Floobs

Could you imagine a 4 day with that clown?

jcountry

GOT to be referring to Aux.

That guy is the biggest clown to ever climb in an airplane.

Arado 234

Fellow MIA Pilots,

I regret to inform you that with the signing of the AIP last week, our scheduling rules will be taking a huge step backwards. Sections 4C., 15J. and 15L of the JCBA are hereby suspended and replaced with the “current process for scheduling of open time”, whatever that may be.

Also, the 14 Presidential grievances that APA has filed to protest Crew Scheduling’s abuse of our contractual rules have been suspended. You cannot file another grievance on the same subject until the new rules for scheduling have been agreed upon, whenever that may be, and in the interim Crew Scheduling will be able to continue these practices that were under protest.

I am both disappointed and embarrassed to have been a member of the Board while this occurred. Please know that I did my best to prevent us from making scheduling concessions at a time when we should be moving forwards, not backwards. Times in our industry will never be better than this.

I’ve been struggling for 3 days to write a Blast that summarizes what happened last week in Dallas, and more importantly, what will happen in the future as a result. Instead, I have chosen to forward the PHL reps’ Blast. Paul Diorio and Paul Music have done a great job of reporting what transpired. I have chosen to simply cut and paste their Blast to the end of this one.

Over the next few weeks I will work with APA Contract Compliance to determine exactly what the new scheduling rules will be. I can tell you that presently they are as confused as I am. In the interim, I suggest that if an issue arises regarding crew scheduling’s ability to schedule and reassign you, please contact MIA Chairman Bill Ray Read. He both supported this change and professes to understand what will occur. He should be able to guide you.

Regrets,

Ed Sicher

MIA VC

IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING, YOU'LL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Fellow PHL Pilots,

Yesterday we finished voting on the Agreement In Principle (AIP) - The Agreement passed by a narrow 12–10 vote. If you have been paying attention to our Base Blasts and Town Hall Conferences, it should not come as any surprise your PHL reps were absolutely opposed to the Agreement and were 2 of the 10 representatives in the minority.

Since the JCBA, this has been the most contentious issue we have encountered. The politics and Union backstabbing, backdoor maneuvering and LOS campaign were in full force. We now want to give you our view of the process and our concerns going forward.

To begin, in our view, the Board made a strategic error by requiring LOS to be included with any other agreement. While well intentioned, this decision tied the hands of the Board and restricted the Negotiating Committee to prioritizing hundreds of pilots over thousands of pilots. The company, of course, took full advantage of this lack in judgment by the BOD. PHL voted against tying LOS with other contract improvements.

In late November, we were handed a gift when, through a computer error, 15,000 unmanned flights were created over the Christmas holidays. Understand however, the BOD had little to no input on how this leverage should be utilized. Furthermore, since the agreement was included in a Presidential Grievance, the President had absolute control over the result. This is the President’s new strategy - file a Presidential Grievance and basically eliminate the BOD in the process. In addition, by settling with the Company and accepting the 200% pay for select trips, it was mutually agreed that APA and the Company would enter into an agreement to settle a few issues prior to Section 6.

The result was an Agreement In Principle (AIP) that was presented to the BOD for approval. This included a Settlement Agreement, an Average Calendar Day (ACD) that came with conditions, Length of Service (LOS) agreement, which credited pilots for time spent while furloughed, and a Grievance Settlement.

The ACD is good in principle but has restrictions in that it will be delayed 4 months (1/1/19) if the Vacation Float is less than 30%, which according to the information posted on AAPilots is what actually occurred. Furthermore, the ACD can be delayed indefinitely at the less than break even cost to the company of $1.0M for the first month and $1.5M for each additional month. Since we were told the annual cost of of the ACD was about $40M a year ($3.33M/month), we believed the penalty should have been greater. However, this penalty issue did not have any influence on our ultimate vote.

QUICK, PULL UP THE LADDER

Of course we were in favor of LOS for the hundreds of pilots who were furloughed after 911. However, what we could not endorse is excluding 61 Mid Atlantic pilots from receiving this same credit as well. For the life of us we can’t see how 12 BOD members could sit back and allow this disparate treatment of fellow AA pilots? In our view this is not the way any union representative should act. As for the pilots who said we should secure LOS for the non Mid Atlantic pilots and fight for the others getting LOS going forward. Really? I’m sure these same pilots would have a different view if they were on the Mid Atlantic side of the equation.

IT’S SCHEDULING STUPID

Our most significant issue however, is with the Settlement Agreement. In a nutshell, in our view, the Settlement Agreement was a blank check to the Company in regards to Scheduling.

Under this Agreement, we have not only accepted their current scheduling practices (abuses) which they have admitted, violates the JCBA, but with this vote, APA has now endorsed those violations going forward. In addition, we have given them an open door to further expand those violations. Of course, we can still grieve the violations through some new process but according to Contract Compliance, success will be very difficult because we don’t even have a defined set of rules to reference.

Overall, we believe the AIP tradeoff was lopsided. To essentially agree to undefined terms and work rules is absurd and is the reason we currently have the worst contract in the industry with respect to quality of life. We are convinced the company walks out of negotiating sessions, high fiving and laughing while saying “do you believe APA agreed to that.” Difficult to hear but true.

The argument by some was “well, the company is going to violate the contract anyway so let’s just let them do it rather than continue to file grievances.” Here’s a thought for those individuals (we hasten to call them union representatives because any union representative worth their salt would never subscribe to such a belief), “if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.”

For two Board meetings, we have listened to the “yes” men give every excuse as to why they couldn’t send the Negotiating Committee back to draft language so everyone would know exactly what they are agreeing to. In fact, during the meeting on January 3rd, the BOD voted in favor of sending the committee back to “benchmark” Attachment 3, Filling of Open Time. This benchmarking would have established exactly to what we were agreeing and given us a clear path going forward. It’s important to know we were told during the January 3rd meeting by the Negotiating Committee Chairman that this benchmarking would occur immediately following BOD approval. Folks, it is Negotiating 101, not to mention common sense, to know what you’re agreeing to before signing on the dotted line.

However, it appears this most basic negotiating tenet is not important to the Officers, Negotiating Committee and 12 BOD members. Their approach was: Let’s approve it now and figure out what it actually means later. As irresponsible as this sounds, this is exactly what the majority of the BOD did this week. They agreed to work rules without actually knowing what those rules are. Would anyone agree to buy something without first knowing what they were buying? It’s almost like the game show, “Let’s Make a Deal”, where a contestant would choose a curtain without knowing what was behind it and just hope for the best.. Well, this isn’t a game show, this is our quality of life and we’re getting zonked by agreeing to the all-important work rules without knowing what they are. Who does that? We’ll tell you who, it’s 12 members of the APA BOD.

ATTACHMENT 3

Attachment 3 is the Filling of Open Time. It is the document that will touch every pilot, every day. This document was drafted entirely by the company and endorsed by our Negotiating Committee. What’s even more troubling is 12 members of the BOD were ok with this and also ok with the company’s refusal to change as much as a comma within the 8 page document. That’s right, the Company wrote the entire document, defining the process, and then refused to modify it. We don’t know how you feel but we believe this is not representative of the constantly promised culture change.

What this amounts to is a slim majority of the BOD agreeing to an open ended scheduling process that could go on for years. That’s right, years. Although the agreement calls for a 4 month negotiating period to try to hammer out scheduling, there is once again no requirement to complete the process or an implementation timeline. In fact, the company refused to commit to anything regarding implementation. Did APA not learn anything from the failure of the “as soon as practicable” language outlined in the MOU?

No matter how many Subject Matter Experts (SME) spoke against Attachment 3, the “yes” voters found a way to dismiss their concerns. These are some of the same individuals whom have been preaching for years to “trust our SME’s” I guess the “trust your SME” argument didn’t work for them this time. Hypocrisy at its best.

Many have asked why anyone would support a “yes” vote on something with so much vague language or so many obvious flaws. Great question! We can give you several possibilities and where we think they may apply:

- Up for re-election and not wanting to upset the apple cart (DFW Chair)

- Trusting the Company explicitly(ORD/MIA Chair)

- Belief that we might as well get something since the company is going to continue violating the contract anyway (LGA)

- Not having the courage to stand by your convictions (DFW/PHX Chair)

- Don’t know how to say no (ORD/BOS/STL/MIA Chair)

- Succumbing to pressure from the LOS NOW group (ALL)

- Desire to establish their legacy (Officers)

LIKE THE WIND

Prior to the vote on Wednesday, we had breakfast with the DFW Chairman. We discussed what effect the vacation float number may have on the upcoming vote. Remember, the company insisted on delaying the implementation of the Calendar Day rig until 1/1/19 if the float number was below 30% (we were originally told by the President the new rig would begin in March or April of this year). The DFW Chairman and your representative’s agreed if the new rig was going to be delayed then what’s the rush? In fact his exact words were “Let’s get it right.” We couldn’t have agreed more. Just few hours later we had calculated the float numbers from AAPilot and it was well below the 30% threshold. Well, now the DFW Chairman decided that getting it right was less important than political appearance, and changed his vote. Unbelievable. This has completely altered our view of the DFW Chairman as he will not even stand up to his own convictions.

We are also publishing a picture of the final vote count so that you can see who to thank for this horrendous decision.

SECTION 6

We are now beginning preparations for the next contract. Based upon what we witnessed this week, you can forget about an industry leading contract and likely even an industry average contract. If a majority of the BOD is willing to take concessions on a comparatively minor agreement during a time of record profitability, then what can we expect them to agree to during Section 6?

We hope you all understand that it’s easy to get an agreement, if your goal is to just to get an agreement. It’s also easy to sell a house if you keep lowering your price.

Getting an industry leading contract is a different story. That requires setting the bar above the others and having the intestinal fortitude to see it through. It appears that “getting a deal at any cost” is the current theme at APA.

Folks, this is not meant to scare you, rather it’s based on what we have witnessed firsthand. At a recent meeting with some of the Delta leadership, they expressed horror at some of our scheduling provisions, and this was before a majority of the BOD voted this week to make our quality of life even worse. Is there anything this group will not accept?

For those who think ALPA is the answer, make no mistake; changing the name above the front door of the union office will not do anything to improve the outcome of the upcoming section 6. The only way we can improve the likelihood of success is for the membership to ensure the APA BOD will stand up and fight for pilots and not just accept anything the company offers. As your PHL representatives, we can assure you we will continue to fight for your best interest and not say “yes” just for the sake of saying “yes.” Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for many of the other representatives. SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE OR WE ARE DOOMED TO FAIL DURING SECTION 6.

Finally, we hope this explains why we voted the way we did. There have been some claiming the “NO” voters kept moving the goal posts on why we were against this agreement. This is a convenient excuse for justifying a “Yes” vote but the PHL Reps. have been clear from day 1 on why we were opposed to this deal. First, we were never going to vote for a deal that excluded 61 former Mid Atlantic pilots from LOS. This “I’ve got mine approach” is counter to the most basic union belief and we were not going to abandon our fellow pilots.

The other reason was how could anyone ever approve something while not actually knowing what it meant? This flies in the face of basic everyday logic. Does anyone actually believe the company would ever agree to vague language where they could negatively be affected. Never, so why did we?

We don’t even think it’s a matter of being smart, rather it’s a matter of basic common sense – DON’T AGREE TO ANYTHING UNLESS YOU KNOW TO WHAT YOU’RE AGREEING. We hope we are wrong and the company doesn’t continue to exploit poor contract language. However, we can only base our decision on what has occurred in the past. And if the past is any indication on what we can expect going forward, the vague language outlined in this agreement will open the door for Scheduling to further erode our already bottom of the industry work rules and quality of life flexibility.

Name User

With all the money APA spends they really to invest in a press secretary. Those long rambling posts are impossible to read and rarely just state the facts. I was taking to another guy about this lately, we get so much communication from the union that it's overwhelming. I actually now just delete everything. I'm embarrassed to admit it but I just don't have the willpower to read long winded diatribes every day in horrible format.

FLPS30GRDWN

No kidding please have someone proof/critique your messages. If you can’t say it in 1,000 words or less get some help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheddar

ES is “both disappointed AND embarrassed?” Over what, putting a Jolly Rogers bandana on his BoD microphone?

I think I waffled on the AIP more than anyone, but some of the hyperbole on this was unbelievable.

Andy W’s point was the tipping point for me - we have the ability to test run ACD rigs and the DOTC/RAS process BEFORE section 6. We don’t have to spend negotiating capital on this!!!

Now we can focus on:
-Trip ownership to include abolishing the RO and make RA’s cost prohibitive
-PS and Pay improvements
-Better SK (260 hr/year and accrual to 1000 for STD) and LTD gains
-PR and Holiday Pay of 200%
-ACD of 6 hours with 3:1 rigs (depending on our test run)
-RESERVE at 5:15 day (why should LC and SC pay be different? Make LC at least 33% of all Reserve and award by seniority). This puts a max on 15 days for reserve pilots.
-Training and Vacation pay to equal a standard Day
-Improved PBS/Trip Trade system where allows pilots SWA style flexibility

And more. The point is these (ACD/LOS) are both huge gains outside of section 6, and we can focus on improving ACD/rigs to meet AA pilot needs versus just trying to get ACD.

Here’s what the company needs:
-Flexibility with scheduling
-training bubble protections (night transition/CQT sims, longer seat locks, etc)

Most carriers have all night sims, most carriers have RAs, lets get what we can from it (ie industry leading QWL gains). That’s negotiating.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Name User

Great list in concise format, wish you were a rep.

EMBFlyer

Maybe this new Chaplin can exorcise the BOD room. It sure as hell needs it!

Cheddar

Thanks -but no you don’t! I’m the worst ‘waffler’ I know and can be talked into some really great bad ideas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcountry

No freaking kidding!

"We need and old priest and a young priest...."