November 30, 2012
Dear Fellow Pilots,
There has been much discussion about the consequence of voting “No” on the Tentative Agreement. Debate on this and other subjects is healthy and expected. But that debate should be based on facts, experience and informed opinion -- and not on conjecture or misstatements.
That’s why a Council communication that went out last Tuesday caught our eye. It suggested that US Airways flight attendants -- who have now rejected their second Tentative Agreement -- have bettered themselves with these “no” votes. Unfortunately, and as discussed below, the NMB has recessed this mediation and isn’t scheduling more meetings; management will not meet with them outside mediation; and they’re now still working under a bankruptcy contract.
The Council communication also asserted that, if ratification failed, the NMB would “immediately” restart the mediation process. All MEC members had several opportunities to hear directly from the NMB and ask the Board members questions. There was never any information presented that allows that conclusion. ALPA’s Representation Department and outside experts we’ve consulted have set out a more realistic understanding of the process followed by the NMB in the event of contract rejection.
In the event of a failed TA the Board generally recesses the mediation case in order to get more information about the reasons for its failure. Normally ALPA would survey the pilot group and leadership to determine the areas that need improvement in the failed TA. Then the JNC would receive direction from the MECs. Next, the NMB would be contacted and a status conference scheduled with the NMB. The JNC would meet with the NMB, review the case, and request the immediate resumption of mediation. Based on previous steps, this meeting would typically occur about 2-3 months from rejection of the TA. The Board would then contact UAL management to obtain its views. Afterwards, the Board and the mediators assigned to the case would determine when to schedule the resumption of mediation, and thereafter, future dates for mediation, if appropriate. It is typical for a revised TA to take more than six months to achieve.
Additional Information Provided by ALPA’s Representation Department
At our request, ALPA’s Representation Department provided other observations about its experience following contract rejection along with historical support for those observations.
► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and talks do not typically ramp up to intensive levels, if at all, until a few months later.
► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and is often influenced by the economic environment and the Company’s financial performance in the period after the failed TA. The Company is now also able to revisit any areas they wish to negotiate.
► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and more favorable than they actually are. It’s usually impossible to assess the net/net impact, or true Company cost, when costing information isn’t available and delays are factored in. Typically, savings from delayed pay increases, benefit improvements and work rule enhancements are used to offset the cost of the revised deal when it includes better terms and conditions.
► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and They know that deals will rarely, if ever, be approved in the future and employees will always believe there is a better deal if they vote “no” the first time. As a result, it’s much more common for money to be moved around in the revised package than it is for money to be added to the package.
Here’s some more detail that may help explain the above observations:
Resumption of Negotiations/Mediation is Not Immediate
It’s very hard for the NMB to re-commence mediation until it has a clear understanding of the issues that caused a TA to be voted down. The Board knows that a Company isn’t going to simply make improvements in every important contract area. The Association surveys or polls to understand member views objectively in order to brief the NMB intelligently about the problem areas. That process takes some period of time. Once data is in hand, the two MECs will have to discuss and direct the JNC. These discussions and decisions sometimes take time as well. With MEC direction, the JNC meets with the NMB, which then seeks the Company’s views and willingness to meet. Internally the NMB decides on the best way to handle the case and decisions about meeting location and schedules are made. It’s customary for serious meetings to get underway months -- not weeks -- later based on the above-mentioned intermediate steps. It is typical for a revised TA to take 6 months or longer to achieve.
Results Following a Failed TA Are Often Problematic
It’s very difficult to make broad generalizations about the results of contracts negotiated after a failed TA -- both because situations are different and because, without detailed costing and valuation information, it’s impossible to accurately assess the changes. Here are a few recent examples:
(a) AirTran (Section 6) -- ATN pilots, under their independent National Pilots Association (NPA), began bargaining for a new CBA in the 2004 time frame. After approximately 3 years of virtually no progress, they entered into services agreement with ALPA for E&FA help and professional negotiator assistance. In the 2008 time frame, and with assistance from ALPA and the NMB, they reached a TA that was not ratified by members. The NMB recessed the case for the better part of a year before resuming mediation in early 2009. The NPA merged with ALPA in May 2009. In the fall of 2010 we reached a new TA that was ratified by members.
(b) Southwest (Section 6) -- After almost 3 years of negotiations, SWAPA completed a new collective bargaining agreement in the Spring of 2009 that was rejected by members because of inadequate international code-share language and unfavorable scheduling rules. A revised TA was reached and ratified in the Fall of 2009. The revised TA modestly improved international code-share and scheduling rules but pay components were reduced.
(c) AirTran/Southwest -- This was a package of 2011 agreements that included SLI issues and provisions related to transition to SWA rates and benefits. As to pay, a deal was first negotiated that brought all ATN pilots to SWA rates very quickly and provided certain protections for ATN flying. The MEC did not approve the deal based on their SLI-related concerns and refused to send it out to pilots. The second deal made very modest improvements to the SLI, but ATN pilots also move much more slowly to SWA rates and benefits over a period that extends until 2015. After the MEC rejected the first TA, the Company spent more time evaluating its earlier offer and concluded it had offered and agreed to a package that was too expensive.
(d) Pinnacle -- Prior to the Mesaba/Colgan transaction, Pinnacle pilots negotiated for more than 4 years before reaching their stand alone TA. The agreement provided substantial pay, work rule, scope and benefit improvements but was turned down by members. The NMB recessed the case for many months before calling the parties in for a status conference. There were informal meetings between Company and pilot representatives for a few more months seeking to narrow the open issues. Once open issues were narrowed, the NMB reconvened talks. But that new agreement was reached more than a year later during JCBA negotiations with Mesaba and Colgan.
US Airways Flight Attendants
Unfortunately, and contrary to the Council communication referred to above, the US Airways flight attendant contract rejection does not stand for the proposition that “good things come to those who wait.”
The NMB has now helped the parties achieve two TAs -- both of which failed to ratify -- over the course of the last 18 months. Each looked a little better on its face than the previous deal. Essentially, economic features were shuffled to move money into areas that were more important to AFA leadership. The Company used the delays to add some money to the contract but, it’s reported, without changing the net cost to the Company when they got the benefit of the delay.
The NMB has now recessed the case and is not scheduling meetings.
The AFA US Airways website, has the following:
“The airline’s flight attendants haven’t had a unified contract since US Airways and America West merged in 2005. The two groups still fly separately, under separate contracts, with different work rules and pay rates. US Airways’ pilots are in the same situation.”
November 1, 2012 AFA Update:
We have been advised by the Company that they do not intend to develop a proposal for a revised tentative agreement. The Company has indicated they are only willing to meet if directed by the NMB and are not willing to engage in negotiations outside of that process. Additionally, Doug Parker indicated at Crew News that the Company has no plans to put more money into the Flight Attendant Agreement.
United pilots are urged to come to Town Hall meetings where you can ask your questions about these subjects and hear directly from JNC members, pilot subject matter experts and professional negotiators and advisors.
In Unity,
Captain Jay Heppner
Chairman, United MEC
Captain Jay Pierce
Chairman, Continental MEC