InclusiveScope
Member
- Sep 1, 2002
- 55
- 0
RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
Reply to: [email protected]
SPECIAL BULLETIN
August 3, 2004
ALPA Ignores Rank-and-File Vote and Imposes New Small Jet Provisions at PSA
Just weeks after a rejection by the rank-and-file, ALPA has ignored the wishes of the PSA pilots and implemented changes to the PSA working agreement. The new agreement includes special provisions that will give displaced mainline pilots super-seniority rights over the majority of PSA pilots for the purpose of bidding monthly schedules.[1]
While ALPA's actions has provoked outrage amongst the PSA pilots, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who has been following ALPA's conduct at US Airways. As first reported by the RJDC four months ago, ALPA's latest small jet agreement at US Airways (LOA-91) indicated that ALPA's mainline interests had already dictated the terms of the yet-to-be negotiated PSA agreement.[2]
“New-Hires†In Name Only
Events at PSA illustrate how ALPA seeks to disguise the efforts of its mainline interests to unilaterally re-write key sections of “regional†pilot agreements. ALPA says that displaced mainline pilots (“APL pilotsâ€) will be treated as “new-hires†at the Jets for Jobs carriers. But through the manipulation of various contractual mechanisms, the “new-hires†are actually afforded super-seniority rights with privileges denied other pilots. Here's a short list of some of the special rights granted to the displaced mainline pilots that proves that they're “new-hires†in name only:
Ø Out-of-seniority bidding rights for monthly schedules.
Ø 50% of the APL pilots start out as Captains, the other 50% will upgrade out of seniority.
Ø 50% start out at Captains pay; the other 50% do not start out at ordinary first-year pay-rates.
Ø APL pilots will not start out in the turbo-prop equipment (i.e. “jets only.â€)
Ø No probationary period.
Ø Protected seats in the event of furlough.
Ø Guaranteed positions at other carriers if the small jets are transferred.
Management's Demands—Not!
ALPA's spin-doctors will tell the rank-and-file that “management†came to the affected pilots with various demands. But what they will not tell the rank and file is that with regard to “Jets for Jobs,†ALPA is merely using management to deliver the union’s own mainline demands. To make matters worse, upon receipt of “management's†demands, ALPA pretends to “assist†and “advise†the targeted pilot group in the resultant negotiations.
As the RJDC first pointed out more than three years ago, “left-over bargaining†is the result whenever ALPA ignores its duties to the union’s “regional†members at the mainline bargaining table. Events at PSA are the direct consequence of ALPA's predatory bargaining at US Airways (LOA-91). To add to the injustice, ALPA pretends it's negotiating with the affected carrier's management when, in fact, the union is forcing the affected pilot group to accept terms that have already been dictated by the union’s own mainline interests.
Even if management “tacks-on†its own economic demands, there can be no doubt that the trigger mechanism was ALPA's preconditions imposed in the preceding mainline negotiations. Therefore, the responsibility lies with ALPA, which is duty-bound to protect, not undermine, the interests of the PSA pilots.
“Slotted†Bidding Detailed
As an example of how ALPA imposed super-seniority rights at PSA, the following is selected portions of the new agreement detailing the “slotted†bidding system:
Ø “A bidding system will be established that provides for alternating bidding for monthly bids (“Regular Schedules,†“Build Up Schedules†or “Reserve Schedulesâ€) (as defined in the PSA Collective Bargaining Agreement) for a certain percentage of US Airways pilots (U pilots) at PSA.â€
Ø “Each month, in each domicile, a bidding sequence shall be created for Captains (or First Officers) so that the first pilot to bid for his monthly schedule shall be a P pilot, followed next by a U pilot, followed next by a P pilot, followed next by a U pilot, etc., until reaching the most junior U pilot Captain (or First Officer) who is to bid under the alternating bidding procedure, in that base, for that month.â€
Ø “The above described alternating bidding sequences shall apply regardless of a U pilot's seniority position relative to any P pilot's seniority position and regardless of a P pilot's seniority position relative to any U pilot's seniority position.†(Emphasis Added)
Full Text of PSA Agreement: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/psa_loa_8.pdf
Did ALPA Threaten or Mislead the PSA Pilots?
Perhaps equally disturbing is that ALPA's officials may have deliberately misled the PSA pilot leadership. According to published reports, ALPA's officials told the PSA leadership that the Piedmont pilots were in simultaneous negotiations with the intention of undercutting the PSA pilots and perhaps taking their existing aircraft.[3] Furthermore, the PSA pilot leadership has publicly stated that they were personally told by ALPA's President that they had “24-48 hours†to accept the agreement.[4]
If the assertions of the PSA leadership are true and ALPA did in fact threaten or mislead the PSA pilots, then ALPA's officials may have breached their duty to the PSA pilots in numerous ways:
1. If the Piedmont pilots were not actively “bidding†against the PSA pilots, then ALPA deliberately misled its own members with false information.
2. Even if the Piedmont pilots were in negotiations, then ALPA breached its duties to the PSA pilots by allowing another ALPA pilot group to “bid†for their aircraft and jobs.
3. Either way, ALPA breached its duties by pitting one pilot group against another in order to coerce them to accept terms that had already been dictated by the union’s mainline interests.
ALPA's hypocrisy is more than obvious. While ALPA frequently accuses management of “whipsawing†one pilot group against another, the union itself doesn't hesitate to invoke its own whipsaw to force its “regional†members to capitulate to its own mainline demands.[5]
Full text of ALPA's LOA-91 at US Airways: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf
Summary
Once again ALPA has demonstrated that it will ignore its duties whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Not only has ALPA apparently employed highly questionable tactics to compel the PSA MEC to “ratify†a new agreement, but it has again proven that the real objective of “Jets for Jobs†is not to secure employment for displaced mainline pilots, but rather to protect the union’s two-tiered system of representation.
By railroading a new agreement at PSA, not only has ALPA's leadership demonstrated total disregard for its obligations to the PSA pilots, but they have again shown why litigation remains the only credible deterrent to prevent ALPA from engaging in the same tactics at Delta.
Jets-for-Jobs Fact Sheet: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Under the previous Jets for Jobs agreement, half of the new Captain and First Officer positions were set aside for displaced mainline pilots, but they remained at the bottom of their respective monthly bid eligibility lists.
[2] See the RJDC's April 4th and May 16th Updates.
[3] The Piedmont pilot leadership has officially denied that any such negotiations ever took place.
[4] As stated by the PSA MEC in their July 23, 2004 recorded message to their pilots.
[5] ALPA's latest small-jet agreement at US Airways clearly indicates that the mainline terms will be offered to “participating†carriers on a take it or leave it basis.
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
Reply to: [email protected]
SPECIAL BULLETIN
August 3, 2004
ALPA Ignores Rank-and-File Vote and Imposes New Small Jet Provisions at PSA
Just weeks after a rejection by the rank-and-file, ALPA has ignored the wishes of the PSA pilots and implemented changes to the PSA working agreement. The new agreement includes special provisions that will give displaced mainline pilots super-seniority rights over the majority of PSA pilots for the purpose of bidding monthly schedules.[1]
While ALPA's actions has provoked outrage amongst the PSA pilots, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who has been following ALPA's conduct at US Airways. As first reported by the RJDC four months ago, ALPA's latest small jet agreement at US Airways (LOA-91) indicated that ALPA's mainline interests had already dictated the terms of the yet-to-be negotiated PSA agreement.[2]
“New-Hires†In Name Only
Events at PSA illustrate how ALPA seeks to disguise the efforts of its mainline interests to unilaterally re-write key sections of “regional†pilot agreements. ALPA says that displaced mainline pilots (“APL pilotsâ€) will be treated as “new-hires†at the Jets for Jobs carriers. But through the manipulation of various contractual mechanisms, the “new-hires†are actually afforded super-seniority rights with privileges denied other pilots. Here's a short list of some of the special rights granted to the displaced mainline pilots that proves that they're “new-hires†in name only:
Ø Out-of-seniority bidding rights for monthly schedules.
Ø 50% of the APL pilots start out as Captains, the other 50% will upgrade out of seniority.
Ø 50% start out at Captains pay; the other 50% do not start out at ordinary first-year pay-rates.
Ø APL pilots will not start out in the turbo-prop equipment (i.e. “jets only.â€)
Ø No probationary period.
Ø Protected seats in the event of furlough.
Ø Guaranteed positions at other carriers if the small jets are transferred.
Management's Demands—Not!
ALPA's spin-doctors will tell the rank-and-file that “management†came to the affected pilots with various demands. But what they will not tell the rank and file is that with regard to “Jets for Jobs,†ALPA is merely using management to deliver the union’s own mainline demands. To make matters worse, upon receipt of “management's†demands, ALPA pretends to “assist†and “advise†the targeted pilot group in the resultant negotiations.
As the RJDC first pointed out more than three years ago, “left-over bargaining†is the result whenever ALPA ignores its duties to the union’s “regional†members at the mainline bargaining table. Events at PSA are the direct consequence of ALPA's predatory bargaining at US Airways (LOA-91). To add to the injustice, ALPA pretends it's negotiating with the affected carrier's management when, in fact, the union is forcing the affected pilot group to accept terms that have already been dictated by the union’s own mainline interests.
Even if management “tacks-on†its own economic demands, there can be no doubt that the trigger mechanism was ALPA's preconditions imposed in the preceding mainline negotiations. Therefore, the responsibility lies with ALPA, which is duty-bound to protect, not undermine, the interests of the PSA pilots.
“Slotted†Bidding Detailed
As an example of how ALPA imposed super-seniority rights at PSA, the following is selected portions of the new agreement detailing the “slotted†bidding system:
Ø “A bidding system will be established that provides for alternating bidding for monthly bids (“Regular Schedules,†“Build Up Schedules†or “Reserve Schedulesâ€) (as defined in the PSA Collective Bargaining Agreement) for a certain percentage of US Airways pilots (U pilots) at PSA.â€
Ø “Each month, in each domicile, a bidding sequence shall be created for Captains (or First Officers) so that the first pilot to bid for his monthly schedule shall be a P pilot, followed next by a U pilot, followed next by a P pilot, followed next by a U pilot, etc., until reaching the most junior U pilot Captain (or First Officer) who is to bid under the alternating bidding procedure, in that base, for that month.â€
Ø “The above described alternating bidding sequences shall apply regardless of a U pilot's seniority position relative to any P pilot's seniority position and regardless of a P pilot's seniority position relative to any U pilot's seniority position.†(Emphasis Added)
Full Text of PSA Agreement: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/psa_loa_8.pdf
Did ALPA Threaten or Mislead the PSA Pilots?
Perhaps equally disturbing is that ALPA's officials may have deliberately misled the PSA pilot leadership. According to published reports, ALPA's officials told the PSA leadership that the Piedmont pilots were in simultaneous negotiations with the intention of undercutting the PSA pilots and perhaps taking their existing aircraft.[3] Furthermore, the PSA pilot leadership has publicly stated that they were personally told by ALPA's President that they had “24-48 hours†to accept the agreement.[4]
If the assertions of the PSA leadership are true and ALPA did in fact threaten or mislead the PSA pilots, then ALPA's officials may have breached their duty to the PSA pilots in numerous ways:
1. If the Piedmont pilots were not actively “bidding†against the PSA pilots, then ALPA deliberately misled its own members with false information.
2. Even if the Piedmont pilots were in negotiations, then ALPA breached its duties to the PSA pilots by allowing another ALPA pilot group to “bid†for their aircraft and jobs.
3. Either way, ALPA breached its duties by pitting one pilot group against another in order to coerce them to accept terms that had already been dictated by the union’s mainline interests.
ALPA's hypocrisy is more than obvious. While ALPA frequently accuses management of “whipsawing†one pilot group against another, the union itself doesn't hesitate to invoke its own whipsaw to force its “regional†members to capitulate to its own mainline demands.[5]
Full text of ALPA's LOA-91 at US Airways: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf
Summary
Once again ALPA has demonstrated that it will ignore its duties whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Not only has ALPA apparently employed highly questionable tactics to compel the PSA MEC to “ratify†a new agreement, but it has again proven that the real objective of “Jets for Jobs†is not to secure employment for displaced mainline pilots, but rather to protect the union’s two-tiered system of representation.
By railroading a new agreement at PSA, not only has ALPA's leadership demonstrated total disregard for its obligations to the PSA pilots, but they have again shown why litigation remains the only credible deterrent to prevent ALPA from engaging in the same tactics at Delta.
Jets-for-Jobs Fact Sheet: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Under the previous Jets for Jobs agreement, half of the new Captain and First Officer positions were set aside for displaced mainline pilots, but they remained at the bottom of their respective monthly bid eligibility lists.
[2] See the RJDC's April 4th and May 16th Updates.
[3] The Piedmont pilot leadership has officially denied that any such negotiations ever took place.
[4] As stated by the PSA MEC in their July 23, 2004 recorded message to their pilots.
[5] ALPA's latest small-jet agreement at US Airways clearly indicates that the mainline terms will be offered to “participating†carriers on a take it or leave it basis.
