crzipilot

WD, you guys way overstate what the kirby was worth. Not to mention the gutting of scope as R57 pointed out. That pay raise would have meant nothing with the downgrades and furloughs as everything was out sourced to the 175 and RAH.

Couldn't happen right? Watch what happens to PHX in the next 3-4 yrs....

cactiboss

Lu delusional fool, I watched scabford on video say it for the judge

Wiskey Driver

First off you are completely incorrect with regard to the scope language. Second, we were in the process of countering when your MEC pulled its members out of negotiations.

The company could very easily shrink PHX but they could do the very same to Philly as ORD could more than handle the load or CLT which is only a hop skip and a jump over to DFW! See when you start talking about shrinking, please dont leave yourself out the equation.

WD at AWA

R57 relay

Oh, so now you believe Bradford?! Do you have the Kirby rates? If so, publish it, if not shut up. The file I have marked Kirby rates shows TOS for group 2 at $152-48 months after signing. Add to that the FACT that the Kirby offered NO RAISE for the E190 for the DURATION of the agreement. Then you have the min fleet, block hours etc.

FACT-Your MEC came out against the Kirby, before the Nic came out.

R57 relay

But if you are stuck as a F/O, that doesn't help much. Then we have all the warts you ignore that came along with it. You say you were on the west MEC, am I correct? Did you support the Kirby when it came out?

R57 relay

"Just weeks from a contract" and Other Urban Myths

Details
Created on Monday, 08 November 2010 15:42

Recently, many US Airways East pilots received an unsolicited pamphlet from Leonidas/AOL mailed to their home address. USAPA is investigating separately how the entity responsible for the mailing obtained confidential address information and, perhaps more importantly, who supplied it to them and why. In this communication, we will address directly the rhetoric and fabrication this pamphlet represents as "facts."

You do not have to read much of the Leonidas/AOL pamphlet to find the first fabrication. We can start with the first page, first paragraph, first sentence -- the statement that the JNC was "within weeks of completing a labor contract." If that's the case then they must have had some miracles planned. Let's look at what sections were open and what some of the issues were when negotiations ceased in August 2007. You will see that out of 30 sections, only 11 were complete, and those remaining open contained many contentious issues. Given this, it's hard to believe that it would have been completed in 'weeks' -- but then again weeks can mean anything from 2 weeks to 200 weeks!!

Ignore the rhetoric; here are the facts -- the actual status of each section of the contract when negotiations were suspended. (Following some sections are descriptions of the main items that remained open.) You decide if it looks like a contract was just "weeks" away:

Section 1 - Scope -- Major issues remained -- not even close

Section 2 - Definitions -- Open

Section 3 - Pay -- Far apart from what ALPA proposed and the Kirby proposal

Section 4 - Minimum pay guarantees - Holiday pay, training pay, incentive pay

Section 5 - Expenses -- Per diem, flight pay loss for hotel committee

Section 6 - Moving Expenses -- Closed

Section 7 - Vacation -- Major issues

Section 9 - Misc Flying -- Open

Section 10 - Covered Pilots - Major issues

Section 11 - Training -- Closed

Section 12 - Hours of Service -- Pairing construction, flex, reduced rest

Section 13 - Leaves of absence -- Passes, retirement contributions, misc items

Section 14 - Sick -- Major issues to include payout at retirement

Section 15 - Physical Examinations -- Closed

Section 16 - Worker's Compensation Benefits -- Closed

Section 17 - Missing, Internment, Prisoner or Hostage of War Benefits -- Closed

Section 18 - International -- Duty Limitations

Section 19 - Investigation and Discipline -- Closed

Section 20 - Grievances -- Closed

Section 21 - System Board of Adjustment -- Closed

Section 22 - Seniority -- Closed (This was prior to the Nic award, so it was to be reopened)

Section 23 - Furlough and recall -- Furlough pay and force majeure

Section 24 - Filling of vacancies -- Staffing formula, lock-ons, E190 displacement

Section 25 - Scheduling -- Major issues

Section 26 - General -- Numerous issues

Section 27 - Health and Welfare -- STD, LTD, Retiree medical, numerous other issues

Section 28 - Retirement -- Major issues -- to include DC rate

Section 29 - Agency shop -- Closed

Section 30 - Duration -- Open

In May 2007, the Company presented the JNC with a comprehensive proposal. You may have heard of it -- the Kirby Proposal. As you may recall from previous NAC updates, the Kirby Proposal is essentially the West agreement with an illusory 3% pay increase. We say this because in aggregate the proposal represented an overall reduction in value for former America West pilots. That's right, back in May of 2007, after two years of negotiating, the Company had not moved off of their opening position by one dime. Does that sound strikingly familiar?

How could it be then that, according to the most recent Leonidas/AOL brochure, the JNC was "within weeks of completing a labor contract?" Look at the list of sections above; it's not as if the differences that remained between the parties were of low importance, unless you consider Scope, Rates of Pay, Vacation, Sick, Scheduling and Retirement to be of low importance. So is there some kind of evidence that the Company was prepared to concede on these issues? The short answer -- NO!

The claim that there was an imminent agreement is unsubstantiated in any event; however, the only possible way it could be true is if the JNC intended to capitulate and accept the Kirby Proposal. We have heard loud and clear from you what you think of that document. Proponents of the Kirby Proposal are fond of cherry-picking certain provisions contained in the proposal in an attempt to sell it, but as we have illustrated more than once, there are incredibly onerous elements to the Kirby that should be blatantly unacceptable to every US Airways pilot, and accepting it now will assure us a place at the bottom of our industry for the next eight years.

Last, the authors of the Leonidas/AOL brochure tout -- more of a taunt, actually -- the magnitude of the dollars that we will purportedly lose while we fight for a fair seniority integration. There are primarily three points to consider. First, the NAC has made it absolutely clear that retroactive parity is a ratification issue and that we will not back down on the matter. Second, the calculus that the brochure uses to measure the "lost" pay assumes that the JNC would have gotten their proposed rates rather than the Kirby rates, and the history of negotiations to date tells us that this is beyond unlikely. The difference between the Kirby and the West Agreement, incredibly narrow as it is, is all that would remain at stake. Third, when you consider what hangs in the balance with the seniority dispute and what that means to your paycheck under any contract, it makes the assertions of the Leonidas/AOL pamphlet all the more nonsensical. We are on the right path to an industry-standard contract that contains a fair seniority list based on date-of-hire principles with reasonable conditions and restrictions designed to protect the un-merged career expectations of both Pilot groups. The authors of the Leonidas/AOL brochure want us to change course. It really is that simple.

That said, let's examine the specifics of USAPA's bargaining proposal and compare those facts against the rhetoric and fiction contained in the Leonidas/AOL pamphlet.

First and foremost, the claims presented within the referenced pamphlet constitute a serious misrepresentation of USAPA's seniority proposal and completely ignore the central component of USAPA's proposal, the Conditions and Restrictions, which exist primarily to protect West pilot interests, thereby balancing the interests of the pilot group as a whole. The pamphlet fails to discuss the overwhelming windfall that the Nicolau proposal would provide for most of the West pilots at the expense of the East pilots. Nearly 400 West FOs would upgrade to Captain earlier than premerger -- an average of 4 years earlier -- while more than 800 East FOs would upgrade later than planned, not even including those retiring before they could upgrade. The effect of the Nicolau proposal on the majority of the East pilot group would be devastating. As a quick illustration, note that approximately 450, or close to 70% of all current active West First Officers, would be placed on the seniority list above the current most junior East narrowbody Captain. The most junior of these West First Officers -- hired in 2003 -- would be placed above an East Captain hired in 1987.

The pamphlet further distorts the USAPA proposal by suggesting that the creation of a date-of-hire seniority list will result in the displacement of West pilots from their existing positions. This insinuation is completely false. To the contrary, in fact, a primary feature of the currently proposed Conditions and Restrictions is the creation of a virtual one-way fence for the West that persists for a period of 10 years, as currently proposed. This one-way fence is created through the concept of Protected Positions, serving to preserve West jobs and attrition for West pilots. As time passes and attrition occurs, West pilots have the freedom to exercise their seniority to bid for positions throughout the entire system, whereas East pilots may only bid for existing West positions that West pilots have voluntarily vacated by bidding into East positions. (See the "West Protected Positions" chart below.)

One of the points contained within the pamphlet -- the idea that the Nicolau proposal would have minimal impact on East pilot careers -- is absurd on its face. As airline pilots, we all understand the importance of seniority, how it works and why it is unacceptable to step over your brother to advance your own interests. For example, it is simply wrong to think it is okay to place a young probationary pilot who had mere weeks of service ahead of a seasoned pilot with more than 16 years of seniority.

Strict date-of-hire, with no conditions or restrictions, would be an unbalanced method of integrating the two pilot groups involved in the US Airways/AWA merger due to the large disparity in seniority. That is precisely why the Conditions and Restrictions were developed as an integral component of USAPA's bargaining proposal. The Conditions and Restrictions serve to eliminate the negative impact of discrepancies in seniority until those discrepancies are alleviated with the passage of time through the mass retirements of East pilots.

One thing that will never change is that we will all get older and eventually must retire. By the year 2020, just under 2,500 pilots will have retired, with almost 2,000 (80%) of that number coming from the East pilot group. (This assumes an average age at retirement of 64, which, based upon available statistics, would tend to understate the rate and magnitude of pilot attrition.) By the year 2015, the number of age-64 retirements will be more than 900. The Leonidas/AOL pamphlet's minimization of attrition-related career opportunities cannot stand up to the plain realities of pilot demographics.

The East pilots do not blame the West pilots for the failed leadership of ALPA in the past and concur with the notion that we are not each other's enemy; we share the desire for all pilots to join together. However, the authors of the pamphlet, by continuing to push for a seniority proposal that, as recognized by the Ninth Circuit Court, was never and is not ratifiable, are clearly attempting to mislead the entire pilot group with misinformation that is purely self-serving and damaging to the entire pilot bargaining unit, East and West. We encourage all pilots to carefully examine what the actual USAPA seniority proposal contains. The USAPA proposal is balanced, representing the interests of the pilot group as a whole.

Finally, there is the question of delay, if any, caused by USAPA's pursuit of an equitable seniority integration solution. The most important point that must be recognized by all US Airways pilots is that the primary source of delay in reaching a single CBA is the non-seniority issue of economics and the intransigence of the Company in this regard. Until the recent disingenuous Leonidas mailer, there has never been any dispute that the Company's current economic proposal (the Kirby Proposal) is unacceptable throughout the pilot group. First, in a West MEC update dated July 23, 2007, West MEC Chairman John McIlvenna described the Kirby proposal as "woefully inadequate." Furthermore, in a draft letter from John McIlvenna to East MEC Chairman Jack Stephan dated February 22, 2008, the West MEC Chairman explained that "the May 2007 Kirby proposal ... was deemed unacceptable by both pilot groups." Now let's look at what the individual Addington plaintiffs (Leonidas members) said with respect to the Kirby proposal:

Steve Wargocki testified* that he would "probably not" vote for a contract that incorporated the Kirby proposal;
Mark Burman testified* that the Kirby proposal "seemed to fall short of what expectations were moving forward with the new contract."
Afshin Iranpour testified* that "from his point of view ... [the pilots] could probably ask for more than just [the] 3 percent raise" contained in the Kirby proposal;
Roger Velez (current PHX Domicile Representative) responded* with an emphatic "no" when asked if he would vote for a single CBA which incorporated the Kirby proposal as its economic package;
John Bostic, testified* that he "wouldn't be satisfied" with the Kirby proposal and he "would like [something] better."

(*Comments come directly from court transcripts and sworn depositions)

Wholly apart from the realities of the negotiations over economics, any honest appraisal of recent history confirms that the primary cause for delay in this negotiation process was ALPA and ALPA Merger Policy, and it was only with the certification of USAPA that negotiations resumed. The East MEC and the East pilots refused to ratify any agreement that incorporated Nicolau. That was a stipulated fact during the Addington trial and accepted by the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has recognized, as did ALPA president John Prater, that this was a legitimate exercise of the pilots' democratic rights under ALPA merger policy. Let's not kid ourselves -- if the result of the Nicolau arbitration had been strict date-of-hire without any conditions and restrictions, does anyone really believe that the West MEC would not have exercised the same democratic veto provided to it by ALPA Merger Policy?

We all know what happened: from August 15, 2007, until the decertification of ALPA on April 18, 2008, there were no further negotiations toward a single CBA. Even US Airways President Scott Kirby recognized that ALPA's Nicolau-generated impasse had stalled bargaining since "May of 2007," and he specifically commented to investors in April 2008 that the change from ALPA to USAPA was "a good thing" because it meant the Company was finally "able to get back to talking to [its] pilots and having formal negotiations with them." The fact is that contract negotiations only resumed with USAPA. It is only with USAPA that the 8-month negotiating freeze was finally overcome. It was only with USAPA that a federally-appointed mediator now supervises negotiations. It is only with USAPA that a single ratification pool now prevents the eternal gridlock that was experienced under ALPA.

Pilots should recognize the recent Leonidas/AOL mailer for exactly what it is -- the very same tried-and-failed tactic ALPA attempted, to fabricate arguments that appeal to just enough pilots to try and get them to sell out their fellow pilot and accept a concessionary contract harmful to every US Airways pilot, East and West. USAPA was elected to oppose the efforts of these self-serving pilots, and we're not about to suspend our work in this regard. The Ninth Circuit Court has spoken. Soon the Phoenix District Court (which answers to the Ninth) will reject the Company's bold-faced attempt to create delay through its request for Declaratory Judgment, and finally the U.S. Supreme Court will reject the Addington appeal as well. One only has to read the opinion of the Ninth to determine that USAPA will prevail in our quest to bargain over the full terms of the contract, and further, to present for ratification an industry-standard contract that protects the un-merged career expectations of all US Airways pilots utilizing a tried-and-true methodology of seniority integration that recognizes the date a pilot began service to his/her employer -- the very same methodology used by every other labor group at US Airways.



USAPA Communications

R57 relay

It's funny that when the west talks about their previous contracts they say "We weren't the highest paid, but we had some really great contract provisions that helped make up for it." But with the Kirby all they can say is "look how much money you gave up!" That has nothing to do with cementing their windfall. Yeah, right.

If we'd had a Delta contract, or anything near it, sitting on the table across from us in 2007, this would have been all over.

Wiskey Driver

Depends on how long you would have been stuck as an fo or if you would have even been stuck at all.

Most west pilots did not support the first (kirby) proposal as it had no gains for west pilots only east. This is why we were in the process of making a counter offer and the general hope is that fall somewhere in between. We could not complete the work because the east pulled all its members from the JNC.

Now the east is doing the same thing again only this time its with the merger committee. The east is not nearly the force they believe they are and they are not representing pilots (like they ever really did) by holding their breath and refusing to come to the meetings. Trust me the machine will roll right along with or without east representation in fact I hope they boycott the entire thing.

WD at AWA

R57 relay

As for the past, the problem with your position is that you are dealing with "woulda, shoulda, coulda." We don't know about your theories, we only know about the facts. And the facts are what were actually on the table. Based on that, the outcome we have dealt with is reasonable. Now, if we had a DL contract on the other side that we ignored, then you would have a better case.

What we do know is that you and cacti throw out "soundbites" about how stupid we were, but fail to back them up with FACTS.

As for the future, I don't know. I question USAPA's actions on this, but I'm not there to hear the reasons. AOL took an invitation to a meeting to go ahead and form a merger committee. I know there is some heartburn out west about who and who wasn't "elected." Maybe the legal ramifications of dealing with a psuedo union aren't worth the benefits of going to the meeting. We'll have to see.

Wiskey Driver

Is not all contract negotiations coulda woulda shoulda? This makes no sense because both sides are always fighting out of a box.

I have no idea what AOL is doing I just hear about it second or third hand. I do know that usapa was not at the meeting and that is enough to prove they are not representing pilots and enough to make a case for non dues payments. See a real union knows this and even if they do not agree they must STILL represent. By their willfully not attending the meeting they have violated one of the major tenants of union representing by failing to represent.

Usapa is a disgrace to the profession and that much is given. Their electing to pack up all their marbles and go home is just not going to cut it this time around, not with the company, the pilots here or the APA. Usapa is goldfish in this pond which makes them feeder food.

WD at AWA