US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Al Legheny]

"Fences. that seems to be the key word for your next attempt at avoiding the Nicolau. Fences cost the company money because they can not move assets around like they want. How much more is usapa and the east willing to give the company to get what you could not during arbitration? What leverage does usapa have to get anything?"

The actual cost of the current de-facto fence is about $10 million per year according to Doug Parker. This has been publically stated in several public forums including a 3rd quarter conference call from 2009. He has publically stated this to the financial press and it was in direct response to questions about how much keeping the two pilot groups apart was costing the company.

$10 million dollars a year is not a large number to deal with in negotiations. The two East lump sum payments are $35 million. Using this as an example, the actuall gross cost per pilot would be around $3300.00 per year. Figure in the taxes (roughly [one third], 1/3 or that) and you are loolking at about $2400.00 per year net for each East pilot. That is not a tiny sum but it is not a large one either. This is the price it is costing the East in negotiations.

This $10 million cost pales in contrast to some of the other hidden costs in the Kirby proposal. One that few East pilots understand is West scheduling. The East gave the company permission to have pref-bidding long ago, but it was on very specific terms. Bidding lines where a computer puts stuff in the there because it is legal but not commuteable is scary. The company has created many more commuters with the closing of LGA and BOS. This pilot group will not give one inch, (IMHO) on any item that makes our working lives more difficut than it is now. When you are forced to commute the idea of the company imposing overfly and 95 hour pay caps as standard is just insane.

The Kirby proposal also has very stringent reductions on disability and sick that will not fly with the older East pilot group. I have a full sick bank, 1500 hours, and I will not give up a years pay for nothing or a mere pittance to get the West system. Any pilot with a full sick bank or nearly full and approaching his retirement would be a fool to sell it back to
the company for their current offer. Watch for many more on sick leave in June of 2011, one year from now. At that point the age 65 crowd with a full bank can use all thier sick time 18 months worth and walk out the door to retirement.

The $10 million dollar question is just not that big a deal.

 

[767jetz]

The reality of the West continuing to insist on what every other employee group did not get.

This tag line really turns my stomach because it is one of those things that sounds reasonable to the casual observer on the surface, but is a thinly veiled lied once you scratch the surface.

The lie is in the semantics of how it's worded. If it were true that the west wants something no one else got, it might make the west sound unreasonable. But the truth is that the west DID get what every other employee group got. That is, an integration that followed the rules of each group's respective union's merger policy. Furthermore it was agreed to by both sides knowing full well going in, the risks of an "our way or the highway" approach.

We know exactly where we stand. There is no way the East pilot group would attempt a strike. Nic4us gave us the reality- a whole lot of you will cross.

You reap what you sow. Eventually the East will run out of other people to blame.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Fences cost the company money because they can not move assets around like they want. How much more is usapa and the east willing to give the company to get what you could not during arbitration? What leverage does usapa have to get anything?"

The actual cost of the current de-facto fence is about $10 million per year according to Doug Parker.
[/i]


They may move 24% of the PHX employees back East where you are doing our flying so you might not want to go down that path!

I wonder how much of the $10 million is being spent over nighting West crews in PHL and CLT?

 

[Captain Underpants]

"Fences. that seems to be the key word for your next attempt at avoiding the Nicolau. Fences cost the company money because they can not move assets around like they want. How much more is usapa and the east willing to give the company to get what you could not during arbitration? What leverage does usapa have to get anything?"

The $10 million dollar question is just not that big a deal.

Al,
You are correct...fences are not a problem for the company. The company already manages multiple pilot "fences" like A/C type, crew bases, etc. Most of our pilots don't fly together anyway so one more division East/West makes little difference. The $10 million is mainly the cost of administering 2 separate pilot contracts. That could easily be substantially eliminated with either a single contract or two separate but equal contracts. There is no reason we couldn't have a fence to protect West jobs in PHX but still fly each others tails increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Two separate but equal contracts would also protect both the company and USAPA from any more frivilous lawsuits by keeping the senioriity issue "unripe" until it becomes moot with attrition over time.

The problem for the West with fences is that the company will always seek to optimize costs by moving the flying to the bases where it is most effiecient. The company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders but no legal duty of fairness to employees. As Freighter pointed out the 24% increase to West flying is only temporary and only happened to keep West pilots busy instead of parking the pilots and paying them to meet minimum block hours. Any increase in West flying will shift block hours back East until the 24% flying is restored back to East pilots. I also saw the results when the company ran the initial optimized pairings distribution of flying for the merger. The most efficient distribution of flying was to shrink the PHX crew base by 30%. This was caused by the time zone difference and the fact that East coast based crews can fly longer days returning home later without triggering duty rigs resulting in more efficient pairings for East based crews. Makes sense since most of the other big airlines have big bases East and small bases West.

USAPA is aware of these flying distribution problems as well as most of the future planned growth being East International with A330/A350 flying. Fairness of course will require a path for West pilots to fill East vacancies before new hires resulting in a one- way fence. West furloughs already have a path back to any vacancy via the TA and DOH. Each individual West pilot should also have the right to move into a better East vacancy so long as they renounce in writing any rights to future class action claims. Let the individual West pilot decide what is fair for him or herself.

underpants

 

[end_of_alpa]

Can someone repost the amount AOL's lawfiim charged them and how much has been paid by the west so far???? Someone asked me and couldn't find it.

Thanks.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't think anything official has been posted here. There's been some "about" numbers and one made up bill but that's it.

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

Can someone repost the amount AOL's lawfiim charged them and how much has been paid by the west so far???? Someone asked me and couldn't find it.

Thanks.

More than enough to keep going, from what I hear.

Read the post hearing briefs this morning. Ouch (not for the company, that is).

 

[cactusboy53]

Can someone repost the amount AOL's lawfiim charged them and how much has been paid by the west so far???? Someone asked me and couldn't find it.

Thanks.

What possible difference would that make to your "DOH is the gold standard" argument? Are you making personal notations about how much the west are paying for dues (for Seham's legal bills) AND to defend a final and binding arbitration??

Here. The existing bill is in (I believe) in excess of 1.8 Million dollars. You will be pleased to know that pilots from OTHER AIRLINES have donated to Leonidas. Parents & other relatives of our pilots have donated to Leonidas. Many (if not ALL) of our pilots that are furloughed (OUT OF SENIORITY ORDER) have donated to Leonidas. Every paycheck, I send a bi-monthly stipend to Leonidas (it's less expensive than therapy, and feels MUCH better). I hear that we are planning a Tempe car wash with Megan Fox, Shakira & Eva Mendez (OK, my three favorites) to do a fund-raiser (as necessary).

We simply don't have a choice. USAPA has forced us to defend our position. How much more are you sending to USAPA to help with your "DOH..The Gold Standard" campaign?

 

[cactusboy53]

.....The anti-labor forces of AOL and their attorneys continue to keep us from getting a contract and stripping the pilots of their rightful places to vote. This issue will continue to foment the rift between the East and West pilots for sometime to come.

Unity is non-existent here.

I just return to the forum occasionally to remind the East pilots here that to waste your breath with West pilots is great sport but otherwise simply reminds us that the ultimate weapon of strike is not availible to us. THEY ARE AGAINST US!!
They're angry and they HATE you!

So, Good luck and enjoy the ride!!

Back to lurking.

WOW. Where do I begin? I'll start at the end. To quote another LCC pilot.."It't not personal, it's business.". No, we do not hate you. In fact I think that Matt. 5:43-44 is especially germane.

Unity is non-existent simply because "we" can not get past a final and binding arbitration.

The AOL forces are not "anti-labor", they are anti-DOH cram-down. You should have USAPA immediately put forth the best contract possible with a date-of-hire section 22 (?). That should take care of all of our problems. Give it shot Buckaroo.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

What possible difference would that make to your "DOH is the gold standard" argument? Are you making personal notations about how much the west are paying for dues (for Seham's legal bills) AND to defend a final and binding arbitration??

Here. The existing bill is in (I believe) in excess of 1.8 Million dollars. You will be pleased to know that pilots from OTHER AIRLINES have donated to Leonidas. Parents & other relatives of our pilots have donated to Leonidas. Many (if not ALL) of our pilots that are furloughed (OUT OF SENIORITY ORDER) have donated to Leonidas. Every paycheck, I send a bi-monthly stipend to Leonidas (it's less expensive than therapy, and feels MUCH better). I hear that we are planning a Tempe car wash with Megan Fox, Shakira & Eva Mendez (OK, my three favorites) to do a fund-raiser (as necessary).

We simply don't have a choice. USAPA has forced us to defend our position. How much more are you sending to USAPA to help with your "DOH..The Gold Standard" campaign?

Good for you, you might try tupperware, those guys from the other airlines might give more if they felt like they were getting something for their donation! MM!

 

[aquagreen73s]

Good for you, you might try tupperware, those guys from the other airlines might give more if they felt like they were getting something for their donation! MM!

You do realize that every one of those other airlines makes more than you - a substantial amount more - don't you?

How are negotiations going?

 

[traderjake]

The Nicolau is dead and gone everywhere but in your world. We got the green light from the 9th.

Truly delusional. The court said the case was not ripe.

Please put out your DOH contract proposal so we can get on with the next lawsuit.

 

[ROACLT]

Here is the difference. Both flight attendant groups willfully signed on to the tenets of AFA before the merger was announced. Each group could have vetoed the arrangement by decertifying the union. Allegheney-Mohawk, McCaskill-Bond, and every other legal case recognizes that in a seniority merger, there are two sides with mutually exclusive interests. The law provides a way to resolve those disparate interests through a variety of methods. The AFA chooses DOH, that is their choice. ALPA chooses the Allegheney-Mohawk procedures, negotiation-mediation-arbitration. That is their choice. That is the choice that both AWA and AAA chose to use when they joined ALPA.

Your argument is that after the fact, the majoirty group can force a new union with new rules on seniority integration and have that apply under "wide range of reasonableness". That argument is so ridiculous that I can't believe you even present it. If your arugment holds true, then all labor law, all legal cases, all federal law on seniority integration can be summed up with "whatever the majority wants". Doesn't that sound just a little silly to you.

BEFORE the merger, both sides agreed to be in ALPA. Furthermore, both sides agreed in the transition agreement to use the ALPA merger procedures to solve their seniority issues. You can't change the rules ex-post-facto, simply by a majority vote. The Nicolau list is the integrated seniority list at LCC because that is what their contract called for. USAPA is free to change the list but the changes must pass the tests of DFR including non-discrmination. USAPA does not get to start from scratch and invent a new integration procedure. That is insane and totally eliminates the rights of one group in the seniority dispute. You rely on a select few quotes from select cases, all of them out of context, and claim to have made a legal case. Why don't you quote the section of the transition agreement that deals with the seniority issue?

USAPA lost the DFR case. The case was dismissed over ripeness. If USAPA presents the DOH list and it makes through to a signed contract, then they will lose the DFR case again. No facts have changed. The Ninth ruled on one issue, ripeness, the rest of the discussion was a back and forth between the majority and minority opinion and have no weight on the underlying DFR case. No matter how you try to stretch the words used, you cannot stretch the clear facts. LCC has an integrated seniority list and changing a seniority list is really hard. Otherwise, it would be done all the time.

The majority in many unions voted freezes to pension, ie. CAL and NWA. For those fully vested or near being fully vested, there was no financial loss, or smaller loss. For those with intermediate seniority, 15-20 years, the hit was huge. In the case of CAL, it was near a 1 million dollars. Scope relief disproportionately effects the bottom of the list as do work rule changes or scheduling changes. Outright terminating a DB pension plan destroys those who just retired or are near retirement. The majority make decisions all the time, with various effects to different subsets of seniority within the entire bargaining unit. I am not advocating or rationalizing any of these things, as in some cases things that occur are tragic and many would consider wrong but legally the majority can do things that are entirely damaging to a specific subset in the group if it can be justified in the best interest of the whole.

If the majority as in any of these cases support a position that advances the interests of the entire unit, then yes the majority can always defend being within a wide range of reasonable behavior. In the case of seniority, it is widely established that longevity is the standard for combing groups of workers within the same craft and skill set. It was used by each party respectively within their own group, all other unions on the property integrated the same way, courts have upheld every legal challenge to the standard and it has been referred to at the appellate level as a "gold standard". You would be correct that whatever the majority wants could lead to breach of "good faith", if the way in which seniority or any other issue was done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The majority deciding on many things is routinely upheld as right and within the bounds of DFR. As you can see from some of the examples of what majorities do, there is a wide range for a collective bargaining unit's behavior in advancing the interest of the entire unit, and USAPA using a longevity based system which is the common labor standard not only is "good faith" but the generally accepted method for a plurality of labor organizations. Nor can it be argued that it damages someone to place them within a system that allows for their seniority to vest in the same manner as everyone else in the same craft at the same company. If you couple that with C & R's, in a true DFR case where the proper legal standard apply, a union can easily defend longevity based seniority.

While it may matter to you that both sides were in ALPA, the 9th Circuit clearly disagrees. You point out that USAPA lost a DFR case, when in reality they lost nothing. There was no jurisdiction to hear any claim and somebody with an opposing viewpoint could argue that if Wake was so wrong or biased that he couldn't understand the basic concept of Ripeness, then they could infer that all other aspects of the case are in doubt. What isn't in doubt is that the 9th clearly iterated the legal standard that USAPA must use in moving forward with negotiation, which is to bargain in good faith for all its members. They also made it clear that ALPA's process was internal to arrive at a proposal, which is no different than USAPA having a internal policy. The fact that ALPA's process and voting structure allowed for indefinite veto by either party advances USAPA's argument, one clearly commented on by the 9th circuit, that a union overall objective is to advance and promote the interest of the entire bargaining unit so long as it acts in good faith, i.e a wide range of reasonableness and is neither arbitrary or wholly irrational. The 9th circuit chose to cite two cases heard before the SCOTUS and cites specific legal precedent from these cases to emphasize the "good faith" standard.

You may call it silly to believe the majority can do what it wants, but it happens every day in unions all across this country and is upheld as long as it is withing that wide range of reasonable behavior. Discrimination, is a non-starter in the case because the same standard is applied to everyone under DOH, and it also passes the Arbitrary standard. If you had taken the time to read the transcript from Wake's court you would be aware of the fact, the Plaintiffs conceded that USAPA's actions were neither Arbitrary or Discriminatory and the entire case was framed around the breach of DRF being tied to "good faith." A standard that Wake either didn't understand(wide range), or he attempted to narrow it, so USAPA could not properly defend itself so the verdict he though fair would be assured. The 9th Circuit had no reason to revisit the standards of "good faith" pursuant to a Union's DFR responsibilities when they only ruled on jurisdiction but they did, and courts do things deliberately, especially at the appellate level and an opinion they decide to publish.

USAPA is a signatory to all agreements as the legally authorized bargaining unit and has the ability to modify or revisit and negotiate any of these agreements. Clearly, the company agrees as a provision in the West contract was modified and voted on by all pilots East and West because their is only one union, and in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws, all agreements are voted on by all the pilots. This too is established by the precedent in this opinion. The court made it clear that USAPA is free to abandon the award as ALPA was and when coupled with them acknowledging that any contract USAPA is forced to bargain with the Nicalou award as likely to be rejected, along with the fact USAPA's final proposal may not work to the disadvantages plaintiff's fear even if it is not Nicalou all indicate that they are saying USAPA as signatory of the TA is free to act on behalf of its members. An appellate panel just doesn't say things without express legal meaning nor would they use language enticing behavior that would be in violation of the law.

LCC does not have an integrated seniority list. They have a "seniority proposal", generated by an "internal union process" of ALPA. 9th Circuit's words not mine. Apparently whenever questioned by west pilots, LCC management has stated on numerous occasion that seniority is a "union deal" and that their legal obligation is to negotiate with the authorized collective bargaining agent. So, you either weren't aware or you aren't taking the time to understand the issues.

By your posts you seem to be an avid ALPA supporter and your are entitled to your opinion but your reading of the 9th Circuits opinion is as poor as the legal advice given to the Addington plaintiff's that cost them 1.8 million, 2 years, and severely harmed any chance of success in a future claim. What is amazing, as a so called unionist, you applaud the efforts of 2 anti-labor NeoCon judges appointed by GW BUSH, when the union you loudly support would consider them wrong minded and harmful to the interests of Labor. Why don't you ask your ALPA attorney's whether they are pleased or disheartened by the 9th Circuit's rulings? I can tell, that they are very happy, especially for a union that runs afoul of so many DFR cases and is constantly defending in court. Trust me, they like that a union is free to revisit agreements and defense of their DFR responsibilities are held to a wide standard and not a narrow standard. You should be happy too but as I have said before, what kind of unionist supports a group that claims to represent highly trained and educated people who make $17,000 a year and qualify for public assistance. Before you jump on me, I walked away from flying in 1991, shortly into my career and I thank God every day, life worked out the way it did. When you were taking a bath in 2002, the union that represents me, negotiated significant pay and work rule improvements, despite what was going on in the country and economy. I have many friends at US Airways and as I am still tied to the organized labor movement and take great interest in what is going on here. I routinely over the years have told them they are insane for giving their time in talent to a job that has been so poorly represented by a labor union. It's absurd that people with $100,000 education or former military officers make the pitiful wages that are present, or the time in craft can become meaningless due to bankruptcy or job loss and is no wonder that Colgan, MESA, or Tran States make the wages they do, or mighty UAL for that matter. I have to laugh every time I see a press release with the statement 50000+ standing strong shoulder to shoulder. I wouldn't call it strong by any means. I have actually had hope for my friends at US Airways over the last couple of years. Leaving ALPA was the best thing they ever did and if all they spend is a a million a year in legal fees, they are still way ahead of the game.

 

[Freebird]

Good for you, you might try tupperware, those guys from the other airlines might give more if they felt like they were getting something for their donation! MM!

I'm glad you are not PIC of any US Airways Jet or Turboprop. Or never will be.

 

[nic4us]

Al,
You are correct...fences are not a problem for the company. The company already manages multiple pilot "fences" like A/C type, crew bases, etc. Most of our pilots don't fly together anyway so one more division East/West makes little difference. The $10 million is mainly the cost of administering 2 separate pilot contracts. That could easily be substantially eliminated with either a single contract or two separate but equal contracts. There is no reason we couldn't have a fence to protect West jobs in PHX but still fly each others tails increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Two separate but equal contracts would also protect both the company and USAPA from any more frivilous lawsuits by keeping the senioriity issue "unripe" until it becomes moot with attrition over time.

The problem for the West with fences is that the company will always seek to optimize costs by moving the flying to the bases where it is most effiecient. The company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders but no legal duty of fairness to employees. As Freighter pointed out the 24% increase to West flying is only temporary and only happened to keep West pilots busy instead of parking the pilots and paying them to meet minimum block hours. Any increase in West flying will shift block hours back East until the 24% flying is restored back to East pilots. I also saw the results when the company ran the initial optimized pairings distribution of flying for the merger. The most efficient distribution of flying was to shrink the PHX crew base by 30%. This was caused by the time zone difference and the fact that East coast based crews can fly longer days returning home later without triggering duty rigs resulting in more efficient pairings for East based crews. Makes sense since most of the other big airlines have big bases East and small bases West.

USAPA is aware of these flying distribution problems as well as most of the future planned growth being East International with A330/A350 flying. Fairness of course will require a path for West pilots to fill East vacancies before new hires resulting in a one- way fence. West furloughs already have a path back to any vacancy via the TA and DOH. Each individual West pilot should also have the right to move into a better East vacancy so long as they renounce in writing any rights to future class action claims. Let the individual West pilot decide what is fair for him or herself.

underpants

Please tell me your plan is to negotiate two seperate contracts. That will make it so much easier to establish when the damages started to accrue.

To your, "so long as they renounce in writing any rights to future class action claims", can't stop laughing at that one. Do you actually think that a West pilot is going to sign any agreement with a bunch of contract welching malcontents, whose word is less good than the paper on which they sign the contracts they break?