US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

It is going to be very hard for the arbitrator to not see why the letter was crafted and covered the pay issue, no others.

BS,

Yesterday or day before you mentioned the same thing - the pay freeze was a different letter with no other changes mentioned. At that time I thought you were talking about the different sections of LOA 93 but now I'm not so sure. It almost seems that you think the pay is a separate LOA and separate from everything else in LOA 93. Nearly every section in LOA is separated from the others by lettering the sections so there's nothing unusual about the pay freeze having it's own "letter" but you seem to think it's somehow a big deal. So what exactly are you talking about when you say "letter" and "covered the pay issue, no others." Also, what makes pay different from the other sections that have a separate "letter".

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Here's a little truth about the arbitrators Conclusion on that award... (looks like he certainly didn't use OUR award as a template) In fact he seems to indicate that this was such a unique integration that "Traditional methods of integration fail to produce a fair and equitable list" I wonder what that traditional method of integration is? DOH maybe?

CONCLUSIONS
In terms of financial strength, business models, aircraft flown, experience, length of
service, career progression, collective bargaining status, pay and benefits, and contributions to
the future of the merged enterprise, it would be a challenge to conjure four pre-merger
commercial pilot groups and seniority lists exhibiting fewer common attributes than those
involved in this case. With regard to all of those factors, the four airlines and pilots involved in
this integration proceeding were so disparate and disproportionate at the time of the transactions
that traditional methods of list integration fail to produce a fair and equitable list. All agree that a
stratified totem pole produced by unqualified date-of-hire dovetailing does not suffice. But none
of the respective final proposals and associated conditions and restrictions advanced by the
contending Parties would alone produce a fair and equitable result.

All agree that a stratified totem pole produced by unqualified date-of-hire dovetailing does not suffice.

Have you guys looked at the pretty blue red and black totem pole that represents the east and west. Talk about a stratified list.

You can read where it says DOH does not suffice.

 

[exB717Flyer]

I dunno, kinda looks like he mentions one small item. that career expectations change vis a vis a merged list (but alas isn't there someone that says career expectations are supposed to be maintained close to expected?)

He says whatever he says. I believe the list he came up with is fair. Do you?

the other items seems to be him giving a warning, look at US, don't do it that way.

You are correct but I don't think you understand whom he is addressing. Eischen is looking to prevent any party from doing what the US Airways Easties have done. Just like Mr. Nicolau he fully expects his list to be implemented as all the parties agreed to.

It's okay if you still don't get it. The next arbitration, probably SW-AT, will once again demonstrate how wrong the Easties are in claiming DOH is always fair.

 

[fodase]

I dunno, kinda looks like he mentions one small item. that career expectations change vis a vis a merged list (but alas isn't there someone that says career expectations are supposed to be maintained close to expected?)

the other items seems to be him giving a warning, look at US, don't do it that way.

The Circus is in town. Only a clown can deduce that a list slotted by equipment and places furloughed pilots at the bottom is different than the Nic. How these clowns have the brain power to fly an airplane is beyond me.

 

[fodase]

This one is for you PI, and the rest of the delusional.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

By Ann McFeatters, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON -- After emerging from a half-hour meeting with US Airways Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lakefield, Pennsylvania's two senators said yesterday that they were sobered by the scope of the bankrupt airline's financial troubles and blamed the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia representatives of the pilots union.

Sens. Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, both Republicans, said that while past management of the nation's seventh-largest airline, now in bankruptcy for the second time, is responsible for bad decisions, it is a "fact" the Chapter 11 filing was spurred by the pilots union's refusal to let members vote on a contract this past weekend.

Santorum said he was "very, very upset" with the four representatives of the pilots' union board who voted against taking the company's last offer to its membership, noting that eight of the 12 board members voted for it.

Because the two Pittsburgh and two Philadelphia union leaders represented a majority of pilots, they were able to block the motion to send the proposal to rank-and-file pilots.

"The [pilots'] union got their pound of flesh. Now where are we?" Santorum said. "These four individuals decided they could take the airline down, and they did," he said, adding that Lakefield told the two senators that the company was confident the members would have ratified the contract if they had been able to vote.

The Pennsylvania pilot representatives have said they refused to send the offer to their members because it was too draconian, and that their own negotiators had not even agreed to the $295 million concessionary package. Pilots union spokesman Jack Stephan also has argued that the airline was trying to make up for bad management decisions by wringing more cutbacks out of the unions without seeking similar sacrifices elsewhere.

Specter indicated that he would try to meet with the union representatives to hear their side of the story.

He noted that the airline had "complimented the unions for the concessions they've made," some $1 billion during and prior to the last bankruptcy filing two years ago. Specter specifically blamed former CEOs David Siegel and Stephen Wolf for bad decisions, and said it was a "source of wonder" to him that Siegel received a $4.5 million retirement package when he stepped down in April.

Both Specter and Santorum insisted that Lakefield, a former Wall Street banker who's been with the company since May, was doing "a good job." Specter said Lakefield is so hoarse he "can barely talk."

They said Lakefield, who gets an annual salary of $400,000, told them he had no golden parachute such as Siegel's. Nonetheless, Santorum said Specter joked that maybe they could help him by getting him fired. It was the only time in the meeting that Lakefield smiled, Santorum said.

Specter said that while Lakefield said "every effort" would be made to keep the airline afloat, the condition of the company is "a very difficult picture."

Both senators insisted there was no way the White House could intervene and rejected comparisons with the bailouts of Chrysler and New York City. "This is bankruptcy law and nobody, including the president, can supersede it," Santorum said.

Specter agreed, saying nobody should look to the White House for a "magic solution."

Specter said he flew US Airways on Monday, a day after the bankruptcy filing, and found a "high level of anxiety" among the employees he met. "A lot of emotional trauma out there," he said.

First published on September 15, 2004 at 12:00 am
Ann McFeatters can be reached at [email protected] or 1-202-662-7071.

 

[GuntherA320]

Oil prices above $100 a barrel. Jet fuel approaching $3 per gallon. Leisure markets in the West. If oil stays like this for the forseeable future or an "event" happens we are all screwed. However, when the company approaches USAPA outside of bankruptcy for "concessions", lets just say a 10% decrease in block hours per side, which side will be hurt more? The east is a year and a half away from massive attrition. Which side will actually have to furlough? I see another 150 west pilots on the street again soon in addition to the 80 that are still there if we have to "help" the company through this. Remember, we are still in separate operations. I understand why the west is so concerned.

 

[Pi brat]

This one is for you PI, and the rest of the delusional.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

By Ann McFeatters, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON -- After emerging from a half-hour meeting with US Airways Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lakefield, Pennsylvania's two senators said yesterday that they were sobered by the scope of the bankrupt airline's financial troubles and blamed the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia representatives of the pilots union.

Sens. Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, both Republicans, said that while past management of the nation's seventh-largest airline, now in bankruptcy for the second time, is responsible for bad decisions, it is a "fact" the Chapter 11 filing was spurred by the pilots union's refusal to let members vote on a contract this past weekend.

Santorum said he was "very, very upset" with the four representatives of the pilots' union board who voted against taking the company's last offer to its membership, noting that eight of the 12 board members voted for it.

Because the two Pittsburgh and two Philadelphia union leaders represented a majority of pilots, they were able to block the motion to send the proposal to rank-and-file pilots.

"The [pilots'] union got their pound of flesh. Now where are we?" Santorum said. "These four individuals decided they could take the airline down, and they did," he said, adding that Lakefield told the two senators that the company was confident the members would have ratified the contract if they had been able to vote.

The Pennsylvania pilot representatives have said they refused to send the offer to their members because it was too draconian, and that their own negotiators had not even agreed to the $295 million concessionary package. Pilots union spokesman Jack Stephan also has argued that the airline was trying to make up for bad management decisions by wringing more cutbacks out of the unions without seeking similar sacrifices elsewhere.

Specter indicated that he would try to meet with the union representatives to hear their side of the story.

He noted that the airline had "complimented the unions for the concessions they've made," some $1 billion during and prior to the last bankruptcy filing two years ago. Specter specifically blamed former CEOs David Siegel and Stephen Wolf for bad decisions, and said it was a "source of wonder" to him that Siegel received a $4.5 million retirement package when he stepped down in April.

Both Specter and Santorum insisted that Lakefield, a former Wall Street banker who's been with the company since May, was doing "a good job." Specter said Lakefield is so hoarse he "can barely talk."

They said Lakefield, who gets an annual salary of $400,000, told them he had no golden parachute such as Siegel's. Nonetheless, Santorum said Specter joked that maybe they could help him by getting him fired. It was the only time in the meeting that Lakefield smiled, Santorum said.

Specter said that while Lakefield said "every effort" would be made to keep the airline afloat, the condition of the company is "a very difficult picture."

Both senators insisted there was no way the White House could intervene and rejected comparisons with the bailouts of Chrysler and New York City. "This is bankruptcy law and nobody, including the president, can supersede it," Santorum said.

Specter agreed, saying nobody should look to the White House for a "magic solution."

Specter said he flew US Airways on Monday, a day after the bankruptcy filing, and found a "high level of anxiety" among the employees he met. "A lot of emotional trauma out there," he said.

First published on September 15, 2004 at 12:00 am
Ann McFeatters can be reached at [email protected] or 1-202-662-7071.

And why would you address that to me?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Reed,

The LOA 93 arbitrator basically has three options to answer the question of what are the pay rates when the pay freeze expired.

1. As the company contends the pay freeze doesn't expire and the rates stay frozen
2. As the union contends the date current LOA 84 rates become effective because the freeze modification has expired and the 18% reduction was conditional to the rates being frozen
3. The LOA 84 rates become effective but the 18% pay reduction changes from conditional to non-conditional and remains in effect reducing the date current LOA 84 rates by 18%
   

It would be extremely difficult to justify option 1 without changing the contract by deleting the expiration date. The arbitrator does not have the authority to change the contract. Option 3 is a possibility by interpreting the contract language in the company's favor. He probably could not just apply the 3% annual increases because that would require some terms of LOA 84 pay provisions to be effective and some not.

We may not know for a while since this arbitrator has been known to sit on his decisions for well over a year and there is no time limit.

underpants

You grossly understate the Company’s position. Siegel argued before Kasher that the Company had nine iron-clad reasons for their proper understanding that there was no automatic increase in pay agreed to in LOA93
1. LOA93 language is silent on the issue whereas ALPA always includes specific language when it relates to wage restoration
2. ALPA expressly claimed that snapbacks and wage restorations were not a part of LOA93
3. The two $35M lump sum payments were offered in lieu of pay increases
4. ALPA communications to pilots never mentions pay increases with LOA93
5. The Company presented actual wage rates through 2011 to ALPA which showed no increase in 2010 or 2011
6. The bankruptcy transformation plans included wage rates through 2011 with no increases; ALPA also received a copy of this since they had a seat on the creditors committee
7. The bankruptcy proceedings made no reference to wage increases and ALPA consented to the disclosure statement with no mention of the wage restoration thereby committing fraud if they knew of a wage restoration provision that they didn’t notify the parties of such
8. Neither ALPA nor USAPA claimed that a wage restoration was scheduled for 2010 during JCBA negotiations
9. In urging the rejection of LOA93, Don Hollerbach who was a member of the NAC explicitly states that the LOA contains no wage restorations (I guess he preferred the 21% wage reductions approved by the bankruptcy court to LOA93).

 

[fodase]

And why would you address that to me?

You already admitted that usair was in a worst position than awa, I just wanted to back up your opinion, and help the rest of the delusional slowly understand.

 

[CactusPilot1]

jetz,

Call your buddies in PHX and get your daily update. That little plan with the PHL and DCA reps didn't go as planned. Too bad!

Hate

Anything is better than today's Bite Me News from CLT.

Hey y'all, James Ray is going to be on TV tonight! Tune to Ch 9 in Charlotte at 1700.

Where is my remote?

And my 38 Special...

 

[Pi brat]

You already admitted that usair was in a worst position than awa, I just wanted to back up your opinion, and help the rest of the delusional slowly understand.

If two trains were running down a track, the bridge was out, and no room to stop, would it matter which went over first? That's were the two companies were headed, but a group of investors threw the switch and both trains ended up on a new track. Both were on the track, neither went over, none of the rest matters. It's just that some delusional westies think your choo-choo was the Orient Express, and on never ending, smooth rails all the way to heaven.

Are those terms you can grasp? What am I saying, sometimes I forget who I'm talking to..........................

 

[Captain Underpants]

You grossly understate the Company’s position. Siegel argued before Kasher that the Company had nine iron-clad reasons for their proper understanding that there was no automatic increase in pay agreed to in LOA 93

No doubt Doug believed all of the LOA 93 concessions including pay were permanent. The company did try to get ALPA to agree to permanent pay modifications but finally agreed to the temporary pay revisions at the end of negotiations to get a deal. Since the plan was to do a merger and negotiate new contracts it was assumed the pay rates would be renegotiated long before the 12/31/2009 expiration of the pay modification anyway.

The company presented lots of evidence of various individuals misunderstanding of the agreement none of whom were present when the agreement was made. The company offered no defense or explanation as to why if the pay revision was to be permanent it was written into the contract as a temporary modification with an agreed to expiration date.

underpants

 

[fodase]

If two trains were running down a track, the bridge was out, and no room to stop, would it matter which went over first?

Why yes, yes it would. The train that was behind had more time to apply the brakes or switch tracks, hence the conductor of the train farthest from the bridge was going to live a lot longer percentage whise.

Are those terms you can grasp? What am I saying, sometimes I forget who I'm talking to..........................

I do but apparently you guys are unable to.

 

[Pi brat]

Why yes, yes it would. The train that was behind had more time to apply the brakes or switch tracks, hence the conductor of the train farthest from the bridge was going to live a lot longer percentage whise.



I do but apparently you guys are unable to.

I bet you really struggled in school, didn't you. I SAID, no room to stop. That's what Parker said. The conductor would have lived 5 min longer, so he wins all the toys?

Face it fodase. The merger saved AWA from a none too bright future. Tell Parker and Lakefield thanks when you see them.

 

[CallawayGolf]

No doubt Doug believed all of the LOA 93 concessions including pay were permanent. The company did try to get ALPA to agree to permanent pay modifications but finally agreed to the temporary pay revisions at the end of negotiations to get a deal. Since the plan was to do a merger and negotiate new contracts it was assumed the pay rates would be renegotiated long before the 12/31/2009 expiration of the pay modification anyway.

The company presented lots of evidence of various individuals misunderstanding of the agreement none of whom were present when the agreement was made. The company offered no defense or explanation as to why if the pay revision was to be permanent it was written into the contract as a temporary modification with an agreed to expiration date.

underpants

Doug believed it. The bankruptcy judge believed it. The creditor's committe beleived it (including ALPA). The rest of the Management negotiating team and representatives belived it. Hollerbach believed it. No one believed it said pay restoration or mentioned sanpbacks it until Cleary and $eham invented the idea as a Clintonesque style bombing of Sudan to distract from their impending policy failures. USAPA knows they can only drag the pilots along with empty promises of a DOH contract for so long, so they invented a new hope of snapback wages to keep from seeing civil unrest in the east pilot ranks.

The Company most certainly did ofer a complete explanation reagrding the language of the LOA93 and why it contained no pay restoration provisions such as would be common to any ALPA contract that actually did contain such a provision. The Company's case is very strong; on the contrary, USAPA is just hoping for another miracle, reality-challenged ruling like they got from the 9th.