View Single Post
Old 08-21-2009, 04:07 PM
  #10  
757Driver
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Default

Before continuing, I should probably put on the table a few feelings about the LEC 170 leadership that might be a little controversial. I had seen Jayson and Kaye's work on the Forum in years past and found that we had little in common except perhaps a love for flying. If I say they were "radical", most readers will reply, "Hell yeah they are radical! That's the point!" True. One can be radical in the organizational sense and accomplish great things while the staid, play-by-the-rules types never move the world forward. America was founded by this type of radical. But there is also another type of radical whose heart is in the right place but whose methods are too off the wall to advance the cause. It is into this latter category that I placed our Council 170 leadership and they didn't exactly change that opinion when their first blastmail stated that "Today Continental management woke up to their worst nightmare..." Subsequent writings continued with over-the-top prose and relentless management needling. Admittedly, much of this was juicy stuff but I failed to see what it accomplished. Thinking others felt the same I searched them out. When the conversation turned, as it always does, to union topics I would make my feelings known to friends, flying partners, and anybody else who would listen. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in Newark agreed with me. This was a case of realizing that one is a little out of touch with his peers. The near universal opinion of the pilots I talked to was that we had tried the non-aggressive line and it has paid exactly zero dividends. As a one-time FO Rep, I'd respond that in my experience this hasn't always been true. I would then give a few examples, none of which seemed very compelling when my listener was a double-pumped reserve who hasn't slept in 24 hours and may soon be on the street. Nonetheless, I can't sweep aside my limited experience where I have seen first-hand how a working relationship with our managers helped a pilot in a pinch. The problem for management is that for each positive example there are ten where a pilot has been unfairly treated. So if we take two extremes in representation with on one side, the old Ops Group and on the other, Charlie Smith at Eastern we have somewhere in the middle the right note where we fight the good fight without burning the house down to spite it. Are we there? I'm not convinced but I recognize that elections matter and the Newark election put in place a team which honestly represents the will of the Newark base.

Yesterday I phoned a friend on Guam. This is another pilot with whom I haven't always agreed but who I trust like a brother. Because he speaks only when he has something intelligent to say, those who know him never ignore him. You might say he's the E.F. HUTTON of Guam pilots. When I described the Fred Show he replied, "What did you expect? Your Reps declared war on Management, literally! They wrote 'WAR'!". Now of course this had gone through most pilot’s minds--that this ISB bid was a response to the blastmail rhetoric. But I'm no conspiracist (a word I’ve invented). Not only that, I just have never believed that our post-Lorenzo management has the capacity to act aggressively, for good or ill. But my friend is no conspiracist either. And for him to state this was something of a wake-up call: "In my 20 plus years at this airline I have never seen so much flying shift from a hub that wasn't significantly shrinking. I have never seen a bid like this. The problem with war is that it is often the innocents who get hurt."

If you think this article has reached the point where I claim that our Reps' lethal pen is to blame for our loss of flying then please read on. If Management did in fact punish ISB pilots for a few harsh words then I take that as an act of desperation. It would completely dismiss as irrelevant the professionalism and dedication we pilots ply daily to get the mission done safely, smoothly, and on time. Is the Great Shift a rational response to our leading contribution to the operation of this airline? Is it even a rational response the The Magenta Line? Of course not. I seriously doubt that any pilot has walked up to Jayson, Tara, or Kaye and shouted, "This is your fault!". If the LC meeting was any indication, their support is stronger than ever. After this conversation with my Guam friend, I was happy for the first time since reading the bid. This is a struggle that is now out in the open. Good people are on all sides. Some have proven a willingness to fight for what they feel is best for the pilots and others are fighting for what they feel is best for the Shareholders. Pilots no longer need to guess about the boogeyman. It's not the union, it's not flight pay loss, it's not long-suffering union volunteers losing pay, time off, and on rare occasions, relationships. It's the idea that flying can be shifted from domicile to domicile, that a pilot tossed on the street is the gift that keeps on giving as she, if gone long enough, takes years to regain longevity once she comes back. It's the people who decide that $2500 a month and no insurance for the first six months is fair and right. Shifting flying isn't going to teach Newark a lesson any more than it will make Houston pilots content. We are all providing historic productivity under an awful contract and little hope for improvement without a serious demonstration of resolve. This is equally true regardless of where a pilot happens to be based.

All of this: the contract, the furloughs, the Incredible Shrinking Base, the deterioration of Captain's authority, the eroding reputation of the Continental brand, they all unify the pilots' resolve to work toward something better. As for the ISB, management is exercising their right to manage. But I'm pretty certain that it will only take a couple of Nor'easters for them to realize that more, not less, New York flying should be done by those who either live in the area or have positioned themselves far enough in advance to fly their schedules. We'll see. This is nowhere near the endgame.


Item 14: Chairman’s Editorial

Why I Voted for the Furlough Mitigation RFL LOA

The direction you gave us as your elected leaders to avoid any new furloughs was clear:

- Absolutely “No Concessions”

- Don’t give anything up in order to achieve any mitigation

- Any program created must be voluntary

As long as these three objectives could be achieved you directed us to try to save jobs.

Tara and I firmly believe we followed the direction from our pilots and made the appropriate decision to approve the RFL LOA. We felt that way after our several hour MEC Conference call on the evening of August 11th to review the document . We still feel that way today.

Now let’s review the three objectives as it relates—in my opinion—to the RFL LOA:

1: Concessions – No pilot, especially those above the projected furlough line will be negatively affected in any way by the RFL LOA. Unlike last year’s agreement there will be no effect on your PBS awards with regards to pay or quality of life degradation.

2: Don’t Give Anything Up – No JV/Scope relief – No pay cuts – we didn't give anything up to save projected furloughed pilots jobs. For those who think we should have attained 55 hour no fly lines, did you want us to give something up to attain them? If so, you did not direct us to do that. We had no leverage to attain this LOA, and I am not going to use 146 pilots on the brink of furlough as that leverage. When we use pilots as leverage to attain anything in negotiations, we will do so by using each and every pilot on the seniority list, not 146 on the chopping block. Equal sharing of load and pain is required—and what unity and belonging to a union is all about.

3: Voluntary – No one is forced into RFL. You don’t like it, don’t bid it.

Now let’s address the time line. Tara, Kaye, and I were kept in the loop by Jay Pierce for the past few weeks as to the progress and details of the negotiations. Nothing was a surprise—these types of negotiations don’t occur in a vacuum. We had 24 hours to review the detailed and extensive bullet points. While I agree an hour to review the complete document (with complete and full language) is short, however, we were under absolutely no pressure from anyone to approve or even vote on the LOA. Ask anyone on the MEC, Tara and I are not in the least bit shy. If we felt we had any questions unanswered, or concerns that the document was in the least bit flawed or could be a determent to of any of our pilots—especially those above the furlough line—in a New York second we would have used everything at our disposal including the roll call vote to delay or kill the LOA.

We, as an MEC, spent almost two hours going line by line over final LOA language with the Negotiating Committee, MEC Officers and ALPA attorneys. The LOA is very short, straight forward and not in any way complicated. Everyone who voted to approve the document did so after all questions were answered. No one felt pressured to vote on the document; if that was the case we would have delayed or canceled the vote.

I also want to point out that subject matter experts like our Scheduling Chairman and PBS expert Dave Owens were involved in the process with the Negotiating Committee from day one and they also felt the LOA should be approved. This was not the case with last year’s furlough mitigation. This LOA fixes several problems created by the previous Furlough Mitigation LOA and, again, not to the detriment of any pilot above the furlough line.

Since Tara and I were convinced that items 1, 2, and 3 above were in no way compromised, we felt we had a duty and obligation on behalf of the pilots who may get furloughed to approve this LOA. It really was that simple.

I also want to point out that not only is it a benefit to those who may get furloughed but every single pilot on the list would benefit in a seniority integration with these effected pilots on the property vs off the property.

Now, let’s discuss for a minute the job performance of your Local Council 170 Officers—or just your two representatives on the MEC, Tara and me. In the very near future, your MEC and Negotiating Committee will be conducting more Wilson Polling. There will be specific questions asked as to the performance of the LEC 170 Officers and our Communications. I ask everyone who participates to be brutally honest.

Lastly, I want to make the following comments. Things are very different today with regards to how our MEC operates vs the Contract ‘02 era. Unlike during Contract ‘02 the MEC Representatives (the eight elected status reps and the single flight instructor representative) make the big decisions. The MEC Officers, the Negotiating Committee, all other MEC Committees and ALPA experts work for the MEC. Last time around you could basically argue the opposite. We as MEC Representatives are not pressured to do anything, and if we were, personnel changes would take place immediately.

Our Negotiating Committee and MEC Officers are all very talented and doing a great job. If we believe we have problems with their job performance then the appropriate changes will be made.

If, after all of the above, you are still not pleased with the RFL LOA, then please direct the blame squarely where it belongs: with the eight MEC Representatives who voted to approve this LOA— NOT JAY PIERCE, NOT THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, OR ANY ALPA EXPERTS!


“It’s good for the company to have a unified pilot force…If you guys are of all one mind then it does help the negotiations.” - Captain Fred Abbott, Newark Pilot Meeting, August 12, 2009


Captain Jayson Baron, EWR Council 170 Chairman
[email protected]
610 442-3817

First Officer Tara Cook, EWR Council 170 Vice Chairman
[email protected]
610 220-8904

Captain Kaye Riggs, EWR Council 170 Secretary-Treasurer
[email protected]
830 431-0450


Captain Kaye Riggs
Council 170 Secretary/Treasurer
Director of Communications
830.431.0450
757Driver is offline