cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
Why don't you ask Cleary he has been running the show for 4 years.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
USAPA CLT Domicile Update: April 25, 2012
Informational Conference Call
Monday evening your CLT Representatives participated in a BPR Informational Conference Call with USAPA Merger Counsel, the Allied Pilots Association (APA) Negotiating Committee Chairman, and the APA Vice President. While we expected much of this conference call to be in Closed Session, that was not the case. The call was never "closed" and no confidential information was shared. The meeting with our guests from the APA was pleasant and cordial, but the information shared is readily available on the Internet. The majority of the briefing by the APA members, and the few questions that were asked by BPR members, centered almost exclusively on the "term sheet" agreement between the APA and US Airways.
We realize that many of you are hungry for information and undoubtedly would like us to have asked detailed questions of the APA, but we did not, and for very purposeful reasons. We have not been briefed by Merger Counsel or the President yet; have not been formally invited to participate in talks by the Company; and if and when we are invited, we will be negotiating with our Management and not the APA.
As we reported to you yesterday, our support is available if and when Management comes to us, but we will not proceed in haste or with the idea that a merger, simply for the sake of change, is in the best interest of our pilots. Our pilots have sacrificed greatly through two bankruptcies (nearing $10 billion). We are very interested in a potential merger, but we are not willing for you to pay for someone else's bankruptcy or career expectations. There must be adequate benefits to our pilots, and we are convinced that our best course of action is to proceed with caution as this process moves forward. For the casual onlooker, it would appear that Management is attempting to negotiate an agreement with USAPA without actually engaging us in talks. The US Airways flight attendants' union (AFA) has notified the Company that they are willing to assist Doug Parker with his merger, provided that they enter into the merger with their own signed contract. We view this as a very prudent move on their part.
We intend to keep an open mind as we wait to hear back from our Officers who are scheduled to meet with US Airways management this week. If it turns out that Management is indeed attempting to negotiate with us through the APA, we find these actions unacceptable. In order to protect the US Airways pilots' interests, we must be directly involved in determining your futures. At first glance, it appears that the APA's CBA that may result from the term sheet between APA/US Airways will be concessionary in nearly every section when initially compared to our own contract, with the only exception being the hourly rates of pay. As stated above, we will keep an open mind at this point, but as we conveyed yesterday, "the devil is in the details."
When writing your reps with your thoughts and ideas regarding the process, please remember that it is our responsibility to consider the wellbeing of every pilot on our seniority list, from the number one pilot to our new hires. We feel that by protecting every last pilot on our list we will be ensuring the unity that will be required to accomplish the best terms for all our pilots.
The $172 question?
You undoubtedly have heard or seen the $172.44/hr. figure contained in the APA/US Airways agreement floating around the Internet, cockpits, crew rooms, and shared with you yesterday in the BPR Recap Update that is being compared to our present group III rate of $125/hr. No doubt a very enticing number, but how much is that $172/hr. actually worth if we were to agree to it in the context of the CBA anticipated between the APA and US Airways? Considering the fact that any transaction between American and US Airways will more than likely trigger our Change of Control provisions which results in a group III pay increase to over $212/hr., it will cost us over $50/hr. to accept it strictly at face value.
That number is without factoring in the productivity concessions that will surely be included in the final CBA negotiated between the APA and US Airways.
Let's consider the possible cost of productivity give-backs to the bottom line of any deal. Let's consider our long-time First Officers as an example. There has been no upward movement as a result of the retirement age being changed to age 65 for five years now. Beginning in December we will start experiencing significant forward movement, and in just the first three years we are scheduled to retire approximately 547 pilots, 426 of which are presently Captains. Undoubtedly the upgrades will go much further down the list than 426 numbers since many pilots enjoy the increased seniority versus the bump in hourly rate and will opt to bypass upgrade in exchange for enhanced lifestyle.
For those of you long-time group III FOs, your upgrade will finally be at your doorstep, but what occurs should the new APA contract arrive for us with substantial productivity givebacks? For many, that magic $172/hr. number will be meaningless because it will produce more years of stagnation among our aging and frustrated First Officer group. The biggest questions of the day...will these productivity enhancements result in furloughs and potential downgrades? Again, the "devil is in the details." These scenarios can lead to discussions of head count, no furlough clauses, seat protections and other current job loss scenarios, which all must be considered before establishing that $172/hr. value as tangible. This is just an example, so please don't construe this to mean that any of us think that is exactly what is going to happen moving forward, but we must consider all options. We are using this as one illustration to show that there is much more to consider than a single figure with a dollar sign before it. We want each of you to begin contemplating these very important possibilities with us.
Our Involvement
We are concerned that your Leadership and your Negotiating Committee are not yet involved enough in the process of protecting your best interests, as it appears the Company is attempting to have APA negotiate for us all. We clearly see value in the AFA's approach of signing a contract with Doug Parker, delivering your best interests directly to the negotiating table. Parker just began and completed negotiations with three separate unions with the fourth largest airline in the world, while he has effectively stalemated any and all progress on his own property. We see a significant opportunity for both sides of the negotiating table to accomplish the same progress with the US Airways pilots and look forward to making that happen. Remember that the APA is representing the best interests of the American Airlines pilots as they well should; it is USAPA's responsibility to look after the US Airways pilots.
We look forward to and appreciate your feedback as this process moves forward, and attempt to digest what will be in the best interest of our pilots as a whole. Never forget that whatever the final solution, any product that is produced will be sent to you for your review and ratification.
How do we weigh in?
To date, we have not been asked for support by our Management, but we are hoping that will change in the near term. The only details that have been made available are what we are all reading on the Internet. We are cautiously optimistic, but our support is contingent on benefits to you. Management will be hugely rewarded if a transaction is consummated, and undoubtedly the American pilots are in a very difficult position facing a draconian butchering of their contract in bankruptcy court that we are all too familiar with. Until we are included in the process and make the proper evaluations that there are real and tangible benefits to all US Airways pilots within a consummated deal, we wait with an open and optimistic mindset. Make no mistake, we do have tremendous leverage in our Change of Control language. If we can add value to any deal, we must wisely administer that leverage, as you have paid dearly for it. Although Doug Parker appears to be downplaying it, we are acutely aware that our Scope language is real, and must be dealt with in order for any merger to take place.
Finally
We each recognize the increased anxiety that any merger produces and trust you will all do your best to "keep it in the green" and take care of yourselves and your families. We will update you frequently with current events and our opinions on relevant matters so you know how we are likely to vote on your behalf if and when the time comes.
Thank you for your involvement in your union and your undivided attention. To be successful in this process it will take a commitment from every US Airways pilot to remain involved and engaged in the process. Be active and participate in your union as that is what we all signed up for in April 2008. It is more important now than ever!
Informational Conference Call
Monday evening your CLT Representatives participated in a BPR Informational Conference Call with USAPA Merger Counsel, the Allied Pilots Association (APA) Negotiating Committee Chairman, and the APA Vice President. While we expected much of this conference call to be in Closed Session, that was not the case. The call was never "closed" and no confidential information was shared. The meeting with our guests from the APA was pleasant and cordial, but the information shared is readily available on the Internet. The majority of the briefing by the APA members, and the few questions that were asked by BPR members, centered almost exclusively on the "term sheet" agreement between the APA and US Airways.
We realize that many of you are hungry for information and undoubtedly would like us to have asked detailed questions of the APA, but we did not, and for very purposeful reasons. We have not been briefed by Merger Counsel or the President yet; have not been formally invited to participate in talks by the Company; and if and when we are invited, we will be negotiating with our Management and not the APA.
As we reported to you yesterday, our support is available if and when Management comes to us, but we will not proceed in haste or with the idea that a merger, simply for the sake of change, is in the best interest of our pilots. Our pilots have sacrificed greatly through two bankruptcies (nearing $10 billion). We are very interested in a potential merger, but we are not willing for you to pay for someone else's bankruptcy or career expectations. There must be adequate benefits to our pilots, and we are convinced that our best course of action is to proceed with caution as this process moves forward. For the casual onlooker, it would appear that Management is attempting to negotiate an agreement with USAPA without actually engaging us in talks. The US Airways flight attendants' union (AFA) has notified the Company that they are willing to assist Doug Parker with his merger, provided that they enter into the merger with their own signed contract. We view this as a very prudent move on their part.
We intend to keep an open mind as we wait to hear back from our Officers who are scheduled to meet with US Airways management this week. If it turns out that Management is indeed attempting to negotiate with us through the APA, we find these actions unacceptable. In order to protect the US Airways pilots' interests, we must be directly involved in determining your futures. At first glance, it appears that the APA's CBA that may result from the term sheet between APA/US Airways will be concessionary in nearly every section when initially compared to our own contract, with the only exception being the hourly rates of pay. As stated above, we will keep an open mind at this point, but as we conveyed yesterday, "the devil is in the details."
When writing your reps with your thoughts and ideas regarding the process, please remember that it is our responsibility to consider the wellbeing of every pilot on our seniority list, from the number one pilot to our new hires. We feel that by protecting every last pilot on our list we will be ensuring the unity that will be required to accomplish the best terms for all our pilots.
The $172 question?
You undoubtedly have heard or seen the $172.44/hr. figure contained in the APA/US Airways agreement floating around the Internet, cockpits, crew rooms, and shared with you yesterday in the BPR Recap Update that is being compared to our present group III rate of $125/hr. No doubt a very enticing number, but how much is that $172/hr. actually worth if we were to agree to it in the context of the CBA anticipated between the APA and US Airways? Considering the fact that any transaction between American and US Airways will more than likely trigger our Change of Control provisions which results in a group III pay increase to over $212/hr., it will cost us over $50/hr. to accept it strictly at face value.
That number is without factoring in the productivity concessions that will surely be included in the final CBA negotiated between the APA and US Airways.
Let's consider the possible cost of productivity give-backs to the bottom line of any deal. Let's consider our long-time First Officers as an example. There has been no upward movement as a result of the retirement age being changed to age 65 for five years now. Beginning in December we will start experiencing significant forward movement, and in just the first three years we are scheduled to retire approximately 547 pilots, 426 of which are presently Captains. Undoubtedly the upgrades will go much further down the list than 426 numbers since many pilots enjoy the increased seniority versus the bump in hourly rate and will opt to bypass upgrade in exchange for enhanced lifestyle.
For those of you long-time group III FOs, your upgrade will finally be at your doorstep, but what occurs should the new APA contract arrive for us with substantial productivity givebacks? For many, that magic $172/hr. number will be meaningless because it will produce more years of stagnation among our aging and frustrated First Officer group. The biggest questions of the day...will these productivity enhancements result in furloughs and potential downgrades? Again, the "devil is in the details." These scenarios can lead to discussions of head count, no furlough clauses, seat protections and other current job loss scenarios, which all must be considered before establishing that $172/hr. value as tangible. This is just an example, so please don't construe this to mean that any of us think that is exactly what is going to happen moving forward, but we must consider all options. We are using this as one illustration to show that there is much more to consider than a single figure with a dollar sign before it. We want each of you to begin contemplating these very important possibilities with us.
Our Involvement
We are concerned that your Leadership and your Negotiating Committee are not yet involved enough in the process of protecting your best interests, as it appears the Company is attempting to have APA negotiate for us all. We clearly see value in the AFA's approach of signing a contract with Doug Parker, delivering your best interests directly to the negotiating table. Parker just began and completed negotiations with three separate unions with the fourth largest airline in the world, while he has effectively stalemated any and all progress on his own property. We see a significant opportunity for both sides of the negotiating table to accomplish the same progress with the US Airways pilots and look forward to making that happen. Remember that the APA is representing the best interests of the American Airlines pilots as they well should; it is USAPA's responsibility to look after the US Airways pilots.
We look forward to and appreciate your feedback as this process moves forward, and attempt to digest what will be in the best interest of our pilots as a whole. Never forget that whatever the final solution, any product that is produced will be sent to you for your review and ratification.
How do we weigh in?
To date, we have not been asked for support by our Management, but we are hoping that will change in the near term. The only details that have been made available are what we are all reading on the Internet. We are cautiously optimistic, but our support is contingent on benefits to you. Management will be hugely rewarded if a transaction is consummated, and undoubtedly the American pilots are in a very difficult position facing a draconian butchering of their contract in bankruptcy court that we are all too familiar with. Until we are included in the process and make the proper evaluations that there are real and tangible benefits to all US Airways pilots within a consummated deal, we wait with an open and optimistic mindset. Make no mistake, we do have tremendous leverage in our Change of Control language. If we can add value to any deal, we must wisely administer that leverage, as you have paid dearly for it. Although Doug Parker appears to be downplaying it, we are acutely aware that our Scope language is real, and must be dealt with in order for any merger to take place.
Finally
We each recognize the increased anxiety that any merger produces and trust you will all do your best to "keep it in the green" and take care of yourselves and your families. We will update you frequently with current events and our opinions on relevant matters so you know how we are likely to vote on your behalf if and when the time comes.
Thank you for your involvement in your union and your undivided attention. To be successful in this process it will take a commitment from every US Airways pilot to remain involved and engaged in the process. Be active and participate in your union as that is what we all signed up for in April 2008. It is more important now than ever!
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Who will represent US Airways' pilots?
In a report from the APA DFW Domicile meeting last Friday, April 20, As far as representation goes it will be APA, the NMB is ready to move on that as soon as we get approval and there most likely wont be a vote because it will be a friendly takeover from USAPA.
According to the CCC, APA has agreed to petition the NMB at the time of a corporate transaction. APA would then be our Collective Bargaining Agent and USAPA would cease to exist! Get it now??? APA would then, (being the vast majority) do whatever they like, within reason. Whatever they negotiate and ratify would then become our contract too.
It is my understanding in an airline merger where two different Unions represent the same craft or class of workers and each of the Unions represent at least 35% of the combined work group; typically there is call for a representation election. In order for the election to move forward the National Mediation Board must first make the determination the new company qualifies as a single carrier.
(a) Showing of Interest Percentages
If different unions represented the affected carriers craft or class of employees before the NMB determines that the carriers constitute a single transportation system for representation purposes, then those unions are considered incumbent unions. In such situations, the incumbent organizations on the affected carrier(s) are required to submit evidence indicating a showing of interest from at least 35% of the employees in the craft or class. Such evidence can include a seniority list, dues check-off list, a current collective bargaining agreement or a NMB certification, or other indicia of current representation.
(B) Election & Certification
If the NMB determines that two or more unions have provided a sufficient showing of interest to trigger an election, then the agency will conduct an election to determine which union, if any, is the certified bargaining representative of the craft or class of employees.
Under current NMB rules, in order for the agency to certify a bargaining representative, a majority of the employees included in the craft or class must affirmatively vote in the election. If a majority of the employees in the craft and class affirmatively vote in the election, the successful union must then secure a majority of the votes cast in order to be certified as the bargaining representative.
If a majority of the employees in the craft or class do not affirmatively vote in the election, then the NMB will issue a dismissal, such that no union will be certified as the bargaining representative of the craft or class of employees. In that case, the employees will be unrepresented, at-will employees.
(c) Effect on Pre-Existing Union Certifications Pending Single Carrier Elections
While the NMB single carrier proceeding is ongoing, all then- existing union certifications remain in effect. They remain in effect until the single carrier proceeding is completed and the NMB issues a new certification or dismissal.
Existing certifications remain in effect until the NMB issues a new union certification or dismissal.
In a report from the APA DFW Domicile meeting last Friday, April 20, As far as representation goes it will be APA, the NMB is ready to move on that as soon as we get approval and there most likely wont be a vote because it will be a friendly takeover from USAPA.
According to the CCC, APA has agreed to petition the NMB at the time of a corporate transaction. APA would then be our Collective Bargaining Agent and USAPA would cease to exist! Get it now??? APA would then, (being the vast majority) do whatever they like, within reason. Whatever they negotiate and ratify would then become our contract too.
It is my understanding in an airline merger where two different Unions represent the same craft or class of workers and each of the Unions represent at least 35% of the combined work group; typically there is call for a representation election. In order for the election to move forward the National Mediation Board must first make the determination the new company qualifies as a single carrier.
(a) Showing of Interest Percentages
If different unions represented the affected carriers craft or class of employees before the NMB determines that the carriers constitute a single transportation system for representation purposes, then those unions are considered incumbent unions. In such situations, the incumbent organizations on the affected carrier(s) are required to submit evidence indicating a showing of interest from at least 35% of the employees in the craft or class. Such evidence can include a seniority list, dues check-off list, a current collective bargaining agreement or a NMB certification, or other indicia of current representation.
(B) Election & Certification
If the NMB determines that two or more unions have provided a sufficient showing of interest to trigger an election, then the agency will conduct an election to determine which union, if any, is the certified bargaining representative of the craft or class of employees.
Under current NMB rules, in order for the agency to certify a bargaining representative, a majority of the employees included in the craft or class must affirmatively vote in the election. If a majority of the employees in the craft and class affirmatively vote in the election, the successful union must then secure a majority of the votes cast in order to be certified as the bargaining representative.
If a majority of the employees in the craft or class do not affirmatively vote in the election, then the NMB will issue a dismissal, such that no union will be certified as the bargaining representative of the craft or class of employees. In that case, the employees will be unrepresented, at-will employees.
(c) Effect on Pre-Existing Union Certifications Pending Single Carrier Elections
While the NMB single carrier proceeding is ongoing, all then- existing union certifications remain in effect. They remain in effect until the single carrier proceeding is completed and the NMB issues a new certification or dismissal.
Existing certifications remain in effect until the NMB issues a new union certification or dismissal.
Zone5
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2010
- Messages
- 773
- Reaction score
- 696
Don't worry claxon/sport...dues check off will soon to be history at a usapa near you.....
OTTER
You might hold off there sport, on stopping payments to USAPA. It could take a while for "Dougie" to put this merger thing to bed (if ever) and it would be a shame to see someone get canned for not paying up. How long would it take to process a termination initiated by USAPA for failing to pay? Do you want to be the one that finds that out, the hard way?
seajay
nycbusdriver
Veteran
A real Navajo code talker? Or, just another of your invisible "friends"?
nycbusdriver
Veteran
CLT Reps said:
I am not sure exactly what the CLT reps have been inhaling or imbibing, but they are so far off the charts with their assertion that the east contract Change of Control language will be operative in any merger with American. Parker has made it very clear from many Crew News meetings over the past years that one focus in any merger will be that the CoC provisions of the east pilot contract will be avoided or neutered. The east pilots lost an attempt to claim CoC during the merger with AWA even though the HQ moved across the country, and the very top management (the actual control) came from the west side. With the American merger (as envisioned by Parker), it is clear that the top management (the control) will simply be moving out of the sandbox to actual civilization. (Can't say as I blame them.) There is even less legitimate argument for CoC in the AA-US merger than there was in the US-AW merger. CoC? CLT reps, you're smokin' somethin'!
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
USA320Pilot
Sorry - no I don't get it.
In your post #38685, what document are you citing with regard to "friendly takeover' of one union by another?
Not sure I understand how APA filing a petition will decertify USAPA simply because they are larger, or because we have secured STS.
Sorry - no I don't get it.
In your post #38685, what document are you citing with regard to "friendly takeover' of one union by another?
Not sure I understand how APA filing a petition will decertify USAPA simply because they are larger, or because we have secured STS.
True, the statement was made with complete ignorance of how an arbitrator would rule. That's how it is in a civilized society. People honor the rule of law. They abide by arbitrators and judges rulings even though they may not like said rulings.
Keroseneuser
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2011
- Messages
- 860
- Reaction score
- 645
My problem with all this is the USA320pilot types that are posting on here saying we need to do this or do that, take the NIC etc when this is FAR from a done deal.
The ONLY group that has expressed interest in doing anything with Parker is the AA unions. And they are just looking for bright spots wherever they can find them just like we were 10 years ago.
As far as I have seen and read the money people and AA mgmt. are all against the deal or "keeping options open".
I think the CoC stuff mentioned in the CLT update is a bit of wishful thinking, HOWEVER the the numbers they referenced about retirements are not. In December the retirements crank up and never slow down for the next 14 years. We have 1500 + going by end of decade just on the east. Considering that 2/3 of the active east pilots are either "hosed" or "really hosed" in a NIC scenario makes it very dangerous counting on a merger that for now is nothing more than talk.
We get on a "merger mania" kick and start signing stuff assuming that this merger will go through AND assuming that Parker has honerable intentions concerning the USAirways pilot group(east and west) I think is a recipe for getting burned real bad.
Remember the other "big" mergers. United=FAIL, Delta=FAIL
The ONLY group that has expressed interest in doing anything with Parker is the AA unions. And they are just looking for bright spots wherever they can find them just like we were 10 years ago.
As far as I have seen and read the money people and AA mgmt. are all against the deal or "keeping options open".
I think the CoC stuff mentioned in the CLT update is a bit of wishful thinking, HOWEVER the the numbers they referenced about retirements are not. In December the retirements crank up and never slow down for the next 14 years. We have 1500 + going by end of decade just on the east. Considering that 2/3 of the active east pilots are either "hosed" or "really hosed" in a NIC scenario makes it very dangerous counting on a merger that for now is nothing more than talk.
We get on a "merger mania" kick and start signing stuff assuming that this merger will go through AND assuming that Parker has honerable intentions concerning the USAirways pilot group(east and west) I think is a recipe for getting burned real bad.
Remember the other "big" mergers. United=FAIL, Delta=FAIL
Rather than saying I can't rationalize a Nic type sli, I'll say that I won't. It is not up to me to rationalize anything. It is just up to me to accept it. As I have previously stated, had Nicolau ruled DOH I would have hated it but would have accepted it and moved on, as would the entire west pilot group.
You probably can't comprehend what I have been saying because you are so morally bankrupt that these concepts are truly foreign to you. That's ok. Soon myself and my peers will be through with you and your kind.
Spoken like the true arrogant, pompous jackass that you are.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
I am under no illusion, and neither should you be, that our long term prospects as a stand alone carrier are not particularly bright. Large numbers of retirements won't mean much if we begin to flirt with yet another bankruptcy and/or shrinkage.
A merger with AA may finally place us in the "too big to fail" category. And so from that standpoint alone, we should proceed with caution and make sure our interests are protected. But to even consider a u-turn would be a recipe for disaster.
I am saying that IF Judge Silver rules against us, we will need to decide whether to jeopardize this by pursuing an appeal. I don't think that is a prudent course of action.
fifidriver
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 455
I'd just like to add narcissistic and immoral.
cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
What. You mean there are people in this world that fail to live up to their agreements and you think that is not right? That you could get burned by someone not acting honorable?
Say it ain't so.
cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
You east guys were so concerned that it would be west pilots spouting off about saving American. Turns out it is the arrogant east PHL rep that said it first.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
