US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 5/19-5/26 READ THE FIRST POST

[luvn737s]

Stolemyjob, the “changeâ€￾ in the West contract was because WEST pilots complained. It had nothing to do with upgrades after age 58. They were 757 line holders prior to the reduction bid. The reduction pushed them to reserve on that same equipment since being over 58 they couldnt to the 320 where they could hold a line. Since all west equipment pays the same, they could lose as much as $17,000/year all the way up to age 65 if we dont get a new contract. The company refused to pay them average line, so they complained to a union they didnt even belong to. Now they can bid what they can hold up to age 63, with a freeze 2 years before mandatory retirement. Look at this another way, suppose those pilots were at the bottom of the CA list and there was a downgrade. Imagine the west uproar from angry senior FOs if the company kept them in the left seat rather than retraining them in the right seat. Certain Westies tried to accuse USAPA of screwing them when they didnt know the circumstances. Snooper

No, in fact USAPA did screw the west AND the east with this. Blowing the negotiating leverage on pilots they felt they didn't need to represent? Does this pass the smell test with anyone? Besides Mega got it wrong. The pilots would not lose $17,000 a year until they got a new contract. They would have been forced to hold their current position until returned to lineholder status, upgrade (while remaining F/O's at top of list making CA pay), or involuntarily displaced off the aircraft. So what did USAPA get these phantom F/O's? Well since the Age 58 bypass was in the Filling of Vacancies section (p.155 of the west contract if you're curious-it's on Wings) these pilots aren't going to be bidding anything until a vacancy or displacement bid comes out. If it's a displacement bid, they'll move off the 757 to a lineholder status on another fleet. If it's a vacancy bid, they go back to being lineholders on the 757. So the negotiating leverage was spent for NOTHING! Nice job USAPA!

Furthermore the flip-side argument that Mega presents is also flawed. In his example a pilot over 58 couldn't be displaced out of his CA seat frustrating F/O's. The contract states that Age 58 CA are not prohibited from being retrained to a different position if displaced.

What USAPA did do is guarantee more angry F/O's because of their meddling in something most of them don't understand, Age 58+ pilots are needlessly taking upgrade opportunities from younger pilots and at the same time reducing their own quality of life by having to go to reserve instead of sitting as F/O's making CA pay.

Beyond even that, why was USAPA membership at large allowed to vote on a provision that affected only the west? That's like the PHX pilots voting on CLT reps.

And even beyond that, why did USAPA change the west contract rather than enter section 6 negotiations to change the west contract? That sounds like a DFR in itself.

The age 58 provision was easily worth $2-5 million (not to mention the incentive to negotiate so as to reap the benefits of any change sooner) and it was carelessly discarded.

Snoop, spin it as much as you want, but you can't cover the stink of this USAPA screw-up.

 

[EastUS]

In his example a pilot over 58 couldn't be displaced out of his CA seat frustrating F/O's.

Age 58+ pilots are needlessly taking upgrade opportunities from younger pilots ......

"Age 58+ pilots are needlessly taking upgrade opportunities from younger pilots ......"

Little comment required here....How DARE anyone in the "Age 58+" category ever "needlessly" take any "upgrade opportunities from younger pilots" and frustrate any younger F/O's.

 

[hp_fa]

I had edited my most recent post in the last sentence of paragraph two where I had twice changed the word "I" for the word "they" and failed to change the last word "myself" to "themself". I had written it the original way in order to keep far away from personalizing the message, but after posting and reviewing it, the sentence was too convoluted. When I changed the "they" I failed to change the last word and now it is too late to do so. So, I am simply trying to correct the way the sentence should read and not be sent back to a fifth grade writing class.

Sorry about that.

 

[luvn737s]

Little comment required here....How DARE anyone in the "Age 58+" category ever "needlessly" take any "upgrade opportunities from younger pilots" and frustrate any younger F/O's.

"Little comment"? C'mon don't tease us like that.

How can you legitimately argue against a win-win provision that allows both older and younger pilots to enjoy the benefits of CA pay while granting the additional benefit of the F/O retaining their bidding position as an F/O? Of course now that's water over a burned bridge.

That's right, there is no concept of win-win east of the Mississippi. If we've learned anything from USAPA (and the east in general) it's that.

 

[Megasnoop]

No, in fact USAPA did screw the west AND the east with this. Blowing the negotiating leverage on pilots they felt they didn't need to represent? Does this pass the smell test with anyone? Besides Mega got it wrong. The pilots would not lose $17,000 a year until they got a new contract.

I detect some anger today, Luvn. If you want to get mad at someone for this, blame your 737 CA when he lost being line holder and filed a grievance. Your a smart guy, figure out who he is and trash him. If he hadnt complained, this wouldnt come up until the first 58+er got turned down for upgrade. Not that the company would have let it go that long either. No way theyd pay CA rate for FO work for 7 years.

That section addressed upgrades and downgrades, not loss of pay due to dropping to reserve. We tried to consult your former leaders but they refused to help. The company refused to pay line average to reserves. They claimed potential cost of over $30M over 7 years for this and paying 58+ers CA rate while sitting in the right seat. The range between CA line holder @min 78 hours and reserve @max 77 hours was $1700/yr. Average line last year was 83/month (thats from the reduced hours arbitration), so $10,200. Max line 90 was $22,000. So my $17,000 guess was low. My mistake. In our contract, you dont wander on the bubble between primary block holder to secondary block/reserve unless you want to. Im oversimplifying, but if you are a primary block holder and cant hold it due to reduction, you can bid anything you can hold without a freeze, in same base, different base, upgrade, downgrade, different equipment.

The problem was caused by a displacement bid, but your 737 CA wasnt equipment displaced. He couldnt bid off equipment, so he was knocked from line holder to reserve with lost pay. It was age discrimination. Why cant you understand that? Supreme Court rulings on a similar race discrimination/union contract cases dating back over 50 years pointed to status quo language being a loser, so no leverage.

Another reason this was a loser was intent. Your contract stipulated a hard age, 58. The company claimed intent was no training the last two years, but hourly pay protection at the highest rate, which for you is same hourly pay for all 3 CA positions. How could we argue else with zero west support? Our contract has a limit too, but as I remember it was 6 months prior to retirement, not a hard age. So 59 1/2 became 64 ½ and no one here complained. We even voted for it. Im not sure how east how got screwed on that. Your 737 CA"s pay reduction was due to losing line holder status monthly pay, not for going to FO. Luvn, he wasnt displaced. He knocked out of line holder to reserve at age 59. On your line average vs. reserve pay, thats $60K over 6 years, status quo, if we last that long. On upgrades, depriving someone of an upgrade for 7 years is against the law even if the pay is the same. Against the law, depriving of “life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.â€￾ If “happinessâ€￾ isnt left seat at LCC, then what is?

Beyond even that, why was USAPA membership at large allowed to vote on a provision that affected only the west? That's like the PHX pilots voting on CLT reps.

Except that until you had your own PHX local, all 25 PHX members did vote in CLT. In fact, when this contract change vote came out, they were CLT members. Like it or not, USAPA is the CBA. Contract changes are voted at large, unless the judge says otherwise. If you want to vote, you join and pay.

And even beyond that, why did USAPA change the west contract rather than enter section 6 negotiations to change the west contract? That sounds like a DFR in itself.

The age 58 provision was easily worth $2-5 million (not to mention the incentive to negotiate so as to reap the benefits of any change sooner) and it was carelessly discarded.

Snoop, spin it as much as you want, but you can't cover the stink of this USAPA screw-up.

If it sounds like a DFR, then go ahead and sue. All Im smelling is smoke coming out of West FO ears.

EASTUS said it well.

"Age 58+ pilots are needlessly taking upgrade opportunities from younger pilots ......"

Little comment required here....How DARE anyone in the "Age 58+" category ever "needlessly" take any "upgrade opportunities from younger pilots" and frustrate any younger F/O's..

“A Pilot who has or will turn age fifty-eight (58) on or before the last day of the twelfth (12th) month following the bid award date may bid and be awarded an upgrade vacancy on the basis of seniority, but shall not be trained.â€￾

Thats the upgrade story, not ending up on reserve. The company thought holding on to age 58 was worth over$30M, not $2-5M. But $2-5M leverage if we had it, on a $700M+ contract? What a loss! We still had no leverage. Section 6? You guys blew that 3 years ago when you had the chance, an opportunity which the old AAA MEC supported by unanimous vote. Were in Section 6 next month, Luvn. Dont worry, be hoppy. Das Snoopn nootn

 

[luvn737s]

737? I thought you said it was 757 pilots. Which is it?

And the Age 58 bypass is about upgrades and transitions (you really ought to read it.) not voluntarily downbids. To claim, that USAPA couldn't get anyone in the west to help us screw them, so they were justified in doing it themselves is a pretty weak argument. To give in to a company's request to eviscerate the west contract instead of going through the grievance process and then dealing with any age discrimination issues (there have been none raised since the provision was first put in the contract) when they're raised. Hiding shameful behavior behind some unnamed west pilots, so that the east could vent it's anger at the west pilots, is very telling of this union and their committment to representing ALL US pilots.

Tell me how you would react if the population balance east and west were different and the west decided to curry favor with the company by eliminating expensive provisions in your contract.

So how do you use USAPA's track record to encourage west participation when they keep stepping on themselves in and effort to keep their jackboots on the neck of the west (in my opinion).

 

[nycbusdriver]

There was a time when USAPA was referred to as the "Angry First Officers' Club." That time has passed since all four of the national officers are captains.

However, maybe we can call the west the "Self-Entitled First Officers' Club." ???

Nice ring to it, don't you think.

As in "rings true."

 

[Megasnoop]

737? I thought you said it was 757 pilots. Which is it?

One or more of each, Luvn, but only the 737 CA grieved it. I dont name names. As I said, your a smart guy, you can figure out who they are and deliver your own brand of west justice to them.

And the Age 58 bypass is about upgrades and transitions (you really ought to read it.)

This part? Substitute sixty-three (63) for fifty-eight (58).

A Pilot who has or will turn age fifty-eight (58) on or before the last day of the twelfth (12th) month following the bid award date may bid and be awarded an upgrade vacancy on the basis of seniority, but shall not be trained. Such Pilot shall begin receiving the new pay, if it is an increase, on the first day of the month that the Pilot’s seniority would have held a training slot. A Pilot who has or will turn age fifty-eight (58) on or before the last day of the twelfth (12th) month following the bid award date may not bid a transition, unless the transition results in an increase in pay, in which case the Pilot shall begin receiving the new pay on the first day of the month that the Pilot’s seniority would have held a training slot, but shall not be trained. A Captain age fifty-eight (58) or older shall not be prevented from transitioning to another Position due to that Captain’s involuntary displacement.

For purposes of this Subsection 24.L.1.c., a Pilot is eligible for voluntary displacement if:
a) The Pilot will not reach the Pilot’s fifty-eighth (58th) birthday prior to the end of the twelfth (12th) month following the displacement bid award date; and The Pilot has not begun training for another Position as a result of a previous award.â€￾

Hiding shameful behavior behind some unnamed west pilots, so that the east could vent it's anger at the west pilots, is very telling of this union and their committment to representing ALL US pilots.

Your free to name him. Our commitment is to not have a grievant singled out for potential attacks.

Tell me how you would react if the population balance east and west were different and the west decided to curry favor with the company by eliminating expensive provisions in your contract.

Typical, framing the question as "when did you stop beating your wife?" So Ill rephrase: "Tell me how you would react if the population balance east and west were different and the west decided to respond to an unwinnable grievance and negotiated a contract subsection to comply with Federal Law?" The answer is, if the change was required to meet EEOC standards and comply with a US Supreme Court decision, Id accept the decision and move on, whether it hurt me or not. You cant.

So how do you use USAPA's track record to encourage west participation when they keep stepping on themselves in and effort to keep their jackboots on the neck of the west (in my opinion).

Framing the question in a hostile manner. Not worth a reply. Das Snoopnbitte

 

[boeingplt]

How can you legitimately argue against a win-win provision that allows both older and younger pilots to enjoy the benefits of CA pay

Now that truly is a shockingly good idea! Older pilots who have been here longer get their time as capt and then they retire and their junior counterparts move up, and the cycle continues.

 

[flybynite]

Egad....what a nest of adders!

 

[Megasnoop]

"QUOTE (luvn737s @ May 23 2009, 01:15 PM)
How can you legitimately argue against a win-win provision that allows both older and younger pilots to enjoy the benefits of CA pay"

Now that truly is a shockingly good idea! Older pilots who have been here longer get their time as capt and then they retire and their junior counterparts move up, and the cycle continues.

Boeing, when Luvns "West World" crew controls the majority, they can vote anything they want. Maybe ALL CA/FOs make the same wage. Theyve had equal pay for all equipment since there 1st contract, so there half way there. Win-Win? Right! In "West World" its all about getting to that left seat regardless whose seniority they have to crawl over. In "West World" every FO who doesnt make it to CA by age 58 gets 7 years CA pay but no upgrade and every age 58 CA gets frozen in equipment, even if its a pay cut. Same pay scale, so no problem. If you had 500 FOs getting CAs pay (a real possibility with 58 freezes), where do these guys think the money comes from? Its not additive, but out of the big pie. But in "West World" the pie is in the unlimited skies. (I wont claim credit for "West World", it came from another chat room with no anonymity, but it fits)

Boeing, one thing I notice with Luvn, when he gets whacked with the truth, he deflects and reframes the issue with loaded, unanswerable questions. He cant substantiate the legality or common sense of keeping someone out of the left seat for 7 years nor can he justify keping a CA on reserve, losing $10K to $20K per year, so he just reloads and shoots in another direction. Remember Jeff Tocash, former PIT Rep about 15 years ago? When I read Luvn, Im seeing Jeffs ghost. Snoop, out

 

[luvn737s]

Yeah, I'm just one of those oddballs that think a person would rather make 99 hours of captain pay a month while bidding No.1 one for schedules and vacations in exchange for bypassing the glory of being a reserve dog with 4 stripes.

Crazy, huh?

But that's not what gripes me the most. It's the fact that Snoop's sources tell him USAPA really gave away $30Mil worth of negotiating leverage, just to show the west who's boss.

I hope it felt REALLLY good. $30Mil good.

 

[traderjake]

However, maybe we can call the west the "Self-Entitled First Officers' Club." ???

By "Self-Entitled" you mean they expect to keep the job they brought to the merger and not have an East pilot steal it.

That rings true.

 

[Ardenian]

But that's not what gripes me the most. It's the fact that Snoop's sources tell him USAPA really gave away $30Mil worth of negotiating leverage, just to show the west who's boss.

I hope it felt REALLLY good. $30Mil good.

And this is a perfect example of why we pilots will always be treated like C%&P by management.

 

[Ardenian]

A recent communications from USAPA talked about the opposition that is forming to stop any funding of our pension investigation.

The background on this message is that a concerted effort on behalf of former and still current ALPA supporters and people that were in charge of ALPA R & I Committee have been trying to convince as many pilots as possible to stop any investigation of what happened to our pension.

Their arguments are that what happened in the past should stay in the past. That it would be difficult to find out what happened and if we found out, what could we do about it? If any money was found, it would have to go to the PBGC, and it would be a waste of money to find that money if we weren't going to receive it.

First of all, one of the main reasons we wanted to get rid of ALPA was that most of us feel that ALPA National had a lot to do with the pension termination and later placement of our pension with the PBGC and never gave us a honest assessment as to what happened. So, asking them to investigate what happened would be like asking the fox to find out who ate the chickens.

Now that ALPA is gone, these same people want us to just forget about it and go on with our lives. They tell us that we would be wasting our time and money and that the people looking into the pension were not involved in the termination, so shouldn't be involved in the investigation. In fact, they tell us that only they have the expertise to do a complete investigation.

They also tell us it will be difficult and they are correct and we may never know what happened because tracks will have been covered. But does that mean we aren't supposed to try? We are hiring professional forensic accountants that specialize in embezzlement and even the smartest thieves get caught.

We may also find out that our pension was in fact truly underfunded through no ones fault and the termination was necessary. But we have some good people looking, so who knows what they may find and why are those ALPA supporters so worried about an investigation?

They argue that since only a few pilots were at the Senate meeting in Washington with Arlene Specter, we have no right now to ask what happened. Well, I was there, and I am asking, and it makes no difference who else was there because we all lost a great deal of money and our futures. And by the way, as anyone that was there will tell you, it was badly mishandled by our ALPA people.

Then they tell us that if money is found, it will go to the PBGC. That is where their argument falls apart. Obviously, if we find money, that will prove that there was a crime. If a crime can be proven, we can sue to recover our pensions or at least a portion of it. There needs to be accountability. Also, if it is proven that our pensions should not have been terminated, but was done with ALPA's consent, guess who will be liable then?

The people that most want us to stop the search are the same ones that opposed USAPA from the beginning and continue to oppose it, so their credibility is zero with me.

USAPA is asking us to vote to finance an investigation into what happened. It will cost each mainline pilot approximately $240, financed over a 6 month period. Most of us lost millions, so $240 is a drop in the bucket to finally answer once and for all what happened. I don't want to spend the rest of my life wondering why I don't have a retirement after 35 years as an airline pilot and wishing I had spent that measly $240 for an investigation.

I hope you share my thoughts about investigating our pensions. I want answers and this may be the best and only chance we ever get to find out the truth. If you hear from one of these ALPA supporters telling you to just give up and you will be much happier, tell them what you think.

Please cast your vote for the finance of an investigation into what heppened to our pensions.

Just my opinion,

BiXX XXXnn

Has anyone seen this? USA320? Is this one of the RC4 guys you said was suing the pilots?