Someone else's opinion....................To all USAirways pilots with an open mind,
I just received my glossy sales brochure from USAPA in the mail. Anxiously I sat down and read it cover to cover 3 times. I thought that I would be seeing a very factual no-nonsense synopsis of the good and the bad in the MOU. I was certain that my new union, unlike ALPA, would have enough faith in its pilots to give me the straight scoop. The funny thing is though that I found nothing bad listed in the sales brochure; and make no mistake, this expensive production is a sales brochure.
Now having worked for this group of managers for 7 years, I couldn’t imagine that somehow they had gone through an epiphany and seen the light. Could it all be good? But where was the retroactive pay and profit sharing? How about the change of control and LPP provisions? Am I going to get a part of the company and a say in the way it is run like the American pilots? What about the NIC, minimum aircraft, block hours and other protections? Am I to make a leap of faith and trust the people who have fought me tooth and nail for seven years? Should I trust the same people who seem to misinterpret every line in an agreement and fight to keep me from getting even an insignificant 3% raise?
I decided to re-read the actual MOU and make some notes. Shouldn’t the MOU and glossy brochure have some sort of commonality? Well, I found that USAPA’s sales brochure was all about emphasizing the new pay rates and silent about any give-backs. Why? Should I need to go to a road show to have explained what should be clear? One thing I’ve learned having a bunch of lawyers in the family is that if you want an iron-clad document, you put it in straight forward English. If on the other hand you want to be able to obfuscate an issue, then you want to use a lot of legalese, references to other documents and confusing language. That describes the MOU!
Below I’ve outlined some of my concerns from the actual MOU which are unaddressed in the sales brochure:
Paragraph 3 says, “The eligibility of US Airways pilots for a defined contribution plan accrual shall commence on the Effective Date, and US Airways’ contribution to the retirement plan beginning on the Effective Date shall be calculated by multiplying an eligible pilot’s eligible compensation under the applicable retirement plan by the percentage contribution made by New American Airlines to its pilots’ defined contribution retirement plan.”
USAPA says this means 14% increasing to 16% on 1/1/14 in their sales brochure, but if that is true, why not just say it here? It’s simple enough, isn’t it? What’s the point of the excessive language? More obfuscation?
Paragraph 4 says, “The Parties further understand, however, that it will take some period of time for those terms to be implemented…The Parties agree that each term of the MTA shall be applicable to all US Airways pilots at the earliest practicable time for each such term…”
This paragraph seems to give the company a tremendous amount of latitude without penalty in implementing all the great things USAPA is promising in their color brochure. What does “some period of time” mean? Indefinite dates and times are the centerpiece of delay tactics.
In Paragraph 8, we read, “The protections in this Paragraph begin on the Effective Date and last until the earlier of eighteen (18) months after US Airways and the New American Airlines obtain a single operating certificate, or the date on which a JCBA and integrated seniority list are in effect. “
This, to me, is one of the most important paragraphs in the MOU. These are important protections that seem to last only 18 months! They include minimum block hours, type aircraft, shuttle flying, base closures, furlough and much more. Why is this 18 months not mentioned in the glossy brochure? What good are protections that last 18 months and why would USAPA sign on to such a thing?
Further down at the end of 8e we find, “The standard to be applied by the arbitrator will be the fair and equitable allocation of flying between the two pilot groups giving due consideration to the airline business plans.”
What business plans? Does it include me? Why are my protections based on their business plans? Wow, who do you think the arbitrator will side with when that language is in there?! Do you want to finish your career flying a 190? Not me!
In Paragraph 9 we find “Nothing herein shall prevent placement of the "US" code on flights operated by American or New American Airlines (or by any other airline when displaying the "AA" code)…
What is the purpose of this line? Can you say alter-ego?
Paragraph 10 deals with seniority and McCaskill-Bond but the language leaves seniority totally open-ended. What is the starting point for the submitted USAir seniority list? One list or two? And if one, what is it? Where’s the Nic? Why did the West support this paragraph? Why has USAPA been silent on this issue?
In Paragraph 10b, the company has put some conditions on the final seniority of which, “it does not contain conditions and restrictions that materially increase costs associated with training or company paid move as specified in the JCBA” is the most onerous. Why does my seniority depend on whether it increases costs for the company? The company promises to remain neutral except, “such neutrality shall not prevent said carriers from insuring that the award complies with the criteria in Paragraph 10(B)(i)-(v),” which of course includes the previous dangerous quote [10(b)(v)]. Do you trust these guys to look out for your best interests concerning seniority?
Paragraph 11 is basically a “no furlough” clause with one important exception; it is subject to paragraph 21. Paragraph 21 outlines the specific circumstances (but not limited to only these) that allow the company to furlough. One of these, (5) grounding of a substantial number of the company’s aircraft is particularly vague because it does not give a reason for the grounding. Why not put “FAA or manufacturer” grounding in the language unless one intends to keep all doors open?
Paragraph 12, which deals with involuntary displacements and pay protections, says that a pilot may have to move to a new base if need be to keep his pay. There is also a limit placed on this protection in Paragraph (24)(d) of $12 million a year which incidentally is subtracted from the $87 million in (24)(a). More on the $87 million in a minute.
Paragraph 14 contains purposefully the most simply worded language in the document. In this paragraph the company wants to make sure that there is no doubt what we have given up:
14. USAPA agrees to waive all change of control provisions, including, but not limited to, Section 1.D in the East collective bargaining agreement, LPPs, daily minimum utilization, and minimum fleet requirements in the East and West collective bargaining agreements and in the Transition Agreement conditioned upon the occurrence of the Effective Date.
Why is there no mention of this important concession in our shiny brochure? Without these protections, we have finally given up our last “sacred cow.” We subject ourselves to the whims of management! Do you really trust these guys after all they have done?
In the convoluted language of Paragraph 18, one thing clearly sticks out; “USAPA will inform the Parties whether its Board of Pilot Representatives has agreed to recommend that its membership ratify the MTA on or before January 4, 2013”
Am I to believe that after all the months of negotiations and secrecy, suddenly the Board is put under a time constraint? This is straight from Management 101; put your adversary under a phony time constraint and make them feel that if they don’t do what you want, all kinds of bad things are going to happen. Really, Charlie Brown? USAPA leadership let Lucy pull the football away again? Have those guys learned anything or do some of our Board members feel they are doing Doug’s business?
Paragraph 23 contains some jumbled-up language concerning vacation. Different documents and percentages are referred to. Wouldn’t it have been simpler and more concise just to actually put the vacation days in writing right here and now. The glossy sales brochure does not address vacation time at all. Why?
Paragraph 25 deals with the controversial $87 million of future modifications to the CBA. Nowhere in this paragraph will you find USAPA or the USAirways pilots mentioned. I also could find no mention of it in the sales brochure. Yet I know that there has been correspondence from certain USAPA reps touting the benefits to USAirways of this provision. The language permits APA alone sole discretion with this money. Do you really think USAirways pilots will see any of it?
I am not professing to be an expert but I do consider myself of at least average intelligence. As sure as I can see loopholes and confusing language in this document, I’m sure that an 84 year old arbitrator with partial Alzheimer’s disease is going to misinterpret something in it. I’m betting that is by design.
Look, I want and deserve a raise as much as anyone else but I do not want to end my career on a 190! I feel that for whatever reason many of our USAPA officers and representatives, in a very ALPA-like fashion, have determined that they are now Parker’s business partners. I feel that USAPA lost all their credibility when they put out a sales brochure emphasizing positives only and not once mentioning one down-side to this MOU. USAPA lost further credibility when they voted to keep the Board debate secret even after the non-disclosure agreement was lifted. One does not have to be a cynic to wonder “what is the big secret?”
Look, I am not ready to take a leap of faith hoping that Doug Parker is going to catch me. Parker has used every opportunity to take advantage of us and I don’t think that leopard has changed its spots. There are too many gray areas in this MOU, despite what some in the USAPA leadership have told us. I feel this MOU just doesn’t pass the smell test. I also feel that without any significant retro-pay, protections, company stock and other guarantees, this MOU does not meet my minimum criteria. I also know that money will be given up at the first down-turn of the company. Then where will we be? I will be voting no on this MOU, there is better out there.
