-02 process that will ultimately permit the company to modify, reduce, or eliminate our medical benefits and we will be powerless to do anything to stop it OR we can wait 11 months and receive much of that raise anyway and prevent the company from potentially decimating our medical benefits.
We believe trading health coverage for a raise a year earlier is extremely shortsighted, not to mention potentially both medical and financial insanity. And yes, we fully understand the pay differential lost until next Januarys mid-contract adjustment may never be recouped; however, in return, we will not give the company an absolute right to modify or terminate our current health benefits. While no one ever believes serious illness will affect them or their family, is a reduced or eliminated medical benefit/coverage really worth trading for a pay bump a year earlier?
As of today, the only contractual option that is excluded from the benefits tax is the core option. This means the company will have the ability to either modify or possibly eliminate the standard option. Further, unlike today, we will not be able to do anything to prevent it.
Below are the 10 steps that outline the process from LOA 15-02, Benefits Excise Tax. If, after reading the procedure below, you truly feel comfortable with what may occur with respect to your medical benefits, then maybe you can vote yes. However, if you, like us, believe you can wait another 11 months for a significant pay bump, while not granting any concessions, medical benefits and otherwise, then you may want to consider voting no.
Below is the actual language and agreed-to process with our comments in red:
1) In the event the Company determines the Standard or Core design options provided for in this agreement would be or become subject to an excise tax or penalty.
The problem with this sentence is twofold. First, APA has absolutely no say in making the determination. Second, the words would be means if the company believes a penalty or tax will occur sometime in the future, they are free to begin the process outlined in LOA 15-02 beforehand. Just how much in advance of the actual tax or penalty remains to be seen. 2016, 2017? Remember, with this language the company can implement this LOA well in advance of the tax or penalty ever occurring.
2) The Company will meet and confer in good faith in order to reach agreement with the Union concerning the minimum modification or modifications necessary to avoid application of excise tax or other penalty.
If you think the meet and confer language allows us to negotiate the requested modifications, think again. Former Negotiating Committee chairman DiOrio, became very familiar with this language. During east-west contract negotiations, we met and conferred with the company regarding the A330 crew rest facility. The company made it very clear from the onset that meet and confer was not a negotiation; rather, it was the company explaining to us what they were going to do, and while they would listen to our input/concerns, we were unable to change it. Many of the same individuals who told us what meet and confer meant then are the key players today. So if you believe meet and confer has some different meaning for this process, youd better think again. If the company intended for this to be a negotiation, they would have used negotiation in the language rather than meet and confer.
3) If the Company and Union are unable to agree on modifications necessary to avoid the application of the excise tax or other penalty on the Affected Option within 90 days of the initial meeting, the parties will select Arbitrator Bloch who will determine the modifications to the design of the Affected Option that will become applicable.
So assuming APA does not sign off on the companys planned benefit modifications (reduced medical benefits), then an arbitrator will determine the medical benefits for pilots, spouses and dependents. Does anybody else believe having an arbitrator possibly determine the medical benefits for pilots at the worlds largest and most profitable airline is unbelievable?
4) If Arbitrator Bloch determines no reasonable practical modification to the Affected Option can guarantee no excise tax or other penalty will apply then the Company shall have the right to terminate the availability of the Affected Option to the Pilots.
We are asking an arbitrator to GUARANTEE the company will not be subject to the tax or other penalty. Well go out on a limb and speculate that arbitrator Bloch will be unable (or unwilling) to guarantee the application of the tax or penalty will not apply, and therefore the company will then have the right to terminate the affected option.
Lets recap. 1) Company makes determination. 2) Meet and confer, aka, this is the benefit or plan we are going to eliminate. 3) Arbitrator unable to guarantee no tax or penalty will occur. 4) Company can terminate the affected option(s).
The problem with this process is if the company wants to eliminate or modify an option, all they have to do is determine the option would be subject to an excise tax or penalty (its irrelevant whether or not it is ultimately subject to the tax or penalty, step 10 below ) and just jump through a few hoops to either reduce the benefit or terminate an option.
In reality, the above language translates to: In the event the Company determines the Standard or Core design options provided for in this agreement would be or become subject to an excise tax or penalty (step 1) then the Company shall have the right to terminate the availability of the Affected Option to the Pilots (step 4). Steps 2 and 3 are only there for optics.
5) If under number 4 above, the Company has terminated or would have the right to terminate the availability of the Pilots Standard and/or the Core Option, the arbitrator will be empowered to design an alternative Option design that is available from the Company provider and that replicates the provisions of the Core Option to the greatest possible extent without causing the New Option to become subject to the excise tax or other penalty.
We read this a few times to confirm we understood what was agreed to. Unfortunately, it was understood correctly the first time. If the company has the right to terminate an option, then we are agreeing to allow an arbitrator to design our medical option(s). Aside from the absurdity of this provision, does anyone actually believe arbitrator Bloch is really going to mandate a medical plan for 15,000 AA pilots? My guess is hell punt it back to the company (see 6 below).
6) If Arbitrator Bloch has not issued a determination prior to the excise tax or penalty becoming due or if such penalty or excise tax is otherwise owed for any reason, notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, the Company shall be permitted to implement such modifications to the design of the Affected Option as it considers to be necessary to avoid the excise tax or penalty.
Once again, this process permits the company to implement anything on which it wants to avoid paying the tax or penalty. Putting our skepticism aside, does anyone truly believe we will not ultimately end up at numbers 4 and 6 above?
7) If any Option is modified or eliminated the parties will meet and confer to determine how the savings, if any, from such modifications will accrue to the pilots.
Here we go again with this meet and confer language. We dont know about you, but we would much rather have the medical benefit when we need it rather than a few dollars more a month via a reduced benefit. Were willing to bet the money distributed to the pilots that will be generated from the medical benefit reduction/savings will pale in comparison to what it will cost that same pilot to go onto the market and buy a similar replacement benefit.
Alternatively, assuming we dont negotiate another JCBA, which we believe will occur, we can wait 11 months for our raise and not give up anything in return.
8) The saving from the avoidance of the excise tax will not be considered in the savings calculation.
Why is the company realizing 100% of the tax savings yet the pilots and their families are the ones who are paying the price via a medical benefit reduction or plan elimination? Does this seem equitable to you? Another cost savings inequality is the realization that many pilots who currently receive medical benefits through our employer we likely go elsewhere following the reduction(s). Because the company pays 80% of the premiums, this will result in a potentially tremendous savings to the company. Unfortunately, we will not receive any credit resulting from the probably mass exodus.
Recap #2:
1. Company reduces or eliminates medical benefits. 2. Pilots are required to subsidize inadequate company-provided medical benefit, at considerable cost. 3. Hundreds or possibly thousands of pilots leave company-provided medical insurance, resulting in additional savings to company. 4. Company realizes millions of dollars in tax savings. 5. Pilots receive zero from this savings.
9) If the parties cannot agree on whether cost savings exist or how to distribute said savings, the matter may be referred to an arbitrator.
See you at the arbitration.
10) In no event shall the arbitrator order modifications to or reinstate a plan.
We have heard from some pilots who tell us we dont need to worry about LOA 15-02 because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not survive and the accompanying tax will never occur, so what is the problem?
Please read numbers 1 and 10 above very carefully. Number 1 allows the company to begin the process in advance of the actual tax or penalty date. How far in advance is not defined. Lets assume the reductions begin for the 2017 benefit year. Now lets assume that after that date, the law is changed and/or modified and the tax/penalty never occurs. Guess what? The language in number 10 above prevents any reinstatement. Now ask yourself if it isnt in the companys best interest to invoke LOA 15-02 as soon as possible while knowing full well that if the law is changed and there is no longer any tax, the company is not obligated to reinstate any plans or modifications. How is this equitable?
Unfortunately we know all too well, the combination of a trustless management team coupled with poor contract language is a very dangerous cocktail. Dont be deceived in thinking LOA 15-02 is a fair process because its not. The language included this LOA was completely drafted by the company and unchanged by APA. The carefully crafted language is just a means to a predetermined outcome that will significantly reduce our medical benefits. Its not a matter of if our benefits will be reduced/eliminated but rather when. This is not fear mongering, its a fact.
We have had our work rules devastated, our pension terminated (frozen at AA), and now the company is attempting to conquer the last big ticket item that remains, our medical benefits. Does anyone actually believe that LOA 15-02 will result in the same medical plan(s) we have today? Of course not. In fact, we predict if the JCBA is ratified and the company takes us through the one-sided LOA 15-02 process (sooner rather than later), we will all look back, shake our heads and say to one another, what were we thinking? And of course at that point it will be too late.
We wish we worked for a management team we could truly trust; unfortunately, we do not. In looking back at the past 10 years we have seen countless examples of this management continuously abusing the pilot group. Understand however, much of the mistreatment has occurred as a result of poorly drafted contract language -- poorly drafted language that we agreed to. Lets learn from our mistakes and not allow this to happen again with something as important as our health benefits. Because like our pension, once its gone, its gone forever.
Paul DiOrio Paul Music
To view this email on the APA Website, please go here:
https://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/Home/APAMemberNews/tabid/842/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/78/Philadelphia.aspx
IS GIVING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE MEDICAL BENEFITS IN RETURN FOR THE $$ A YEAR EARLIER REALLY WORTH IT?
INDIVIDUALLY, WELL ALL FIND OUT
Dear PHL Pilots,
As we approach the last few days of voting, we want to go over what we believe to be the most important issue before us: If we vote affirmatively for this JCBA, we shall, (without any question) be voting to completely lose, forever, the right and ability to negotiate our medical benefits, in exchange for a significant but very temporary hourly pay-rate advantage over our peers at Delta. As the Green Book is written, today, Supplement K allows the company to make some changes to our medical benefits. If the JCBA passes however, the company will then be permitted to make any changes it desires, including terminating the standard and/or core options and we will have ZERO recourse.
While the companys Dec. 23 ultimatum includes several troublesome concessions, it is our opinion that the most serious concession is the ability for this management team to reduce or eliminate the medical benefits of pilots, spouses and our dependents. Unlike today, we would be powerless to do anything to prevent it; that is the language of the JCBA on which we are now voting.
And before anyone criticizes us for not acknowledging the positive, we acknowledge the companys Dec. 23 ultimatum has industry-leading pay rates through at least 2015. Beyond that is anyones guess. By the same logic, it would be disingenuous to ignore the past and likely future successes of the pilots at Delta in their negotiations with management. Their last contract set the standard for compensation and benefits and their next contract will likely do so again this year. Did we mention that Delta traditionally settles their pilot contracts early in the negotiating process?
While no one ever believes illness will come knocking on their door, ask yourself this very simple question: Is waiting another year for a substantial pay raise worth the ability to provide adequate health coverage for yourself and your family? Just as important, ask yourself this question: By voting yes and thus giving away APAs ability to collectively negotiate many of your health benefits, do you really trust this management team to do the right thing and maintain medical coverage above the absolute minimum required by law, if by doing so will result in increased cost to the corporation?
The tease facing pilots is to accept the companys Dec. 23 take-it-or-leave-it proposal and with it, agree to a one-sided LOA 15-02 process that will ultimately permit the company to modify, reduce, or eliminate our medical benefits and we will be powerless to do anything to stop it OR we can wait 11 months and receive much of that raise anyway and prevent the company from potentially decimating our medical benefits.
We believe trading health coverage for a raise a year earlier is extremely shortsighted, not to mention potentially both medical and financial insanity. And yes, we fully understand the pay differential lost until next Januarys mid-contract adjustment may never be recouped; however, in return, we will not give the company an absolute right to modify or terminate our current health benefits. While no one ever believes serious illness will affect them or their family, is a reduced or eliminated medical benefit/coverage really worth trading for a pay bump a year earlier?
As of today, the only contractual option that is excluded from the benefits tax is the core option. This means the company will have the ability to either modify or possibly eliminate the standard option. Further, unlike today, we will not be able to do anything to prevent it.
Below are the 10 steps that outline the process from LOA 15-02, Benefits Excise Tax. If, after reading the procedure below, you truly feel comfortable with what may occur with respect to your medical benefits, then maybe you can vote yes. However, if you, like us, believe you can wait another 11 months for a significant pay bump, while not granting any concessions, medical benefits and otherwise, then you may want to consider voting no.
Below is the actual language and agreed-to process with our comments in red:
1) In the event the Company determines the Standard or Core design options provided for in this agreement would be or become subject to an excise tax or penalty.
The problem with this sentence is twofold. First, APA has absolutely no say in making the determination. Second, the words would be means if the company believes a penalty or tax will occur sometime in the future, they are free to begin the process outlined in LOA 15-02 beforehand. Just how much in advance of the actual tax or penalty remains to be seen. 2016, 2017? Remember, with this language the company can implement this LOA well in advance of the tax or penalty ever occurring.
2) The Company will meet and confer in good faith in order to reach agreement with the Union concerning the minimum modification or modifications necessary to avoid application of excise tax or other penalty.
If you think the meet and confer language allows us to negotiate the requested modifications, think again. Former Negotiating Committee chairman DiOrio, became very familiar with this language. During east-west contract negotiations, we met and conferred with the company regarding the A330 crew rest facility. The company made it very clear from the onset that meet and confer was not a negotiation; rather, it was the company explaining to us what they were going to do, and while they would listen to our input/concerns, we were unable to change it. Many of the same individuals who told us what meet and confer meant then are the key players today. So if you believe meet and confer has some different meaning for this process, youd better think again. If the company intended for this to be a negotiation, they would have used negotiation in the language rather than meet and confer.
3) If the Company and Union are unable to agree on modifications necessary to avoid the application of the excise tax or other penalty on the Affected Option within 90 days of the initial meeting, the parties will select Arbitrator Bloch who will determine the modifications to the design of the Affected Option that will become applicable.
So assuming APA does not sign off on the companys planned benefit modifications (reduced medical benefits), then an arbitrator will determine the medical benefits for pilots, spouses and dependents. Does anybody else believe having an arbitrator possibly determine the medical benefits for pilots at the worlds largest and most profitable airline is unbelievable?
4) If Arbitrator Bloch determines no reasonable practical modification to the Affected Option can guarantee no excise tax or other penalty will apply then the Company shall have the right to terminate the availability of the Affected Option to the Pilots.
We are asking an arbitrator to GUARANTEE the company will not be subject to the tax or other penalty. Well go out on a limb and speculate that arbitrator Bloch will be unable (or unwilling) to guarantee the application of the tax or penalty will not apply, and therefore the company will then have the right to terminate the affected option.
Lets recap. 1) Company makes determination. 2) Meet and confer, aka, this is the benefit or plan we are going to eliminate. 3) Arbitrator unable to guarantee no tax or penalty will occur. 4) Company can terminate the affected option(s).
The problem with this process is if the company wants to eliminate or modify an option, all they have to do is determine the option would be subject to an excise tax or penalty (its irrelevant whether or not it is ultimately subject to the tax or penalty, step 10 below ) and just jump through a few hoops to either reduce the benefit or terminate an option.
In reality, the above language translates to: In the event the Company determines the Standard or Core design options provided for in this agreement would be or become subject to an excise tax or penalty (step 1) then the Company shall have the right to terminate the availability of the Affected Option to the Pilots (step 4). Steps 2 and 3 are only there for optics.
5) If under number 4 above, the Company has terminated or would have the right to terminate the availability of the Pilots Standard and/or the Core Option, the arbitrator will be empowered to design an alternative Option design that is available from the Company provider and that replicates the provisions of the Core Option to the greatest possible extent without causing the New Option to become subject to the excise tax or other penalty.
We read this a few times to confirm we understood what was agreed to. Unfortunately, it was understood correctly the first time. If the company has the right to terminate an option, then we are agreeing to allow an arbitrator to design our medical option(s). Aside from the absurdity of this provision, does anyone actually believe arbitrator Bloch is really going to mandate a medical plan for 15,000 AA pilots? My guess is hell punt it back to the company (see 6 below).
6) If Arbitrator Bloch has not issued a determination prior to the excise tax or penalty becoming due or if such penalty or excise tax is otherwise owed for any reason, notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, the Company shall be permitted to implement such modifications to the design of the Affected Option as it considers to be necessary to avoid the excise tax or penalty.
Once again, this process permits the company to implement anything on which it wants to avoid paying the tax or penalty. Putting our skepticism aside, does anyone truly believe we will not ultimately end up at numbers 4 and 6 above?
7) If any Option is modified or eliminated the parties will meet and confer to determine how the savings, if any, from such modifications will accrue to the pilots.
Here we go again with this meet and confer language. We dont know about you, but we would much rather have the medical benefit when we need it rather than a few dollars more a month via a reduced benefit. Were willing to bet the money distributed to the pilots that will be generated from the medical benefit reduction/savings will pale in comparison to what it will cost that same pilot to go onto the market and buy a similar replacement benefit.
Alternatively, assuming we dont negotiate another JCBA, which we believe will occur, we can wait 11 months for our raise and not give up anything in return.
8) The saving from the avoidance of the excise tax will not be considered in the savings calculation.
Why is the company realizing 100% of the tax savings yet the pilots and their families are the ones who are paying the price via a medical benefit reduction or plan elimination? Does this seem equitable to you? Another cost savings inequality is the realization that many pilots who currently receive medical benefits through our employer we likely go elsewhere following the reduction(s). Because the company pays 80% of the premiums, this will result in a potentially tremendous savings to the company. Unfortunately, we will not receive any credit resulting from the probably mass exodus.
Recap #2:
1. Company reduces or eliminates medical benefits. 2. Pilots are required to subsidize inadequate company-provided medical benefit, at considerable cost. 3. Hundreds or possibly thousands of pilots leave company-provided medical insurance, resulting in additional savings to company. 4. Company realizes millions of dollars in tax savings. 5. Pilots receive zero from this savings.
9) If the parties cannot agree on whether cost savings exist or how to distribute said savings, the matter may be referred to an arbitrator.
See you at the arbitration.
10) In no event shall the arbitrator order modifications to or reinstate a plan.
We have heard from some pilots who tell us we dont need to worry about LOA 15-02 because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not survive and the accompanying tax will never occur, so what is the problem?
Please read numbers 1 and 10 above very carefully. Number 1 allows the company to begin the process in advance of the actual tax or penalty date. How far in advance is not defined. Lets assume the reductions begin for the 2017 benefit year. Now lets assume that after that date, the law is changed and/or modified and the tax/penalty never occurs. Guess what? The language in number 10 above prevents any reinstatement. Now ask yourself if it isnt in the companys best interest to invoke LOA 15-02 as soon as possible while knowing full well that if the law is changed and there is no longer any tax, the company is not obligated to reinstate any plans or modifications. How is this equitable?
Unfortunately we know all too well, the combination of a trustless management team coupled with poor contract language is a very dangerous cocktail. Dont be deceived in thinking LOA 15-02 is a fair process because its not. The language included this LOA was completely drafted by the company and unchanged by APA. The carefully crafted language is just a means to a predetermined outcome that will significantly reduce our medical benefits. Its not a matter of if our benefits will be reduced/eliminated but rather when. This is not fear mongering, its a fact.
We have had our work rules devastated, our pension terminated (frozen at AA), and now the company is attempting to conquer the last big ticket item that remains, our medical benefits. Does anyone actually believe that LOA 15-02 will result in the same medical plan(s) we have today? Of course not. In fact, we predict if the JCBA is ratified and the company takes us through the one-sided LOA 15-02 process (sooner rather than later), we will all look back, shake our heads and say to one another, what were we thinking? And of course at that point it will be too late.
We wish we worked for a management team we could truly trust; unfortunately, we do not. In looking back at the past 10 years we have seen countless examples of this management continuously abusing the pilot group. Understand however, much of the mistreatment has occurred as a result of poorly drafted contract language -- poorly drafted language that we agreed to. Lets learn from our mistakes and not allow this to happen again with something as important as our health benefits. Because like our pension, once its gone, its gone forever.
Paul DiOrio Paul Music
To view this email on the APA Website, please go here:
https://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/Home/APAMemberNews/tabid/842/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/78/Philadelphia.aspx
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
Oh how true............
"We wish we worked for a management team we could truly trust; unfortunately, we do not. In looking back at the past 10 years we have seen countless examples of this management continuously abusing the pilot group. Understand however, much of the mistreatment has occurred as a result of poorly drafted contract language -- poorly drafted language that we agreed to. Lets learn from our mistakes and not allow this to happen again with something as important as our health benefits. Because like our pension, once its gone, its gone forever"
"We wish we worked for a management team we could truly trust; unfortunately, we do not. In looking back at the past 10 years we have seen countless examples of this management continuously abusing the pilot group. Understand however, much of the mistreatment has occurred as a result of poorly drafted contract language -- poorly drafted language that we agreed to. Lets learn from our mistakes and not allow this to happen again with something as important as our health benefits. Because like our pension, once its gone, its gone forever"
nycbusdriver said:
We differ there. Our opinions on this "offer" differ as well, and I certainly respect yours, that you've also fully earned over the course of decades. You stood up against the nic obscenity in support of your juniors, with nothing to personally gain, and when not doing so might've afforded you benefits had a contract then been possible. I believe we now differ on just how reasonable the current "offer" is for all concerned, and no more. Imo, while it's fully fair to reasonably distrust arbitrations, I don't see how that would/could happen. I'd think that would require a virtually complete disregard for existing contractual language. Tell ya' what though nyc; the more I see morons like "EastCheats" flashing pom poms for this...the more I wish I could just vote a resounding yes, have us both pocket a few more coins in the process, and just leave them to what their "wisdom" buys them for many years to come. Out of respect for our juniors, the nowadays-only-supposed profession in general, well, I've gotta' go with No. No matter. If this gets voted in?....I say, after I'm done just shaking my head in dismayed bemusement, that we just have a good party from the extra chump change it'll bring us during our remaining time.
P.S. Sigh...I see some grand intellect's already posted a minus vote. Oh well. Too bad. In the event this is voted into being; my position of having a good party at the expense of such apparently lasting and lingering stupidity still sticks, even while suffering such unimaginably hideous sanctioning from truly great minds on the sacred internet.
EastCheats
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2012
- 1,944
- 6,141
Tell me why USAPA spokesman, James Ray was not granted APA membership?luvthe9 said:
Metro knows why:
Metroyet
Posted 18 January 2011 - 09:08 PM
Metroyet
James Ray, the USAPA "national" spokesman, is a verified Continental Scab. Any information provided by a group who let's Scabs speak for them can't be trusted. I read a few dozen pilots showed up for this pointless parade of lies and omissions.
There's a name on the master list:
Ray, G G UAL 85 30516, Retired, Gary
Ray, James A CAL 83 dob 9/16/59, 0030P
Ray, Richard L EAL 89 72570
Ray, Thomas D EAL 89 64135, 4/89
Ray, W T PAA 85 Domestic System Scab
They've got teletypes that prove James Ray operated revenue trips as a strikebreaker at CAL.
Pull your pants up, Luv, your hypocrisy is showing.
luvthe9 said:
But, But!...Didn't you see those hourly "pay" rates!....?
Don't ever be so silly as to consider overall compensation (or lack thereof) as any comprehensive issue! Now then, to place your wager and back to our game: Which shell has the pea under it? - Status
Similar threads
