Thank you AWAC MEC
11-15-2009, 06:56 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Slinger
Posts: 316
Thank you AWAC MEC
Sorry this is kind of long, but to sum it up, AWAC management wants us to take 16% pay cuts to secure United flying. I'm glad our MEC was strong enough to realize that this is a joke, and a direct slap in the face to the fellow union pilots at MAG. I only hope the rest of the groups involved in this United RFP feel the same way, so we can send a message to management that the race to the bottom stops now.
13-2009
Pilots,
As mentioned in yesterday’s Fast Read, the Master Executive Council traveled to headquarters in Appleton this afternoon to receive a briefing from the company with regard to the UAL RFP. Present for the company were Jim Rankin, Bob Frisch, and Joel Kuplack. Representing ALPA were all LEC representatives, MEC officers, Bill Patterson, and Jane Schraft.
The company presented a brief summary outlining the history of the RFP to date, which they believe is in some form of its’ final stages. The MEC was advised that Air Wisconsin stands a good chance of obtaining this new business if several factors play out, one of which involves the pilots directly, which is what I will focus on tonight. In costing pilot liability (expense), Air Wisconsin felt they needed to significantly reduce pilot cost in order to remain a part of the RFP, let alone be competitive. In light of this estimation, they submitted what ultimately was a 16 percent reduction from current CBA figures. This 16 percent is for UAL (new) flying, which, when shared across the US Airways flying would be an estimated 5-6 percent global concession from the current contract. While the MEC did not know prior to today’s meeting what the briefing would entail, we certainly were not surprised by the request for give backs due to past experience, and were prepared to respond. With this as the back drop, the MEC unilaterally rejected the company’s request for concessions to obtaining new flying. There are many reasons for the MEC to respond in this fashion, and the following represent some key components they weighed prior to taking this position:
-This pilot group is currently working under an agreement that has suffered deep, unrealized concessions for UAL
-This pilot group is being squeezed daily for maximum productivity under the current agreement
-We believe our pilot costing models show that Air Wisconsin pilots are indeed cost comparable to other pilot groups with secured flying for UAL
-The UAL RFP is direct replacement flying for MESA Airlines, another APLA carrier. It is against ALPA policy, as resolved at the 2006 ALPA National Board of Directors meeting, to accept concessions in the name of growth or to take flying previously performed by another ALPA carrier.
The above are just some of the MEC’s concerns and a part of their reasoning process which led to this decision. It is a high priority of your ALPA representatives to help ensure that Air Wisconsin remains successful, profitable, and a long term employment option for our pilots. With that in mind, we certainly hold high hope that our owners and senior leadership find a way to secure additional flying, most certainly with United Airlines. It is, however, not acceptable to have this growth lay on the backs of our professional pilots.
We believe that the business model of “cheap, at all costs” is a business model that works very well in a bankruptcy era, but that era has long since past. Now is the time for quality to thrive, and Air Wisconsin built its reputation on quality. We are indeed concerned about the future of Air Wisconsin, beyond 2015, and we feel the best road to a prosperous future is by adhering to quality and having a solid, time proven business plan - a plan that does not participate in the recently popular “race to the bottom”.
Your ALPA representatives will continue to work with Air Wisconsin management to maintain and enhance the production of a safe, efficient and quality product. Although we are disappointed that our management has again placed the fate of our growth in the employee’s hands, rather than in headquarters where that responsibility belongs, we remain confident that in the end our company will find success in quality, not quantity.
Please feel free to contact any of your elected leaders to discuss this update further. We appreciate your involvement and most certainly will provide additional hotlines should there be any future developments.
In Unity, and to our future
13-2009
Pilots,
As mentioned in yesterday’s Fast Read, the Master Executive Council traveled to headquarters in Appleton this afternoon to receive a briefing from the company with regard to the UAL RFP. Present for the company were Jim Rankin, Bob Frisch, and Joel Kuplack. Representing ALPA were all LEC representatives, MEC officers, Bill Patterson, and Jane Schraft.
The company presented a brief summary outlining the history of the RFP to date, which they believe is in some form of its’ final stages. The MEC was advised that Air Wisconsin stands a good chance of obtaining this new business if several factors play out, one of which involves the pilots directly, which is what I will focus on tonight. In costing pilot liability (expense), Air Wisconsin felt they needed to significantly reduce pilot cost in order to remain a part of the RFP, let alone be competitive. In light of this estimation, they submitted what ultimately was a 16 percent reduction from current CBA figures. This 16 percent is for UAL (new) flying, which, when shared across the US Airways flying would be an estimated 5-6 percent global concession from the current contract. While the MEC did not know prior to today’s meeting what the briefing would entail, we certainly were not surprised by the request for give backs due to past experience, and were prepared to respond. With this as the back drop, the MEC unilaterally rejected the company’s request for concessions to obtaining new flying. There are many reasons for the MEC to respond in this fashion, and the following represent some key components they weighed prior to taking this position:
-This pilot group is currently working under an agreement that has suffered deep, unrealized concessions for UAL
-This pilot group is being squeezed daily for maximum productivity under the current agreement
-We believe our pilot costing models show that Air Wisconsin pilots are indeed cost comparable to other pilot groups with secured flying for UAL
-The UAL RFP is direct replacement flying for MESA Airlines, another APLA carrier. It is against ALPA policy, as resolved at the 2006 ALPA National Board of Directors meeting, to accept concessions in the name of growth or to take flying previously performed by another ALPA carrier.
The above are just some of the MEC’s concerns and a part of their reasoning process which led to this decision. It is a high priority of your ALPA representatives to help ensure that Air Wisconsin remains successful, profitable, and a long term employment option for our pilots. With that in mind, we certainly hold high hope that our owners and senior leadership find a way to secure additional flying, most certainly with United Airlines. It is, however, not acceptable to have this growth lay on the backs of our professional pilots.
We believe that the business model of “cheap, at all costs” is a business model that works very well in a bankruptcy era, but that era has long since past. Now is the time for quality to thrive, and Air Wisconsin built its reputation on quality. We are indeed concerned about the future of Air Wisconsin, beyond 2015, and we feel the best road to a prosperous future is by adhering to quality and having a solid, time proven business plan - a plan that does not participate in the recently popular “race to the bottom”.
Your ALPA representatives will continue to work with Air Wisconsin management to maintain and enhance the production of a safe, efficient and quality product. Although we are disappointed that our management has again placed the fate of our growth in the employee’s hands, rather than in headquarters where that responsibility belongs, we remain confident that in the end our company will find success in quality, not quantity.
Please feel free to contact any of your elected leaders to discuss this update further. We appreciate your involvement and most certainly will provide additional hotlines should there be any future developments.
In Unity, and to our future
11-15-2009, 07:26 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: On the road
Posts: 165
11-15-2009, 07:33 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Slinger
Posts: 316
They're not saying we don't want added flying, or telling us which way to vote. What it's saying is that are costs are in line, and we will not be taking anymore concessions to secure added flying.
11-15-2009, 07:42 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,901
Question from an outsider:
Didn't AWAC pilots take concessions a few years ago when UAL was doing its shakeup amongst feeder carriers in order to retain their United flying? Weren't these concessions based solely on AWAC retaining that flying? Then, didn't management impose those concessions (and continue to do so) after they lost the United flying, in violation of the agreement?
My memory may be a bit foggy on everything that was happening back then and with which carriers. I could be thinking of ACA, later known as Independence.
Didn't AWAC pilots take concessions a few years ago when UAL was doing its shakeup amongst feeder carriers in order to retain their United flying? Weren't these concessions based solely on AWAC retaining that flying? Then, didn't management impose those concessions (and continue to do so) after they lost the United flying, in violation of the agreement?
My memory may be a bit foggy on everything that was happening back then and with which carriers. I could be thinking of ACA, later known as Independence.
11-15-2009, 07:53 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Slinger
Posts: 316
Question from an outsider:
Didn't AWAC pilots take concessions a few years ago when UAL was doing its shakeup amongst feeder carriers in order to retain their United flying? Weren't these concessions based solely on AWAC retaining that flying? Then, didn't management impose those concessions (and continue to do so) after they lost the United flying, in violation of the agreement?
My memory may be a bit foggy on everything that was happening back then and with which carriers. I could be thinking of ACA, later known as Independence.
Didn't AWAC pilots take concessions a few years ago when UAL was doing its shakeup amongst feeder carriers in order to retain their United flying? Weren't these concessions based solely on AWAC retaining that flying? Then, didn't management impose those concessions (and continue to do so) after they lost the United flying, in violation of the agreement?
My memory may be a bit foggy on everything that was happening back then and with which carriers. I could be thinking of ACA, later known as Independence.
Yep, that's pretty much exactly what happened. Although I wasn't around when the concessions were given, I've flown with plenty of guys who were. I'm sure they're less than thrilled with this last attempt at concessions from the company. This was the first point in the email from our MEC:
-This pilot group is currently working under an agreement that has suffered deep, unrealized concessions for UAL
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
