DW Letter - Part Deux
12-17-2007, 12:13 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
DW Letter - Part Deux
Just to point out a few items that are mis-stated or flat out lies:
"Statements were made by management that the FAA levied a requirement for the initial cadre of 757 LCAs to have prior experience in those positions and that this requirement created a potential issue with regard to pass-over pay. Additionally, there was the possibility that the decision to use AQP provisions as the basis of the 757 training program would require a similar level of experience for the Flex instructors. Because of management’s decisions, the overwhelming majority of the initial group of 757 Flex/LCAs were already receiving pass-over pay in their current positions."
The passover pay issue had nothing to do with 'management's decisions'. A very, very small percentage of Flex instructors and no LCAs that I'm aware of AREN'T getting passover pay. Nice piece of disinformation...
Through various channels, including a meeting at the MEC office with most of the 757 Flex/LCAs requested by them, it became increasingly clear that more pieces were in play than just the pass-over pay issue. It appears that management made commitments and individual Flex/LCAs had pursued deals covering such items as special pay packages, being able to bid CDG but work out of MEM, and not being locked into a CDG bid past the two-year point if there was no vacancy bid. Further, it was allegedly represented by management to this group of Flex/LCAs that not only were these custom arrangements possible, but that management was working with the union in order to facilitate their implementation.
No Flex/LCA 'pursued' any special deals. The issues concerning the Flex/LCAs were forwarded to the company and were made available to the Union as well. These were simply QOL items that ANY person would want in writing prior to downbidding. Such items as relief from repayment of passover pay, guarantees of WB pay continuation, a finite period for waivers from the contract, etc were requested. To imply that the 757 Flex/LCAs were trying to work 'special deals' is not only grossly inflamatory, it's a dammn lie.
Another complication was the discovery by the MEC that the initial representation that there was an FAA requirement for 757 LCAs to have previous experience in such positions was not exactly accurate.
Another piece of disinformation. Although there is no mandated requirement for applicants for initial cadre positions, the local FSDO has ultimate authority to select candidates. They made it clear they required individuals with previous experience. Sure sounds like a requirement to me...
In spite of the fact that the MEC supported the concept of facilitating the pass-over pay issue for a finite period of time in order to support the launch of the 757, management’s position at the December 6th meeting made that impossible. A request was made by management to waive four provisions of the contract which the union rejected. As you know, steps are already being taken to introduce the 757 through solicitations for Flex/LCAs from those pilots awarded seats in the recent bid. Due to serious missteps by management and the actions of the 757 Flex/LCAs, the pass-over pay issue became impossible to address.
As anyone who actually reads our contract (Section 11) can see, we have a HUGE gaping hole regarding bringing a lower paying aircraft on property. The Feds require experienced instructors, all the experienced instructors are getting WB pay, the contract punishes downbids and requires payback of any passover pay and on and on and on. Catch 22? You bet. The only solution is to accept this needs fixing and get it fixed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to train instructors from the bid to take the place of the initial cadre. There is simply not enough time or resourses available. The company, to their credit, realizes this and is asking for a fixed duration, short term patch to the contract to allow the 757 to be stood up. The UNION opposes this... Why would the Union oppose protecting WB pay for any of its members, particularily those bringing a new aircraft and opportunity on the property?!
Your MEC and Negotiating Committee take their responsibilities to the membership and our company very seriously. We worked diligently with management and the membership to facilitate the introduction of the 757 and the opening of two new foreign domiciles. Our goal is to secure any financial or quality of life enhancement when the opportunity exists through an orderly and sanctioned process.
The union did dik in relationship to the Flex/LCAs who are actually responsible for standing up this program. They are not interested in fixing the gaping hole in the contract associated with standing up a new NB aircraft. They are actively opposing the company's efforts to seek resolution on this and they are spreading disinformation and outright lies regarding the dedicated individuals who have put together a fantastic program. The tone and content of the chairman's message line was offensive, not factually correct and obviously intended to act as a tool to discredit individuals who have worked completely for the best interest of the line crewmember who bids the 757.
"Statements were made by management that the FAA levied a requirement for the initial cadre of 757 LCAs to have prior experience in those positions and that this requirement created a potential issue with regard to pass-over pay. Additionally, there was the possibility that the decision to use AQP provisions as the basis of the 757 training program would require a similar level of experience for the Flex instructors. Because of management’s decisions, the overwhelming majority of the initial group of 757 Flex/LCAs were already receiving pass-over pay in their current positions."
The passover pay issue had nothing to do with 'management's decisions'. A very, very small percentage of Flex instructors and no LCAs that I'm aware of AREN'T getting passover pay. Nice piece of disinformation...
Through various channels, including a meeting at the MEC office with most of the 757 Flex/LCAs requested by them, it became increasingly clear that more pieces were in play than just the pass-over pay issue. It appears that management made commitments and individual Flex/LCAs had pursued deals covering such items as special pay packages, being able to bid CDG but work out of MEM, and not being locked into a CDG bid past the two-year point if there was no vacancy bid. Further, it was allegedly represented by management to this group of Flex/LCAs that not only were these custom arrangements possible, but that management was working with the union in order to facilitate their implementation.
No Flex/LCA 'pursued' any special deals. The issues concerning the Flex/LCAs were forwarded to the company and were made available to the Union as well. These were simply QOL items that ANY person would want in writing prior to downbidding. Such items as relief from repayment of passover pay, guarantees of WB pay continuation, a finite period for waivers from the contract, etc were requested. To imply that the 757 Flex/LCAs were trying to work 'special deals' is not only grossly inflamatory, it's a dammn lie.
Another complication was the discovery by the MEC that the initial representation that there was an FAA requirement for 757 LCAs to have previous experience in such positions was not exactly accurate.
Another piece of disinformation. Although there is no mandated requirement for applicants for initial cadre positions, the local FSDO has ultimate authority to select candidates. They made it clear they required individuals with previous experience. Sure sounds like a requirement to me...
In spite of the fact that the MEC supported the concept of facilitating the pass-over pay issue for a finite period of time in order to support the launch of the 757, management’s position at the December 6th meeting made that impossible. A request was made by management to waive four provisions of the contract which the union rejected. As you know, steps are already being taken to introduce the 757 through solicitations for Flex/LCAs from those pilots awarded seats in the recent bid. Due to serious missteps by management and the actions of the 757 Flex/LCAs, the pass-over pay issue became impossible to address.
As anyone who actually reads our contract (Section 11) can see, we have a HUGE gaping hole regarding bringing a lower paying aircraft on property. The Feds require experienced instructors, all the experienced instructors are getting WB pay, the contract punishes downbids and requires payback of any passover pay and on and on and on. Catch 22? You bet. The only solution is to accept this needs fixing and get it fixed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to train instructors from the bid to take the place of the initial cadre. There is simply not enough time or resourses available. The company, to their credit, realizes this and is asking for a fixed duration, short term patch to the contract to allow the 757 to be stood up. The UNION opposes this... Why would the Union oppose protecting WB pay for any of its members, particularily those bringing a new aircraft and opportunity on the property?!
Your MEC and Negotiating Committee take their responsibilities to the membership and our company very seriously. We worked diligently with management and the membership to facilitate the introduction of the 757 and the opening of two new foreign domiciles. Our goal is to secure any financial or quality of life enhancement when the opportunity exists through an orderly and sanctioned process.
The union did dik in relationship to the Flex/LCAs who are actually responsible for standing up this program. They are not interested in fixing the gaping hole in the contract associated with standing up a new NB aircraft. They are actively opposing the company's efforts to seek resolution on this and they are spreading disinformation and outright lies regarding the dedicated individuals who have put together a fantastic program. The tone and content of the chairman's message line was offensive, not factually correct and obviously intended to act as a tool to discredit individuals who have worked completely for the best interest of the line crewmember who bids the 757.
12-17-2007, 12:23 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 319
The company wanted something and they were willing to pay a few people off to get it. The union used this to try to get something for everyone...that's the job of a union. For once, they tried to extract some blood from the stone--for the good of everyone.
I'm sorry you didn't get yours, but I'm glad they are standing up to the company...finally! It's still not enough in my book, but it is a start.
I'm sorry you didn't get yours, but I'm glad they are standing up to the company...finally! It's still not enough in my book, but it is a start.
12-17-2007, 12:34 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Unknown Rider
Posts: 533
If half of this is correct, DW should be run out of office immediately.
After having him, more or less, threaten one of our guys over FDA questions, then this, and a conversation I had with him where he could have given less than a hoot about anything I had to say, my confidence is him as a leader is shot.
If true, this is unseemly at best.
After having him, more or less, threaten one of our guys over FDA questions, then this, and a conversation I had with him where he could have given less than a hoot about anything I had to say, my confidence is him as a leader is shot.
If true, this is unseemly at best.
12-17-2007, 12:53 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by Purple F/O
The company wanted something and they were willing to pay a few people off to get it. The union used this to try to get something for everyone...that's the job of a union. For once, they tried to extract some blood from the stone--for the good of everyone.
I'm sorry you didn't get yours, but I'm glad they are standing up to the company...finally! It's still not enough in my book, but it is a start.
I'm sorry you didn't get yours, but I'm glad they are standing up to the company...finally! It's still not enough in my book, but it is a start.
12-17-2007, 12:54 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by Wildmanny
If half of this is correct, DW should be run out of office immediately.
After having him, more or less, threaten one of our guys over FDA questions, then this, and a conversation I had with him where he could have given less than a hoot about anything I had to say, my confidence is him as a leader is shot.
If true, this is unseemly at best.
After having him, more or less, threaten one of our guys over FDA questions, then this, and a conversation I had with him where he could have given less than a hoot about anything I had to say, my confidence is him as a leader is shot.
If true, this is unseemly at best.
12-17-2007, 02:30 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Nice post Mike. I couldn't agree more. If the Union didn't like the direct dealing (and they shouldn't and neither should we) then they could have been proactive about being part of the solution from the beginning. Members of this forum had a clue from the very start of things...why didn't our Union leadership?
12-17-2007, 06:22 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 43
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but is it possible that the company may use the fact that the 757 instructors did not bid the aircraft to open up another bid after they iron out the passover issues? Effectively, this would then solve the instructor issue AND open up a bid for the over 60 guys. I just don't see how there would be any vacancies available in the seats when the company says we're fat. Maybe I'm just still tired and thinking outloud...
12-17-2007, 07:24 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
The only question I have is who, exactly, was trying to get these protections in writing? Did the company approach individual pilots with this deal? Did the individual pilots ask for certain things as a group, or was it one on one stuff b/w the company and the individual? Did the company go to the union first? If not, why not? Did the 757 pilots ask the union to negotiate on their behalf? If not, why? You (av8rmike) say it's a lie that the individual pilots were pursuing deals on their own. If they were not, then who was negotiating on their behalf? The union? The training dept? Who?
Believe me, I want our pilots to get all they can get. I don't think that 757 cadre should be forced to do this job at a lower pay than they currently receive. They shouldn't have to pay pack passover. They deserve all they're asking for. I just want it to be done through the normal channels, through the union, and available to the work force for scrutiny/opportunity. If our union wouldn't do this on their behalf, then bad on our union. If our union wasn't given the opportunity, then bad on us.
Believe me, I want our pilots to get all they can get. I don't think that 757 cadre should be forced to do this job at a lower pay than they currently receive. They shouldn't have to pay pack passover. They deserve all they're asking for. I just want it to be done through the normal channels, through the union, and available to the work force for scrutiny/opportunity. If our union wouldn't do this on their behalf, then bad on our union. If our union wasn't given the opportunity, then bad on us.
12-17-2007, 08:56 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by av8rmike
I assure you this is all correct and verifiable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
