Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[EastUS1]

I don't wish to be greedy or unrealistic, but equal treatment in this merger should have been an absolute minimal threshold of acceptability. It is a goal both reasonable and achievable.

Maybe the union should have told the other parties 'we've been kept waiting and in the dark, so forget about a cram session over the holidays. Let's sit down and talk in January'. Then they should have hung up the phone.

Agreed.

 

[EastUS1]

Also, the signing bonus WE are getting is payment for the $120 million the company is having to pump into the APA retirement to make it whole so it may be frozen.

Marvelous...so the APA folks keep a frozen pension, partly at your future expense here, and still get 100K signing bonus, never to be seen by any US pilots? I see. Well THAT certainly seems "reasonable". Shall we revisit the second-class-citizen notion here?

 

[Piedmont1984]

Interesting perspective. I didn't get that impression from the roadshow, but I would like to hear what it was that made you feel that way. Maybe I missed something.

Simply put, give me the same thing my counterpart at AA is getting and make it effective on the same date. For example, do not create a pilot group in which some are owners and others are otherwise. Then memorialize this in a simple to read, straightforward document. One which we can all understand the meaning of without having it 'explained' to us.

 

[EastUS1]

Simply put, give me the same thing my counterpart at AA is getting and make it effective on the same date. For example, do not create a pilot group in which some are owners and others are otherwise. Then memorialize this in a simple to read, straightforward document. One which we can all understand the meaning of without having it 'explained' to us.

Perfectly put sir. If much of anything needs to be "explained" to a line pilot....well....just how well can one even imagine/hope/pray/etc the contractual language ever holding up in any greivance process?

 

[A320 Driver]

Marvelous...so the APA folks keep a frozen pension, partly at your future expense here, and still get 100K signing bonus, never to be seen by any US folks? I see. Well THAT certainly seems "reasonable". Shall we revisit the second-class-citizen notion here?

Yeah, see, there union leadership didn't pass when there was an opportunity to freeze their retirement like ours did. We got a share of the pension expense. "We" did this to ourselves with $hity, greedy union leadership that made sure they got theirs before they left. The really amazing part is that some of our pilot group still idolize those idiots like folk heros. And no, I don't feel second class to anyone. I bring as much to the table as any APA pilot and I will be compensated exactly like they are and work under the same work rules. That 100K is an equity share...like I said before, we got ours. LCC pilots are not creditors of American Airlines...APA pilots are.

 

[EastUS1]

"We" did this to ourselves.....

Even more reasons to change any and all such behavior now, while an opportunity exists to do so, wouldn't you say?

Bottom line here = Why's an APA pilot acceptably "worth" so much more than any of you in this merger....?

 

[Mr Furlough]

I attended the meeting yesterday and encourage others to do the same. First off, it is so easy to strike out at our union and those whom work hard within it. So I'd like ot begin by simply recognise the massive amount of hard work put forth by those involved and simply thank them for there efforts. That is the very least each of us can do, and we should.


That doesn't mean that I agree with them. The presentation yesterday focused on the uncertainty of the east LPPs influence on the negotiations, and thusly, "this is the best that we can possibly do". And if we were to rely more heavily on the LPPs, we could be in for a substantial wait, and somehow disadvantage ourselves in the combining of the lists. I couldn't disagree more with this assessment. The creditors funding this thing, ladies and gentleman, will be the ones to determine the risk where it concerns our LPP provisions-not the courts. A lender/investor faced with funding something such as this would have to consider the impact of breaching our change in control protections. If the creditors believe that our LPPs are a factor, than this will never make it to the courts-because there will be no deal. Mr. Parker knows this. With that in mind, why then would we surrender those for a contract that is below industry standard, concessionary in some respects, and removes our ability to say "no" if we are treated unfairly in the combining of the list? Further, as everyone knows, the Mc Caskill Amendment is a process in which, if we don't come to an agreement, will result in a federally mediated binding list. So why wait until after we agree to a contract before we put the list together? You don't know what you are voting on until you know about where you'll be after the list is put together. So lets not surrender our leverage prior to knowing what we are getting!


The health care cost for families is going way up. For me, that means much of the gains I get over the next couple of years are meaningfully diminished. All and all, for a F/O who is admittedly cynical, there just isn't enough here to meet the needs of my family and future.


The NAC gave us the best sales job they could yesterday and I'm sorry, I'm just not moved.


All the best....

 

[EastUS1]

That 100K is an equity share...

AMR's still in bankruptcy, so we are discussing only future equity within the to-be-combined corporate entity, are we not? Where's the "share" part kick in for the US people here? I see no mention of any 100K in this proposed MOU....?

 

[EastUS1]

And no, I don't feel second class to anyone.

Nor should you towards the AMR folks. Why accept any second-class treatment then?

 

[EastUS1]

That doesn't mean that I agree with them. The presentation yesterday focused on the uncertainty of the east LPPs influence on the negotiations, and thusly, "this is the best that we can possibly do". And if we were to rely more heavily on the LPPs, we could be in for a substantial wait, and somehow disadvantage ourselves in the combining of the lists. I couldn't disagree more with this assessment. The creditors funding this thing, ladies and gentleman, will be the ones to determine the risk where it concerns our LPP provisions-not the courts. A lender/investor faced with funding something such as this would have to consider the impact of breaching our change in control protections. If the creditors believe that our LPPs are a factor, than this will never make it to the courts-because there will be no deal. Mr. Parker knows this. With that in mind, why then would we surrender those for a contract that is below industry standard, concessionary in some respects, and removes our ability to say "no" if we are treated unfairly in the combining of the list?

"With that in mind, why then would we surrender those for a contract that is below industry standard, concessionary in some respects,........?"

Indeed....Why then would/should anyone willingly and immediately do so?

 

[fatherabraham]

Yes, there are things I don't like about this. For one example, unlimited Alaska codeshare. What the %&$*? We however are in a bad position. The east is on LOA93, the west is stagnant, and our union is parked with an injunction on it. CoC can be gotten around. What will a no vote do? I would say with 99% certainty it will lead to us being parked in the corner on our current contracts and the end result will be the same. I wish Luv were right and that we had leverage, but we don't. Even if we could effect the merger, what would be the threat? Give us what we want or we'll $%#$ up the merger and the only chance we will have at getting a decent contract? I hope the east posters on here are voting no becuase they feel we can get more and not because they are afraid this will kill DOH.

Bean

Bean,

Some on here have labeled me a malcontent .
I begin this rant by stating I personally have no expertise or desire to affect negotiations ( in a union officer position ) or I would have long ago gone that route. So I'll think out loud here w/o prior precise editing of every word and # .

My experience however exposes me to 3 decades of union participation as a member.
Coincidentally have a minor in union labor relations with family involved in union leadership and a father who professionally negotiated major purchases for GM his entire career.
I assume that accounting requires ongoing education as our job does.
I also know that there are many studies and courses on negotiations that utilize all sorts of
" EXPECTATION " analysis / strategy . Google away if in doubt.

I may be an unrealistic " never give up " kind of guy but your post reeks of surrender.
That does irritate me as I really distaste being BLUFFED off a winning hand.
True enuff a possible overall increase this mou offers your personal financial situation and definitely mine. I know that !!!

That said........to this moment I am not convinced that the sum of near term potential bennies prior to a jcba and the sum of bennies over next 6 years in this mou are greater than stand alone or re-negotiated mou alternatives.

I know your a numbers guy. Let me use myself and rounded numbers and some hypothetical date.
Jan 1, 2014 ED and I'm owed 17G after taxes. Add to that the 5G in sign on bonus.
So I'm 22G ahead in spendable income +/- other ramifications of mou.

Did I really say " winning hand " above. Well we really don't know yet as of yet , do we?
It's clearly Mgt's job to convince us our hand if far weaker than theirs.
They have far more expertise hired to achieve above than we do. It's clearly a stacked deck against us and that doesn't even factor the utterly pathetic government agencies negatively affecting our desired results. Case in point......awa mgt record of past / current negotiation in any group.

So back to my risk/reward analysis. If I'm wrong and get zippo till a jcba I lose the above plus $ earned in ED to jcba period. Lets call that 8G for a easy # of 30G total.

IMO my hand represents:
A- major leverage in COC
B- my opponent(s) want deal NOW and far more than I want it
C- my/your current contract has long ago been amendable
D- mgt has run out of BS negotiation delay tactics

The above and much more can and should deliver us a contract we deserve.

To conclude I currently think a NO vote outweighs the 30G loss with a realistic industry standard contract going forward as a stand alone with near term attrition upgrade ( netting > 30g ) and if a merge then APA has our contract leverage as well. Yup I'm an eternal optimist as I refuse to let mgt manipulate my expectations!

FA

 

[Bill Brasky]

Isn't the MOU just a beginning, a bridge until a joint CBA can be negotiated? I know, I know, just like the TA was supposed to be 7 years ago. I guess the question I would ask (and intend to) is: how much of this could change in a new JCBA, and what would the priorities be? Pretty much ALL of the insurance provisions suck really bad, from medical to disability (what's that $50/week for short term disability deal?). Also, I'd like some more info on what they intend to replace the scheduling/reserve system with, and how it is going to effect our quality of life.

The bottom line is, agreeing with Gary, a steamroller is coming, we need to participate or get run over.

 

[cleardirect]

My reservations about this MOU, having attended the roadshow and read the MOU several times, in very general terms (which keeps it simple) is that we place ourselves in a subordinate position relative to our prospective co-workers in the APA.

I don't wish to be greedy or unrealistic, but equal treatment in this merger should have been an absolute minimal threshold of acceptability. It is a goal both reasonable and achievable.

Maybe the union should have told the other parties 'we've been kept waiting and in the dark, so forget about a cram session over the holidays. Let's sit down and talk in January'. Then they should have hung up the phone.

Cry me a river. You are worried because that is exactly how usapa has treated the west pilots. usapa never treated the west pilots equally. The east pilots intentionally placed west pilots in a subordinate position.

Karma is a ####.

The APA is the majority and you east pilots have been telling us for years the majority gets to decide what is good for the entire group and the minority just has to suck it up. You are going to get exactly what you have wanted. Majority rule. To bad you never thought you would be in the minority.

 

[luvthe9]

Transportation
US Airways: Pilot Contract Threatens Merger
By Ted Reed 04/06/10 - 11:22 AM EDT

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (TheStreet) -- Although US Airways is clearly eager to merge with another carrier, its efforts could be blocked by a provision in its pilots contract, says CEO Doug Parker.

Speaking to pilots at a March 17 meeting in the company's Charlotte training center, Parker reflected on a contract provision requiring that if the airline has a change of control, pilot wages would "snap back" to a far higher level that was in place before the carrier extracted wage concessions in two bankruptcies in 2002 and 2004.

"We've had talks with airlines in the past," Parker said. "This (provision) always comes up. (It) is a large issue in consolidation talks. There will not be a merger if that's where the pay rates go. Anybody we would merge with can't let the pay rates go to those levels."

"You can't have both," Parker added. "You can't have a merger with that provision. (It) will either result in a merger never being done or it will be a merger that doesn't trigger that provision."

Parker said he was raising the issue because he recently received a couple of notes from pilots referring to the contract provision, which requires "a very, very high snapback." He indicated that he raised the issue because he did not want some pilots to have the erroneous view that a merger would definitively lead to higher wages.

Scott Theuer, spokesman for the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, said Tuesday that "nothing in the pilot contract blocks a transaction." Theuer said the contract provision, negotiated as the carrier prepared to enter the 2002 bankruptcy, was intended to compensate pilots in the event that bankruptcy-linked concessions led to a successful outcome.

"The company agreed to a provision which brings our pay back to where it should be," he said. "Now the company says it is either not going to merge or it is going to merge and make sure we do not get what we negotiated."

Earlier, in an April 1 letter to pilots, USAPA president Mike Cleary blasted Parker's remarks. "Now that the company is in a position where it may find a merger beneficial, it is ironic indeed that our CEO touts his willingness to deprive us of previously bargained-for provisions that were put in place specifically for a merger event," he said.

Parker has been one of the industry's leading advocates for consolidation. Following the success of the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, he unsuccessfully pursued a hostile takeover of Delta (DAL_).

Subsequently, US Airways discussed a merger with United (UAUA_) in 2006.

Speculation continues over whether the carrier might merge with United, a Star alliance partner, or with American (AMR_). Primary assets include the US Airways hub in Charlotte -- the only Southeast hub other than Atlanta -- and a strong presence at both Washington Reagan National Airport and Philadelphia International Airport.

Meanwhile, US Airways reported strong March traffic results on Monday, saying that consolidated passenger revenue per

JP Morgan analyst Jamie Baker said the increase should result in "a slightly narrower first-quarter loss" than what he had originally expected. Baker reduced his estimated loss to 73 cents from 80 cents. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters are estimating a loss of 70 cents.

-- Written by Ted Reed in Charlotte, N.C.​

 

[cleardirect]

A two year old post from Ted Reed. Some east pilots are beginning to see that Ted Reed has no credibility.

Things sure have changed since then.

Parker told you two years ago CoC was worthless. Parker also told you that Us Airways would have gone out of business without the merger. Why don't you believe him?