US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/18-6/23-Stay on Topic and Observe the Rules

[Pi brat]

Actually, it is pretty clear that the USAPA interpretation is way off. LOA 84 had a base rate and then a series of adjustments to those rates. Those adjustments were frozen out in LOA 93 until Jan 1, 2010. The base rates were then adjusted down by 18% as of the freeze date (May 2004) with no sunset on that reduction. The only meaning of this language is that the contractual raise schedule in LOA 84 will become effective again in 2010. That means that the East pilots should get a 3% raise in May and every May after that. Any interpretation of a snapback is just fantasy and is no way supported by the language in the documents. It they meant to have a snapback, they would have put it in there.

If this language was the intended outcome, then why did the East get so upset about pay parity back in 2008? All they had to do was wait a year of so and they would have parity +++. I just don't see how any lawyer or Contract Admin guy would even hope to think this is a winnable case. I see this as a USAPA scheme to get everyone to forget how badly they are doing right now. Go back to fighting about the Nicolau award.

It thought you weren't a US pilot. Why do you have access to the contract?

 

[Poug Darker]

Actually, it is pretty clear that the USAPA interpretation is way off. LOA 84 had a base rate and then a series of adjustments to those rates. Those adjustments were frozen out in LOA 93 until Jan 1, 2010. The base rates were then adjusted down by 18% as of the freeze date (May 2004) with no sunset on that reduction. The only meaning of this language is that the contractual raise schedule in LOA 84 will become effective again in 2010. That means that the East pilots should get a 3% raise in May and every May after that. Any interpretation of a snapback is just fantasy and is no way supported by the language in the documents. It they meant to have a snapback, they would have put it in there.

If this language was the intended outcome, then why did the East get so upset about pay parity back in 2008? All they had to do was wait a year of so and they would have parity +++. I just don't see how any lawyer or Contract Admin guy would even hope to think this is a winnable case. I see this as a USAPA scheme to get everyone to forget how badly they are doing right now. Go back to fighting about the Nicolau award.

Yo dude, here's the figures, work through it: http://rapidshare.com/files/246037635/Calc..._LOA_93_Pay.pdf

This shows the relevant sections of the agreements. It is pretty plain language, anyone could understand it. The base rate was established with the restructuring agreement (pay rates as of 4/30/01). This is one day before a 'parity +1%' raise took effect on 5/1/01. Then these rates were modified by the restructuring agreement. Next came the now infamous LOA84, which further modified the rates by various percentages. Finally, LOA93 (the current agreement) took the LOA84 rates, froze them for 5 years and reduced them by 18%. The five years is up at the end of this year and pay rates contractually revert (not snap) back to the last agreement, LOA84.
Cheers.
PS sorry I couldn't upload the pdf, the max size for this board is 200k and it is 274K.

 

[A320 Driver]

It thought you weren't a US pilot. Why do you have access to the contract?

Well I do and I didn't see any base rates in LOA 84. Just a table of reductions and additions for several years which net about 4% above the base rates from the contract. I adjusted those rates for the 4% then reduced them by 18% per LOA 93 and I come up with a raise in the $10 dollar per hour range for Captains. Nothing like the rates quoted by the CLT reps. I agree that the new rates expire in December, go back to the old rates, and get 2-2% raises, but I can't make the same case for the 18% pay cut. It doesn't look like it expires to me.

Just another opinion worth little or nothing...

Driver B)

 

[Pi brat]

Well I do and I didn't see any base rates in LOA 84. Just a table of reductions and additions for several years which net about 4% above the base rates from the contract. I adjusted those rates for the 4% then reduced them by 18% per LOA 93 and I come up with a raise in the $10 dollar per hour range for Captains. Nothing like the rates quoted by the CLT reps. I agree that the new rates expire in December, go back to the old rates, and get 2-2% raises, but I can't make the same case for the 18% pay cut. It doesn't look like it expires to me.

Just another opinion worth little or nothing...

Driver B)

I have one too, wouldn't be on what rates may be......just wondering why someone who came on here claiming to not be a US pilot would know so much about it.

 

[exB717Flyer]

We may as well ask why American pilots should do anything for TWA pilots?

Why ask an irrelevent question?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Well I do and I didn't see any base rates in LOA 84. Just a table of reductions and additions for several years which net about 4% above the base rates from the contract. I adjusted those rates for the 4% then reduced them by 18% per LOA 93 and I come up with a raise in the $10 dollar per hour range for Captains. Nothing like the rates quoted by the CLT reps. I agree that the new rates expire in December, go back to the old rates, and get 2-2% raises, but I can't make the same case for the 18% pay cut. It doesn't look like it expires to me.

Just another opinion worth little or nothing...

Driver B)

You need to go to the book rates and put the LOA 84 table of reductions and restitution on them. To get what the reps are telling you, ignore LOA 94 altogether. LOA 84 has been fully functional in the background all this time, even though we had 5 years in which LOA 93 overrode those pay rates. Once the LOA 93 cuts disappear, whatever would have been the pay rate had it not existed is what we end up with. And it's way more than a $10/hr raise for captains. If LOA 93 reduced rates by 18% and then disappears, just gtetting that 18% increase back is more than $10/hr. That math is pretty simple.

As far as not "looking like it expires," where are you looking? If you're looking on the Hub, you won't see it. The company has redacted that portion from the online file. (One wonders why they would do that, since I'm certain the union has an original copy with the information intact, and likely the contract is on file with the DOL anyway.)

 

[Phoenix]

Why ask an irrelevent question?

Aw shucks.. tautology is the best form of flattery. :wub:

 

[oscarjazz]

It thought you weren't a US pilot. Why do you have access to the contract?

People have posted the language and there are some .pdf files out there with the language on them. I have the .pdf from some file hosting web site. I think the link is posted above. There are still some contracts posted on the ALPA web site in the Economics Library.

 

[exB717Flyer]

The definition of seniority is the issue, and seniority is everything.

We can clear that up right away. In 2005, just before the merger closed, the bottom FO flying at US Airways list was Mr. Colello, year of hire 1988. Was he 'junior' or 'senior'? He was junior, of course, by any definition or interpretation. Seventeen years of service yet still the junior pilot flying at US Airways. He was junior.

So, why should he gain any seniority just because of a merger? IMHO, he shouldn't. Interestingly enough, in George Nicolau's opinion he shouldn't either.

There never will be peace.

There are wars of choice and wars of necessity. The East has chosen to wage war forcing the West to defend itself.

Talk to a couple retired Northwest and Republic pilots if you want to see the future.

They may not have liked their integration but at least they ABIDED by it. See the difference?

 

[Phoenix]

....They may not have liked their integration but at least they ABIDED by it. See the difference?

Well, yeah... they had a completed integration. I'm sure we will have a long honeymoon period when we complete ours.

 

[East Hole]

Mr. Colello also brought alot of attrition and wide bodies that he brought to the merger. Why should anyone out west get access to those.

 

[nic4us]

Mr. Colello also brought alot of attrition and wide bodies that he brought to the merger. Why should anyone out west get access to those.

Your answere is in the Nic Award. It explains exactly why there was a fence around the widebodies, and why east attrition does not mean squat in the larger context of what happened here.

East attitude has always been what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable. What you failed to realize is that what was yours was negotiable, and you failed to negotiate.

 

[Hate2fly]

Your answere is in the Nic Award. It explains exactly why there was a fence around the widebodies, and why east attrition does not mean squat in the larger context of what happened here.

East attitude has always been what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable. What you failed to realize is that what was yours was negotiable, and you failed to negotiate.

Yo nic4 keep your eye on the prize! The west had everything to gain from this merger and nothing to lose.

The MDA law suit will show that Collelo and friends were not furloughed and that somebody used a fraudulent list. Very deceitful! That is a problem for your precious Nic award. I would suspect that the MDA crowd is going to want full disclosure from the old bargainning agent.

Happy Fathers Day!

 

[luvn737s]

East attitude has always been what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable. What you failed to realize is that what was yours was negotiable, and you failed to negotiate.

That's being charitable. More like "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."

 

[East Hole]

I know the years of service does not mean squat to you. The attrition we bring to the merger does not mean squat to you. The access to widebodies we brought to the merger will be blocked from 20+ year pilots from the east. I know this does not mean squat to you. You deserve it all. You worked hard for this!!!!