Missing Contract Language - Slow Down People
 

I understand we all would like to resolve this contact, BUT SLOW DOWN! How can we make an educated choice until we know the details? I will not vote to approve any contract from a Power Point presentation. Demand Final Contract Language before they allow voting. Ask, why the high pressure rush job from Management? Scares me. Vote YES or NO, but please have all the details first.

At Eagle we did that with the flow-thru (Letter 3) in 1997. Once the language came out, it told a significantly different story then the bullet points, not that it mattered as that agreement was MEC ratified as opposed to membership.

I think that is just on combining intl/dom and the APA's approval was conditional on that final language. Right?

That's the way I took it. I don't think many are saying they'll blindly vote yes on anything thrown their way. Most who say they'll vote yes will vote yes barring any gross contractual issues present in the language. Given the company asks, they seem pretty specific, so that language shouldn't be overly complex.

My point is simple. Final Contract Language, all Contract! The devil is in the details! Sure the pay rates are published and most pilots stop right at that page. We need the whole deal to review.

Absolutely. But how many will read it? From the posts on here about rigs it's obvious that few have even opened up the MTA.

We get burned on this all the time. We voted for a MOU that had a 1-3.25 rig for trips with more days than DPs, only to have the APA give it away.

One sad fact is that the contracts are written in a way that 10 guys could read it and get 10 different interpretations. Probably by design.

I want the theory that the company 100% cannot get HBT in arbitration spelled out in clear terms.

We have a lousy track record with arbitration.

So as long as the **** pile's peanuts and corn kernels are still intact, it's edible ?

No thanks. :cool:

What is the most profitable area of a credit card company or bank? Penalty and fees. Why? Because you don't read the contract. All that fine print. Pages that make you put it down and sign anyway. You show a good grasp of what is happening here. Most pilots are no different than Joe6Pack getting his new rims and tires. He won't read the fine print. But he got a killer deal. He will pay for that deal. Over and over. Easy money.

You not only need "the whole deal to review", you need the TIME to review it. Wonder why there is such a rush to a deal? Joe will sign.

Give the man a cigar! Everything done at this level is planned far in advance. Abso-damn-lutely by design. That is why the company pays the big bucks (if you found out how much the company was paying their attorneys you would eat a bottle of Tums). I will also abso-damn-lutely guarantee there are ten different versions already written, depending on need. My record was 22 variations. I made a killer bonus that year.

Of course, which makes it all the more puzzling (and tragic) that we are willing to perpetuate the same errors time and again expecting a different result. It will happen this time and it will once again in 2020...or 2025, if Parker doesn't want to come out and play for awhile.

This! Copied from another site.

"Without "real and meaningful" length of service, we pledge to defeat any proposal!"
That's what we all proclaimed the last time we communicated our position to everyone involved. It is now clear that we have no choice but to make good on that promise.

2 Years of LOS not only falls far short of what we expected based on precedent, it's also an insult to every one of us who suffered through the "Lost Decade" as a furloughed pilot.

While the supporters of this proposal will argue that it is a 23-30% raise, it still fails to properly recognize the sacrifices that we made and are continuing to make. In our last blast, we asked you to send an email to BOD members, senior management, and chief pilots containing the clear promise to vote “No” on any proposal that doesn’t contain at least 6 years of LOS. We are committed to following through with that promise and urge you to do the same.

Let's not forget that we as a group came off our position of Full (100%) LOS to meet everyone in the middle at 50% (6 year restoration), which we called "real and meaningful." The Company's offer of 2 years is not even 17% and is therefore unacceptable! APA's last proposal almost met our terms but management has chosen to reject it categorically and instead is attempting to circumvent our Union by negotiating with the pilot group directly by offering a 4% across the board raise to all employees while declaring negotiations over. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that new management is trying to prove our Union irrelevant and weaken it irreparably. Union busting 101!

There are other very important issues that negatively affect us, the junior, if a "Yes" vote prevails:


Lacking industry standard "Calendar Day" will continue forcing many of us on junior lines to fly 20+ days each month away from home for less pay.

The integration of International and Domestic Divisions; saving management from having to split up LUS, a very time consuming programing and logistics nightmare, not to mention the obvious safety issues of having to retrain a large contingent of domestic pilots at LAA. What are they offering us in return?

HBT based start times vs. local; might in the future provide more flying but in the present will reduce the need for FOs and FB/FCs in the system, directly affecting the ability of junior pilots to hold better paying Group 3 & 4 equipment.

LTD language; still industry lagging, preventing those affected from supplementing their incomes without losing their benefits.

Despite the gravity of these asks, company couldn't be bothered to have the contract language ready for our Union leaders.

Why are we being asked to vote on a contract we have not seen? They deliberately want to create the impression that time is of the essence and a big chunk of cash is hanging in the balance. This makes it impossible for us to fully inform ourselves of what long-term consequences these contract concessions will actually bring. No one is pretending the proposed pay rates are not alluring but look with eyes wide open at what your daily routine will be for the rest of your career and ask yourself: Is the newly proposed compensation adequate? There are far too many unknowns that we will have to deal with for years to come should this be ratified by the membership!

While it is true that an arbitrated decision almost assuredly will not contain LOS, it also will leave untouched all the other items that AAG is asking us to concede without proper compensation.

After many conversations with a cross section of our BOD Members, we've come to the conviction that voting “No” is the only way to achieve a more acceptable contract containing not only "more money" but also "real and meaningful" LOS, along with the other vital items because management will have to come back to the table to get what they want.

If the Company really wanted to, they could have proffered arbitration weeks ago... Why haven't they? It appears they are increasingly unwilling to risk further delay and loss of face with their investors on Wall Street; they promised a swift timeline to achieve the merger synergies and labor peace...their own outsized compensation packages are tied to meeting these goals.

Official Negotiations may appear to have ended for the moment, but the real deal-making behind the scenes has just begun and will continue throughout. Don't give in to their scare tactics. By voting “Yes”, we will only become industry laggards once more. We can do better and none of us can stomach being thrown under the bus again. The satisfaction of a raise, no matter how large, is fleeting. Onerous working conditions will remain a daily reality.

Vote NO!

Length of Service

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

Let me get this straight: the above poster is advocating for furloughees to accrue payscale longevity while they are on furlough?

You got to be kidding. If you're laid off, then you don't work here. All benefits and movement stops while you're gone. You shouldn't move up through the payscale while you're not active. Sorry about your luck, but laid off is laid off.

^^^great post. Making a strong case for their side without berating or name calling. Imagine that.

I disagree, LOS is probably what troubles me the most about this deal. I'd like to see full LOS. The problem is I'm not convinced they'll get any LOS under arbitration, so this might be the best option, im just not sure.

Wasn't sure which thread to put this in.

Anyone know where we stand on longevity pay raises (ie when one goes on the second year scale, third year scale, etc). At LUS it's Your yearly DOH anniversary at LAA its your yearly training completion anniversary.

For a new hire on the LAA side, that means delaying your pay raise by two months every year for 12 years. That probably equates to well over $100k in lost income. Seems pretty important to me that we use LUS's system. Will we have that in contractual language?

I can't believe this is the same APA that told AMR to pound sand with their "LBFO" in bankruptcy.

Company profitable and now folks can hardly wait to sign up for a contract with incomplete language.Remarkable study in human nature.Offer lots of money, people stampede towards it.

All the *****ing and moaning about the MOU/MTA and bankruptcy contracts,yet people can't wait to vote in something with "At management's discretion" sprinkled liberally through it, because that is what incomplete language will get you.

The LAX reps seem to be devotees of Quisling, they should reap the same rewards he did.

Unsure, in the Lemming-esque desire to "Get the raise and get it now!" there appear to be many areas of incomplete language.

Should this travesty pass, expect to lose anything that favors the employee.

Wow. A certain texas pilot has already said he deserves to go ahead of aa furloughees as a new hire third lister now he doesn't believe they deserve any LOS? Is anyone else worried about some people's mindset when it comes to unity?

you guys are being sold a lemon, and the salesman is rushing you to buy, just sign here and get the deal done, "theres no time to waste, it wont be on the lot long." The mechanic (the BOD) gave the car a pre-purchase inspection and advised you "don't buy this car... but hey its your choice. If you really need a car then its up to you, but I don't think you should buy this car." Youre the customer, you have the purchasing power. Put your wallet back in your pocket and walk away for a better deal.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that a majority of our pilots would agree to this without definitive Contract language. Bullet points would kill it for all but the staunchest yes voters.

I don't think anyone here at least is advocating voting yes with a blank check and no contract language.

That's true, but I think the yes voter is voting out of fear of whats on the other side of that no vote. Voting out of fear is exact reason not to vote yes. This isn't 2004 or 2007. This is 2015, the year of greatest economic prosperity in the history of the airline industry. Don't you think they know that and hence theyre rushing you into this deal? Each day you move forward in 2015 your eyes are opened more and more into just how much leverage you have.

Well it might not quite be industry standard but it is pretty close:

DAL guys had full LOS for all furloughees prior to the merger.
NW guys got full LOS for all furloughees during the merger

UCAL guys don't quite get full LOS but have some formula to give them up to something like 5 years LOS maximum. Perhaps a UCAL can more accurately describe their situation.

I don't think it is necessarily right or wrong to go with full LOS, but it is not that outrageous to ask for it based on industry parity.

Scoop

I can't speak for other yes voters, but I'm not voting out of fear. I would support a TA like this out of analysis of past and present events, and out of cost/benefit comparisons.

Parker and Kirby have yet to come dragging themselves back to any labor group on their knees in search of something they wanted, particularly when there's already an end-state (cost-neutral arbitration) specified. They never gave an inch when they ran America West. They never gave USAPA anything despite USAPA trying their damnedest to force the company into running one of the most dysfunctional airlines in modern US history. They didn't give in to the APFA after they voted their TA down.

They did give the FAs their money, but only after they manhandled the APFA. At this point, it's about sending a message to the APA BOD that they won't be forced to the table. Kirby is a notorious numbers guy. If you think he hasn't already set a value he's willing to pay to get HBT and combined divisions, I think you underestimate him. Ditto with respect to the fact that I'm certain they already have contingencies set up in case it does go to arbitration and they don't get their requests. They already have a plan to run the airline along the Green Book rules.

Additionally, if they come back to the table now, that won't help them in securing favorable contracts with the other unions. The FAs got the pay, but only on Parker's terms. That's how they operated with US Airways, and that's how they operated with America West. If DFW's theory that they will crawl back to the table over HBT and other requests comes true, that will be a rare exception...and I think some in our union vastly overstate how bad they want those things. They do want those things, but they aren't willing to do anything to get them.

Then there's the basic cost/benefit comparison. No single element of this proposal is enough to sell me on it. It's the total compensation versus what we're giving up. In the end, is it enough? The DAL+3% was borderline. It was enough to barely keep us competitive with Delta pay. The current proposal, plus the LOS and other minor changes, makes it viable (to me...maybe not to you).

My prediction if we vote NO on any future TA?

Best case...we go to arbitration and the arbitrator issues his award. There is no last minute "deal" and we get the MTA. Parker does what he did with the APFA and gives us the pay, and we lose 2 years LOS, the previously agreed to TAs and about 4 months of retro pay.

Worst case: His lawyers pull some skillful legal wrangling and manage to open up aspects of the MTA and they are awarded some of their asks for pennies on the dollar compared to what we were originally offered. We get stuck with the MTA pay and the Green Book as is. Parker, in an effort to send us a "message" as we attempted to send him, decides not to give us the previous proposed pay.

Either way, you and I won't go broke. Life won't end as we know it. But looking at it from my point of view, if we vote no just to send a message and in some hope of getting PK to change their habits, I think we're just p*ssing money away. That's my take.

Group II FO pay increases $45/hr over 11 years(2-12). $4000/yr.
Group III FO pay increases $48 over 11 years. $4400/yr.
Group IV FO pay increases $55 over 11 years. $5000/yr.

Monthly it's $330-$420. Times two months = $660-820. Times 11 years is $7000-9000.

That's my public math guess. I'm not sure how you came up with "over $100K".

The APA bylaws and policy require the BOD to have final contract language for seven (7) days before a vote to reject or to approve. And then membership is required to have it for fourteen (14) days..

Why are most of the officers rushing and ignoring the guidance learned from past cram jobs based on speed and management slight of hand?

Slow down. Quit punching buttons and yanking handles.

Read the QRH. Follow the QRH. Don't end in a smoking hole. Land safely.

You're right...

I did a quick mental calculation but based it mostly on the large pay raise between year 1 and 2 and the upcoming 2016 MTA raise and wasn't really considering the much lessor raises in all other years. $10k to 20k or so would be more accurate.

Though for a new hire jumping from $40 to $86 assuming an 85 hour month and a two month delay it'd be $7800, pretty painful coming off a year of austerity in the home budget.

If you're just coming off the year in austerity, I think the second year AB pay rates that were published were around $112/hour. $75/hour if I remember correctly for 2015 first year pay. $40 per hour versus $112 an hour. Not minor.

Yeah, I was just sticking with MTA rates, but if the offer passes, a two month delay in second year rates would cost a new hire $12,240. Again, hopefully this gets fixed for LAA new hires.

Ah, ok. I see where you were going. I wish first year pay would get fixed too. But as one guy told me, "why would we care about people who aren't even on property yet?"

Just so long as we're all worried about the junior pilot in this whole fiasco. We can at least tell our future junior pilots that "We cared about you. Except we didn't care about first year pay, because you weren't here yet".

First off, I'm not a new hire. Second, furloughees should be considered based on how much time they actually spent on property as an active employee, in addition to their relative position on the list, not their date of hire.

You really think a furloughee that only spent one year on the property should be on top of a US pilot with 5 years continuous service?

Trust me most of us in the pool are watching closely, and if it was about us new hires, we'd be jumping up and down telling you to vote yes for those enticing first year payrates. But we're not zoo animals, we look past the tasty morsel in front of us and we're looking at the whole package which locks us into industry lagging pay and work rules until 2020. Vote no for you AND for us. Well all be better off for it.

On top or a third lister who was hired post merger announcement? Yes. Absolutely. No questions about it. Irregardless of any DOJ stuff.m the only one who thought the merger wouldn't happen was canoe pilot.

Where do we sit on this? Has the contract language been released? I can't find it on the APA site, yet on C&R a thread eluded to it having be read by a poster.

It's on the APA Negotiations page. Unfortunately it's the entire edited contract, so you have to weed through what's changed and not changed. Some people have been claiming to find "hidden items" when in actuality those things were already in our contract. If it wasn't lined out in red and replaced with new language, it's a carryover from the original MTA.

Scott is coached by Glass and is trying to get us to take the bait and get 50%+1. Vote NO and we will get parity rates at or greater than their offer without concessions. Vote NO!

Scott Kirby
President


January 11, 2015

Dear Pilots:

We have heard from many of you since our letter on Friday. Thank you for reaching out. Most all of those we have heard from have asked about the January 19 deadline for ratification for the new pay rates to be retroactive to December 2. And many of you have suggested that the January 19 deadline is unreasonable, based on the representation by the APA Board that it did not receive the final Domestic-International language until January 9.

If that representation were an accurate statement of the facts, of course, it would be unreasonable to ask for a January 19 ratification. But that representation is neither accurate nor fair to our pilots. We have worked very hard to not get into the blow-by-blow account of the APA Boards inaccuracies, but with the ratification date ahead, it now seems important that we do so. The fact is that the APA Board has known about the January 19 deadline since December 23 when the Company agreed to extend the retro pay deadline for the third time. Moreover, until December 29, the APA negotiating committee and the Company had an agreed approach to the D-I issue and agreed upon language that would support that approach. Finally, after the APA Board asked for more detailed language on Domestic-International, we agreed to try, and we delivered the D-I language to the APA Board on January 3. Unfortunately, the APA Board then spent the next six days attempting to renegotiate concepts that had long been agreed to at the table, knowing full well that they had also agreed to a January 19 deadline for retroactivity, and that that date was fast approaching.

There are numerous other examples of this kind of non-helpful back and forth that have occurred over the past several months, but that isn't really important at this point. Bottom line, know that the January 19 deadline was set on December 23, agreed to by the APA Board, and that management ensured the APA Board had everything it would need to meet that deadline. One of the more distressing mischaracterizations has been the APA Board's disparagement of the Company's negotiators. Most of those are fellow employees who work in finance, labor and flight operations, and who support all of us. That team worked tirelessly and extensively over the Holidays, and we should all be proud to work with such committed individuals who, like you, simply want to move forward as one team.

So here we are, management and union debating in public but the ones getting hurt are our line pilots. You are the ones who lose two months of retroactive pay increases if the ratification date does not move. Irrespective of how we got here, the fact is that our pilots did not get the Company's proposal from the APA Board until January 9, and our line pilots deserve some time to consider the proposal. The objective of the January 19 deadline was not to rush you. The objective was to force the APA Board to act and provide our pilots the opportunity to vote on a proposal that would improve their compensation and benefits by $2 billion over the JCBA implemented by arbitration. And fortunately, that objective has been achieved. Accordingly, today we are reaching out to the APA Board to extend the date for pay retroactivity to January 30.

Thank you for bearing with us through this process. There is certainly a lot of lingering mistrust to overcome and we are committed to doing just that over time. Please take the time you need to understand our proposal and vote how you see fit. So long as the offer is ratified by January 30, the new pay rates will be effective retroactive to December 2. Thanks for taking the time to read yet another letter on this topic, and thank you for your commitment to American.


Scott

This is why Jerrold gets the big bucks. Which is amazing because it is so obvious.

The Green Book as it stands is simply better in the aggregate over the life of it's term, both financially and in 'work rules'. That is why a 'No' vote is the smart economic choice.

Only 11 months left to go until a substantial industry indexed pay raise while we preserve all the leverage of the concessions they want now for pennies on the dollar.

As to the lingering mistrust... you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Even "Yes" voters know they've been played, taking the bribe doesn't equal trust.

Been wondering the same thing. A US guy hired a month after me will hit year 2 pay more than a month earlier than I will. Hardly keeping with the theory of one set of work rules/conditions for all groups. I suspect things are so screwed that there's been little to no thought about it by the NCs (both co and APA).

I think they adopted the US system. I remember reading that change somewhere.

Well, everyone wanted complete language, right? :D

Funny how many of them never knew we had a 1-3.25 rig in the MOU and the APA gave it up.