Pay Cut For Us Airways Pilots: 18%

[luvn737s]

Please everyone, if given the chance to vote on this T/A vote "Yes"...

as long as you agree that the pilots should pay for the new RJ's and the fuel to fly them, which is basically what's being asked. What does USA320 expect Bronner to ask for when oil goes to $70/bbl?, $90/bbl?

The RC4 understand this and are determined to not allow the pilots to be used as a personal ATM for USAirways.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The pilots have a right to vote on an agreement. Last year by a 89 to 11 percent margin the pilots ratified a resolution to have membership ratification on any TA, MOU, or LOA that dramatically changes pay, benefits, and work rules.

The rank-and-file have spoken and the RC4 have a mandate. If they do not abide by this union directive than they will be held accountable in a court of law.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[luvn737s]

The pilots have a right to vote on an agreement. Last year by a 89 to 11 percent margin the pilots ratified a resolution to have membership ratification on any TA, MOY, or LOA that dramatically changes pay, benefits, and work rules.

The rank-and-file have spoken and the RC4 have a mandate. If they do not abide by this union directive than they will be held accountable in a court of law.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="187102"][/post]​

If the roll call procedure is counterproductive, then the ALPA BOD needs to address that and change the C&BL. Until then, they are operating well within their rights and responsibilities. Why not bid PHL or PIT and try to oust them?

Lotsa luck!

 

[ua767fo]

The pilots have a right to vote on an agreement. Last year by a 89 to 11 percent margin the pilots ratified a resolution to have membership ratification on any TA, MOY, or LOA that dramatically changes pay, benefits, and work rules.

[post="187102"][/post]​

Franklly Mr USA320Pilot sir, to the casual outsider looking in it would seem that since a NC is charged by an MEC, the MEC must approve the final work of the NC. Only then would a TA be sent out for MR. To send something out without MEC support would be tatamount to neutering the MEC.

Your comments seem very off base.

DENVER,CO

 

[USA320Pilot]

It is considered likely that if this TA is not ratified, the company will park fleets and maybe close a base. This will undoubtedly require out of seniority furloughs, which is why Mwerepleanes and Walmartgreeter refuse to identify them self.

The creditor's may demand the 150 aircraft fleet plan, which will probably cause the A330s, B767s, and B737s all removed from service as the airline then mimics JetBlue business model with flying from key East Coast cities.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[PITbull]

USA320,

Pollock is incorrect for saying that AFA in negotiating interim and long-term proposal.

The long-term has been placed aside.

AFA is only focused on the "interim relief" counter. Period.

 

[PITbull]

Two problems:

These 4 guys seems to be very fairly executing their duty to represent the majority of PHL and PIT pilots, a fact you so often "forget" to mention when "speculating" about "consequences" for them "not doing what you want" that have the same likelihood of occuring as "the tooth fairy coming to visit."

And you won't vote on a TA unless they say so, regardless of the rhetoric spewed. Has to sting a bit.

[post="186892"][/post]​

Cluex4,

The ALPA 8 reps are so use to being beat up by Glass and managment, that now they have adopted the strategy of threats and intimidation...what USA320 has develped from the "stockholm syndrome".

Sad.

 

[PITbull]

The out of seniority furloughs will be "imposed" by aircraft and or domicile, if they occur. For example, Pittsburgh pilots and F/A's could be at risk.

I just learned that Pittsburgh will lose three of the four fleet types based there. The base will probably have A320 time, but that could change to B737, dependent on IAM negotiations and whether or not the maintenance facility closes. I will type more on this tonight.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="186962"][/post]​

How does your statment above, correlate with the fact that the company is now offering "GoFares" in Pittsburgh"? To stimulate what? Traffic? For what purpose, a downsize?

"shaking head".

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Cluez4,

The ALPA 8 reps are so use to being beat up, that now they have adopted the strategy of threats and intimidation...what USA320 has develped from the "stockholm syndrome".

Sad.

[post="187126"][/post]​

PITbull, for the eight it looks like it will be the China Syndrome as this will be the only place these clowns will find a flying job.

 

[Phoenix]

I said he did and he did. His original post was modified. I don't lie like others on here.

[post="187011"][/post]​

Nor do you have second screen names.

 

[Phoenix]

It is considered likely that if this TA is not ratified, the company will park fleets and maybe close a base. This will undoubtedly require out of seniority furloughs, which is why Mwerepleanes and Walmartgreeter refuse to identify them self.

[post="187119"][/post]​

320,

Actually the reason they won't identify themselves is that they are part of a grand conspiracy to discredit you by highlighting your errors. As you know, I gave you my name and phone number in a PM when you asked for it, so I am on your side. Call me and we can strategize to save your credibility.

Respectfully,

Phoenix

P.S. Don't fall for their trick to have you bid PHL or PIT. It would play right into their hands.

 

[fatburger]

USA320 is scared. No other alternative. A man who would vote for this TA then turn around and look himself in the mirror. Very Scary!!

A sad situation for a sad bunch.

-fatburger-

 

[USA320Pilot]

Fatburger:

The ALPA president, ALPA financial advisors, ALPA economists, ALPA attorney’s, ALPA professional negotiators, ALPA contract administer (an attorney), all 3 MEC officers, 8 MEC members, and now the entire ALPA Negotiating Committee recommend that the TA be sent out for membership ratification.

The ALPA constitution and by-laws now state that any TA, MOU, or LOA that significantly changes pay, work rules, or benefits must have membership ratification. This new mandate was passed by an 89 to 11 percent margin. Will the RC4 break this mandate and further subject them self to another lawsuit?

Moreover, the entire ALPA NC, of which 3 are "hardliners" told the MEC today that this is the best deal they can get. Why? Every proposal gets worse, which ALPA's advisors predicted and the RC4 ignored.

The advisors are batting 1000% and the RC4 zero.

Since Setpember the company's September 6 proposal that the RC4 refused to let the pilot's vote on ALPA has lost:

What else besides Fragmentation has disappeared in the company's offers, and remains gone in our present TA, from where we were in the company's Sept. 6 proposal?

1. Fragmentation rights.
2. DC Plan went from 50% to 10%.
3. Equity participation (stock) went from 19.33% to 8.5% of the total shares issued.
4. Minimum Aircraft (279) and minimum block hour guarantees are gone.
5. Contingent Acquisition Rights (protections in the case of a buyout) are gone.
6. Special Training Relief has been granted, allowing training out of seniority.
7. No MDA Displacement Rights while we are in bankruptcy.
8. J4J Displacement Rights are gone
9. Vacation went from maximum of 28 to 21 days.

The RC4 and the NC did a great job getting this TA, which is dramatically worse than the proposal that could have been voted on before bankruptcy that th RC4 blocked.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your nonsensical comments.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[fatburger]

You know what? You're right! Tell me this.....do you have any flying employment options outside of this company? I know the answer....It's NO NO NO. Because if you did you wouldn't even consider this pathetic excuse of a TA. I know, I know the truth HURTS HURTS HURTS......

good luck..

-fatburger-

 

[Rico]

I dunno A320, IMO this argument comes down to a simple choice:

The "chance" that the company would have come "back for more" if we agreed to an agreement prior to Bankruptcy...

VS.

The certainty that we have already lost significantly over what we could have kept in a prior agreement.



Gee, I am trying to pick between the two choices, but it is just so hard 🙄