Game 7 For The Pilot Group

[USA320Pilot]

Every ALPA advisor and the entire Negotiating Committee told the MEC this is the best TA the pilot group can obtain. If the TA is rejected, the company is expected to quickly file a S.1113© motion and seek even deeper cuts.

Voting the TA down will cause even deeper cuts and hurt more people, according to the advisors and the "hardliner" appointed NC.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Just one more point...

ALPA MEC chairman Bill Pollock is a man of integrity who always has the pilot's best interest at heart.

The ALPA president, ALPA director of representation, ALPA professional negotiator, ALPA investment banker, ALPA general counsel, ALPA bankruptcy counsel, ALPA attorney/contract administrator, ALPA E&FA lead economic analyst, all 3 MEC officers, and 8 of 12 MEC members recommend the TA be ratified.

Furthermore, every Negotiating Committee member says this is the best deal they can obtain. One member of the Committee who is a CPA and fraud examiner, who has access to the company's books, has written multiple reports on the serious consequences if the TA is rejected by the membership.

That is why Bill Pollock said that union leaders (the RC4 who obtained a TA greater than the company "ask", which to my knowledge has never been done before in the history of ALPA) who advise pilots to turn the deal down are being "irresponsible." A "better deal" does not exist, he said. "Each proposal we have received from the company only got worse," he wrote. "There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this negative trend will now reverse."

Pollock's comments are accurate -- the RC4 prevented the pilot group from voting on the September 6 proposal and now we have a worse TA.

If you want deeper cuts, to hurt more people, or see the company fail, then vote no and continue the damage caused by the RC4.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[roadstar]

Blah, Blah, Blah

Please everyone bend over and take one for good old USA320Pilot. Who cares what it does to everyone else. Just save his job...

Regards

 

[700UW]

A man of integrity would not have terminated your pension without letting the membership vote.

Pollack needs to resign from ALPA President or stepdown his Board seat, being both shows a conflict of interest to many.

No other union BOD Member is a current Representative.

 

[BoeingBoy]

700UW,

You know what they say....

An empty barrel makes the most noise.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

What some people refuse to recognize tis he ATSB loan guarantee is "conditional" and requires the S.1113(e) cost reductions being ratified or imposed. No consensual or imposed agreement -- no ATSB interim agreement.

The ATSB expects the TA to be ratifed or the S.1113© motion to be filed. Thus, the TA is technically not required, but but the cost cuts are. Furthermore, Judge Mitchell has yet to deny a company motion.

That is why Pollock said those who advise pilots to turn the deal down are being "irresponsible." A "better deal" does not exist, he said. "Each proposal we have received from the company only got worse," he wrote. "There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this negative trend will now reverse."

Also noteworthy, the TA is much worse than the September 6 proposal that the RC4 prevented the pilot group from voting on. I believe it is interesting that for the first time in the history of ALPA, the RC4 and their Negotiating Committee obtained a TA greater than the company "ask". For the RC4's supporters, what is your opinion of the RC4's performance in obtaining the TA?

Separately, I believe the AFA, CWA, and IAM will get worse deals than could have been obtained, either consensually or once again by "imposition".

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

No where in the financing documents approved by the court does it mention the 1113e motion having to be approved.

BoeingBoy has all ready provided this information.

Judge Mitchell DID NOT APPROVE THE COMPANY'S 1113E MOTION AS IS!

The paycuts were less and the outsourcing of everything due to sick, union activity or mass attrition were DENIED

 

[ClueByFour]

The ATSB expects the TA to be ratifed or the S.1113© motion to be filed. Thus, the TA is technically not required, but but the cost cuts are. Furthermore, Judge Mitchell has yet to deny a company motion.

[post="193020"][/post]​

Really? Where in his order on 1113e cuts does he allow outsourcing as a result of attrition or slowdowns?

You will note they company asked for it in their motion.....

Spin harder next time.

 

[Phoenix]

ALPA MEC chairman Bill Pollock is a man of integrity who always has the pilot's best interest at heart.

[post="193005"][/post]​

I am happy to see that you are still batting 1000. Pollock has done more for mgt than Lorenzo ever dreamed was really possible.

Regards,

Phoenix

 

[BoeingBoy]

What some people refuse to recognize tis he ATSB loan guarantee is "conditional" and requires the S.1113(e) cost reductions being ratified or imposed. No consensual or imposed agreement -- no ATSB interim agreement.

[post="193020"][/post]​

My $5 is still on the table. It's all yours - just cite the documentation to prove your assertion. Surely those crackerjack advisors can help you find it, with their Harvard degrees and all.

Jim

ps - you might want to proofread more often. You said "requires the S.1113(e) cost reductions being ratified or imposed" which has already happened. The judge "ratified" and presumably the company is going to impose the 1113e reductions on any group that doesn't have a ratified agreement.

 

[USA320Pilot]

True Judge Mitchell struck the 23% pay cut (changed it to 21%) and the outsourcing issue for now, however, I understand he indicated to counsel he could authorize it in the future.

By the way, the 21% cut is worse than the company offered.

I find it interesting that the IAM is now negotiating with the company behind-the scenes, the AFA is talking with the company, and the CWA is trying to figure a way out of this mess.

To suggest the judge would side with labor in a S.1113© hearing is nonsensical, however, if there are not consensual deals -- "imposition" will likely occur again with even deeper cuts. For example, we could see CWA or IAM-FSA pay rates of $12 per hour that could help provide higher profit sharing checks for those people (like the TWU represented employees) who consensually participate in the new business plan.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Rico]

Just curious 700UW, from what I have read, IAM's basic premise is that concessions, either negotiated or forced are not necessary.

What exactly is IAM's basis for this...?

That at this point, while running on dwindiling cash reserves and 54$ a barrel oil prices that Airways is full of poop when they claim they can no longer afford to pay 35-40K a year to aircraft cleaners (that we could outsource for a fraction of the cost).

Just wondering how your attorney tried to convince Judge Mitchell otherwise.

IMO your argument comes down to it being managements fault for not managing better, so Airways could afford such, is that right?

 

[Phoenix]

What some people refuse to recognize

[post="193020"][/post]​

Ah... Yes. The old mantra. The old "You are in denial" approach.

Did someone say something?

 

[700UW]

The IAM IS NOT NEGOTIATING with the company behind the scenes.

See I am in the know and you are not.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Rico:

I understand IAM bankuptcy counsel Sharon Levine put on quite a show during the S.1113(e) hearing and obviously she didn't get the results her client desired.

During the final arguments Arnold & Porter attorney Brian Leitch, who is representing the company, told Judge Mitchell the company had repeatedly approached the IAM for negotiations in May, June, July, and August, and the IAM said “noâ€￾ every time. In fact, Leitch said it was not until September that the IAM agreed to talk about cost savings.

During closing arguments Levine stood up a number of times and objected to Letich's arguments. Then before closing arguments were complete Mitchell interrupted and stated that he could recall testimony on is own finally drawing a line and said he did not want to hear any more argument. Mitchell said he would have the decision at 1:30 p.m. that afternoon and then retired to his chamber.

Interestingly, Levine told the judge that S.1113(e) relief was only permitted for an emergency situation and US Airways was not in an emergency situation. She noted that there was no SAR epidemic scare driving passengers away, there had been no recent attacks similar to September 11, etc.

Regarding maintenance outsourcing, Levine said this would be a morale issue, and pointed out that as soon as the IAM won their outsourcing grievance the 1113E filing occurred. The recurring theme of "we gave up in the first bankruptcy" did not sway Mitchell at all and the court clearly wants to see the airline survive.

Surprisingly, Levine did comment that United Airlines outsources maintenance and US Airways may have to do it too, which I found surprising that a labor attorney would make such a profound statement. At one point Mitchell said that there are no safety problems at airlines that outsource maintenance and that safety is not a concern. Interestingly, Levine did not dispute Mitchell’s comments. How can that be? Moreover, why is the IAM and the Company talking behind-the-scenes?

It is clear Mitchell is once again in the company’s court and in my opinion, any union who does not obtain a consensual agreement will get “creamedâ€￾ during the S.1113© process.

Regards,

USA320Pilot