F/a's Receive Company Counterproposal
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
I think a lot of you are missing the point here,
This is it... Endgame.
As much complaining that I have heard on here about "this proposal and that cutback" I ask you this...
How much vacation time will you have when you start over somewhere...? How much salary will you be able to begin with (at 1st yr pay) in comparison to the proposal in front of you now...? Health benefits...? Wanna bet that they stay as good as you have now, or are you a fair bit more realistic than that...?
Can you really be that sure of being able to land a job whle thousands with the very same qualifications as you fight for the same position?
Do not listen to anyone on here when it comes to making up your own mind, but be smart enough to use the "put food on the table and roof over head" test when it comes to something like this. Quite simply, as bad as this proposal might seem now (and they just keep getting worse), How bad is it in comparison to starting over...?
It is an unrealistic viewpoint to be telling yourself "Gee, this sucks compared to what I used to have". No duh. But as bad as a 500-100$ a month unemployment check without health coverage....?
Because I think many on here are under the mistaken impression that they can just hold out for awhile and things will get better. In case you have not noticed, that is dead wrong, and once the company liquidates there is no going back, no "deal" to be made.
None.
Reality is that time is running out, and the company will just simply cease to exist here in a short while. So compare these proposals to that looming eventuality, not "what was".
This is it... Endgame.
As much complaining that I have heard on here about "this proposal and that cutback" I ask you this...
How much vacation time will you have when you start over somewhere...? How much salary will you be able to begin with (at 1st yr pay) in comparison to the proposal in front of you now...? Health benefits...? Wanna bet that they stay as good as you have now, or are you a fair bit more realistic than that...?
Can you really be that sure of being able to land a job whle thousands with the very same qualifications as you fight for the same position?
Do not listen to anyone on here when it comes to making up your own mind, but be smart enough to use the "put food on the table and roof over head" test when it comes to something like this. Quite simply, as bad as this proposal might seem now (and they just keep getting worse), How bad is it in comparison to starting over...?
It is an unrealistic viewpoint to be telling yourself "Gee, this sucks compared to what I used to have". No duh. But as bad as a 500-100$ a month unemployment check without health coverage....?
Because I think many on here are under the mistaken impression that they can just hold out for awhile and things will get better. In case you have not noticed, that is dead wrong, and once the company liquidates there is no going back, no "deal" to be made.
None.
Reality is that time is running out, and the company will just simply cease to exist here in a short while. So compare these proposals to that looming eventuality, not "what was".
[
USA320Pilot comments: I do not like it, but the company can ask and then have what they desire “imposedâ€. The argument will be that the LCC’s are hiring people at these rates and the company must be competitive to survive. An employee returning from furlough will be like adding a new employee, thus the court must decide if the company can sustain a higher labor cost structure.
Well from the maintenance point of view checking the starting wage of a JetBlue technician which I think you would agree is a LCC, the starting wage is $23hr plus 2/hr for 10yrs of part 121 exp plus a small shift differential which bring total pay up to about $25 and some change. Independence Air is starting out about $18. The low side is MDA which is $13.01. I just cannot understand the company's argument to the judge, or maybe the judges reasoning...sure if everyone makes $5 hr they will make money, but me I would rather shut the place down. I am sure you would be a bit unhappy if they parked the AB fleet you were furloughed until you were typed on another A/C and you came in as a new hire. I just find it hard to believe it is legal for them to do it.
USA320Pilot comments: I do not like it, but the company can ask and then have what they desire “imposedâ€. The argument will be that the LCC’s are hiring people at these rates and the company must be competitive to survive. An employee returning from furlough will be like adding a new employee, thus the court must decide if the company can sustain a higher labor cost structure.
Well from the maintenance point of view checking the starting wage of a JetBlue technician which I think you would agree is a LCC, the starting wage is $23hr plus 2/hr for 10yrs of part 121 exp plus a small shift differential which bring total pay up to about $25 and some change. Independence Air is starting out about $18. The low side is MDA which is $13.01. I just cannot understand the company's argument to the judge, or maybe the judges reasoning...sure if everyone makes $5 hr they will make money, but me I would rather shut the place down. I am sure you would be a bit unhappy if they parked the AB fleet you were furloughed until you were typed on another A/C and you came in as a new hire. I just find it hard to believe it is legal for them to do it.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #49
USA320Pilot said:
Well, let's examine that just a little....
By my count, there have been 2 objections to company motions that have not been settled by mutual consent prior to a hearing - interim relief and the timetable for negotiations with the retiree committee.
Interim relief - the judge rejected granting everything the company wanted.
Retiree committee negotiation schedule - the judge declined the company's request for the date of the initial meeting between company and committee representatives and rejected the deadlines for resolution as requested by the company.
Jim
repeet
Veteran
Rico,
Nobody that I know the Mechanic and Related group believes that it will ever get better. I suspect that the CWA group doesn't either. The motivation is that those who put us into this position suffer the most discomfort that we can arrange for them.
Is this reasonable? We know that it isn't.
Is it just? We are convicted to our souls that justice demands it!
Nobody that I know the Mechanic and Related group believes that it will ever get better. I suspect that the CWA group doesn't either. The motivation is that those who put us into this position suffer the most discomfort that we can arrange for them.
Is this reasonable? We know that it isn't.
Is it just? We are convicted to our souls that justice demands it!
Really...? Huh.
I fail to see where such "justice" places either
A. Food on table, or,
B. Roof over head.
I know 500-1000$ Unemployment checks do not go very far towards doing either A or B.
And I think you are waaaaaay off base when you think some sort of "justice" will be felt by those you hold a grudge towards. Most everything US Airways has is used as collateral, for example there is a fair bit of cash remaining, but it is spoken for...
The reason is so that no supposed "justice" will be felt by those you think "deserve" it.
That is like showing your bank who is boss by stopping your loan payments on your house. They could care less in the long run because they are covered. You on the other hand would no longer have a roof over your head because of your stupid gesture.
That's not "justice", that just plain dumb.
I fail to see where such "justice" places either
A. Food on table, or,
B. Roof over head.
I know 500-1000$ Unemployment checks do not go very far towards doing either A or B.
And I think you are waaaaaay off base when you think some sort of "justice" will be felt by those you hold a grudge towards. Most everything US Airways has is used as collateral, for example there is a fair bit of cash remaining, but it is spoken for...
The reason is so that no supposed "justice" will be felt by those you think "deserve" it.
That is like showing your bank who is boss by stopping your loan payments on your house. They could care less in the long run because they are covered. You on the other hand would no longer have a roof over your head because of your stupid gesture.
That's not "justice", that just plain dumb.
repeet
Veteran
Rico,
A very "reasonable" reply.
A very "reasonable" reply.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #53
Let's look at this "bargaining in good faith" idea, as it pertains to 1113c....
What was the company's stated purpose for entering into this round of concessionary negotiations, both as stated to the unions and the BK court? Wasn't it "to achieve competitive labor costs" with the LCC's (principally B6 and HP)?
For now, let's stipulate that $X in concessions is necessary to reach "competitive" costs for any given group. If this is the case, why would subsequent proposals get worse, in dollar value to the company?
It's a given that the company could argue that situation has changed - higher fuel prices, lower average fares, passengers booking away in greater numbers, etc, could all be cited as the reason for needing more.
But remember the reason for needing these concessions - competitive labor costs.
Have B6, HP, WN, etc, sought employee concessions to lower their labor costs because of higher fuel costs, etc? No.
Have the labor costs of B6, HP, WN, etc changed as a result of higher fuel costs, etc? No.
So, is US bargaining in good faith to achieve "competitive labor costs" when they up the "ask" to offset non-labor cost increases? One could certainly argue that they aren't....
Jim
What was the company's stated purpose for entering into this round of concessionary negotiations, both as stated to the unions and the BK court? Wasn't it "to achieve competitive labor costs" with the LCC's (principally B6 and HP)?
For now, let's stipulate that $X in concessions is necessary to reach "competitive" costs for any given group. If this is the case, why would subsequent proposals get worse, in dollar value to the company?
It's a given that the company could argue that situation has changed - higher fuel prices, lower average fares, passengers booking away in greater numbers, etc, could all be cited as the reason for needing more.
But remember the reason for needing these concessions - competitive labor costs.
Have B6, HP, WN, etc, sought employee concessions to lower their labor costs because of higher fuel costs, etc? No.
Have the labor costs of B6, HP, WN, etc changed as a result of higher fuel costs, etc? No.
So, is US bargaining in good faith to achieve "competitive labor costs" when they up the "ask" to offset non-labor cost increases? One could certainly argue that they aren't....
Jim
Nice try Jim
In case you have not noticed, we are bankrupt
Thiose other carriers you mentioned are not.
We have costs as a result that they do not, on top of rising fuel prices.
Is the news rife with stories of supposed holiday strikes at those carriers...? Nope
Is the news rife with articles claiming those carriers are about to die, no.
The cost targets shift because this bankruptcy costs more and more as time marches on. We pay COD now, do those other airlines, no
So try again Jim
In case you have not noticed, we are bankrupt
Thiose other carriers you mentioned are not.
We have costs as a result that they do not, on top of rising fuel prices.
Is the news rife with stories of supposed holiday strikes at those carriers...? Nope
Is the news rife with articles claiming those carriers are about to die, no.
The cost targets shift because this bankruptcy costs more and more as time marches on. We pay COD now, do those other airlines, no
So try again Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #55
Rico,
Thanks for proving my point.
The company says they want competitive labor costs, and they said this to not just the unions but to the judge in the motion for interim relief. I suspect they will make the same argument in any 1113c motions.
In reality the company is seeking to have the employees "pay" for other increasing costs - non-labor costs.
It's be interesting to see what the judge's reaction would be if the company told him "Your honor, we're seeking lower labor costs than the LCC's. Our fuel cost, etc is higher than we anticipated and we want the employees to take bigger cuts to offset that."
Unlike you, I don't think that's the argument they'll make....
Jim
Thanks for proving my point.
The company says they want competitive labor costs, and they said this to not just the unions but to the judge in the motion for interim relief. I suspect they will make the same argument in any 1113c motions.
In reality the company is seeking to have the employees "pay" for other increasing costs - non-labor costs.
It's be interesting to see what the judge's reaction would be if the company told him "Your honor, we're seeking lower labor costs than the LCC's. Our fuel cost, etc is higher than we anticipated and we want the employees to take bigger cuts to offset that."
Unlike you, I don't think that's the argument they'll make....
Jim
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #56
Rico:
Rico said: "It is an unrealistic viewpoint to be telling yourself "Gee, this sucks compared to what I used to have". No duh. But as bad as a 500-100$ a month unemployment check without health coverage....?
Because I think many on here are under the mistaken impression that they can just hold out for awhile and things will get better. In case you have not noticed, that is dead wrong, and once the company liquidates there is no going back, no "deal" to be made.
None.
Reality is that time is running out, and the company will just simply cease to exist here in a short while. So compare these proposals to that looming eventuality, not "what was".
USA320Pilot comments: Your comments are valid.
Earlier today US Airways ALPA BOS F/O Rep Garland Jones made an interesting post on the ALPA Message Board. Jones wrote:
"We just got backed into a corner,'' said Teddy Xidas, president of Association of Flight Attendants Local 40 in Pittsburgh.
----------------------
Teddy,
Don't feel too bad about it. Our MEC Reps from PHL and PIT, along with members of our Negotiating Team, as well as 42% of the pilots voting on LOA 93, all wanted to be in that corner with you.
In fact, even after we had a TA, there was a concerted effort by some Reps to kill it:
-------------------
From John Brookman's Letter to Council 94 - 10/12/04:
"Therefore I recommend you vote NO on this Tentative Agreement.
There is a path to a better deal.
After this TA is voted down, the company will seek relief in court as described in their 1113E filing. When the judge approves the 1113E request (and make no mistake, he will), the company will have the immediate financial relief they need, and our working conditions will remain significantly better than the current TA. We will then engage the Negotiating Committee to continue their work and improve upon this disastrous Tentative Agreement."
---------------------
As you can see, "Need vs. Greed" was the war cry, with similar pleas of "Take the 21% paycut and negotiate a better deal," and "Just let the Judge decide" overwhelming this WebBoard.
And what did every single one of our legal and financial advisors tell us about the wisdom of pursuing that strategy? The told us that it was suicidal. Suicidal because the ask would only go up the longer we waited to get a deal.
We lived your nightmare ourselves before believing them, and from Sept. 6 to Oct. 1 we lost, due to the PHL and PIT Reps denying the pilots the right to vote on the company's Sept. 6 proposal:
-------------------------
1. DC qualified monies for July thru Sept. 12, 2004: In the TA, now paid no later than Nov. 30, 2005. In the company's Sept. 6 proposal, they would have been paid on schedule.
2. Notional monies: In the TA, they will not be fully paid until 30 months after retirement. In the company's Sept. 6 proposal, they would have been paid lump sum.
3. Fragmentation Protection: Had it in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
4. 279 minimum aircraft fleet and minimum block hour guarantee: Had it in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
5. Equity: 19.3% in the Sept. 6 proposal, 8.5% maximum in the TA.
6. Contingent Acquisition Rights: Had them in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
7. Various Allegheny-Mohawk merger protections: Had them in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
8. Displacement rights to MDA while in bankruptcy: Had it in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
9. Training out of seniority during bankruptcy: Prohibited in the Sept. 6 proposal, allowed in the TA.
10. Vacation: 28 days in the Sept. 6 proposal, 21 days in the TA.
-----------------------
Indeed, you do now seem to have that tiger by the tail.
Good luck,
Garland
USA320Pilot comments: It's nonsensical to think that the company proposals will not get worse. There has been a pattern set by the "concession stand is closed" crowd in every union. Furthermore, if Judge Mitchell would permit a job action the business enterprise would be liquidated. Therefore, it is widely expected he will prevent such action and give a union member an option: work under a cost competitive contract or resign from the company.
This is not fear, but reality. The fear is likely from the "just say no crowd" who cannot live with the pending new contract terms or obtain a job outside of US Airways, otherwise they would have moved on to another company.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Rico said: "It is an unrealistic viewpoint to be telling yourself "Gee, this sucks compared to what I used to have". No duh. But as bad as a 500-100$ a month unemployment check without health coverage....?
Because I think many on here are under the mistaken impression that they can just hold out for awhile and things will get better. In case you have not noticed, that is dead wrong, and once the company liquidates there is no going back, no "deal" to be made.
None.
Reality is that time is running out, and the company will just simply cease to exist here in a short while. So compare these proposals to that looming eventuality, not "what was".
USA320Pilot comments: Your comments are valid.
Earlier today US Airways ALPA BOS F/O Rep Garland Jones made an interesting post on the ALPA Message Board. Jones wrote:
"We just got backed into a corner,'' said Teddy Xidas, president of Association of Flight Attendants Local 40 in Pittsburgh.
----------------------
Teddy,
Don't feel too bad about it. Our MEC Reps from PHL and PIT, along with members of our Negotiating Team, as well as 42% of the pilots voting on LOA 93, all wanted to be in that corner with you.
In fact, even after we had a TA, there was a concerted effort by some Reps to kill it:
-------------------
From John Brookman's Letter to Council 94 - 10/12/04:
"Therefore I recommend you vote NO on this Tentative Agreement.
There is a path to a better deal.
After this TA is voted down, the company will seek relief in court as described in their 1113E filing. When the judge approves the 1113E request (and make no mistake, he will), the company will have the immediate financial relief they need, and our working conditions will remain significantly better than the current TA. We will then engage the Negotiating Committee to continue their work and improve upon this disastrous Tentative Agreement."
---------------------
As you can see, "Need vs. Greed" was the war cry, with similar pleas of "Take the 21% paycut and negotiate a better deal," and "Just let the Judge decide" overwhelming this WebBoard.
And what did every single one of our legal and financial advisors tell us about the wisdom of pursuing that strategy? The told us that it was suicidal. Suicidal because the ask would only go up the longer we waited to get a deal.
We lived your nightmare ourselves before believing them, and from Sept. 6 to Oct. 1 we lost, due to the PHL and PIT Reps denying the pilots the right to vote on the company's Sept. 6 proposal:
-------------------------
1. DC qualified monies for July thru Sept. 12, 2004: In the TA, now paid no later than Nov. 30, 2005. In the company's Sept. 6 proposal, they would have been paid on schedule.
2. Notional monies: In the TA, they will not be fully paid until 30 months after retirement. In the company's Sept. 6 proposal, they would have been paid lump sum.
3. Fragmentation Protection: Had it in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
4. 279 minimum aircraft fleet and minimum block hour guarantee: Had it in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
5. Equity: 19.3% in the Sept. 6 proposal, 8.5% maximum in the TA.
6. Contingent Acquisition Rights: Had them in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
7. Various Allegheny-Mohawk merger protections: Had them in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
8. Displacement rights to MDA while in bankruptcy: Had it in the Sept. 6 proposal, gone in the TA.
9. Training out of seniority during bankruptcy: Prohibited in the Sept. 6 proposal, allowed in the TA.
10. Vacation: 28 days in the Sept. 6 proposal, 21 days in the TA.
-----------------------
Indeed, you do now seem to have that tiger by the tail.
Good luck,
Garland
USA320Pilot comments: It's nonsensical to think that the company proposals will not get worse. There has been a pattern set by the "concession stand is closed" crowd in every union. Furthermore, if Judge Mitchell would permit a job action the business enterprise would be liquidated. Therefore, it is widely expected he will prevent such action and give a union member an option: work under a cost competitive contract or resign from the company.
This is not fear, but reality. The fear is likely from the "just say no crowd" who cannot live with the pending new contract terms or obtain a job outside of US Airways, otherwise they would have moved on to another company.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Ahhh, yeah.
What is your point, I think that it is very reasonable to ask for such.
CWA's grandstanding stunt with the Strike Vote, heck ya they should "pay more" as a result of the decreased bookings, they made their "bed", they should lie in it. Action to reaction, causality. If a Union does or fails to do something, there will be a result that they are responsible for.
I also fail to see where the judge is going to feel sorry for the IAM having to pay for the increased costs, when they refused to negoiate prior to bankruptcy. Do you?
It is not like the company has not been building a case for sometime now, to show the Judge that they warned the unions what would happen. To be able to to show that the company has been "Good Faith" in court terms (not the union's opinion).
And what do you have to say for union-caused increases in the "ask". Are you happy paying that extra couple of precent of your salary just so the RC4 can get some of their legal exposure covered by the company...? Just curious.
This seems like simple negotiations to many on here,, but you need to realize that this is the "perfect storm" of conditions where the company can take a position, offer little flexibility, and still show "good faith". It is called Bankruptcy, and it is called looming Liquidation...
W survive only by what cash we have on hand, so management can easily show that they need an increased ask when stunts like the CWA pulled cost them $$$. They can easily show the increased costs of survival caused by BK, because it is not BS, it is real... And they can Blame labor for it, when they can point to "better" deals passed up in the past by the same unions that complain now.
The closer we get to the edge, the more it will take to pull back, the more momentum we have towards liquidation, the more effort (and concessions) it will take to reverse course. The Judge understands this.
Because this is just a simple physical principal Jim, applied to our economic reality. If the remaining unions want to whine about not being able to "accept" the deals that were offered a long time back, then they have no one to blame but themselves at this point in the game
Simple truth.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #58
Some of the increased company costs and lost revenue is due to labor resistance to change.
The "concession stand is closed" and CWA strike talk has caused increased legal fees and accelerated passenger "booking away" lost revenue. Therefore, an argument could be made that labor should shoulder some of the blame for this problem.
It would not surprise me to see Company attorney's successfully argue this point and turn labor leader resistance further hurt rank-and-file members, who undoubtedly will pay more for failed union leadership.
This point has been proven for the pilot’s and now is playing out for the F/A’s. The only union to recognize this and limit their damage was the TWU – all 3 units. The "painful" contract changes keep increasing and will likely continue until there is either a consensual deal or imposition, later this month.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
The "concession stand is closed" and CWA strike talk has caused increased legal fees and accelerated passenger "booking away" lost revenue. Therefore, an argument could be made that labor should shoulder some of the blame for this problem.
It would not surprise me to see Company attorney's successfully argue this point and turn labor leader resistance further hurt rank-and-file members, who undoubtedly will pay more for failed union leadership.
This point has been proven for the pilot’s and now is playing out for the F/A’s. The only union to recognize this and limit their damage was the TWU – all 3 units. The "painful" contract changes keep increasing and will likely continue until there is either a consensual deal or imposition, later this month.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot said:
I'd have no problem working with a "cost competitive contract", but when the competition is making $1.50-10.00/hr more, with better benefits in many cases, how is this "competitive" for me? What MANY of you behind the door types fail to realize is that what the company is offering for 7 years is not that far off from what is available out there to many of us with at least a chance of a better outcome in 2011. We'll have to bite the bullet in some cases for a while, but will we be better off in 2011 with the current contract or at something else? Many of us would prefer to stay here with an improved (from managements last proposal) contract and are trying to fight for that, but if it doesnt happen, we'll move on. Many have already tired of the fight and moved on. Many more of us are fighting to keep what we can while still being "competitive" with the true competition not made up scenarios (how many markets do we actually compete with HP?), but are willing to take a stand. If it comes down to the judge imposing the latest contract on us, then we'll each have to decide at that time whether its worth working here for whats been given us. The current proposals from the company are NOT worth voting yes for in any means, so there is really no need to send them out for a vote in my opinion. If they keep getting worse, so be it, but the current one is not worth working under so many would be leaving anyway. Not a whole lot to lose one way or another IMO.
WestCoastGuy
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2004
- 813
- 0
USA320Pilot said:
