Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[machflyer]

Right on Luv...well said.

 

[machflyer]

Right on Luv...well said.

 

[PullUp]

Parker needs to pony up some cash incentive for this deal. I don't see a retro parity check mentioned or a separate signing bonus from USAirways, inc.......
AA's BOD will be meeting at the end of this month to decide on the merger. If it is a 'yes' then a NO vote from the USAPA pilots puts enormous pressure on all parties to sweeten the deal. USAPA just has to have the balls to threaten legal action to enforce CoC.
And if the BOD says 'no' to the merger during BK, then our vote is moot anyway.
Just like buying a car at the dealer...you gotta be willing to walk away from the deal to get the best deal.
Cheers.

 

[Metroyet]

Parker needs to pony up some cash incentive for this deal. I don't see a retro parity check mentioned or a separate signing bonus from USAirways, inc.......
AA's BOD will be meeting at the end of this month to decide on the merger. If it is a 'yes' then a NO vote from the USAPA pilots puts enormous pressure on all parties to sweeten the deal. USAPA just has to have the balls to threaten legal action to enforce CoC.
And if the BOD says 'no' to the merger during BK, then our vote is moot anyway.
Just like buying a car at the dealer...you gotta be willing to walk away from the deal to get the best deal.
Cheers.

Brilliant strategy.

 

[cleardirect]

Parker needs to pony up some cash incentive for this deal. I don't see a retro parity check mentioned or a separate signing bonus from USAirways, inc.......
AA's BOD will be meeting at the end of this month to decide on the merger. If it is a 'yes' then a NO vote from the USAPA pilots puts enormous pressure on all parties to sweeten the deal. USAPA just has to have the balls to threaten legal action to enforce CoC.
And if the BOD says 'no' to the merger during BK, then our vote is moot anyway.
Just like buying a car at the dealer...you gotta be willing to walk away from the deal to get the best deal.
Cheers.

So you think that legal action has some influence on decision making?

The west has threatened and filed legal action. You east pilots don't seem to fear that much. Why would the players of a multi billion deal fear a tiny about to be dissolved union?

 

[nycbusdriver]

My equity share in LCC after B2 was two $35 million payments. I got my part. That is what we negotiated and I got my checks. APA negotiated a greater share of a bigger company with larger assets. So be it. 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. Our NAC wanted a share of that...and they got it. $40 million in advance, in the form of a signing bonus. Driver...

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.

Maybe you're too busy chasing after that hind teat.

 

[end_of_alpa]

DOH isn't subordination. Rather, expecting newhires to go ahead of company veterans is a form of insubordination.

I thought that the safety issue with unions was directly tied with those that have the experience over those that don't.

Seems the military pilots called in to fly ,ail contracts comes to mind?

 

[PullUp]

So you think that legal action has some influence on decision making?

The west has threatened and filed legal action. You east pilots don't seem to fear that much. Why would the players of a multi billion deal fear a tiny about to be dissolved union?

It's a timing issue. No one wants it to be tied up in court. Yes, there are billions of $$ involved, and more to be made with a viable, competitive, and larger AA that is sized to go up against DAL and UAL. The investors and management know the value of the union, but are trying to buy our cooperation for the lowest cost.
I am not against the merger, I am for it. But Parker and Co. owes me and my family some consideration. I see all the $$ coming from the UCC and investors and not a cent from Parker and LCC. Doug is big on quid pro quo: i.e., 'if you give me a contract, I'll increase your wages', and, 'aw shucks, sorry guys, but we can't do anything for you without a contract and that seniority thing, you know, we can't pay you any more without that thing being settled..'. Well, guess what - quid pro quo rules are ok - we have something he wants, and now let's make him pay for it.
Read the MOU and AA contract. You are trading BK contract for BK contract, and Parker is laughing all the way to the bank.
No more concessions.
No.

 

[Phoenix]

Pay protection? Sorta..

If you get bumped to a 190 (you will certainly hold a line) but your pay protection ends the moment you don't accept a reserve position that pays a higher rate at any base. Who is going to commute to a reserve position that pays a higher rate but only pays reserve guarantee? Even if one would it would still be a net loss. Either way pay protection terminates and a net loss is incurred.

But maybe by then the back pay will be arriving in the mail.

Oooohhhh, ahhhhh. Wow.

 

[jetjok1]

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.

Piedmont ......that is well said and my sentiments exactly. I guess we have people in charge that would take the first thing that comes along. What a bunch of chicken shits

 

[traderjake]

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.

Is it realistic for a USAirways pilot to get paid for concessions made by an American pilot?

 

[EastUS1]

....a tiny about to be dissolved union?

It's not the union but the existing contractual provisions some are so eager to surrender for virtually NOTHING, that team tempe so very much wants to see gone, naturally, because they're of "no value anyway"..."Trust them" on that...Oh...Just nevermind. If anything's not entirely AOL/"Spartan"/nic-centric...it'd obviously be light years beyond your ability to even see, much less comprehend.

 

[jetjok1]

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....

I did just that. I ran into a bpr member in Florida. I thanked him for all the hard work he did. I told him I couldn't imagine the impact it was having on his personal life way beyond the call of duty. I also told him they didn't do a good enough job at protecting our interests. I also told him I was voting no on the MOU. I'm tired of being treated a lesser counterpart. It is unacceptable........period. We deserve equal everything......plain and simple. I'm tired of lining DUI 's pockets.

 

[EastUS1]

But maybe by then the back pay will be arriving in the mail.

Oooohhhh, ahhhhh. Wow.

"Maybe" indeed, since I didn't even see any specific date or ironclad-drop-dead-timing for that to be guaranteed without penalty for failure.

"Oooohhhh, ahhhhh. Wow." Yep. I'm almost as much in awe of that glossy "sales brochure" as I was by alpo's magazines, or the Fantasyland ride tickets/brochures sent from AOL

 

[fatherabraham]

Is it realistic for a USAirways pilot to get paid for concessions made by an American pilot?

Traitor,

Does your rhetoric/logic equally apply to your loyal west sisters that share in the Profit Plan given away by your type of guy?

FA