Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[end_of_alpa]

Sorry...my post was uncalled for.

why don't you post it?

 

[EastUS1]

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.

"I don't see ONE THING ambiguous about this statement." Seriously? How about the part where "the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways” are clearly defined? Oh..nevermind...said concise definition is nowhere to be found. What's legally and define-ably "currently in effect" around here? West people argue that the Nic fits well within that definition. Why not some/ANY verbage that would have completely clarified the issue and removed all doubt and speculation?

 

[A320 Driver]

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.

Very good points.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Before this MOU was disclosed to the pilots, my main trepidation was the seniority issue. Would they resort to the old ' dangle some money in front of us in exchange for throwing fellow pilots under the bus' ploy. It's clear to me now that this is not the case. The seniority can has been kicked down the road.

To the contrary, the 'under the bus' issue has shifted. Now we are considering grabbing these 2002 Book Rates ( the exact value of which is murky at best and the duration of which is certainly short term), while throwing our 190 pilots under the bus, not to mention the PHX pilots. There may be no love lost between us and them, but there is not yet any love attained between us and the AA pilots. The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind. This has been a crucial component missing in our effort to secure an industry standard JCBA in case you haven't been paying attention.

The NAC has done an adequate job of explaining the 13.5% equity stake for APA and I'm beginning to agree with them that the total economic value of this MOU exceeds that of CoC, which is very narrow in scope (small s), short in duration and must be funded, litigated and won first (a first for USAPA).

Finally the brochure. I'm certain that if they sent us 16 pages of copy stappled together, someone would complain about the lack of 'presentation'.

 

[A320 Driver]

why don't you post it?

I did, and immediately regretted it and deleted it.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I did, and immediately regretted it and deleted it.

No, I mean post the NAC email?

 

[A320 Driver]

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

You are right...it was a dumb thing to post. I didn't take philosophy.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Before this MOU was disclosed to the pilots, my main trepidation was the seniority issue. Would they resort to the old ' dangle some money in front of us in exchange for throwing fellow pilots under the bus' ploy. It's clear to me now that this is not the case. The seniority can has been kicked down the road.

To the contrary, the 'under the bus' issue has shifted. Now we are considering grabbing these 2002 Book Rates ( the exact value of which is murky at best and the duration of which is certainly short term), while throwing our 190 pilots under the bus, not to mention the PHX pilots. There may be no love lost between us and them, but there is not yet any love attained between us and the AA pilots. The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind. This has been a crucial component missing in our effort to secure an industry standard JCBA in case you haven't been paying attention.

The NAC has done an adequate job of explaining the 13.5% equity stake for APA and I'm beginning to agree with them that the total economic value of this MOU exceeds that of CoC, which is very narrow in scope (small s), short in duration and must be funded, litigated and won first (a first for USAPA).

Finally the brochure. I'm certain that if they sent us 16 pages of copy stappled together, someone would complain about the lack of 'presentation'.

the truth is in the numbers. So where are the numbers comparison?

 

[A320 Driver]

No, I mean post the NAC email?

The whole thing??? It's a full page!

 

[EastUS1]

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.

An excellent post and perfectly put sir.

 

[end_of_alpa]

The whole thing??? It's a full page!

you bet!

 

[A320 Driver]

"I don't see ONE THING ambiguous about this statement." Seriously? How about the part where "the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways” are clearly defined? Oh..nevermind...said concise definition is nowhere to be found. What's legally and define-ably "currently in effect" around here? West people argue that the Nic fits well within that definition. Why not some/ANY verbage that would have completely clarified the issue and removed all doubt and speculation?

Come on now... "lists"...plural. Two lists, one East and one West, "in effect". That's not clear enough? The NIC is NOT "in effect".

 

[Piedmont1984]

the truth is in the numbers. So where are the numbers comparison?

Good point. How about the CoC proponents posting some hard numbers first?

 

[EastUS1]

You are right...it was a dumb thing to post. I didn't take philosophy.

No worries here sir. It's axiomatic that seriously debated issues inevitably produce both colorful and sometimes heated exchanges. My concern's getting the best future that can be negotiated for the US pilots, as I believe, is yours as well.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Before this MOU was disclosed to the pilots, my main trepidation was the seniority issue. Would they resort to the old ' dangle some money in front of us in exchange for throwing fellow pilots under the bus' ploy. It's clear to me now that this is not the case. The seniority can has been kicked down the road.

To the contrary, the 'under the bus' issue has shifted. Now we are considering grabbing these 2002 Book Rates ( the exact value of which is murky at best and the duration of which is certainly short term), while throwing our 190 pilots under the bus, not to mention the PHX pilots. There may be no love lost between us and them, but there is not yet any love attained between us and the AA pilots. The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind. This has been a crucial component missing in our effort to secure an industry standard JCBA in case you haven't been paying attention.

The NAC has done an adequate job of explaining the 13.5% equity stake for APA and I'm beginning to agree with them that the total economic value of this MOU exceeds that of CoC, which is very narrow in scope (small s), short in duration and must be funded, litigated and won first (a first for USAPA).

Finally the brochure. I'm certain that if they sent us 16 pages of copy stappled together, someone would complain about the lack of 'presentation'.

It is funny you mention the presentation, especially the items that aren't in "BOLD" print. Anyway ,have to agree on the Coc total economic thing, except now instead of litigation we get an "IOU" from a guy that can negotiate in a week with 3 AMR groups and drag us along for years! Voted NO!, Scope and that NAC update put out this morning a real affirmation moment! MM! GOOD LUCK!