Mec Stands Up To Management

[fr8tmastr]

It's official the Airways MEC has taken a stand against management. The company would have us believe that the 170 pilots are in fact all Airways pilots, I know its a stretch, but they testified to that fact for four days at the recent arbitration. The MEC leadership however will not stant for this, They maintain that the 170 pilots are not actually Airways pilots. Also the pilots that were furloughed, are not recalled. (how are they flying these planes if they are not active or recalled?). I dont know, but the MEC says they are not here!

In another act of defiance the MEC leadership has demanded that ex CEL pilots on the list that have gone to greener pastures in light of the upcoming furloughes be removed from the ML seniority list! The company has no problem with these pilots remaining on the list when they resign from the division. But the MEC leadership? OH yea big problem!!

It warms the heart to see such fine Unionism from the MEC leadership as they take a stand against the company and do all they can to eliminate the pesky 170 pilots from their lives.

If these facts dont convice everyone of the moral fabric of these "leaders" nothing will.

ALL or NONE!!!

 

[ClueByFour]

Bear in mind that this is the same group of minds that brought EMB-190 flying "in-house" and then promptly allowed 93 CRJ900s to be outsourced.

 

[fr8tmastr]

I guess the only consolation prize will be, with this many 90 seaters being outsourced at least the furloughes might finally reach the people giving away the store. I long for the day the MEC chair gets his letter, as his services are no longer required. You've got to wonder, do these morons even read the document before they sign it?

 

[SoldWholeSale]

Letter sent by the MDA pilots to the MEC Chairman

ALL OR NONE!

SH


Dear Bill:

After reading the Code-a-Phone Jack posted Friday night we are
heartened that the MEC has finally taken a public stand on our
behalf. We are hoping that this might be the first step in a change
in the MEC's position on the MDA issues. Given the choice we would
prefer work from within ALPA rather than from the outside but we
feel we simply have had no choice. The MEC has failed to represent
us with much vigor and has, in fact, in some cases done more harm
than good.

From e-mails we have received, conversations we have had with
various members, from continuing discussions with some of the
excellent representatives on the MEC and from the lack of any action
on the part of the MEC it has become abundantly clear that the MEC
would prefer that the Republic purchase of the MDA operation close
and the 170 division go away. This would solve at least two
problems which immediately come to mind i.e., ridding Airways of the
onerous and foul Eagle contract and rendering the many legal and
representational problems arising from the 170 division being on the
mainline certificate moot. While we are sympathetic to the MEC's
position and concede that it is not completely without merit we feel
that the approach they have used in the past is not in the best
interests of the Airways pilots, the 170 pilots, the America West
pilots, the Air Line Pilots Association or even the company itself.

We feel timely action is called for and delay simply hurts the legal
position of the Airways pilots. Contrary to what has been said
publicly by at least one of the MEC members the sale of the 170
division has not yet closed and we will be happy if it never does.
The only beneficiary to the sale of the 170s to Republic will be the
Republic shareholders. As you know, after a short period of time
Airways has the rights to buy back the gates and slots that are part
of this deal. I'll bet you a night on the town that we will in fact
buy them back and end up paying at least $100 million for them, the
net result being one of the most expensive loans in corporate
history. Republic will end up getting the 170 operation for free
with its marketing agreement.

To simplify matters (and to keep this letter reasonably short) let
me list what we consider to be our most pressing issues:

• We think the sale of the 170 division to Republic is an
irresponsible waste of our money and we would prefer the deal not
close.
• If we can't stop the sale, we insist that the airline do it
in accordance with the agreements they have made. In fact, our
current management has made a mockery of the collective bargaining
process, ignoring it completely. This must stop.
• The company is currently engaging in worker replacement,
which is a blatant violation of the RLA. ALPA needs to seek a TRO
immediately. Every day we wait weakens our case.
• The pilots that came to this operation from the Wholly-Owned
subsidiaries are tired of getting short-shrift. The company has
accepted that we are mainline pilots holding a mainline number and
is willing to give us the benefits that go along with that; this MEC
is currently negotiating to strip us of these rights and force us
back onto the CEL in the event of a furlough. This is a violation
of the integrity of the seniority list which is sacrosanct and runs
to the core of what ALPA stands for. If a CEL pilot can have his
number taken away then no one's is safe.
• On the same note, the CEL pilots at Airways should be
included in any snapshot as seniority list holders, participating,
in seniority order, in the merger with America West. Put
differently, they simply want the right to recall from furlough as
the mainline seniority list pilots they are. Again, the MEC is
actually negotiating to strip us of this right. This is just beyond
belief.

We shouldn't have to be pleading our case to the MEC. For better or
worse we've ended up on the mainline certificate; now we are you.
The MEC may think we're a separate entity but the company doesn't,
nor does the federal government. The precedents that are set with
us will have to be lived with for a generation or more. I know for
certain there are people on the MEC with enough experience in these
matters to understand this concept. The violations occurring here
should be fought as if our careers all depend on it. They do.

We would be willing to pull down the informational picketing and
work with the MEC on the resolution of these many issues if you were
able to convince us that the MEC were willing to begin to actually
work on our behalf rather than against us. In the meantime we have
no choice but to continue to defend ourselves and look out for the
interests of the pilots flying the 170.

To summarize, we are encouraged by the recently passed resolutions
in concept but are disappointed to see the same semantics that have
characterized this MEC's attitudes, such as, "if deemed necessary,
only authorized, as directed by the MEC, give consideration," etc.,
etc. Collectively they have a single meaning: stall.

We see no advantage in wasting more time. While the resolution on
Friday was a step in the right direction its wording shows that the
MEC still lacks understanding of the issues that confront the 170
pilots. Its tone, combined with the phone calls ALPA made to the
DCA and PHL airports attempting to disrupt our right to picket show
a level of arrogance on your part that we find very disturbing.
That type of behavior goes beyond the issues facing the 170 division
and gives us serious doubt that this MEC simply lacks the
sophistication and competence required to handle the upcoming merger
with America West. The pilots whom you represent should be gravely
concerned. We certainly are.

Best regards,

 

[Swaayze]

The MEC leadership however will not stant for this, They maintain that the 170 pilots are not actually Airways pilots. Also the pilots that were furloughed, are not recalled. (how are they flying these planes if they are not active or recalled?). I dont know, but the MEC says they are not here!

In another act of defiance the MEC leadership has demanded that ex CEL pilots on the list that have gone to greener pastures in light of the upcoming furloughes be removed from the ML seniority list! The company has no problem with these pilots remaining on the list when they resign from the division.

[post="302642"][/post]​

Doesn't their stance actually bolster what you guys were trying to accomplish with the "change of control" issue? If you are all active Airways pilots then this appears to be an asset sale, if you are considered to be a separate division then a "change of control" would seem to be accurate.

Also, are you saying the CEL folks have gone to other airlines? If so, why would they not be removed from the list?

Not being adversarial, just trying to understand.......

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Swazyee,

This has been my problem with MDA pilots' position all along.

 

[fr8tmastr]

Doesn't their stance actually bolster what you guys were trying to accomplish with the "change of control" issue? If you are all active Airways pilots then this appears to be an asset sale, if you are considered to be a separate division then a "change of control" would seem to be accurate.

Also, are you saying the CEL folks have gone to other airlines? If so, why would they not be removed from the list?

Not being adversarial, just trying to understand.......

[post="302730"][/post]​

No, its a fine line however they are changing control of the division. When its all said and done there will be nothing left of the division. At the same time as we all are on the same List, and operate under the same certificate we are legally and really US Airways pilots. This change of control thing would not apply if Airways did not play the division game, and allowed bidding between the types at Airways.

The LOA's (93 I believe) state that a ML pilot at MDA can resign from MDA and still keep their ML seniority number. The Ex CeL guys are now ML pilots therefore they can resign from MDA and remain as furloughed ML pilots. This is the way it has been, now the MEC VC has made it his personal crusade to eliminate these pilots. Why? I have no idea, the Ex CEL pilots are all junior to every single APL pilot.
Guys have taken other jobs as they have been told time and time again how they will be on the street, knowing this, and the fact that they need not be fired prior to taking another job they left.

Again this is not something new, it is the way it is and has been at the Division.

 

[Swaayze]

This change of control thing would not apply if Airways did not play the division game, and allowed bidding between the types at Airways.

The LOA's (93 I believe) state that a ML pilot at MDA can resign from MDA and still keep their ML seniority number. The Ex CeL guys are now ML pilots therefore they can resign from MDA and remain as furloughed ML pilots.

[post="302802"][/post]​

First part sounds like a reasonable argument to me. And if part 2 above is accurate (I've lost track, honestly, of all the changes since furlough) then that explains them wanting/expecting to remain on the list. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that, at first glance it seems like it would be beneficial (at least neutral) in the merger of the lists.

 

[USA320Pilot]

LOA 93 already permitted the Company to replace CRJ-700's (70-seat) with CRJ-900's (90-seat) aircraft and that authority was for a total of 115 CRJ-900's (60 for Wholly-Owneds & 55 for Affiliate Express Carriers). The AWA ALPA contract already had authority for the company to fly 38 CRJ-900's at Affiliate Express Carriers.

The new Transition Agreement settled on 55 + 38 = 93 CRJ-900's for the new airline, which is 22 less than the 115 that we had already authorized by ALPA to be flown at US Airways Express.

It is my understanding the TCC took several stabs at reducing CRJ-900 flying to a much lower number, but management's response (paraphrasing) was, "why would we go that low when we already have the ability to operate an additional 115?"

In the end, ALPA was able to adjust the limit down to 93 aircraft.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[elixir]

Hey 320, if youre still here, is their still an escape clause on the 190's if the co is "unable" to take delivery? they can be rolled to express? or is that gone?

 

[fr8tmastr]

First part sounds like a reasonable argument to me. And if part 2 above is accurate (I've lost track, honestly, of all the changes since furlough) then that explains them wanting/expecting to remain on the list. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that, at first glance it seems like it would be beneficial (at least neutral) in the merger of the lists.

[post="303061"][/post]​

That is a two part answer. First remaining on the ML senioity list would make no difference to the merger as most if not all the current MDA guys would be at the bottom.

If the MDA guys were considered active for the merger, most of the slots that would create in the merger would go to furloughed APL guys, not the MDA guys. There are some very senior MDA guys that would in fact be integrated in this scenerio, but most are junior, so their positions abscent the 170's would go to the most senior APL guys.

What this means is the MEC leadership is also cutting out those senior APL guys that would be integrated if they considered the guys actually flying US Airways Aircraft, and paying AAA dues "active pilots". This is approx. 300 slots.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Elixir:

Elixir asked: "Hey 320, if youre still here, is their still an escape clause on the 190's if the co is "unable" to take delivery? they can be rolled to express? or is that gone?"

USA320Pilot comments: The follwoing Transition Agreement terms apply to operation of the EMB-190 aircraft:

1. EMB-190 aircraft will be operated only by US Airways, America West, or both carriers.

2. EMB-190 aircraft will be operated under respective operating air carrier's collective bargaining agreement as modified by the Transition Agreement.

3. EMB-190 aircraft will be operated under the rates of pay and longevity set forth in Attachement D of the Transition Agreement (note - these are competitive with JetBlue rates, but with longeivity can be higher).

4. EMB-190 aircraft do not count toward the minimum aircraft numbers in the US Airways ALPA collective bargaining agreement or Transition Agreement (note - BoeingBoy did a good job of explaining this from the Transition Agreement bankruptcy court filing click here for more information).

Elixir, the TCC was able to place all EMB-190 flying on the new US Airways mainline and recaptured the 25 EMB-190's that were lost in LOA 93. These aircraft would have gone to Republic, but due to the Republic pilots (IBT) not agreeing to the terms of LOA 93 for MDA pilot transfer, ALPA made it a Transition Agreement priority to keep the EMB-190 in-house, especially when it became apparent more than 25 aircraft were in the company's long-term plans. Moreover, future deliveries beyond the initial 25 EMB-190s previously authorized by LOA 93 will also come to the mainline. ALPA has good reason to believe that the number of EMB-190’s will eventually exceed 25 by a considerable number and it is my understanding an order will be announced shortly, probably after the merger is complete next week.

In the Transition Agreement, ALPA negotiated specific language stating that the EMB-190’s could not be counted as part of the total number of "minimum mainline aircraft". It was essential to capture language that precluded management from having the ability to replace A320/B737 aircraft with 90 to 100-seat RJs, especially given the market driven pilot pay differential of the EMB-190’s.

The good news is that US Airways pilots will have the highest paid 190 drivers in the industry, based on longevity, and these aircraft will not be flown by Affiliate carriers.

The agreement is not perfect and the minimum fleet count is less than desired, but ALPA's advisor's told the MEC they needed to have a Transition Agreement before last week's confirmation hearing and the MEC unanimously agreed.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ClueByFour]

Elixir, the TCC was able to place all EMB-190 flying on the new US Airways mainline and recaptured the 25 EMB-190's that were lost in LOA 93. These aircraft would have gone to Republic, but due to the Republic pilots (IBT) not agreeing to the terms of LOA 93 for MDA pilot transfer, ALPA made it a Transition Agreement priority to keep the EMB-190 in-house, especially when it became apparent more than 25 aircraft were in the company's long-term plans. Moreover, future deliveries beyond the initial 25 EMB-190s previously authorized by LOA 93 will also come to the mainline. ALPA has good reason to believe that the number of EMB-190’s will eventually exceed 25 by a considerable number and it is my understanding an order will be announced shortly, probably after the merger is complete next week.

In the Transition Agreement, ALPA negotiated specific language stating that the EMB-190’s could not be counted as part of the total number of "minimum mainline aircraft". It was essential to capture language that precluded management from having the ability to replace A320/B737 aircraft with 90 to 100-seat RJs, especially given the market driven pilot pay differential of the EMB-190’s.

The good news is that US Airways pilots will have the highest paid 190 drivers in the industry, based on longevity, and these aircraft will not be flown by Affiliate carriers.

The agreement is not perfect and the minimum fleet count is less than desired, but ALPA's advisor's told the MEC they needed to have a Transition Agreement before last week's confirmation hearing and the MEC unanimously agreed.

[post="303117"][/post]​

Of course, lest we forget:

It is my understanding the TCC took several stabs at reducing CRJ-900 flying to a much lower number, but management's response (paraphrasing) was, "why would we go that low when we already have the ability to operate an additional 115?"

In the end, ALPA was able to adjust the limit down to 93 aircraft.

Why would U management want to pay the U E-190 rates when they can simply pay Mesa CRJ-900 rates up to 93 aircraft?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Clue:

Because the EMB-190 has more seats and better economics, thus ALPA was able to negotiate a higher pay rate. I believe you will see both the CRJ-900 and EMB-190 aircraft added to the network, however, as I said earlier, "ALPA has good reason to believe that the number of EMB-190’s will eventually exceed 25 by a considerable number."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ClueByFour]

Because the EMB-190 has more seats and better economics, thus ALPA was able to negotiate a higher pay rate. I believe you will see both the CRJ-900 and EMB-190 aircraft added to the network, however, as I said earlier, "ALPA has good reason to believe that the number of EMB-190’s will eventually exceed 25 by a considerable number."

[post="303135"][/post]​

From what I've seen on the web, 1 first year (as if such a beast exists) captain on the E-190 will make $79/hr on the -190. A 12 year captain will make $98/hr (in '06). The first year FO will make $41, the 12 year FO will make $61/hr. Let's say that the average guy (unlikely for the captain's seat, more likely for the FO) is at the 8 year pay rate--that's $91 and $55 an hour respectively.

Mesa is paying CRJ900 Captains (at the 8 year mark--very generous given the turnover) $72. The 8 year FO is making a whopping $35/hr.

Those economics had better be spectacular at the pay differential.

Look for an assault on the minimum fleet count for the permanent CBA. Those -190s rates and economics look a lot better in comparison with $125 CA and $85/hr FO rates on the 737.