alfaromeo

That was the new amendable date of the contract, it was not an expiration date.

hockeypilot44

Alright. That makes sense. I was told by east pilots that it was a temporary letter of agreement with an expiration date. I believed them. I never read the LOA myself. It sounds like they never had a chance in court.

R57 relay

Well partially correct, but that is what was in question. It does have an AMENDABLE date of Dec21, 2009, which we understand right? Then they went and put this odd lit tidbit in it:

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 12/3 1/09.
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.

That caused all the speculation. Why put in what appears to be an ending date? We know RLA contracts don't end and right above this was the amendable date, so why is this here? If you freeze something to a certain date, doesn't it thaw then? I guess not.

Here's my thinking. First, Carl this was negotiated by ALPA, brought before the arbitrator by USAPA. Very few ALPA loyalist would support USAPA if they were fighting for Nuns and orphans. You see the comments by cactiboss? Those are generous compared to our ALPA loyalist. That is the main reason we had one guy testify. Before this started one of them loudly complained he would testify for the company.

Next, the arbitrator has to decide intent. I guess it doesn't matter that we had about 2 weeks to figure intent and decide whether to vote for the worst contract ever or potentially see worse from the bankruptcy judge. The arbitrator took almost about a year and a half and all the notes etc. to decide what it meant. Then you have the fact that the system would not be too generous to him if he handed the company this big a bill.

Anyway, what was the company's intent? I don't believe it was their intent to commit to snapbacks. That is a specific term in contracts and they didn't use it. So with that in mind, I believe the intent was to get as much as they could, for as long as they could, and still get it by a vote with 51%. I think it passed by about 53%, so they came close and I think that was the reason for the language. Make it murky enough that some would think there was a possibility of a return down the road. Gerry Glass at his finest.

So with the way the RLA has become I didn't see much chance of success. I was hoping the poor language would finally bite the company and give the arbitrator a chance to give us something. He may still as he had a heart attack before we could go back and make sure the 3% a year raise after the thaw is gone too. I doubt it.

Here is what I will never understand. One part of our pilot group cheering the loss. I think that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen and speaks to the critical thinking skills of some of our pilots. Did they ever stop to think what a win might have done for the DJ, our food fight and a contract. The Nic blinders kept them from seeing the big picture, as usual.

R57 relay

What is it about pilots that will admit they don't have the information in front of them but they will make definitive statements?

Carl Spackler

It was an LOA (Letter Of Agreement) not a section of the contract. If you have access to LOA 93, please post it so we can all read it. Since you state: "There is no mention of a snapback" I'm assuming that you've read the LOA. If you've read it, please post it so the rest of us can.

Carl

Carl Spackler

The grievance transcript doesn't allow us to read the LOA. If you find it, or anyone else has access to it, please post it.

Carl

Scoop

Carl,

Thanks. Now I understand what is going on.

Scoop

R57 relay

The LOA is 33 pages long. The section that is in question I posted. Can a PDF be attached here?

Carl Spackler

This is pretty much what I thought. One thing we know for certain is that it was ALPA people (specifically ALPA attorneys) that crafted the language. Another thing we know for certain is that the language says this: Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/3 1/09. So what's the intent of that? To continue the freeze after 12-31-09? To work for free after 12-31-09? Or end the freeze after 12-31-09. To me, it clearly means the latter. The FREEZE ends after 12-31-09.

But when one side decides to take language to court, you'd better be prepared with your notes. ALPA came with NO notes. Are we to believe they didn't take any? If so, then they are negligent beyond belief. If they did take notes but now ALPA is withholding them in order to stick it to the pilots who decertified them, well that just sounds like more of the behavior ALPA used against TWA pilots.

The main example this should be to everyone is how incredibly weak ALPA's legal team is. If you didn't want rates to return to the unfrozen level after 12-31-09, then why put any date in at all? Clearly, ALPA lawyers meant for the rates to unfreeze after 12-31-09, but their legal incompetence allowed them to craft this type of language. For everyone that thinks your ALPA dues purchase you the finest legal minds that money can buy...think again.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Alfaromeo is famous for that. Just so you know, he is one of our unelected MEC bureaucrats who vigorously defends ALPA no matter what. To him, you guys are satan for no other reason but because you decertified his beloved ALPA. If you view all of his comments through that lens, you'll understand him a little better.

Carl