US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/1- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[cubfan]

I've said it all along - asking for a 50 percent raise for the single-largest payroll group in a company that hasn't reported a profit in more than two years isn't negotiating in good faith. No CFO, CEO or BOD is going to agree to anything close to that figure. I seriously doubt USAPA thinks they can negotiate a pay raise on this scale. Rather asking for what you know will never be granted is just another transparent delay tactic for this one-trick pony, disgrace of a union. They've already admitted in federal court that they will never negotiate in good faith for the NIC so this is all just subterfuge anyway.

It takes two to tango. When a company puts out a proposal like the Kirby, you are forced to believe their not negotiating in good faith either, so why not throw out something you know you won't get. No harm No foul......look closely at all areas, putting the NIC aside, it's concessionary at best. I think the east group would take industry standard as it sits now, and that would clear up the pay section. Were not expecting the moon, but we also don't want beach sand either. When they get serious, I'm sure we'll do the same. Remember, it takes two to tango. :down:

 

[BoeingBoy]

And I get the distinct impression you will be overjoyed at such pain being endured by those colleagues who once considered you a friend.

I imagine you have some Dom chilling in the refrigerator in the event those dominoes do tip in the direction for which you seem to so vehemently pray.

Your imagination runs wild and your impression is right behind it. What we have is a basic disagreement that hasn't changed - I believe the NIC is basically fair, I've felt that relative position with modifications for equipment and jobs brought to the merger is fair since before the Empire merger. The US merger, the Shuttle merger, and the HP merger - it doesn't matter.

Unlike some of my former co-workers whose view of fair depends on what will advance their career the most - one merger relative position only is fair while another merger only DOH is fair. Nothing like changing standards and principles to make whatever is most advantagous for oneslef or one's side "the gold standard".

Jim

 

[CallawayGolf]

It takes two to tango. When a company puts out a proposal like the Kirby, you are forced to believe their not negotiating in good faith either, so why not throw out something you know you won't get. No harm No foul......look closely at all areas, putting the NIC aside, it's concessionary at best. I think the east group would take industry standard as it sits now, and that would clear up the pay section. Were not expecting the moon, but we also don't want beach sand either. When they get serious, I'm sure we'll do the same. Remember, it takes two to tango. :down:

I’ll need to spot you a few issues for the sake of discussion in order to have any chance at meaningful dialog:
1.Let’s assume the seniority issue is not related to the CBA so the pilot group isn’t fractured in the scenario (we all know reality is different)
2.Let’s assume I agree that the Kirby is a bad-faith offer (I believe it was made in good faith and was intended to negate the perceived negative effects of the NIC by offering the east 30%)
3. Let’s assume that USAPA was willing to negotiate for a new CBA (of course it has no intentions of doing this)
4.Let’s assume that the company had a neutral or even favorable opinion of USAPA and viewed them as negotiating in good faith (the company doesn’t take one word USAPA says seriously because they are an impotent, un-unified organization that seeks to harm its own members).

Okay so now we’ve clean up most of the mess that is USAPA. Let’s look at your strategy. Kirby makes a proposal that never receives a vote of the membership. The union views this as a bad faith offer and counters with what they consider to be an equally absurd pay scale that they know the company will never accept. Neither side budges from their positions and ultimately find themselves in front of a federal mediator. The union comes in and says “we deserve to be paid substantially more than we currently make and we won’t settle for anything less than what we already proposed. It’s a take it or leave it offer.â€

Alternatively, the company comes in and says “we made a good-faith offer which dramatically increases the east pilots pay and raised the west pay by a standard cost of living rate that we use with all of our non-contract employee groups. We believed this was a very good offer and at the time we calculated that the offer would cost us an additional $120m annually. At the time the offer was made we might have been willing to give a bit more to the pilots in order to compromise and get the CBA completed. Since that time, however, the company has sustained substantial financial loses and we can ill afford to give the pilots any more than what was previously offered. In fact, if we were to make a new offer today it would have to be less than what we offered two years ago. Here is a pro-forma income statement for 2008 and 2009 showing the negative impact that increasing pilot pay would have had. As you can see we were dangerously close to bankruptcy as it wasâ€

Which side do you suppose the mediator will tend to favor? The union’s who never attempted to negotiate in good faith or the company’s who have facts and figures to back up their claim that they made the best offer they could and never received a legitimate counter proposal which may have resolved the matter before going to mediation? My guess is that USAPA loses this just as big as they are losing ever other issue they stick their necks out on.

And where does that leave the pilots’ hope for a pay raise at any point in the foreseeable future? The company is fine with the status quo. A mediator will not take USAPA’s side as long as all they can show is an unreasonable, bad-faith offer. Self-help has the slimmest of changes of happening and with the fractured pilot group there will be no work stoppage. The company will get along just fine and the pilots, particularly the east pilots, will have suffered for a futile cause. Such is their self-imposed lot in life I guess. This is an excellent negotiating strategy I must admit.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

I’ll need to spot you a few issues for the sake of discussion ........And where does that leave the pilots’ hope for a pay raise at any point in the foreseeable future? .......... Such is their self-imposed lot in life I guess.

Wow, you sound an awful lot like Chip M. or Garland J. during our last negotiations. Do you not think your time and worth are the same as an Alaska, Airtran or Continental pilot?

 

[EastUS]

Your imagination runs wild and your impression is right behind it. What we have is a basic disagreement that hasn't changed - I believe the NIC is basically fair, I've felt that relative position with modifications for equipment and jobs brought to the merger is fair since before the Empire merger. The US merger, the Shuttle merger, and the HP merger - it doesn't matter.

Unlike some of my former co-workers whose view of fair depends on what will advance their career the most - one merger relative position only is fair while another merger only DOH is fair. Nothing like changing standards and principles to make whatever is most advantagous for oneslef or one's side "the gold standard".

Jim

Fair enough, if that's your consistent beliefs, then respect should be accorded them. For myself...I find the idea of "relative seniority" to be definative of seeking personal gain over having any/zip/zero regard for the work and experience of others. It's futher my earnest belief that DOH is the only rational basis for seniority assignment within any class and craft.....period. Our differences are clearly manifest and won't change.

As for you getting up on some mighty and righteous high horse though....frankly..."good luck" with that. You have zero basis for slurs such as: "Unlike......my former co-workers whose view of fair depends on what will advance their career the most...." and flagrantly disrespecting others who differ with you via: " Nothing like changing standards and principles to make whatever is most advantagous for oneself.." I've ALWAYS believed in DOH as the only rational basis for establishing seniority. It mattered not to me whether it harmed or helped myself or anyone else. If you find yourself unable to believe that any others can hold convictions of equal or superior strength to your own....Well..that's on you, and affords you ZERO rights to assume that said beliefs are the result of "changing standards and principles " or somehow magically, morally inferior views to your own as to what's "fair".

For me...any and all that were at Piedmont or US before me should have and did go ahead of me on the list. That made complete and perfect sense to my beliefs. On the other hand; That you personally would clearly have had no problems whatsoever with having less years worked, but yet becoming instantly "senior" to any from USAir or PSA, based solely upon wherever you momentarily sat at Piedmont....and would presumably have gleefully done so at the drop of a hat...well..what can I really say there? I guess if that's what you truly believe would have been "fair"...then so be it. I'd posit though, that any sensible man taking the position that any one of your individual years at Piedmont were honestly "worth" more than mine at PSA, or any other's from US..."might" properly consider just a wee bit of rational reluctance to assault ANY others regarding "standards and principles to make whatever is most advantagous for oneself"........Just a thought.

Throughout all of human history...it's rarely been the case that anyone so intent upon undermining, disparaging and generally striving to sabotage one's fellows has really been proven out as a true beacon of light and faith....Your actual mileage may vary of course...

 

[cubfan]

I’ll need to spot you a few issues for the sake of discussion in order to have any chance at meaningful dialog:
1.Let’s assume the seniority issue is not related to the CBA so the pilot group isn’t fractured in the scenario (we all know reality is different)
2.Let’s assume I agree that the Kirby is a bad-faith offer (I believe it was made in good faith and was intended to negate the perceived negative effects of the NIC by offering the east 30%)
3. Let’s assume that USAPA was willing to negotiate for a new CBA (of course it has no intentions of doing this)
4.Let’s assume that the company had a neutral or even favorable opinion of USAPA and viewed them as negotiating in good faith (the company doesn’t take one word USAPA says seriously because they are an impotent, un-unified organization that seeks to harm its own members).

Okay so now we’ve clean up most of the mess that is USAPA. Let’s look at your strategy. Kirby makes a proposal that never receives a vote of the membership. The union views this as a bad faith offer and counters with what they consider to be an equally absurd pay scale that they know the company will never accept. Neither side budges from their positions and ultimately find themselves in front of a federal mediator. The union comes in and says “we deserve to be paid substantially more than we currently make and we won’t settle for anything less than what we already proposed. It’s a take it or leave it offer.â€

Alternatively, the company comes in and says “we made a good-faith offer which dramatically increases the east pilots pay and raised the west pay by a standard cost of living rate that we use with all of our non-contract employee groups. We believed this was a very good offer and at the time we calculated that the offer would cost us an additional $120m annually. At the time the offer was made we might have been willing to give a bit more to the pilots in order to compromise and get the CBA completed. Since that time, however, the company has sustained substantial financial loses and we can ill afford to give the pilots any more than what was previously offered. In fact, if we were to make a new offer today it would have to be less than what we offered two years ago. Here is a pro-forma income statement for 2008 and 2009 showing the negative impact that increasing pilot pay would have had. As you can see we were dangerously close to bankruptcy as it wasâ€

Which side do you suppose the mediator will tend to favor? The union’s who never attempted to negotiate in good faith or the company’s who have facts and figures to back up their claim that they made the best offer they could and never received a legitimate counter proposal which may have resolved the matter before going to mediation? My guess is that USAPA loses this just as big as they are losing ever other issue they stick their necks out on.

And where does that leave the pilots’ hope for a pay raise at any point in the foreseeable future? The company is fine with the status quo. A mediator will not take USAPA’s side as long as all they can show is an unreasonable, bad-faith offer. Self-help has the slimmest of changes of happening and with the fractured pilot group there will be no work stoppage. The company will get along just fine and the pilots, particularly the east pilots, will have suffered for a futile cause. Such is their self-imposed lot in life I guess. This is an excellent negotiating strategy I must admit.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your first point, fractured. Point 2, good faith because they say so? Negate the effects of the NIC, the 30% if that is really what it is to be equal would be ground zero. In fact I think your f/o's make 93.00/hr top scale, 85.00 to 93.00 is only 9% plus 3 =12%. Like I said the 9% is ground zero just to get even, still far below current industry standard NOW. Point 3, I think they very much want a new contract, you speak of 3% cost of living, that 3% is not each year of the contract, it's a one time charge. Cost of living keeps going. Point 4, when asked in a PHX crew session, Parker said himself he felt they were neg. in good faith, his words not mine. I can roll out facts and figures that show their proposal is far below industry standard NOW. I don't expect to get everything back that I once had, but what their offering is not much better than status quo. For example, they offered more vacation, but then turned around and lowered the daily value, nothing changes, I find that insulting and not in good faith. Don't do a slide of had and expect me to thank you. You and I neg the sale of my car, I come down to your offer and tell you later that didn't include the new tires I had put on, and I put the worn balds ones back on. Then I look you in the eyes and tell you you should be happy because I knocked off 15%. If we take this offer, its status quo for the next 7 yrs at least. If in fact the company is in dire straits as they say, I know times aren't good, then lets all stay on or go to LOA93 to help them survive till things get better. Like I said, I don't want the moon but please.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Wow, you sound an awful lot like Chip M. or Garland J. during our last negotiations. Do you not think your time and worth are the same as an Alaska, Airtran or Continental pilot?

Hmm. Let me think. My time and worth?

First wasn’t there an old proverb somewhere about a bird in the hand being better than two in the bush? I think that means it’s better to walk away with one sure thing that it is to always be chasing the unattainable in the hopes of getting just a little bit more but never actually coming away with anything. Wanting what you can reasonably obtain is defined as a goal. Wanting what you can never obtain is just unrestrained lust, greed and vanity.

Okay, I got it.

My time is valued at what someone will reasonably give me for it in exchange for what I can do for them in return. If I were formally the president of the United States my time might be worth a few hundred thousand dollars an hour. If I stand at the door of WalMart greeting people who come in, my time might be worth $8.50 an hour or whatever the minimum wage is. The point is that the market forces set my hourly rate, not whatever my mind tells me I’m worth.

It goes back to economics 101. If what I do is in short supply (ex president of the US) and there is a high demand for it, then I should reasonably expect to be paid better than most for my time. If what I do is not in high demand and/or there is an oversupply of other people willing to do the same thing I do (competition for the same job), then I would not expect that my time would be compensated as highly as those in the first category. It’s simple math really.

The truth of the matter is that there is an oversupply of pilots in the industry with a decreasing demand for pilots among the domestic airlines. Add to that the fact that there is also an oversupply of seats vying for a limited volume of customer demand and you have an industry that that is already on very unstable financial footing. No company and no airline can afford to pay its employees more than it customers are willing to pay them for their services. Doing so only leads to certain bankruptcy and a failure of management’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Appealing to what pilots used to make 20 or 30 years ago or to what pilots at other airlines make is of little value in the negotiating process. Management and the Board of Directors will never sign a labor contract that assures the financial destruction of the company.

If it’s timed right, a CBA should be negotiated and signed at the peak of the company’s high-profit period. For US Airways that was back in 2007. Now that fuel is starting to rise again in a recession that is not recovering there simply isn’t very much money left on the table to negotiate with. If USAPA can get Kirby passed, that would be a win given the company financials in 2008/9. I would actually be shocked if USAPA can negotiate a contract as good as the Kirby offer at this point.

 

[Crzipilot]

so glad the west pilots are telegraphing they would be happy with basic status quo, and a 3% pay raise....whoooopie. You can keep it.

 

[cubfan]

[

If it’s timed right, a CBA should be negotiated and signed at the peak of the company’s high-profit period. For US Airways that was back in 2007. Now that fuel is starting to rise again in a recession that is not recovering there simply isn’t very much money left on the table to negotiate with. If USAPA can get Kirby passed, that would be a win given the company financials in 2008/9. I would actually be shocked if USAPA can negotiate a contract as good as the Kirby offer at this point.
[/quote]
I agree the peak was 2007, however their proposal doesn't even address the 190. I would give alittle on my industry proposal to bring them up. To do nothing is a real slap in their face. Like you said they only have so much money, so what is the big hurry for a new contract. I guarentee you, they would never be interested in a 2 year deal, and would never go back if financials went back to 2007 profits.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Hmm. Let me think. My time and worth?

First wasn’t there an old proverb somewhere about a bird in the hand being better than two in the bush? I think that means it’s better to walk away with one sure thing that it is to always be chasing the unattainable in the hopes of getting just a little bit more but never actually coming away with anything. Wanting what you can reasonably obtain is defined as a goal. Wanting what you can never obtain is just unrestrained lust, greed and vanity.

Okay, I got it. SO DO THE PILOTS AT SWA

My time is valued at what someone will reasonably give me for it in exchange for what I can do for them in return. If I were formally the president of the United States my time might be worth a few hundred thousand dollars an hour. If I stand at the door of WalMart greeting people who come in, my time might be worth $8.50 an hour or whatever the minimum wage is. The point is that the market forces set my hourly rate, not whatever my mind tells me I’m worth. SWA COMPETES AT PHX AND EVERY OTHER AIRPORT I FLY.

It goes back to economics 101. If what I do is in short supply (ex president of the US) and there is a high demand for it, then I should reasonably expect to be paid better than most for my time. If what I do is not in high demand and/or there is an oversupply of other people willing to do the same thing I do (competition for the same job), then I would not expect that my time would be compensated as highly as those in the first category. It’s simple math really. YES IT IS!

The truth of the matter is that there is an oversupply of pilots in the industry with a decreasing demand for pilots among the domestic airlines. Add to that the fact that there is also an oversupply of seats vying for a limited volume of customer demand and you have an industry that that is already on very unstable financial footing. No company and no airline can afford to pay its employees more than it customers are willing to pay them for their services. Doing so only leads to certain bankruptcy and a failure of management’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Appealing to what pilots used to make 20 or 30 years ago or to what pilots at other airlines make is of little value in the negotiating process. Management and the Board of Directors will never sign a labor contract that assures the financial destruction of the company. SWA MAKES MORE!

If it’s timed right, a CBA should be negotiated and signed at the peak of the company’s high-profit period. For US Airways that was back in 2007. Now that fuel is starting to rise again in a recession that is not recovering there simply isn’t very much money left on the table to negotiate with. If USAPA can get Kirby passed, that would be a win given the company financials in 2008/9. I would actually be shocked if USAPA can negotiate a contract as good as the Kirby offer at this point.

OR maybe their bonuses will be a little less!

 

[nycbusdriver]

At what point in time have any of you considered us friends? In the last two and a half years there has been NO friendly words spoken from the east.

I suppose only when you all thought that you were going to staple us to the bottom of your list did you think of us as your furlough fodder friends.

Ok. Try to keep up.

You are responding to a post of mine which showed up quoted in one of your west buddies posts,

I wasn't talking to a west pilot. I don;t consider any of them friends. Never have. Never actually met one, and now I don;t really care to.

My original post was pointed toward a former east pilot.

Again, try to keep up (if you can, that is.)

 

[OTTER574]

Hmm. Let me think. My time and worth?

First wasn’t there an old proverb somewhere about a bird in the hand being better than two in the bush? I think that means it’s better to walk away with one sure thing that it is to always be chasing the unattainable in the hopes of getting just a little bit more but never actually coming away with anything. Wanting what you can reasonably obtain is defined as a goal. Wanting what you can never obtain is just unrestrained lust, greed and vanity.

Okay, I got it.

My time is valued at what someone will reasonably give me for it in exchange for what I can do for them in return. If I were formally the president of the United States my time might be worth a few hundred thousand dollars an hour. If I stand at the door of WalMart greeting people who come in, my time might be worth $8.50 an hour or whatever the minimum wage is. The point is that the market forces set my hourly rate, not whatever my mind tells me I’m worth.

It goes back to economics 101. If what I do is in short supply (ex president of the US) and there is a high demand for it, then I should reasonably expect to be paid better than most for my time. If what I do is not in high demand and/or there is an oversupply of other people willing to do the same thing I do (competition for the same job), then I would not expect that my time would be compensated as highly as those in the first category. It’s simple math really.

The truth of the matter is that there is an oversupply of pilots in the industry with a decreasing demand for pilots among the domestic airlines. Add to that the fact that there is also an oversupply of seats vying for a limited volume of customer demand and you have an industry that that is already on very unstable financial footing. No company and no airline can afford to pay its employees more than it customers are willing to pay them for their services. Doing so only leads to certain bankruptcy and a failure of management’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Appealing to what pilots used to make 20 or 30 years ago or to what pilots at other airlines make is of little value in the negotiating process. Management and the Board of Directors will never sign a labor contract that assures the financial destruction of the company.

If it’s timed right, a CBA should be negotiated and signed at the peak of the company’s high-profit period. For US Airways that was back in 2007. Now that fuel is starting to rise again in a recession that is not recovering there simply isn’t very much money left on the table to negotiate with. If USAPA can get Kirby passed, that would be a win given the company financials in 2008/9. I would actually be shocked if USAPA can negotiate a contract as good as the Kirby offer at this point.

The kirby proposal is DOA.

Atsb loan constraint pilot wages on the west and loa 93 pilot wages on the east have subsidized this so called merger going on YEARS now. I'm tired of hearing some, especially out west..."well parker said he can only afford to pay so much." or "as long as the flights are on time, that's all that matters even with (underpaid) unhappy pilots." Statement's from parker, kirby or jerry glass, you take your pick.

You dare to compare wages with some of our competing airlines, let's say 12 year captain rates domestic single aisle? Lets pick 5. ALK, SWA, JBLU, CAL, DAL

If parker squanders this low wage gift and free ride, it's not the pilots fault at us airways.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The kirby proposal is DOA.

Atsb loan constraint pilot wages on the west and loa 93 pilot wages on the east have subsidized this so called merger going on YEARS now. I'm tired of hearing some, especially out west..."well parker said he can only afford to pay so much." and "as long as the flights are on time, that's all that matters even with (underpaid) unhappy pilots." Statement's from parker, kirby or jerry glass, you take your pick.

You dare to compare wages with some of our competing airlines, let's say 12 year captain rates domestic single aisle? Lets pick 5. ALK, SWA, JBLU, CAL, DAL

If parker squanders this low wage gift and free ride, it's not the pilots fault at us airways.

 

[Phoenix]

True story, after a big BPR meeting in CLT, West pilots socializing in the lounge at hotel when Seeham et al enter. After they leave, bartender asks West crew if they knew those guys, because they left without paying their tab! West contingent erupts in laughter and is approached by usapian wanting to know what is so funny. After an explanation, said east pilot graciously pays the bill for the now absent usapa contingent.

Moral of the story, if you offer to buy a round in CLT, make sure you know "whats in your wallet?".

True story. In CLT there was this bartender that figured out a way to get paid twice for the tab.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

YOU GET WHAT YOU NEGOTIATE! IF WE WORKED FOR FREE OUR CASM WOULD'NT BE LOWERED BY EVEN 1 PENNY ! USELESS PURCHASED REALESTATE, FUEL HEDGING (lack of it) and not to mention those other useless derivatives, it is TIME TO HOLD BAD management accountable and not act like an endless piggybank for a drug addict! SWA DOES!