Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Wall Fly
Sent: Jan 27, 2013 4:05 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients@null, null@null
Subject: MOU need to know

The Rest of the Story

By the Fly on the Wall



The Unanimous Vote

There’s been a lot of conjecture about the possibility that 5 members of the BPR who voted to recommend membership approval of the MOU actually don’t support it and will personally vote against it during ratification. That is true, they will vote against it. In addition, 2 east pilots who sat in during a portion of deliberations as DDR’s (duly designated representatives) will also vote against the MOU. If you’re skeptical, give them a call and ask. These are the representatives and DDR’s.

Bill McKee
Steve Crimi
DeWitt Ingram
Steve Szpyrka
Mike Gilles
Paul Diorio (DDR)
Mike Martin (DDR)

This is obviously causing a lot of confusion on the line. How could 7 east pilots who had a hand in deliberating the MOU not actually be supportive of it? After all, it was a unanimous vote, right?

The reason isn’t that complicated. Here is why there was a unanimous vote without actual unanimous support of the MOU:

· The 5 members of the BPR (and 2 DDR’s) believe that President Hummel is working in collusion with the Company and he is being enabled by 6 BPR members (3 PHX, 2 DCA, 1 PHL). As a result, they believe that the MOU is the best we can do absent a recall of the Officers or a change in the BPR (PHL election), or…a rejection by the membership.
· The 5 demanded extra cash for our pilots (pay beginning on the date of ratification). When they did this, one of the 5 offered a unanimous vote to secure the pay. He did not have the consensus of the 5.

The 5 voted for you to approve the MOU not because they thought it was a good agreement but because they absolutely knew the other 6 were going to approve it with a 6-5 vote and decided if that was going to happen they needed to use their leverage to secure some additional pay, and that’s just what they did. But, and this is a monumental but….they do not want the membership to ratify the agreement.

A Little History

The 7 pilots named above believe that the Officers, particularly Gary Hummel, are working in collusion with the Company and will be rewarded someday by the company, a la Assistant Chief Pilot Bill Pollock. These Officers are being enabled by 6 members of the BPR – 3 PHX, 2 DCA, 1 PHL (Weidner) so they routinely lose votes 6-5. On January 3rd after hours of heated debate it was obvious the 6 were going to force a vote on the MOU and there was no doubt it would pass 6-5. Immediately prior to that the 6 members of the BPR, all 4 NAC members, 3 of 4 Officers, the Comm. Chairman and the Scope Chairman and a few more had all verbalized their belief that the MOU as presented was “the best we could do” and there was “nothing more left on the table”. Only a moment before the vote would have been forced, Vice Chairman Steve Crimi asked each member of the 5 if he had permission to speak for the group and they each replied “yes”. He then addressed the BPR and informed them that if the vote was forced right then, the 5 members would call for a “division” (roll call) and the MOU would fail. (When a “division” is called each BPR member votes for each pilot they represent. In that case, the 5 members have more votes than the 6)

After a cacophony of outbursts from the 6 subsided, an ultimatum was given…If the company meets a specific demand – which was given moments later - the 5 would still vote against the MOU, but they would not call for a division to prevail and the MOU would pass 6 -5. Soon after the ultimatum was given, one of the 5 offered a unanimous vote. That offer by one member of the 5 has proved very problematic because as a result, the 5 are being censored from communicating their true feelings about the MOU.


Why Didn’t the Five Use Division to Stop the MOU if They Didn’t Support it?

Unlike at ALPA, a Division of the house can only be used for very specific purposes under the USAPA Constitution. Here’s the language

“Division of the house shall be permitted only for votes taken to approve or reject any tentative agreements affecting income, work rule change(s), and/or benefit(s); setting parameters for collective bargaining; agreements on affiliation or merger with another labor organization; agreements arising from a merger of, or successor transactions involving the employer, or its parent (including seniority integration agreements); and amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws. On a Division of the house vote, each member of the Board shall be entitled to vote equal percentages of the active members in good standing…”

The 5 did not call for a division of the house to stop the MOU because they knew if the MOU failed at the BPR level that additional actions would needed to be taken and these actions would come in the form of directives through BPR resolutions. At that point, a call for division would not be available under the Constitution and any action the 5 thought necessary would likely be voted down 6-5 again. It is also particularly difficult to direct the President and lawyers and committees to do certain things when the President - who oversees both Legal Counsel and the Committees - does not support such actions. With these things in mind, the 5 chose instead to use the threat of division to secure an additional gain for the pilots should the membership approve the MOU. Do not take this to mean they support the MOU and want you to ratify it. They do not.

The Value of Your Change of Control

The NAC sent you a Q & A on January 25th. It was another in a series of educational pieces meant to persuade you to vote “yes” on the MOU. In it the NAC provided you with their take on the valuation of the change of control being triggered versus signing onto the MOU. Their valuation is pointless because the value of the Change of Control does not come from it being triggered. The value of the Change of Control is to force the company to the table. The Change of Control is for sale, and right now your President, NAC and 6 members of the BPR are encouraging you to sell it for a fraction of its true worth. Only a few years ago, Doug Parker in an interview with Ted Reed said a merger couldn’t be done with the Change of Control language in place. Vote “no” and the company will be back.



Sincerely,

The Fly on the Wall

Once again the usual suspects have an entirely different view of the world. Except this time they are in the minority and they don't like it.

Once again you have east reps that gave their word that they support the MOU going back on their word now. How is it you east pilots trust anyone to keep their word?

Once again east pilots complain about ALPA and the role call vote and gave that as an excuse to get rid of ALPA. Yet here we are again the minority of the BPR threatening to use the role call vote to get what they could not get otherwise. How do you east pilots trust anything your leadership says?

Quoting Ted Reed? Really that guy has no credibility. Quoting Ted Reed as an expert on contract language that in his opinion

Ted Reed said a merger couldn’t be done with the Change of Control language in place. Vote “no” and the company will be back.

The lawyers say no but Ted Reed thinks it is possible. Ted Reed does not have to live another couple years under LOA 93 and C2004 if the company does not come back.

I am just stunnded that these idiots are the best leaders you east pilots can find to run the union. Good thing ALPA is gone because usapa is SOOOOOO much better.

The APA is going to eat our lunch with guys like Crimi and his buddies having a say in how things are run.

One last thing. If Crimi and his boys got the retor piece, when did that happen? Are they trying to tell us that during the three day that the NAC never left CLT they along with the APA the company and the UCC were able to change the MOU that the APA had already approved and get more money?

Or more likely the NAC brought that piece to the table already negotitated and CLT and PHL are trying to take credit for it because they know the NDA keeps the opther reps from talking?

The more Crimi and the other reps try and take credit, discredit the officers and desperatly try and hold on to thier little reps jobs the more they look like liars.


Once again we have an unsigned rant. If this person or persons were honest they would put their name to it and take ownership. why hide in the shadows?

 

[Metroyet]

Why?

Because not everybody is an angry alcoholic that secretly enjoys the LOA93 suffering as it gives him an excuse to vomit endless hyperbolic, mostly meaningless, anachronistic syllables upon the Internet.

Some, aka "the sane" want this to end with a hell of a lot more money for their families. Those single, alone, with nobody to care for and vise versa enjoy the misery...it's all they have.

 

[cleardirect]

The 5 members of the BPR (and 2 DDR's) believe that President Hummel is working in collusion with the Company and he is being enabled by 6 BPR members (3 PHX, 2 DCA, 1 PHL). As a result, they believe that the MOU is the best we can do absent a recall of the Officers or a change in the BPR (PHL election), or…a rejection by the membership.


Dang, Gary is really busted now. How could this confidential information find its way to an anonamous source?

I will change my vote to a "no" immediatly. Thank goodness this info got out. None of us had any idea such evil was among us.

Greeter (I guess when the facts and logic fail, you can always go with the "collusion with the Company" angle. Yeah, that's the ticket)

Funny how when it was a 6-5 majority for the CLT boys it was a good thing. But a 6-5 or now 11-0 against the CLT and PHL boys it is collusion and the officers must be recalled.

I thought majority ruled was the driving force for usapa. Guess not for CLT and PHL. when they lose a vote it requires attacks.

 

[Pi brat]

There's going to be litigation thrown into the mix at the most opportune time. I would ignore any perceived timelines.

Why is that? Because you see USAPA forwarding a DOH list and AOL filing suit and asking for an injunction? If so, I can see that.

 

[cleardirect]

I am the source?You indeed are a piece of work, and a little overly smug (even more so than me, if that is possible.)Greeter

The ignore button works real well. I have given up on that poster. No longer is worthy of my time to even read his trash.

 

[EastUS1]

You must only marvel at repeat views of your own prose.

Nope. That letter's not my work in any way, shape or form.

I suppose the bottom line here gentlemen, is that we can all joyously and endlessly tear into each other, but must individually decide whether or not the instrument/MOU, as written, is acceptable. I very obviously feel it's not only incredibly fraught-through with glaringly huge flaws in just the language alone, but is likewise, grossly deficient in the areas of compensation as well as viable protections of ANY tangible sort whatsoever.

All must choose to do as they see best.

 

[EastUS1]

Because not everybody is an angry alcoholic that secretly enjoys the LOA93 suffering as it gives him an excuse to vomit endless hyperbolic, mostly meaningless, anachronistic syllables upon the Internet.

Some, aka "the sane" want this to end with a hell of a lot more money for their families. Those single, alone, with nobody to care for and vise versa enjoy the misery...it's all they have.

That simplest possible, one-word question merely addressed the idea that a contract was assumed to be mandatory prior to starting any seniority process. Your response to just that one-word question is clinically interesting. Nice to see that you're clearly enjoying yet another bright and sunny day in what must unquestionably be a truly happy and contented life.

 

[Metroyet]

Why is that? Because you see USAPA forwarding a DOH list and AOL filing suit and asking for an injunction? If so, I can see that.

Assuming the merger proceeds, (MOU or not) Ripeness is unavoidable. Whenever the triggering event happens, I would suspect the litigation to commence that afternoon. I doubt anybody plans on waiting.

 

[Portly Dorman]

My question is this: Isn't this the same MOU that the AMR pilots have? A lot of folks on here act as though this were an agreement unique to USAPA, and I don't believe that is true. A lot of it really sucks, but can't it be corrected in negotiations for a JCBA? It seems a lot of the problems are fairly low cost items, like job protections and insurance.

Not trying to make a scene, just want to know if my perceptions are true.

Bazinga


PS

There is no another bite at the apple. Bad behavior now will not get you anything.

 

[dca319]

1) I've been surprisingly unable to view them as the supernatural beings you seem to see them as. If indeed "The Great and Powerful OZ has the situation well in hand", then WHY are they suddenly, as if only by magic after all these years, even offering to negotiate at all?

2) I've no confidence that it's entirely a deal breaker, but rather is, very, VERY clearly, something that's dearly wanted by team tempe, and that affords us a reasonable expectation of more than the pathetically sub-standard-and-entirely-full-of-easilly-exploitable-holes, nebulous pos that's been put forth.

If I'm wrong then we still get off of LOA 93 and see a great pay bump.

If you're wrong?

 

[dca319]

Then make them. You won't, and they know it. They know you better than you know yourself.

Make them? How? And with what? The threat of a grievance? Wild cat? What?

 

[Portly Dorman]

Isn't that what we did when we kept walking away from the company's LOA93 offer only to come back to something worse every time? The NAC made it clear that if we vote no it's status quo until the merger is complete.

You have the same crowd chanting the same thing now. There's always more right up until the rug gets pull out from under us.

Go ahead and listen to the nay sayers, then reelect them to union leadership positions...

 

[Pi brat]

For anyone that is planning on voting against the MOU mainly because you think a better deal is out there using the C of C, can you address one issue? The IAM also has C of C in their contract. They did not give it up in the US/AW merger and lost a grievance on it. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen the company clamoring to get them to give it up. If they are it's not public like ours. So what's the difference? Could it be that they have a contract and it hasn't been raised as a main issue by AA management against a merger inside of Ch 11?

 

[dca319]

Every legacy airline out there is under injunction. So what. You are a serious pu$$y.

Every one? Which ones? Can you list who is under an injunction? You are the worst kind out there - all balls with no common sense to guide you. Our LOA 93 makes so much sense.

 

[prechilill]

Assuming the merger proceeds, (MOU or not) Ripeness is unavoidable. Whenever the triggering event happens, I would suspect the litigation to commence that afternoon. I doubt anybody plans on waiting.

My thoughts exactly, I feel very comfortable with our legal position going into this.