US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Reed Richards]

I guess you weren't paying much attention then...

The judge allowed US to abrogate the IAM contract and impose it's own. The IAM ratified the concession agreement after that ruling and US accepted that.

The same judge allowed US to temporally abrogate the pilot's contract while membership voting on LOA 93 was being voted on. It was ratified giving the company the amount of concessions they wanted so again US accepted that instead of abrogating the entire contract.

No contract was imposed on our pilots, despite your spin. My pay was only docked retroactively upon ratification of LOA 93. There was no court ordered contract. And I see you also used the word "ratified" in your IAM example.

There is a time a place where the RLA allows a Company to impose a contract.

RR

 

[Barrister]

I guess you weren't paying much attention then...

The judge allowed US to abrogate the IAM contract and impose it's own. The IAM ratified the concession agreement after that ruling and US accepted that.

The same judge allowed US to temporally abrogate the pilot's contract while membership voting on LOA 93 was being voted on. It was ratified giving the company the amount of concessions they wanted so again US accepted that instead of abrogating the entire contract.

Then there's the most famous case of about all, which lead to changes in BL law. Lorenzo was allowed to abrogate the contract and impose his own, which he did.

On your other post, it's not surprising that you weren't told that in your new hire class - US was growing significantly slower than PI, which was upgrading people with 4 years to 737/727 captain. When I was hired a decade before the US/PI merger the explosive growth hadn't started yet so I wasn't told that either, so the explosive growth was a pleasant surprise when it started. But the point was that those hired in 88/89 were looking forward to rapid advancement. Little did they know that they'd spend as much as 10 years on furlough and be mostly junior F/O's at 20 years.

What you and others say about not wanting anything the West has is contrary to your demand for DOH. You want to take seniority from the West to make up for the unfortunate plight of many East pilots. All of you pretend that the "C&R's" is like a magic elixir. All USAPA's C&R's will do is slow down the taking from the West (unless there's another big furlough). Heck, the Empire pilots got more protection than you want to give the West pilots.

Jim

Please oh wise one please tell us where that EXPLOSIVE GROWTH
is coming that the Easties want to take so much advantage of....
inquiring minds want to know!! And we can't wait for the massive
retirements out West.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

usapa has been incapable of negotiating a single thing with the company. How many sections of the contract are closed?

How makes you think that usapa would be able to renegotiate the T/A? The first thing the company will ask for is to get rid of the block hour mins.

Think before speaking.

You should really think before you ask such a question, given your lack of scope! MM!

US Airways seeks to make labor contracts more merger-friendly
As US Airways eyes a new contract with flight attendants, negotiations are complicated by separate labor groups left over from the merger with America West and by the belief that yet another merger may be in the offing. "Looking out over four or five years and recognizing that a merger is a possibility, we want to make sure we have the company in an advantageous position," says Steve Johnson, a US Airways executive vice president. Current labor contracts include "snap-back" provisions that would dramatically increase salaries in the event of a merger. Such restrictions "would add significant costs to a merger [and therefore] would prevent or inhibit discussions," Johnson says. TheStreet.com (12/17) Now the WEST contracts have what snapbacks?

 

[Al Legheny]

No contract was imposed on our pilots, despite your spin. My pay was only docked retroactively upon ratification of LOA 93. There was no court ordered contract. And I see you also used the word "ratified" in your IAM example.

There is a time a place where the RLA allows a Company to impose a contract.

RR

RR is correct. The US Airways pilots did not have a court imposed contract. There is always the threat of a 1113 filing by the creditors and trustee, but absent the actual filing and negotiations, the contract in effect at the time of the Chapter 11 filing remains in effect.

The TWA pilots were threatened with an 1113 filing and the thing that American Airlines requird to avoid the 1113 action was to give up the right to Allegheny 11/13 protections in their contract. The rest is history. ALPA national advised them to do it and said that ALPA would be able to negotiate for them. That didn't work out very well.

Below is the section of the Chapter 11 code regarding 1113 filings. As you can see it is a rather long process. The US Airways pilots did not go thru this process, we were threatened with it but it didn't happen. While researching this itme I cam across a rather large pdf file from the IAM in the United Chapter 11 filing.

By the time United had filed Chapter 11 the major unions had figured out the 1113 process and they were not so quick to give in. The learning curve was pretty steep and ALPA, AFA and the IAM figured out how to fight an 1113 motion and get a negotiated result. Delta and Nothwest empoloyees were also better able to negotiate their way out of Chapter 11 once the unions figured out how to manage this section of Bankruptcy.

The only two ways the company can impose a contract are at the end of cooling off, after a release by the NMB
from Section 6 negotiations or as outlined below in an 1113 filing under Chapter 11.


TITLE 11 > CHAPTER 11 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1113
§ 1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements
(a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(B)
(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section “trustee” shall include a debtor in possession), shall—
(A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and

(B) provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
(2) During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement. (c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.
(d)
(1) Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.
(2) The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.

(3) The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee’s proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.
(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.
(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.

 

[cleardirect]

You should really think before you ask such a question, given your lack of scope! MM!

US Airways seeks to make labor contracts more merger-friendly
As US Airways eyes a new contract with flight attendants, negotiations are complicated by separate labor groups left over from the merger with America West and by the belief that yet another merger may be in the offing. "Looking out over four or five years and recognizing that a merger is a possibility, we want to make sure we have the company in an advantageous position," says Steve Johnson, a US Airways executive vice president. Current labor contracts include "snap-back" provisions that would dramatically increase salaries in the event of a merger. Such restrictions "would add significant costs to a merger [and therefore] would prevent or inhibit discussions," Johnson says. TheStreet.com (12/17) Now the WEST contracts have what snapbacks?

And you think that usapa would be able to get the west scope by opening up the T/A.

Delusional really you are.

You think that your scope clause that allows 300 RJ's protects you?

You think that your CoC protects you? You did hear Parker talking about that at the crew news right? There will be no CoC and a merger or there will be no merger that triggers CoC. So it is a useless provision in your contract. Let's call it a lottery ticket that you can never cash.

You did hear about what happened to your CoC during the last UAL attempt right?

So you are on scope this week. What happened to your fragmentation theory? Will that be next weeks rant?

 

[Freighterguynow]

Separate ops indeed is the only path for our two groups.

After a decade of squabbling it looks like the Atlas/ Polar pilot groups are pursuing ( via the Teamsters ) an LOA establishing semi-permanent separate operations as the only means to a joint CBA.

 

[john john]

the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.
(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.

The question IS can you call a strike “self help”

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

And you think that usapa would be able to get the west scope by opening up the T/A.

Delusional really you are.

You think that your scope clause that allows 300 RJ's protects you?

You think that your CoC protects you? You did hear Parker talking about that at the crew news right? There will be no CoC and a merger or there will be no merger that triggers CoC. So it is a useless provision in your contract. Let's call it a lottery ticket that you can never cash.

You did hear about what happened to your CoC during the last UAL attempt right?

So you are on scope this week. What happened to your fragmentation theory? Will that be next weeks rant?

Actually our Coc puts us in the driver seat, it's negotiable, I did hear about it during the last UNITED thing , that's why it didn't happen!No rant unlike yourself, scope and our Coc protects the EAST,unlike FRAGMENTATION of the WEST! MM! It's a risk thing ! Getting scope for the WEST?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Actually our Coc puts us in the driver seat, it's negotiable, I did hear about it during the last UNITED thing , that's why it didn't happen!No rant unlike yourself, scope and our Coc protects the EAST,unlike FRAGMENTATION of the WEST! MM! It's a risk thing ! Getting scope for the WEST?

Yes, everyone agrees the east is in the driver's seat. Over the past ten years the east, being in the driver's seat, has produced a massive shrinking of airline east operations and east aircraft, placed a large number of pilots on furlough for most of the last decade even though they were hired more than a decade earlier, and secured the lowest pay rates among the majors with zero expectation of improving those rates before mandatory retirement.

Yes, the east pilots are driving and the road they are taking everyone on is the antithesis of success.

 

[AWA320]

I guess you weren't paying much attention then...

The judge allowed US to abrogate the IAM contract and impose it's own. The IAM ratified the concession agreement after that ruling and US accepted that.

The same judge allowed US to temporally abrogate the pilot's contract while membership voting on LOA 93 was being voted on. It was ratified giving the company the amount of concessions they wanted so again US accepted that instead of abrogating the entire contract.

Then there's the most famous case of about all, which lead to changes in BL law. Lorenzo was allowed to abrogate the contract and impose his own, which he did.

What you and others say about not wanting anything the West has is contrary to your demand for DOH. You want to take seniority from the West to make up for the unfortunate plight of many East pilots. All of you pretend that the "C&R's" is like a magic elixir. All USAPA's C&R's will do is slow down the taking from the West (unless there's another big furlough). Heck, the Empire pilots got more protection than you want to give the West pilots.Jim

WOW!!!! That one hit home and I am sure the likes of Oldie, RR, MM and others will attack rather than offer intelligent responses.

AWA320

 

[AWA320]

After a decade of squabbling it looks like the Atlas/ Polar pilot groups are pursuing ( via the Teamsters ) an LOA establishing semi-permanent separate operations as the only means to a joint CBA.

Here is the truth and it says NOTHING about seperate ops, it does say a neutral third party will IMPOSE sections of the contract. Did I say IMPOSE? I thought I said the neutral 3rd party will IMPOSE!!!!!

800 Teamsters Employed by Atlas Air Worldwide

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Airline Division announced today that negotiations with Atlas Air Worldwide (AAWW), the holding company of Atlas Air Inc. and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, have ended without a collective bargaining agreement. The Teamsters and AAWW have been in negotiations to merge the existing Atlas Air Inc. and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide contracts for nearly two years.



"Instead of reaching an agreement with its pilots, AAWW management has decided to let an arbitrator determine the core provisions in the pilots' contract," said Capt. David Bourne, Teamsters' Airline Division Director. "Consequently, an arbitrator will impose contract terms affecting the rules for airline acquisitions, mergers, asset disposition, marketing agreements, joint ventures, foreign operations, subcontracting, salary, health insurance, retirement, profit sharing and contract duration."
Approximately 800 Teamsters-represented pilots employed by Atlas Air Inc. and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide operate the world's largest fleet of modern Boeing 747 all-cargo aircraft serving customers in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The express unit of German-based DHL has a 49 percent stake in Polar Air Cargo Worldwide.

"Pilot morale is at an all time low at Atlas and Polar," Bourne said. "The company is one of the most profitable airlines in the world, in part, because of lucrative government contracts, but management is putting its past success at risk by refusing to enter into a fair contract with their hardworking pilots who are unified in their demands."

Under the terms of an agreement between the Teamsters and AAWW management, all unresolved contract sections must be resolved by final and binding arbitration with no judicial review. The arbitration hearing is scheduled to begin in October.

The Teamsters' Airline Division represents more than 40,000 employees in every craft and class of the airline industry. Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents more than 1.4 million hardworking men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.


SOURCE International Brotherhood of Teamsters

AWA320

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Yes, everyone agrees the east is in the driver's seat. Over the past ten years the east, being in the driver's seat, has produced a massive shrinking of airline east operations and east aircraft, placed a large number of pilots on furlough for most of the last decade even though they were hired more than a decade earlier, and secured the lowest pay rates among the majors with zero expectation of improving those rates before mandatory retirement.

Yes, the east pilots are driving and the road they are taking everyone on is the antithesis of success.

And the WEST was going where? MM! enjoy the ride hope you went to the restroom before you got in!

 

[Reed Richards]

Here is the truth and it says NOTHING about seperate ops, it does say a neutral third party will IMPOSE sections of the contract. Did I say IMPOSE? I thought I said the neutral 3rd party will IMPOSE!!!!!

AWA320

" Under the terms of an agreement between the Teamsters and AAWW management, all unresolved contract sections must be resolved by final and binding arbitration with no judicial review. The arbitration hearing is scheduled to begin in October."

The union AND the company agreed to this process. This is not the company or a court unilaterlly imposing terms.

This is the real deal, just like our LOA 93 arbitration. Final and Binding. Unlike the failed internal process we went through almost 4 years ago and counting.

RR

 

[sumadarson]

I guess you weren't paying much attention then...

Heck, the Empire pilots got more protection than you want to give the West pilots.

Jim

Enlighten us sir, give us examples on the protections that Empire pilots were given that are better than the ones offered to the West. I am paying attention.

 

[AWA320]

" Under the terms of an agreement between the Teamsters and AAWW management, all unresolved contract sections must be resolved by final and binding arbitration with no judicial review. The arbitration hearing is scheduled to begin in October."

The union AND the company agreed to this process. This is not the company or a court unilaterlly imposing terms.

This is the real deal, just like our LOA 93 arbitration. Final and Binding. Unlike the failed internal process we went through almost 4 years ago and counting. RR

The process didnt fail, it worked as designed. What failed was your word to honor the results and your misbelief that you could change the results to your liking by bringing harm to the west. That will without a doubt fail as well. Sure it will burn up time and make some in the east happy TODAY but tomorrow brings the pain and you know this. Some of you will just call it quits all together and retire but the mess you left in your wake will be felt by many for years to come.

AWA320