Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[prechilill]

How's that...same days with more pay per day? Oh, and I think the MOU will be ratified. I'm guessing 4 to 1. Most of us are sick of this contract. I didn't see much in the roadshow that gave me pause.

Seniority is a separate issue from this MOU, Szmanski made that clear in PHX apparently (I didn't go). I voted yes for the MOU. Luv9 is spreading BS and FUD.

 

[EastUS1]

Zero sum is bad enough, but do we always have to be backing up?

Speaking of "Big Picture" fine print, try reading and then actually understanding the AMR Reserve System. Near as I can tell, it is written in such a manner as to make it virtually impossible to understand what the likelihood of having to cover a trip might be at any given time while "on duty". Not to worry though, as long as you are "Reasonably available by ground transportation" you have nothing to be concerned about. Did I mention that I travel by horseback?

"Zero sum is bad enough, but do we always have to be backing up?" Indeed.

"Did I mention that I travel by horseback?" Well....None could reasonably fault a man for embracing an eco-green-friendly lifestyle

"Just to be clear: The participants at Jonestown drank poison laced "FlavorAide" not "KoolAide". Not that it mattered in the "Big Picture". Point both taken and made brother..Grape Flavoraide at that. As always, the Devil (and/or the cyanide) is contained in the details.

 

[EastUS1]

True that we don't see the extra cash until the ED, but we do eventually see it in the form of a retro check.

Well..It's certainly comforting that we might "eventually" see it...and exactly what is it again that the "eventual" check's-in-the mail would be specifically based on? Is there even any reasonable basis on which each pilot could realistically predict those earnings, much less when they'd ever see them arrive? What's the contractual penalty to the company if they just sit on it forever? Oh well. I suppose any such trivial concerns as precise contractual terms should be of no worries to anyone I guess.

All must vote as they best see fit. A bit of thought's strongly suggested before doing so.

 

[A320 Driver]

Seniority is a separate issue from this MOU, Szmanski made that clear in PHX apparently (I didn't go). I voted yes for the MOU. Luv9 is spreading BS and FUD.

We just got an email from the NAC that says the same thing about the NIC. I made statements before that were in error in that regard. The MOU is "NIC Neutral". There is a ton of bad information going around and the email dealt with three of the most contentious issues: COC, AA equity share and the NIC. Kudos to the NAC for the work they are doing. IMO we owe Dean, Ken, Rocky and John a thank you. This is more progress than has been made in half a decade of trying.

 

[EastUS1]

The MOU is "NIC Neutral".

Wow! "NIC Neutral"? WTF does THAT actually MEAN? Sigh! "NIC Neutral" from a union who's Constitution and By Laws require DOH list(s)? A finer argument in favor of it's immediate and unquestioned adoption clearly couldn't be made. You make my point for me here. Does anyone REALLY yet even pretend to know what this little "gem" of an MOU would mean to the pilot group(s)...?

Guess I'd best go read that slick "glossy sales brochure" another time or two to better gain a complete understanding.

A320 Driver: "I made statements before that were in error in that regard." No smart-azzed disrepect meant with this observation sir, but doesn't that strongly indicate that neither yourself nor any of us yet have the real, true and complete "story" here? I'm personally a huge fan of requiring a document that's clear, concise and without ANY massive ambiguity.

What's the compelling need for any of us to just jump head first into this pond of muddy water...without even any concept of it's depth or hidden rocks and logs?

 

[A320 Driver]

Wow! "NIC Neutral"? WTF does THAT actually MEAN? Sigh! "NIC Neutral" from a union who's Constitution and By Laws require DOH list(s)? A finer argument in favor of it's immediate and unquestioned adoption clearly couldn't be made. You make my point for me here. Does anyone REALLY yet even pretend to know what this little "gem" of an MOU would mean to the pilot group(s)...?

Guess I'd best go read that slick "glossy sales brochure" another time or two to better gain a complete understanding.

A320 Driver: "I made statements before that were in error in that regard." No smart-azzed disrepect meant with this observation sir, but doesn't that strongly indicate that neither yourself nor any of us yet have the real, true and complete "story" here? I'm personally a huge fan of requiring a document that's clear, concise and without ANY massive ambiguity.

What's the compelling need for any of us to just jump head first into this pond of muddy water...without even any concept of it's depth or hidden rocks and logs?

To fear is one thing. To let fear grab you by the tail and swing you around is another. ~Katherine Paterson

 

[EastUS1]

To fear is one thing. To let fear grab you by the tail and swing you around is another. ~Katherine Paterson

Huh? What's reasonably expecting an entirely unambiguous and well constructed agreement have to do with "fear"? I'm all ears here..?

If that's truly the best you've got to offer in support of your position....then you've clearly got nothing to say here at all.

A320 Driver: "We just got an email from the NAC that says the same thing about the NIC. I made statements before that were in error in that regard." So then...What else are you completely clueless about? Heck! You've seen the road show and doubtless read the "glossy sales brochure", so..why don't even YOU know what's really true here?

You've contrived and assigned supposed "fear" here, so any and all disrespect's seemingly fair, to say the least. So...Gift us with your knowledge and wisdom. Let's start with a presumably easy one: Exactly WHAT does "Nic neutral" mean?

 

[A320 Driver]

You've contrived and assigned supposed "fear" here, so any and all disrespect's seemingly fair, to say the least. So...Gift us with your knowledge and wisdom. Let's start with a presumably easy one: Exactly WHAT does "Nic neutral" mean?

From the email: "The MOU is completely neutral with respect to the Nicolau Award. In fact, Paragraph 10.h of the MOU says explicitly that neither the MOU nor the JCBA “shall provide a basis for changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways” other than through the McCaskill-Bond process. So, no East pilot should vote against the MOU because they fear that ratifying the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award and no West pilot should vote for the MOU because they believe the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award". I don't see ONE THING ambiguous about this statement.

 

[end_of_alpa]

We do get get AA's pay rates on 2/8. True that we don't see the extra cash until the ED, but we do eventually see it in the form of a retro check.
And whether or not we submit one or two lists is immaterial. The only thing being exchanged it data nothing more so even the ordering of pilots is irrelevant as the APA will parse the list and construct their own combined SL. USAPA will do the same with APA's list and then submit its own list and we more than likely go right into arbitration.

True on the first part. But you were saying we get it right away.

The judge has to approve the merger, first.

Now you're talking. That is what I have been saying generally.

I do not belive it would be prudent to go right into arbitration until the time allowed for is expired.

But anything is possible.

 

[Black Swan]

Greetings Gladiators!

Happy Friday. Thanks for all the info and viewpoints. Can anyone tell me where to locate the actual "Change of Control" language? Or if anyone care to opine, I am interested, in layman's term's, what exactly it would take to actually trigger it. Is just keeping the AA name on the door enough? Any thoughts?,

Just for the record, I am probably a "no" vote. From a personal standpoint, the additional hourly raise (approx $20) capped at 86 hr average per month is about a wash compared to average credit (high 90's) that I usually post. Also with the lower duty rig, I believe that I would have to fly a comparable number of days per month. The STD/LTD and medical are drawbacks, but the 16% contribution probably offsets. The big drawback for me is the minimum block hours giveback. For a "Westie", that has immense downside risk. As I see it, that is the only "leverage" in the West's toolbox.

It seems that the only leverage in the East's arsenal, is CoC. Has anyone tried to put a dollar value on it? Sure you would go to "book rates", but for how long? Til a JCBA? It seems that is what Mr. Parker has at risk. Would he then actually pay out or would litigation be required? What is that worth, considering legal costs and the time/value of that money?

It is strange to be agreeing with my "esteemed colleagues from across the aisle", but from my perspective at this time, my vote is "no". All things considered, it might be conceivable that yours should be "yes".

...No, I haven't popped a top yet, but here I go! Happy Friday!!! BTW: I do solemnly swear NOT to post when I get back tonight... Cheers!

The West pilots are getting ripped off in the MOU. Seniority issue aside, you are getting not enough. Especially vacation. It should at least go to 35 considering nobody gets holidays that the average joe gets. That is 10 more days.

 

[EastUS1]

Didn't the "enormous cost" of the PIC get covered "off budget?' I seem to recall many Special Assessment invoices, and just as many check written for the PIC. If the pilots voted for it, what's it to Hummel?

Indeed. That's pretty much my whole point regarding that "enormous cost" nonsense sir. Why would anyone, even supposedly supportive of the effort (paid through assessments) stupidly show his true "supportive" colors by noting any "enormous cost"? Again; that pegged my BS meter, even though I've long ago gone digital, just to get by around here.

 

[end_of_alpa]

We just got an email from the NAC that says the same thing about the NIC. I made statements before that were in error in that regard. The MOU is "NIC Neutral". There is a ton of bad information going around and the email dealt with three of the most contentious issues: COC, AA equity share and the NIC. Kudos to the NAC for the work they are doing. IMO we owe Dean, Ken, Rocky and John a thank you. This is more progress than has been made in half a decade of trying.

What the hell is "NIC neutral"?

And these guys pushed the first MOU as the last best hope.

I didn't see heavy lifting, but heavy drifting!

COC gone, AA (APA) equity share, yes and NIC neutral?

BOHICA.

 

[A320 Driver]

What the hell is "NIC neutral"?

And these guys pushed the first MOU as the last best hope.

I didn't see heavy lifting, but heavy drifting!

COC gone, AA (APA) equity share, yes and NIC neutral?

BOHICA.

Sorry...my post was uncalled for.

 

[EastUS1]

Then read the email. If you don't understand it, have someone read it to you.

Ah! Nothing like submitting smug, smarmy pretentiousness in place of any argument that'd have the slightest chance of holding up in even a freshmen philosophy class

I submit your earlier post as evidence that you should perhaps, also consider having "someone read it to you"...?

A320 Driver: "We just got an email from the NAC that says the same thing about the NIC. I made statements before that were in error in that regard."

 

[end_of_alpa]

You want this voted down...what's your plan B? LOA93 for the duration? Why is it that you know more than the NAC, our lawyers, our paid advisor and the APA plus most of USAPA leadership? Maybe you just want to cram one up the company's wazoo? Better protect your own in the process. Our track record on that sort of thing isn't too good.

Then why have a vote? Just go ahead and cram it down the rank and file throat.

I don't need to smell, taste and touch it to know not to step in it. This is the common "leadership" argument that we know better than you. This shouldn't be about "cramming one" up the company's wazoo, it's about return on investment. They call that a business decision where I'm from.

If the MOU has merit, then the majority will vote for it. If they don't, there is the risk/uncertainty. Although I will say with the disunity we've had for the past 8 years it may very well be the best deal available.

All those groups you mention have their own interests just like ours, no one expects to capture the "good old days", but maybe it would be nice to get a better return.