Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Pi brat]

Imagine that? = Not being bluffed into giving away the whole store for basically nothing?....Perhaps there's a lesson here for many others to note.

Agreed. They were the first pilot group to say no when facing an 1113. On another forum I saw many DL pilots telling them what idiots they were. Maybe we did learn, because it looks like the BPR recommending a NO vote got us more. But another thing we have to learn is to realize when we really have power and when we don't. I think our power in this deal was to let the UCC and US Airways show that their plan would not be bogged down with a labor dispute. If that is not the case, what is the incentive for them to give us anything more than we have now until they can achieve a joint contract? Kinda like we've had for 7 years here.

But, I've been called a weak sister before...........

 

[Pi brat]

Aren't you gettin' just a little tired of that?

No. What I'm really tired of is having the net value of the contract being concessionary. That would not be the case here, not by a long shot.

 

[EastUS1]

But, I've been called a weak sister before...........

No worries there. Whatever my opinionated, often irascible self has to offer...Everyone needs to make their own call on this issue. It's no small matter to consider.

Per: "No. What I'm really tired of is having the net value of the contract being concessionary. That would not be the case here, not by a long shot" My concerns are much more what's left unsaid and entirely unspecified within this astoundingly vague, potential agreement than they are with pay rates. Giving team tempe any semblance of a blank check on any aspect of anything's just purely a huge mistake.

 

[A320 Driver]

I'm probably going to regret this. I said I was leaving and I did, just tuned in every once in a while to check on the usual subjects.

I've been reading the opinions on the MOU. I wasn't able to attend the road show, so I've asked for a summary of what was presented from friends and have been reading other's opinions.

I don't get the angst about the equity that the AA pilots are getting. From what I understand I have to agree with AAviatior. That stake was negotiated in their chp 11 negotiations with AA. They have nothing to do with the merger, it's compensation for what they lost. They will get that stake whether we merge or not. So, if we don't merge the get approx. 15% of the new stock. If we do merge, AA stake holders get around 70% of the new AA and US shareholders will get around 30%(%s to be determined). So the AA pilots will get 15% of the 70% of the new AA, or about the same as they would absent a merger. We are not entitled to that. Back in 2004 we negotiated LOA 93 with two 35 million dollar payouts and stock options. In 2005 our POR upheld those payouts, but west pilots were not entitled to a share, were they? The AA pilots had the power/luck to get more than we did. If the merger is successful, their % of the company may be worth more. Good for them. The US/AW merger raised the value of our stock options. If I remember correctly I received about $30,0000 in stock option and lump sum payouts that west pilots didn't get.

Concessions in the MOU. There certainly are some, like the reserve guarantee and life insurance. Seems to be more for west pilots than east. But, every contract I have seen at the company, except maybe the first one at PI, has had some concession to it. On the whole, a MOU led contract will have much more give than take.

COC. Yes, I believe it has value, just not enough to rely on it. Let's say we turn down the MOU, a merger goes through and we press COC. The company will drag it out in court and even if we do win we will only get the rates until the APA takes over and renegotiates a new joint contract.

Fire away.

Finally, thank God someone comes on here that's not angry at the world and uses some common sense.

 

[EastUS1]

When west pilots were wanting part of our $70 million payouts and better contract provisions because we had a PBGC benefit how many of us agreed with them?

I've no thoughts whatsoever of wanting to take from the AMR folks, but rather of properly upping the ante for the US people. I don't see that as at all an unreasonable thought within a transaction of this magnitude. Top executives will pocket more than it would take to do that for us.

 

[Pi brat]

My concerns are much more what's left unsaid and entirely unspecified within this astoundingly vague, potential agreement than they are with pay rates. Giving team tempe any semblance of a blank check on any aspect of anything's just purely a huge mistake.

That is a very valid concern and I do share it. Thing is, I'm not a lawyer and couldn't tell you for sure what would be good language.
I have to trust our lawyers on this and I don't have a reason not to.

 

[EastUS1]

Thing is, I'm not a lawyer and couldn't tell you for sure what would be good language.

Understood sir. I've no JD after my last name either. I'd simply suggest again reading it through, and if/when ANYthing seems unclear to you at all...well...It's certainly fair to note that the involved language is unacceptable. If anything's not clearly stated, with obvious and unquestionable action times, terms and penalties for inaction/etc, then it's at least intuitive and sensible to note that the language is unnaceptable.

Consider the LOA93 debacle. The intent was obvious, but the lack of concise and definitive language killed any chance of getting what was negotiated for in the first place. "Good faith" and/or "Trust" aren't even the slightest bit meaningful with contemporary management , nor likely will ever be in the future.

Bottom line here = If anyone reading the document isn't 100% certain of what's contained...then something's VERY wrong, and the expected yield will be severe abuse and/or avoidance of any presumed intent by management...period. That last notion isn't even open to reasonable question. It's been well-proven many times over the past years.

 

[Pi brat]

I've no thoughts whatsoever of wanting to take from the AMR folks, but rather of properly upping the ante for the US people. I don't see that as at all an unreasonable thought within a transaction of this magnitude. Top executives will pocket more than it would take to do that for us.

If I thought we had the power to achieve that I would vote no, as I was planning on doing with MOU I. I think our reps and NAC got us a lot more and I don't see much more left. So, it's risk/reward.

The top executives will always pocket more in this country, it's just the way it is. From my POV the MOU is about putting us on even footing going forward, not recovering what we lost. I think that it achieves that.

 

[EastUS1]

If I thought we had the power to achieve that I would vote no, as I was planning on doing with MOU I. I think our reps and NAC got us a lot more and I don't see much more left. So, it's risk/reward.

Disagreed with but understood. We all have to call this one as we see it. Nice to see you around campus here and I hope all's been and is going well for you and yours.

 

[Pi brat]

Understood sir. I've no JD after my last name either. I'd simply suggest again reading it through, and if/when ANYthing seems unclear to you at all...well...It's certainly fair to note that the involved language is unacceptable. If anything's not clearly stated, with obvious and unquestionable action times, terms and penalties for inaction/etc, then it's at least intuitive and sensible to note that the language is unnaceptable.

Consider the LOA93 debacle. The intent was obvious, but the lack of concise and definitive language killed any chance of getting what was negotiated for in the first place. "Good faith" and/or "Trust" aren't even the slightest bit meaningful with contemporary management , nor likely will ever be in the future.

Again, I understand you concerns. Thing is, by that standard I don't think we will get anywhere. Look at the past. How many times has seemingly crystal clear language been convoluted? Who would have thought that "half pay for DH" would equate into no duty rigs paid? Back in the 90's we had a grievance about flying being shifted to PDT. I thought the language was crystal clear and the grievance was a slam dunk. We lost. How much arguing over the words of the courts has gone on here?

 

[Pi brat]

Disagreed with but understood. We all have to call this one as we see it. Ncie to see you aournd campus here and I hope all's been good with you and yours.

And that's what's great about this country. We can express our views and vote our conscience.

Things are good and hope the same for you.

 

[Phoenix]

The AA pilots get that whether the merger happens or not. They used the threat of a merger to get more. Smart, good for them, but there is no guarantee the merger will happen. Not everyone is convinced that a merger with US is best for them and many think US shareholders and employees need it more.

When west pilots were wanting part of our $70 million payouts and better contract provisions because we had a PBGC benefit how many of us agreed with them?

I said congratulations! Ps the value of that stock is directly tied to the size of the new American, with the merger (absent our CoC) it is much greater. I would suggest that the added value to their stock in a combined new American is worth more than our 40 million signing bonus.

 

[AAviator]

"The 100K APA pilots are getting......APA pilots get an extra 87 million a year...which benefits you as well."...?

Screw you punk. Per your "Try to stick to facts"? My apologies then, I should've said; Screw you, you absurdly arrogant little punk. Were this any semblance of a decent and balanced deal...your sorry arse wouldn't feel any need to be "selling" it here. That you feel some/ANY need to try doing so at all is most telling indeed.

I'm not selling anything. I do not want a merger.

And, I'd like to buy a vowel..

 

[AAviator]

I'm probably going to regret this. I said I was leaving and I did, just tuned in every once in a while to check on the usual subjects.

I've been reading the opinions on the MOU. I wasn't able to attend the road show, so I've asked for a summary of what was presented from friends and have been reading other's opinions.

I don't get the angst about the equity that the AA pilots are getting. From what I understand I have to agree with AAviatior. That stake was negotiated in their chp 11 negotiations with AA. They have nothing to do with the merger, it's compensation for what they lost. They will get that stake whether we merge or not. So, if we don't merge the get approx. 15% of the new stock. If we do merge, AA stake holders get around 70% of the new AA and US shareholders will get around 30%(%s to be determined). So the AA pilots will get 15% of the 70% of the new AA, or about the same as they would absent a merger. We are not entitled to that. Back in 2004 we negotiated LOA 93 with two 35 million dollar payouts and stock options. In 2005 our POR upheld those payouts, but west pilots were not entitled to a share, were they? The AA pilots had the power/luck to get more than we did. If the merger is successful, their % of the company may be worth more. Good for them. The US/AW merger raised the value of our stock options. If I remember correctly I received about $30,0000 in stock option and lump sum payouts that west pilots didn't get.

Concessions in the MOU. There certainly are some, like the reserve guarantee and life insurance. Seems to be more for west pilots than east. But, every contract I have seen at the company, except maybe the first one at PI, has had some concession to it. On the whole, a MOU led contract will have much more give than take.

COC. Yes, I believe it has value, just not enough to rely on it. Let's say we turn down the MOU, a merger goes through and we press COC. The company will drag it out in court and even if we do win we will only get the rates until the APA takes over and renegotiates a new joint contract.

Fire away.

1. vacation.

2. work rules

3. retirement.

(part of that 87 million a year in improvements is going to show up in the form of a 16% retirement contribution, up from 14%)

 

[Pi brat]

Ps the value of that stock is directly tied to the size of the new American, with the merger (absent our CoC) it is much greater. I would suggest that the added value to their stock in a combined new American is worth more than our 40 million signing bonus.

Perhaps. What if Doug and his "team" (I hate that term) screw it up and it the value is less? That is the risk the AA pilots are taking by backing Team Tempe.

That said, I just found my stock option statement from 2005. I received about $9000 from one grant. That stock price was no doubt increased because of the merger, but the west pilots didn't get the same.