US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

Perhaps you should read the Nic award, as it is a combination of DOH, slotting and staple. Again, no gold standard, it's now subject to assumptions. That's one positive with straight DOH, not subjective at all.

Who gives one iota of concern to the Nic? THe 9th clearly said it didn't have to be in a deal. Remember that, and don't let these guys try and suck you into a battle over it. It just don't matter anymore!

 

[Pi brat]

Hey, this LOA 93 discussion reminded me of something. An east pilot/lawyer, ALPA loyalist, was threatening to sue last year over USAPA's 35 mil distribution method. Does anyone know if anything came of that?

 

[Black Swan]

Hold the phone!!!!

Can anybody link LOA93? I have read the paragraph with the 12-31-2009 date and do not remember the two 35mil lump sums being in that paragraph.

Were the lump sums due jan 2010 and jan 2011 as penalties for not having renegotiated a new contract? In other words, would the 35 mil not been due if a new contract had been reached in say 2009, or the second payment not due if a contract was reached in 2010?

If so usapa lost this one big time. This fits right in with the typical usapa Sleezham MO.

It is in the section below the pay discussion. 2 blocks down. And, you lose your "big time win" It merely states the fact the two lump sums are there, factually, with no discussion whatsoever, no penalty, no nothing. You guys better get ready for this decision. I say it is an outright East win, and it is going to be damn big. An East little bus driver right to 185/hr, and 191.00 in one or two more. That, is going to be a game changer. Too bad Doug gambled on his mergers, too bad Doug didn't offer parity- it might have flown. Too bad Doug didn't hedge his bets in pay or oil, a massive mistake.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Maybe, above my pay grade. You have to admit, it is very strange language and that makes me wonder........A friend of mine had an idea that it was on purpose to sell enough pilots to vote for LOA 93, thinking it would thaw. I have no idea.

Perhaps the idea behind the freezing of pay rates until 12/31/2009 was intended to account for the lump sum payment due on 1/1/2010. That is the pilots agreed to no pay increase and no lump sum payments during the freeze. Then when the freeze date expired the thawing of the pay freeze allowed for the lump sum payments to be made without modifying the individual rates per hour. That would certainly give a purpose for the termination date coming one day before the lump sum payment was to be calculated.

 

[nic4us]

First look at the language in LOA 93, which is copied below.
Revisions to Hourly Pay Rates:
The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:
1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section 3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18.0% for transoceanic trips; Eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.
Freeze and reduce rates through 12/31/09.” Where does it give a date for half pay DH ? It doesn't Where does it give a date for vacation to "unfreeze" ?? It doesn't Where does it deal with a lower rate for training? Nowhere. Where does it refer to any other giveback than the pay having an end date? It doesn't. What does it give a specific date to? THE PAY. As required by ALPA Nat'l and negotiators so as not to give the company an open ended concession, against the ALPA consititution and by laws. The end date was given to the pay to comply with above, and have a fail safe ending in case some unforseen event transpired. Which did, a screwed up "merger " beyond belief. Kasher is going to see it. Your arguments don't stack up against the date. The date, is irrefutable evidence that this thing was meant to end, on that date. Nowhere, does it say RENEGOTIATE, as Jetzz and BB like to intimate. Nowhere is that language present. That is their own extremely biased and as usual, misinformed interpretation. Try negotiating that date away. You can't. The rate is frozen through 12/31/09. Then it goes back to the former. Parker had his chance to end this thing with pay parity. He didn't. Parker could have hedged oil before the Middle East cratered. He didn't. He will pay dearly for both.

So Swan, in contract 2004, and every contract I have ever worked under, the pay scales always have a date on them. Most of the time if the contract term is say five years, then there is the first year scale that has the new rate, a larger 2nd year scale, an even larger 3rd year scale, and so forth until there is a scale at the end of the contract with a big increase. This acts as an incentive to bring the company to the table for the next contract.

Just because there is a date stipulating the duration of the freeze, does no alter the pay scale that was frozen.

Further, if those 35 million lump sums were intended to act in a manner as the end of contract jump scale, you guys lost.

 

[Pi brat]

So Swan, in contract 2004, and every contract I have ever worked under, the pay scales always have a date on them. Most of the time if the contract term is say five years, then there is the first year scale that has the new rate, a larger 2nd year scale, an even larger 3rd year scale, and so forth until there is a scale at the end of the contract with a big increase. This acts as an incentive to bring the company to the table for the next contract.

Just because there is a date stipulating the duration of the freeze, does no alter the pay scale that was frozen.

Further, if those 35 million lump sums were intended to act in a manner as the end of contract jump scale, you guys lost.

I think that is a stretch. Let me ask you this-do you see a win on LOA 93 as a positive or negative for west pilots?

 

[Black Swan]

So Swan, in contract 2004, and every contract I have ever worked under, the pay scales always have a date on them. Most of the time if the contract term is say five years, then there is the first year scale that has the new rate, a larger 2nd year scale, an even larger 3rd year scale, and so forth until there is a scale at the end of the contract with a big increase. This acts as an incentive to bring the company to the table for the next contract.

Just because there is a date stipulating the duration of the freeze, does no alter the pay scale that was frozen.

Further, if those 35 million lump sums were intended to act in a manner as the end of contract jump scale, you guys lost.

You guys really need to read the document. You really need to realize we were in an active contract, that was amended by LOA, consensually. We were not at a point of time of ending our contract. The context of this agreement is that is was a mutually agreed upon opening of an active contract to reach an agreement to "save" the airline as it was in trouble. Yes, I know you have dates in your contract. This thing lowered in a draconian method the pay during an active contract period. Under mutual agreement in LOA 93. As a result, there were put in some payoffs, such as the lump sums and profit share. As required by ALPA , this thing had to have an end. The end was a putting on a date, Dec 31 2009. Remember, this was 5 yrs out, a huge amount of time for such concessions, opened in the middle of an active contract. Of course there was a date to end.The company signed off on the date. Nobody would have signed it had it been open ended on our part, for negotiations as some say. Total falsehood. The pay was the most important and easiest thing to remedy with a date and no discussion. It therefore got it, and people signed off. I heard all the comments at the time, and the date was actively discussed, and absolutely scary to anyone involved that it went that far at all. So your counterparts claim that it was meant to be re negotiated at that time is false, and was absolutely NOT the idea we held in our minds. We were absolutely incredulous that it went even that far, 5 yrs. Think of a guy in for 30 yrs. That is ONE SIXTH of his career. A 25 yr guy, ONE FIFTH. So that is the feeling on campus. It was bad, long, but had an ending. To now hold up and say it was meant to begin the negotiating phase, is wrong, and manufactured falsehood. Factoring in inflation, it is unbelievable that anyone would think we would then possibly take another 2-3 yrs. to renegotiate a deal, extending it for 7yrs or so. That is totally wrong. The pay was meant to come back, and even then it was assumed to be low at that point, only to go up from there in the next round.

 

[Black Swan]

Perhaps the idea behind the freezing of pay rates until 12/31/2009 was intended to account for the lump sum payment due on 1/1/2010. That is the pilots agreed to no pay increase and no lump sum payments during the freeze. Then when the freeze date expired the thawing of the pay freeze allowed for the lump sum payments to be made without modifying the individual rates per hour. That would certainly give a purpose for the termination date coming one day before the lump sum payment was to be calculated.

More rationalization. It had NOTHING to do with it.You cannot produce any discussion of this at all in LOA 93, none. Remember, some thought this POS would be gone. I'm surprised the lumps even got in. Most of the pilots in my opinion would have forgone them. It was put there by ALPA and our negotiators to sell it. This thing was sold with 80% feeling the airline might not be around. There was no active long term planning in this thing for the technicalities of re-emerging, other than the date on the pay.That was required and insisted on by Mike Abrams . Nothing else was addressed on the end.

 

[mrbreeze]

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).

There you have it folks...another freakin' expert opinion from someone who was obviously there at every turn of events!

 

[mikey60]

So which one of you usapians are going to tell us what the "gold standard" of pilot integrations is in the US of A? Better yet I wonder what a judge or jury would say?

How about explaining what you want in english. I'll try to explain something to you.

 

[Hate2fly]

More rationalization. It had NOTHING to do with it.You cannot produce any discussion of this at all in LOA 93, none. Remember, some thought this POS would be gone. I'm surprised the lumps even got in. Most of the pilots in my opinion would have forgone them. It was put there by ALPA and our negotiators to sell it. This thing was sold with 80% feeling the airline might not be around. There was no active long term planning in this thing for the technicalities of re-emerging, other than the date on the pay.That was required and insisted on by Mike Abrams . Nothing else was addressed on the end.

Swan,

How about the Donn B. Gentlemen Documents! Enjoy!

Hate

Gentlemen,

With Donn Butkovic’s permission, I am forwarding two emails he recently wrote concerning our pay rates on January 1, 2010.

Here is the first.


Glad to answer your inquiry. First, let me make it clear that I am not saying that we have a "snapback" coming. A snapback would be in the nature of a return to the old provision of a contract; those that existed at the time that the new provision took place. In this case that new provision was LOA93 and the old provision was LOA84. What I am talking about here is the expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision. What? You may be thinking that labor contract provisions do not expire under the law called the Railway Labor Act (RLA), they merely become amendable in what is referred to as a "status quo" period, and that therefore without specific snapback language in a contract no change to the provision is possible. Status quo is the general rule as to how labor contracts operate under the RLA when otherwise silent, but it is not absolute, nor exclusive.

This is simple, but thinking back to when Congress dreamed up the RLA, among the many provisions they included in that law, they applied the status quo concept . This was a change to the fundamental legal rule that a contract expires on its end date, usually leaving the parties free to impose what we call "self-help." It also prevents parties from making unilateral changes to the terms of the contract after the amendable date. As a matter of public policy Congress did not want the transportation system of our country disrupted every time a labor contract expired, so established this staus-quo concept rather than allow these labor contracts to simply expire and self-help take hold. Initially, this was only applied to railroad labor contracts, hence the name RLA. Then, it was extended to the airline industry by Title II of the RLA. Some say Congress did this to remove self-help leverage from organized labor, some say it was done to protect workers from the unilateral imposition of onerous labor terms by the employer. Everyone is free to opine on the matter. However, what is clear is that Congress was protecting the public transportation system, not preventing the parties from making agreements, selective or otherwise, either before, on, or after the end (amendable) date of the contract.

Again, the point is that Congress did not prevent the parties to a contract under the RLA (management and labor) from making agreements on or even after the amendable date of an underlying contract. Our contract is no exception and we have many examples of doing exactly that. For example, in LOA84, which by its terms was amendable on Dec. 31, 2008, we agreed to include pay raises on Jan. 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. Notice that both of these dates are in what is the staus quo time period for the remainder of the provisions of LOA84. You can think of the status quo period for the pay rates provision of LOA84 as beginning on May 1, 2009, even though the status quo period for the remainder of LOA84 was Dec 31, 2008. Get it? Status quo if silent, effective if explicit.

Remember, unless otherwise stated, all terms of a contract are subject to the status quo provision of the law when the amendable date is reached. There are several ways to say otherwise, one of which is the example I gave in the above paragraph. Another technique is to state that a provision(s) is to only be in effect for a certain period of time. It is the use of this language that I read in the pay rates provision of LOA93. Paraphrasing, the writer of this specific provision wrote that the pay rates will be frozen and reduced a further 18% from the date of signing through Dec. 31, 2009. This is exactly the way that a contract writer indicates that a provision is not to become part if the status quo. He gives the provision a certain beginning date and a certain ending date. This is so even though the amendable date and the end of the "time certain" provision are coincident. Think of it this way, had the writer indended the pay rates provision to simply be included in the status quo, he would not have given it its own special time period. Had he simply been silent as to the time the provision was to end it would be included in the underlying status quo period of the specific agreement. LOA93 extended the amendable date of LOA84 one year, to Dec. 31, 2009, but expressly ended the concessinary pay rate provision after Dec. 31, 2009.

Since the LOA93 pay rate provision ends after Dec. 31, 2009, what pay rate provision is in effect on Jan. 1, 2010? The answer to that question is found in the underlying provisions of the agreement that preceded LOA93. That of course is LOA84. LOA84 is the contract that was in effect regarding pay rates when LOA93 was made effective. Therefore, LOA93 modified and changed LOA84 to the extent is was explicit on the term. Just like LOA 84 modified the first concessionary agreement in mid-2002 and the first concessionary agreement modified the basic agreement that was effective in 1998. According to the explicit pay rate term of LOA93, the pay rate provision of LOA84 was changed on the effective date of LOA93. Also, according to its explicit time of effectiveness, the LOA93 pay rates provision expires after Dec 31, 2009, leaving in its place the provisions of LOA84 for that date and beyond.

As previously stated, LOA84 was amendable on Dec 31, 2008, but had explicit pay rate raises on Jan 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. But for LOA93's explicit pay rates provision carrying through Dec 31, 2009, LOA84's pay rate provision would be in effect, albeit in its own status quo period beginning on May 1, 2009. Therefore, with the explicit expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision after Dec 31, 2009, the pay rate provision of May 1, 2009 contained in LOA84 is in effect, but is itself subject to staus quo.

This is not, not, not a snapback in pay rates. We will not go back to pay rates in effect on Oct 15, 2004, the effective date of LOA93. This is simply a matter of a modifying time certain contract provision expiring by its own terms and the underlying contract provision that was modified becoming again effective. (Read that again.) The status quo provisions of the RLA do not change the basic freedoms that parties have to bargain and write their contracts. Management cannot now successfully say that because our contract is subject to the RLA, all provisions of that contract are subject to status quo on Dec 31, 2009. The RLA status quo period was not made law to relieve either management or labor of their responsibilities when bargaining. Remember, it was written to protect the public interest in a reliable transportation system, not often interrupted by self-help in labor-management relations. Congress doesn’t care whether you make a good contract, a cheap contract, an expensive contract or a concessionary contract. Nor do they care whether concessions last for 1 year, 5 years or ten years. They just don't want their constituents calling and complaining that their latest flight or train was cancelled because the pilots or coal shovellers went on strike today. Neither can management successfully say that because a time certain provision ends coincident with the start of a staus quo period that the provision itself is subject to status quo. (Read that again, too.) That would make no sense and would effectively null and void the explicit time certain existence of specific clauses. This is not the interest that the RLA protects.

Therefore, in summary answer to your question, because the concessionary pay rates provision of LOA93 ends after Dec 31, 2009, the concessionary pay rates provision on the underlying LOA84 is effective. Those rates of pay that would be in effect on Jan 1, 2010 under the terms of LOA84 are the rates that are to be paid to the pilots subject to that contract. As I said earlier, those rates are the LOA84 rates for May 1, 2009.

Consider this too Steve, had we in LOA84 provided for another pay rate increase on Jan 1, 2010 or on May 1, 2010, then under the explicit terms of that agreement we would be paid those rates on those dates, regardless the fact that LOA84 itself was made amendable on Dec 31, 2008. The LOA93 pay rates provision that modified LOA84 ends, by its own terms, after Dec 31, 2009. When the clock strikes 0000 on Jan 1, 2010, the pay rates of LOA84 are no longer modified by LOA93, and are therefore effective.

From some of the behavior that I see from this management regarding other terms of the contract, e.g., refusal to pay qualified DC plan contributions to pilots on LTD, a $40 million liability, I am left to wonder if they can read, or if they are just a bunch of cheats. I am not sure if they have read the LOA93 pay rates provisions, nor if they are in agreement with the above. I have not spoken to anyone in management about the contract since ALPA was voted off the island, me along with ALPA, therefore I do not know.

However, if I heard that management did not intend to follow the course of the contract I would inquire of them in writing. Receive their answer, and if not in accord, or if no answer received in a timely period, file a grievance. Grievance is the only legal avenue to pursue in a minor dispute over the terms of a RLA labor agreement. As slow as that process can be, until Congress gets involved and changes the rules, a grievance is our only course of legal action.

I hope this note is effective in explaining my thinking to you and that you did not find it too difficult or tedious to follow. If not satisfactory, please give me a call and we can talk about it.

Be well and keep the rubber side down,

Donn

 

[prechilill]

I don't think so. The 70 mil was a crumb tossed for the billions given up, and the guy CG talks about said it was mainly to make up for the changes to the DC plan. I have it, but prechil says we shouldn't attach things!

Thank god Im senior to all the '86 hires...

 

[nic4us]

I think that is a stretch. Let me ask you this-do you see a win on LOA 93 as a positive or negative for west pilots?

It is a coin toss, and it is all mostly bad for the West.

Heads, you win, the east has no desire for a contract, the company has no desire for an east. An even bigger mess than we are already in flares.

Tails, you lose, the pressure is on usapa to get on with a contract, that means the Nic, and that means no contract from usapa, which means no raise for the West until we can usapa, then start the whole process again.

 

[Hate2fly]

Here is the second document from Donn B.



As I stated earlier, the pay rates issue is not one of snapbacks. Therefore, it does not matter that Doug Mowery stated he didn't get snapbacks. Of course he didn't get snapbacks. Nowhere does it say "snapbacks". BTW, he has never said that to me and I have never seen any of his proposals indicating such. And, you know that his NC of those days (prior to DH) did not negotiate anyway. They merely accepted and carried the management written document that would become LOA93 back to the MEC and the pilots for a vote, but only after they were facing the debtors 1113 Motion and hearing in BK Court, and only after ALPA legal explained to the MEC the personal liability those gentlemen faced if they chose a different course of action.

The document is what it says. There is no disputing or getting around that. It is too late now for management to claim that they made a mistake with that provision. What legitimate claim can they make? Don't you think they have to make one? What would they say, "we never thought that 5 years of concessions was enough, that we always intended it to last into perpetuity"? I doubt that they even have financials for the post 2009 period of time. What could be their answer as to why the pay rates clause is the only provision that contains its own date; is written the way it is? Their lawyers knew how the amendable clause works under the RLA. Yet they wrote the provision the way they did nonetheless. You can rest assured that had that type of language been written by us to our detriment, management would insist that it was written that way for a reason and that it has full independent meaning. Meaningless words are not inserted into a contract by the brain dead. If it's there, it means something.

Again gentlemen, this is not a matter of a snapback. I wish we could take that word out of our lexicon here. This is a matter of an underlying document again having full force and effect because the explicit language of the overlying document has expired according to its own terms. It's as though the pay rates provision was rendered inoperative for a set period of time, then operative again.

Management wrote the pay rate clause, not Doug Mowery. They did it with a specific ending date and time. That is what a drafter does when he wants to indicate that a clause is not subject to the otherwise all encompassing "amendable clause".

I am not looking to create an argument or be disagreeable with you guys for no reason. But to let this lie is wrong. 5 years of industry basement pay rates is enough. That is what is in the LOA93 agreement, not more. Why don't you tell me why you think management wrote the pay rates clause so differently than all the rest. Then I could consider your thoughts and ideas, because as it stands, having them simply say "we didn't mean it" is not dispositive of the issue, and it is not legitimate contract law.

Regards,

Donn.

 

[mikey60]

FYI, You're starting to sound like a parrot.

"Polly want a cracker?"
"Polly want a cracker?"
"Polly want a cracker?"

Why dont you just answer the question JIZ. What is it with you, I understand the other guys but you....... out of what is it ? 14000 pilots and only YOU. By the way have you driven your friends BMW?