7576FO

For those not following this. In 1997 written in our contract it says AA not to go below 7,300 pilots not including pilots added by way of merger or buyout (Reno or TWA pilots not included in count). If floor of 7,300 goes below 7,300 well here's the actual wording.

"In the event that the number of cockpit crewmembers employed by the Company on the American Airlines Pilots Seniority List goes below 7300, the parties agree that the commuter exception contained in this Section D. shall be terminable at the option of APA following a 90-day period to provide an opportunity for discussion. If APA elects to require termination of the commuter exception, the Company shall thereafter have a reasonable time to complete the disposition of the operations covered by this Section D. during which period the parties shall meet in good faith and discuss the issues related to such termination. Pilots added to the American Airlines Pilots Seniority List by way of seniority merger shall not count in calculating
the number of cockpit crewmembers for purposes of this section 4."


7,300 Cockpit Crewmember Floor Grievance Ruling

Your National Officers and Board of Directors are disappointed to inform you that the arbitrator presiding over the 7,300 cockpit crewmember floor presidential grievance, presented by the pilots' System Board of Adjustment, has ruled that AMR is NOT currently in violation.

In his ruling executed today, Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold explained to APA and AMR legal representatives that he has found that the number of “pilots employed on the seniority list” to be well in excess of the 7,300 limitation. Arbitrator Fishgold determined that furloughed pilots and those on leaves of absence count toward the cockpit crewmember floor limitation. His interpretation actually puts the number of pilots currently “employed” by American Airlines at more than 11,000. This finding is totally counter to the labor-protective provisions of the contractual language.

What is more telling is management’s total disregard for agreed-upon contract language. Both parties clearly knew the intent of the crewmember floor protection language when it was agreed upon in our contract, yet when faced with complying with the language, management rewrote history and was dishonest about their understanding of the agreement. Worse yet, the arbitrator allowed AMR’s arguments to divert him from ruling on the clear intent of the contractual language.

In response to this ruling, which ignores clear contractual language and the intent of the original agreement, the APA legal team formally filed a dissenting opinion, which will be attached to the final ruling paperwork. Both the arbitrator’s ruling and the APA dissent will be posted shortly to the members' home page of alliedpilots.org, under "Headliners." We urge you to carefully read both documents.

Additionally, the APA Board of Directors unanimously directed APA’s General Counsel to file a lawsuit to overturn the ruling. The suit against AMR will be filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. within 24 hours.

When the clear intent of our contract language is blatantly violated, the union must take extraordinary measures to defend the contractual protections we agreed to and rely upon. This also highlights the need for our contract protections to be constructed in clearly defined language that offers no loopholes or room for interpretation. Some issues are worth the extra effort to defend. Surely this one, which involves the most basic protection of pilot jobs on the property, qualifies as one of those issues. While these kinds of suits are extremely difficult to win, your leadership is committed to protecting your interests and will use every tool available to do so. We will keep you updated as the lawsuit progresses.

So, we lost. Some of the thoughts are the arbitrator was afraid to give APA leverage. Some are writing that our union pres's "Blood money" letter to CEO Arpey really bothered the arbitrator.
I'm not going to jump to conclusions. I will say this. We have a very aggressive National Officers team that I voted for. I still support my union pres, vice pres and treasurer.

I personally feel for the furloughed pilots, this is a huge slap in the face to be termed "employed" by American Airlines when you've been furloughed 7+ years. When you've been receiving UNEMPLOYMENT checks. No BENEFITS.

I will donate money to the lawsuit to benefit the EMPLOYED but not EMPLOYED pilots of American Airlines.

More than ever I demand length of service pay rates for all time on furlough (EMPLOYED) for returning furloughees on the next contract.

I will more than do my part (legally and ethically) to make sure AA management pays these EMPLOYED but not working here and not receiving direct deposits or what are those things called ummm, uhhhh PAY CHECKS

There are many holes in this ruling. Our Part 1 (Flight Ops manual) says NO pilot EMPLOYED by AA can do any outside flying for compensation.
So all you furloughed but EMPLOYED pilots that are flying for other companies and receiving compensation.

Now I knew even if we won that they weren't gonna shut Eagle down. If we won we might have had some bargaining leverage. Managment could've dragged their feet for years on this even if we'd have won this.

Thoughts?
7576