US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Boeing Driver]

It is FINAL. It is BINDING. The Nicolau list is the list that sits on Parker's desk, and it will be the only list legally allowed in any other merger. PERIOD.

No it is not. And no it will not be used in the next merger - any attempt to do so will result in the merger being tied up in litigation for so long as to make it completely unpalatable for any prospective merger partners.

BOTTOM LINE: Won't happen. No matter how many colorful brochures, packed full of one sided representations, the lowlifes send out.

Count on it.

Boeing Driver

 

[Pi brat]

Visit http://www.reformusapa.com/

I think Ken has a little too much time on his hands. Hang in there.............

 

[fodase]

No it is not. And no it will not be used in the next merger - any attempt to do so will result in the merger being tied up in litigation for so long as to make it completely unpalatable for any prospective merger partners.

BOTTOM LINE: Won't happen. No matter how many colorful brochures, packed full of one sided representations, the lowlifes send out.

Count on it.

Boeing Driver

So tell us clown, what is the accepted seniority list at this time?

 

[Boeing Driver]

So tell us clown, what is the accepted seniority list at this time?

Well, lowlife scumbag - something that doesn't transfer jobs from the East to the West, like the NIC does.

Boeing Driver

 

[cleardirect]

Hmm, that was the date the merger was announced. Here is a definition of PID:

Policy Initiation Date (PID) means the date on which the respective MEC Chairmen and
the Executive Council determine that a reasonable probability of a merger being

consummated exists or the date on which the Executive Council determines that a
reasonable probability of a merger being consummated exists, whichever is earlier.


So, are you sure it was May 19, 2005, because I really, really want to give you every benefit of the doubt..........and rope.

That's Captain Zippy to you son.

So tell us. I said either Sept 2005 or May 2005. You indicate that it was not May. Enlighten us.

But answer my question. Do you want the pilots that left between 2005 and 2007 to be on the list or not.

And I don't call anyone captain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-IfP_AmHQMo#at=130

 

[icehead]

By all means, please expand on this. Why isn't there anything worth putting out for a vote? Now don't blame Management; its the CBA's job to create leverage and negotiate from a position of strength. So, besides looking like impotent amatures, what has USAPA done on the non-seniority sections of the contract?

Its summer and it's cold outside! "Now don't blame the fact that your on top of Mt.Everest, that's just an excuse". Its all so simple isn't it......please explain how in our situation any union can create leverage. For all practical purposes nearly all sections of the contract have a cost. In the unlikely event of a complete LOA 84 pilot victory, we might get some leverage, who knows. But one thing for sure, Parker is very easy to understand and here is the key with which you choose to ignore. We are nothing more than contractual liabilities in Parker's World. The town hall meetings are window dressing dumb down sessions. If you understand that simple concept you'll understand the stalemate. You may not want to blame management but many of us have seen how healthy companies function regarding employee contracts and relations. Ed Colodny never took any credit for bringing Piedmont or PSA pilots up to scale - but it happened. That's why I have to laugh when Parker publicly takes credit for wanting to bring us to parity without doing it. What a guy.

 

[Boeing Driver]

I think Ken has a little too much time on his hands. Hang in there.............

They are like little desert rats, who can't figure out where their cheese got to....

Boeing Driver

 

[Pi brat]

So tell us. I said either Sept 2005 or May 2005. You indicate that it was not May. Enlighten us.

But answer my question. Do you want the pilots that left between 2005 and 2007 to be on the list or not.

And I don't call anyone captain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-IfP_AmHQMo#at=130

It's a big difference between May and Sept. Get back to me.

Guess you better learn to say Captain Sir! We're pretty tough over here, I crack myself up.........

You know my 19 year old son spends a lot of time on youtube too.

 

[Pi brat]

That's why I have to laugh when Parker publicly takes credit for wanting to bring us to parity without doing it. What a guy.

Really! I l love it when he says "it's the right thing to do.......", but never fails to not do it.

I see he is going to PHX this month for crew news after none last month. I guess Mr. Kirby gets CLT!

 

[CallawayGolf]

Its summer and it's cold outside! "Now don't blame the fact that your on top of Mt.Everest, that's just an excuse". Its all so simple isn't it......please explain how in our situation any union can create leverage. For all practical purposes nearly all sections of the contract have a cost. In the unlikely event of a complete LOA 84 pilot victory, we might get some leverage, who knows. But one thing for sure, Parker is very easy to understand and here is the key with which you choose to ignore. We are nothing more than contractual liabilities in Parker's World. The town hall meetings are window dressing dumb down sessions. If you understand that simple concept you'll understand the stalemate. You may not want to blame management but many of us have seen how healthy companies function regarding employee contracts and relations. Ed Colodny never took any credit for bringing Piedmont or PSA pilots up to scale - but it happened. That's why I have to laugh when Parker publicly takes credit for wanting to bring us to parity without doing it. What a guy.

Leverage comes from unity and resolve. USAPA has plenty of resolve on opposing the NIC but that’s about it. If you want leverage, here’s my plan of attack. . .

The first order of business would be to invite three highly respected labor law firms to come in and give a full evaluation of the Addington, DJ, and Section 22 matter that has created the quagmire and disunity of east & west groups. This entire dialog needs to be unredacted and made available to the east/west membership so that they can hear the expert opinions on the course Bradford, $eham and Cleary have been set upon since the inception of USAPA. If two out of three of these respected legal firms say the current course of avoiding the NIC is viable and has at least a 50/50 chance of success, then put a simple poll/vote out to the MIGS asking if USAPA should accept the NIC for section 22 in order to accelerate JCBA negotiations. If the MIGS prefer to stay on the non timeline course of waiting for the courts to decide then at least they will know that the course is viable and that they have majority support for the course of action.

On the other hand, if two or all three of the legal opinions come back with a negative opinion of USAPA’s section 22 approach, then SSMP ought to be released immediately and replaced with another entity that can offer sound legal counsel on the matter. USAPA should then notify all pilots that based on the best legal counsel available that the NIC must be the seniority list in the JCBA and then close out that section with Management. Some/many on the east may not like the NIC being in the contract, but at least they will know the truth going forward, namely that there is and never was any other legitimate option for the combined seniority list.

Once that section is closed it is the duty and the responsibility of the CBA to create unity within their ranks so as to negotiate with Management. USAPA is compelled by law seek contractual agreements for their membership via the JCBA negotiations. With the courts out of the process, neither USAPA or Management can blame some outside factor as the cause for a delay. IMO this will move quickly towards discussing and resolving the true financial sections that need to be agreed upon.

You may not like it, but until and unless USAPA accepts the NIC for section 22, they will never be taken seriously at the negotiating table. It is not a good-faith negotiation to propose a list that unlawfully replaces a list resulting from binding arbitration (DFR). Management knows this and that is clearly why they don’t even discuss USAPA’s DOH proposals. Management’s job is to get them most out of the CBA while minimizing the financial impact to the organization. On the other hand, USAPA’s job is to get the most out of Management financially while giving up the least in other areas of the contract. This give and take is and will go nowhere so long as USAPA ignores the NIC Award. Of course it’s my opinion that USAPA doesn’t want a JCBA or expect to be taken seriously in negotiations. They are fulfilling their singular purpose of delaying the JCBA so as to delay the implementation of the NIC and put on a show for the members to convince them that USAPA and actually fulfill its obligations. What the pilots need more than anything else is a good dose of scared straight honesty from those who are being paid to represent them. Therefore, I conclude that all of this delay and mess lies at the feet of USAPA leadership, not Management’s. Just like the west cannot do anything to slow down or speed up the JCBA process, so also Management cannot and probably shouldn’t do anything to speed up or slow down the negotiating process so long as USAPA ignores its duty to fairly represent the west pilots.

 

[fodase]

Well, lowlife scumbag - something that doesn't transfer jobs from the East to the West, like the NIC does.

Boeing Driver

So you don't know? spineless clown.

 

[cleardirect]

It's a big difference between May and Sept. Get back to me.

Guess you better learn to say Captain Sir! We're pretty tough over here, I crack myself up.........

You know my 19 year old son spends a lot of time on youtube too.

Just ran into one of the merger guys. He told me May 19, 2005. Unless you some proof I will go with May 19, 2005.

Now are you going to answer my question, ever? Do you want the pilots that left between 2005 and 2007 on the list or not?

 

[A320 Driver]

Leverage comes from unity and resolve. USAPA has plenty of resolve on opposing the NIC but that’s about it. If you want leverage, here’s my plan of attack. . .

The first order of business would be to invite three highly respected labor law firms to come in and give a full evaluation of the Addington, DJ, and Section 22 matter that has created the quagmire and disunity of east & west groups. This entire dialog needs to be unredacted and made available to the east/west membership so that they can hear the expert opinions on the course Bradford, $eham and Cleary have been set upon since the inception of USAPA. If two out of three of these respected legal firms say the current course of avoiding the NIC is viable and has at least a 50/50 chance of success, then put a simple poll/vote out to the MIGS asking if USAPA should accept the NIC for section 22 in order to accelerate JCBA negotiations. If the MIGS prefer to stay on the non timeline course of waiting for the courts to decide then at least they will know that the course is viable and that they have majority support for the course of action.

On the other hand, if two or all three of the legal opinions come back with a negative opinion of USAPA’s section 22 approach, then SSMP ought to be released immediately and replaced with another entity that can offer sound legal counsel on the matter. USAPA should then notify all pilots that based on the best legal counsel available that the NIC must be the seniority list in the JCBA and then close out that section with Management. Some/many on the east may not like the NIC being in the contract, but at least they will know the truth going forward, namely that there is and never was any other legitimate option for the combined seniority list.

Once that section is closed it is the duty and the responsibility of the CBA to create unity within their ranks so as to negotiate with Management. USAPA is compelled by law seek contractual agreements for their membership via the JCBA negotiations. With the courts out of the process, neither USAPA or Management can blame some outside factor as the cause for a delay. IMO this will move quickly towards discussing and resolving the true financial sections that need to be agreed upon.

You may not like it, but until and unless USAPA accepts the NIC for section 22, they will never be taken seriously at the negotiating table. It is not a good-faith negotiation to propose a list that unlawfully replaces a list resulting from binding arbitration (DFR). Management knows this and that is clearly why they don’t even discuss USAPA’s DOH proposals. Management’s job is to get them most out of the CBA while minimizing the financial impact to the organization. On the other hand, USAPA’s job is to get the most out of Management financially while giving up the least in other areas of the contract. This give and take is and will go nowhere so long as USAPA ignores the NIC Award. Of course it’s my opinion that USAPA doesn’t want a JCBA or expect to be taken seriously in negotiations. They are fulfilling their singular purpose of delaying the JCBA so as to delay the implementation of the NIC and put on a show for the members to convince them that USAPA and actually fulfill its obligations. What the pilots need more than anything else is a good dose of scared straight honesty from those who are being paid to represent them. Therefore, I conclude that all of this delay and mess lies at the feet of USAPA leadership, not Management’s. Just like the west cannot do anything to slow down or speed up the JCBA process, so also Management cannot and probably shouldn’t do anything to speed up or slow down the negotiating process so long as USAPA ignores its duty to fairly represent the west pilots.

Since paragraph 4 basically undid all you proposed in paragraph 1, 2 and 3, what was your point? You propose a method for settleing the dispute then turn right around and say give us the NIC.

I can render you an opinion on Addington...IT'S DISMISSED.


Driver B)

 

[CactusPilot1]

ACTION NEEDED: Letter to PHX pilots re Distance Learning settlement
Fellow PHX-based pilots,

As you may have heard by now, USAPA and the company have reached a purported settlement of the Distance Learning dispute. For the reasons that we will explain below, we find this purported settlement collusive, concessionary, and completely unacceptable. We ask you to take the time to read this lengthy letter so that you have a thorough understanding of this issue.

BACKGROUND

As you may recall, just over a year ago, the company announced that it had made a massive pay error in favor of the West pilots. The company also announced that it intended to recoup the entire balance of that alleged overpayment in the form of several hundred dollars in deductions over four paychecks, and without first substantiating its error to the affected pilots. At about the same time, news broke about an overpayment made to East pilots that the company did not plan to recoup under the pretext waiting for the outcome of an arbitration that USAPA never planned to schedule. The West pilots were outraged by this news, and uniformly communicated their disgust to Mr. Parker.

Concerned by our outrage, Doug Parker called an emergency crew news as a means to avoid a complete meltdown of the operation. At the crew news session, Doug Parker publicly ordered Al Hemenway to provide the West the same backroom deal that had been so freely given to USAPA: to provide the West with an opportunity to arbitrate its case, and if, and only if, an arbitrator determined there was an overpayment would the company consider recouping it. If an overpayment was due, Mr. Parker vowed that it would be recouped in terms far less onerous than originally planned by Al Hemenway.

The manner in which Mr. Parker handled this situation is very significant. First, Mr. Parker was well aware of the East disparity well before he called the emergency crew news session. When it was suggested to Mr. Parker that the West pilots might be outraged by this decision, he flippantly replied that he was unconcerned with the West’s reaction, and that he simply wanted the money to come from our checks immediately. In was only after Mr. Parker’s interests were adversely affected that he became interested in being “fair.”

WHERE WE ARE TODAY

Since that “emergency crew news” was called by Mr. Parker, both Al Hemenway (former East Labor Relations manager and current Labor VP) and Tracy Parrella have made it a top priority to find a way to extract $2.6 million from our paychecks - each for their own personal anti-West reasons. Al Hemenway, after having egg on his face from his first failed attempt, is seeking retribution. Tracy Parrella, who has repeatedly used the grievance process to intentionally harm West pilots, is seeking to bankrupt our legal efforts by attacking our paychecks.

In essence, both USAPA and the company share a common interest to extract the maximum amount of money from West pilot paychecks in the most onerous terms possible. Neither is interested in resolving the legitimate issues underlying the dispute that deal directly with the amount of the alleged overpayment and the limitations on the company’s right to recoup it.

THE SETTLEMENT

This settlement provides the company and USAPA with everything that they want, but provides nothing for West pilots.

First, the primary issue that gave rise to this problem remains just as unresolved as it did a year ago: the company has no plan to recoup overpayment from the East pilots. Mr. Hemenway is simply hoping that you forgot about the special deal that he negotiated with USAPA, and that a seemingly generous 12-month repayment plan will be sufficient as to prevent another West uprising. The fact is that but for our previous “uprising” - the company would have recovered $2.6 million from your paychecks over two months and the East would have repaid NONE of its overpayment. This recent settlement does nothing to address this gross disparity, and in fact only re-establishes it.

Second, the amount of the overpayment is in serious question, and USAPA did not plan to address that issue in arbitration. Namely, the Distance Learning LOU requires that the Training Committee approve all distance learning modules, including verifying the credit time assigned to each module. The LOU even contains a dispute resolution provision in the event that the Training Committee disagrees with the company’s assigned credit time. The purpose of this dispute provision is to prevent the company from shorting the pilots training pay. Of course, none of the distance learning modules completed during the period of the company’s alleged pay error were ever checked. Therefore, it is very possible that we have been shorted some credit time for the distance learning modules we have completed.

Third, the company is claiming a right under Section 4 of the AWA contract to recoup 100% of its alleged overpayment. The Section 4 repayment provision is extremely narrow in scope. It was negotiated to address only individual instances of overpayment that typically result from one-time credit accounting errors. It was not designed to permit the company to recoup massive system-wide pay errors that extend back several years. Under the company’s read of the repayment provision, it may access your paycheck from pay errors of any size from any time in the past.

Perhaps even more frustrating is one repayment option that was conveniently overlooked by both USAPA and management. Because the genesis of this issue is gross negligence on the company’s part, clearly the only acceptable solution, assuming that the amount in controversy can be resolved, is simply for the company to withhold some payments from future distance learning modules. This would be a “cost neutral” method that Mr. Parker tends favor when normally dealing with labor issues and we are amazed that the company seems to be ignoring this most obvious of solutions now.

CONCLUSION

We are really not asking for much here. If the company made an alleged overpayment, then we should be provided a fair opportunity to analyze and dispute it, and be provided with a convenient reconciliation method considering that this was entirely the company’s fault. Instead, we continue to be met with the hostile forces of USAPA and two of the company’s most notorious anti-West vice-presidents.

It is unfortunate that we must continue to go to such measures to merely be treated fairly, but with a CEO who lacks any amount of credibility or leadership skills, we seemingly have no other choice. It defies logic that a senior management team, who pockets millions from the operational numbers that come primarily from the West operation, would repeatedly demonstrate such utter disregard for those most responsible for that performance. However, if we do not firmly raise our objection in instances such as this, then we forever relegate ourselves to mistreatment.

We encourage all West pilots to voice their concerns about this issue to senior management at the following email addresses:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

We fully expect the company to into full spin mode and compose a response designed to deflect blame and raise doubt. Don’t fall for it! Words are meaningless. None of us should accept anything less than a substantial change in the approach of the company towards this issue.

Sincerely,

John McIlvenna
Mitch Vasin

 

[icehead]

Really! I l love it when he says "it's the right thing to do.......", but never fails to not do it.

I see he is going to PHX this month for crew news after none last month. I guess Mr. Kirby gets CLT!

Exactly! "I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts - John Locke "
I have no earthly Idea why anyone would attend a crew news session absent a free lunch and little curiosity.
I really wish employee's understood the crew news sham. The pretense of it all is rather grotesque.