Block two recent letter part 1
07-23-2023 | 08:19 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Block two recent letter part 1
Members of Council 22,
When I wrote to you on June 19 to give you an explanation of my vote in opposition to endorsement of the Tentative Agreement, I had no intention of publishing another communication before the TA voting closes. I was under the impression that all of the other members of the MEC would be communicating with their constituents to explain their votes, also. I was under the impression that the Negotiating Committee would be conducting Roadshows to educate pilots on the contents of the TA. I was under the impression that we would trust each pilot to evaluate the TA on their own and let each pilot cast their informed vote. I was under the impression that there would be no hard sales pitch or fear mongering. I was under the impression that we were all committed to let the TA sell itself.
Boy, was I wrong.
As many times as I have been asked to write again, I have been reluctant to do so. As much as I find the campaign to vote IN FAVOR to be distasteful, I don’t want to be guilty of campaigning for votes AGAINST. I trust you to read the TA, absorb the educational materials on your own, ask questions if you have them, and make your own choice without me telling you how to vote.
Still, I feel the need to revisit a few of the points I made in my original Council 22 Message and address some claims that have been made about them. I also have received many requests to address the path forward should we reject this TA.
SCOPE
I stated then what is stated in educational materials prepared by the Negotiating Committee. In the Section 1 FAQs and in the “Highlights” document (where Sections 28 and 3 come before Section 1), we are told that the new TA language “[p]rovides Company with more flexibility to utilize wet lease BHs throughout year,” “In some circumstances, increases allowable wet lease BHs before penalty payment required,” and results in “[l]ower penalty payments.” The cheaper and easier language was not incorporated for our benefit; The Company asked for it, and there has to be a reason.
The Negotiating Committee has told us now in numerous educational venues that the wet lease penalty is like a sales tax. We might want to reduce the sales tax by half, but even the full tax rate does not constitute a deterrent from purchasing goods. Likewise, wet lease penalties do not deter The Company from wet leasing. The sales tax analogy seems to be forgotten, though, when it comes to the “real protection” that is claimed during a period of furlough. If the wet lease penalty does not deter The Company from wet leasing outside of furlough, why would it deter The Company from wet leasing DURING furlough, especially in the case where the Scope Penalty Rate (SPR) is already at 2.0, when the additional penalty for furloughing would indeed be half the “tax rate” known as the wet lease penalty?
PAY
Last month, I discussed the TA pay rates from several different angles. Since then, we have seen American Airlines and United Airlines reach agreements with pay rates in the same range as the Delta Air Lines’ AIP that we watched turn into a TA and then a CBA. I don’t think I need to repeat my discussion of industry comparisons, but my observations about inflation have been disputed, so I will address that aspect.
Much has been said lately about inflation. “It’s a personal thing.” “You can choose where to start calculating inflation.” “If you did not buy a house, inflation probably did not affect you.” Stunning.
We’ve also been told that the ideal amount of back pay is zero dollars, and I agree. The way that happens is we get a pay rate increase on the amendable date. How do we calculate the amount of that increase? If you base the increase on inflation alone, you look at inflation between the last pay rate increase and the amendable date. In our case, the 15-year Wide Body Capt hourly pay rate in November 2020, $335.56, has the same buying power as $358.41 in November 2021. That’s an increase of 6.8%. Carry that to November 2022, and $383.89 has the same buying power. That’s an annual increase of 7.1% from the previous year and an increase of 14.4% from our November 2020 hourly rate. Repeat the process for November 2022 to June 2023 (July data is not yet available), and in order to maintain the same buying power of our November 2020 hourly rates, the hourly rate would need to be $393.43, an increase over 7 months of 2.5%, and an increase since the last CBA pay rate increase of 17.2%.
Now, I realize I haven’t presented a bar graph or even a table, but anyone can check my work by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator at Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator.
I don’t think anybody needs a calculator or a website to see that our 14% initial hourly rate increase is less than the inflation number provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
QUALITY OF LIFE CONCESSIONS – VACATION
The Negotiating Committee has been asked several times to quantify the cost savings The Company will enjoy from productivity gains. The answers have attempted to ignore or minimize the fact that productivity gains cost jobs. Every day that a pilot would not have worked while on vacation that they will have to work in order to receive the Vacation Buy Back bonus is a day that another pilot will not be needed. Days add up to months, and months add up to fewer pilots required on the seniority list. Fewer pilots required means fewer pilots hired and slower seniority progression. It’s not a tiny concession – its impact is far-reaching.
STUDENT LINES
40% of Non-Pay Only LCAs amounts to only 1 Student Line in Indianapolis is the example that is used to emphasize that the impact is minimal. It only affects First Officers, it's minimal. It gives the First Officer the opportunity to earn a 25% premium. If it only affects 1 pilot, that’s 1 pilot too many. 1 pilot who previously was bumped for training and received 100% pay for sitting at home will now have to work to be paid. That’s one less pilot we’ll need on the seniority list. Fewer pilots hired, and slower seniority progression. In my book, and in the book of any true trade unionist, leaving behind a single pilot is unconscionable.
And as far as that premium goes? The FO bumped from a student line can pick up a trip and be paid 125%, whereas the FO bumped for training from any other line can pick up a trip and be paid 200% or maybe even 250%. Which FO got the better premium?
ADVANCE VOLUNTEER
Another way to require a pilot work more in order to qualify for a premium. Pilots work more, fewer pilots needed to work, fewer pilots hired, slower seniority progression.
R-24 to R-16
I won’t belabor this. It has been described as a way to give pilots a choice. For others, the choice has been taken away. It is still possible for The Company to assign an R 16 a Base Hotel Standby, and if they can, they will.
When I wrote to you on June 19 to give you an explanation of my vote in opposition to endorsement of the Tentative Agreement, I had no intention of publishing another communication before the TA voting closes. I was under the impression that all of the other members of the MEC would be communicating with their constituents to explain their votes, also. I was under the impression that the Negotiating Committee would be conducting Roadshows to educate pilots on the contents of the TA. I was under the impression that we would trust each pilot to evaluate the TA on their own and let each pilot cast their informed vote. I was under the impression that there would be no hard sales pitch or fear mongering. I was under the impression that we were all committed to let the TA sell itself.
Boy, was I wrong.
As many times as I have been asked to write again, I have been reluctant to do so. As much as I find the campaign to vote IN FAVOR to be distasteful, I don’t want to be guilty of campaigning for votes AGAINST. I trust you to read the TA, absorb the educational materials on your own, ask questions if you have them, and make your own choice without me telling you how to vote.
Still, I feel the need to revisit a few of the points I made in my original Council 22 Message and address some claims that have been made about them. I also have received many requests to address the path forward should we reject this TA.
SCOPE
I stated then what is stated in educational materials prepared by the Negotiating Committee. In the Section 1 FAQs and in the “Highlights” document (where Sections 28 and 3 come before Section 1), we are told that the new TA language “[p]rovides Company with more flexibility to utilize wet lease BHs throughout year,” “In some circumstances, increases allowable wet lease BHs before penalty payment required,” and results in “[l]ower penalty payments.” The cheaper and easier language was not incorporated for our benefit; The Company asked for it, and there has to be a reason.
The Negotiating Committee has told us now in numerous educational venues that the wet lease penalty is like a sales tax. We might want to reduce the sales tax by half, but even the full tax rate does not constitute a deterrent from purchasing goods. Likewise, wet lease penalties do not deter The Company from wet leasing. The sales tax analogy seems to be forgotten, though, when it comes to the “real protection” that is claimed during a period of furlough. If the wet lease penalty does not deter The Company from wet leasing outside of furlough, why would it deter The Company from wet leasing DURING furlough, especially in the case where the Scope Penalty Rate (SPR) is already at 2.0, when the additional penalty for furloughing would indeed be half the “tax rate” known as the wet lease penalty?
PAY
Last month, I discussed the TA pay rates from several different angles. Since then, we have seen American Airlines and United Airlines reach agreements with pay rates in the same range as the Delta Air Lines’ AIP that we watched turn into a TA and then a CBA. I don’t think I need to repeat my discussion of industry comparisons, but my observations about inflation have been disputed, so I will address that aspect.
Much has been said lately about inflation. “It’s a personal thing.” “You can choose where to start calculating inflation.” “If you did not buy a house, inflation probably did not affect you.” Stunning.
We’ve also been told that the ideal amount of back pay is zero dollars, and I agree. The way that happens is we get a pay rate increase on the amendable date. How do we calculate the amount of that increase? If you base the increase on inflation alone, you look at inflation between the last pay rate increase and the amendable date. In our case, the 15-year Wide Body Capt hourly pay rate in November 2020, $335.56, has the same buying power as $358.41 in November 2021. That’s an increase of 6.8%. Carry that to November 2022, and $383.89 has the same buying power. That’s an annual increase of 7.1% from the previous year and an increase of 14.4% from our November 2020 hourly rate. Repeat the process for November 2022 to June 2023 (July data is not yet available), and in order to maintain the same buying power of our November 2020 hourly rates, the hourly rate would need to be $393.43, an increase over 7 months of 2.5%, and an increase since the last CBA pay rate increase of 17.2%.
Now, I realize I haven’t presented a bar graph or even a table, but anyone can check my work by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator at Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator.
I don’t think anybody needs a calculator or a website to see that our 14% initial hourly rate increase is less than the inflation number provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
QUALITY OF LIFE CONCESSIONS – VACATION
The Negotiating Committee has been asked several times to quantify the cost savings The Company will enjoy from productivity gains. The answers have attempted to ignore or minimize the fact that productivity gains cost jobs. Every day that a pilot would not have worked while on vacation that they will have to work in order to receive the Vacation Buy Back bonus is a day that another pilot will not be needed. Days add up to months, and months add up to fewer pilots required on the seniority list. Fewer pilots required means fewer pilots hired and slower seniority progression. It’s not a tiny concession – its impact is far-reaching.
STUDENT LINES
40% of Non-Pay Only LCAs amounts to only 1 Student Line in Indianapolis is the example that is used to emphasize that the impact is minimal. It only affects First Officers, it's minimal. It gives the First Officer the opportunity to earn a 25% premium. If it only affects 1 pilot, that’s 1 pilot too many. 1 pilot who previously was bumped for training and received 100% pay for sitting at home will now have to work to be paid. That’s one less pilot we’ll need on the seniority list. Fewer pilots hired, and slower seniority progression. In my book, and in the book of any true trade unionist, leaving behind a single pilot is unconscionable.
And as far as that premium goes? The FO bumped from a student line can pick up a trip and be paid 125%, whereas the FO bumped for training from any other line can pick up a trip and be paid 200% or maybe even 250%. Which FO got the better premium?
ADVANCE VOLUNTEER
Another way to require a pilot work more in order to qualify for a premium. Pilots work more, fewer pilots needed to work, fewer pilots hired, slower seniority progression.
R-24 to R-16
I won’t belabor this. It has been described as a way to give pilots a choice. For others, the choice has been taken away. It is still possible for The Company to assign an R 16 a Base Hotel Standby, and if they can, they will.
07-23-2023 | 08:21 AM
#2
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Here is part 2
THE PATH FORWARD
I’ve received numerous requests to describe what would happen next if we were to reject that Tentative Agreement. Notice the first word there – Tentative. Since the MEC passed it on to the membership, YOU get to decide if Tentative is good enough for Permanent, or if we need to try again. The Negotiating Committee paints a pretty bleak picture of what will happen if you choose the path to try again, but the truth is, nobody knows what exactly will happen. Nobody CAN know.
What we DO know is that there has been a lot of effort put into making sure you don’t choose that path. The flurry of communications from all directions insists that you should vote to ACCEPT this TA. Yesterday, we were treated to an MEC Chair Message consisting of endorsements from two members-at-large (That’s what you call former, partial-term MEC Chairmen.).
So, I think I will quote from another member-at-large, a former Block 1 Rep who OPPOSED the 2015 TA. He refers to a specific video, but I think it makes more sense to direct you to a video that is more contemporary. The message that he wrote then is very apropos for now.
“What You Put Up With, You End Up With
“What You Tolerate, You Give Permission To Exist
“Why did I vote ‘NO’ on this TA?
“Fair question. Understand that explaining my own actions and opinions below—why I voted against this TA—is not the same as telling you how to cast your own vote. I won't do that. Before I go further, invest a couple of extra minutes in your future. Review this video from last summer.
June 2022 MEM Picketing
April 5, 2023 - NYC Picket
“That moment was a show of strength, the likes of which has never been seen on this property. That moment was a powerful demonstration of negotiating capital. That moment should have been replicated manifold this year, but when the crunch time came, you were denied any further opportunity to leverage your Unity, participate in the process, and influence this TA for the better.
“I voted ‘No’ because at the very moment when you were ready to go to the wall and fight for what you deserve, your MEC was ambushed with a stunning capitulation which we never saw coming. Because this document encumbered your MEC with a bad option and a worse option, but no good ones.
“I voted ‘No’ because I have faith in the strength you've shown throughout this process. Because I have more faith in you than this TA does. Because I believe this TA abandoned you—the most unified pilot group in our company's history—on field of battle. I voted ‘No’ because you asked me to fight for you, I promised you that I would, and when I leave the fight it's supposed to be on my shield, not my horse.
“I voted ‘No’ because if I'd told you just one month ago that I'd consider the elements of this TA as acceptable, you'd have recalled me.
…
“Most importantly, I voted ‘No’ because this is fixable.
“I don't heed the fear mongering. When I hear ‘The company drew a line in the sand,’ I take a deep breath, recall the Unity you've shown, and say...So? When I hear ‘If we don't take this crummy deal now it could be a while before we get a better one,’ I say...Our pilots would rather wait one year for the right deal than live with this one for eight.
“Will the economy be a lesser one next year? Maybe. Will the NMB take a break for a bit? Maybe. Those are considerations. Understand though, that they are only considerations. Those aren't unassailable monsters hiding under your bed at night, as some would have you believe. Understand that there's a bit of fear mongering going on, brought to you by those who are emotionally invested in this TA for having created it, and who will suffer great embarrassment should you reject it in confirmation that they fell short of the mark.
“Please also understand; Basic human nature dictates that anyone who creates a TA and is charged with presenting it to you in webcasts, videos and road shows is unlikely to say that there were mistakes made. They are not likely to tell either you or your MEC that there was money left on the table. It's basic human nature to say, ‘If we didn't get it, it couldn't be gotten.’ Personally, I don't believe a word of that because my faith is in you—the pilots who are the power in that video above.
“You Are The Solution
“Again, I'm not here to arm-twist your vote. I'm here to explain mine and to reassure you that the world doesn't end if you reject this TA. If you stand firm, you aren't going to be stranded in a negotiating desert. If you turn it down and send us back to the table, your MEC will have a mandate to:
“Poll you
“Learn what needs to be fixed
“Fix it
“That might happen in a month or it might happen a year, but if you want it then it will happen, because you will make it happen.
“If you don't reject this TA? Well, we will all just live with it.”
Those words from 8 years ago have not grown stale, and I thank Don for composing them then (To be clear, Don does not oppose this TA. He is an avid supporter).
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt should not control your decision about the path forward. While nobody can tell you exactly what will happen, I can tell you a few things that will.
The MEC will have to LISTEN to you. We will need to learn why the TA was rejected and what it will take to achieve a TA that you will overwhelmingly support.
The Negotiating Committee has stated that they will not be around for a TA 2.0. They’ve worked hard for the past 7 years, and they believe they have delivered the very best TA that they can. We will need to reconstitute the Negotiating Committee with talent from among the membership, and I can assure you that the talent does exist.
There will likely be changes on the MEC itself, either with resignations or recalls. Nominations and elections of new MEC members will again rely on talent from among the membership, and again, I can assure you that the talent exists among our membership.
Once our teams are assembled and we have listened to your wants and needs, we will have to refocus and reengage. We will still be in NMB Mediation, so our meeting schedule will be determined by the Mediator. The will and determination of the membership, as demonstrated by picketing events, an historic Strike Authorization Vote, and a display of dissatisfaction with the TA, will empower our Negotiating Committee to bargain for a TA that we can be proud of, a TA that will be worth the wait.
How long will it take? Nobody knows. We obviously would want to do it as expeditiously as possible, but there’s no guaranteed time frame, and I wouldn’t dare promise any deadline.
I believe it would be worth noting at this point that a change in the Regulated Age from 65 to 67 could change the perspective of a pilot nearing that age. Being able to wait an additional 2 years to capture an improved retirement could be an important factor in decision-making. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3935, Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, a.k.a. the FAA Reauthorization Bill, on Thursday, July 20, with the Age 67 provision intact. Senate consideration is next.
Two of the important elements of our Negotiations Plan were to increase pilot unity and secure an overwhelming ratification vote that produces pilot engagement. I believe we have definitely achieved pilot engagement. However, I am regretfully not as confident that we have generated unity or secured an overwhelming ratification vote. I think we need to do a better job of listening to you, and I am 100% committed to doing just that. Whichever path you choose to take, I am honored to represent you.
In Solidarity,
I’ve received numerous requests to describe what would happen next if we were to reject that Tentative Agreement. Notice the first word there – Tentative. Since the MEC passed it on to the membership, YOU get to decide if Tentative is good enough for Permanent, or if we need to try again. The Negotiating Committee paints a pretty bleak picture of what will happen if you choose the path to try again, but the truth is, nobody knows what exactly will happen. Nobody CAN know.
What we DO know is that there has been a lot of effort put into making sure you don’t choose that path. The flurry of communications from all directions insists that you should vote to ACCEPT this TA. Yesterday, we were treated to an MEC Chair Message consisting of endorsements from two members-at-large (That’s what you call former, partial-term MEC Chairmen.).
So, I think I will quote from another member-at-large, a former Block 1 Rep who OPPOSED the 2015 TA. He refers to a specific video, but I think it makes more sense to direct you to a video that is more contemporary. The message that he wrote then is very apropos for now.
“What You Put Up With, You End Up With
“What You Tolerate, You Give Permission To Exist
“Why did I vote ‘NO’ on this TA?
“Fair question. Understand that explaining my own actions and opinions below—why I voted against this TA—is not the same as telling you how to cast your own vote. I won't do that. Before I go further, invest a couple of extra minutes in your future. Review this video from last summer.
June 2022 MEM Picketing
April 5, 2023 - NYC Picket
“That moment was a show of strength, the likes of which has never been seen on this property. That moment was a powerful demonstration of negotiating capital. That moment should have been replicated manifold this year, but when the crunch time came, you were denied any further opportunity to leverage your Unity, participate in the process, and influence this TA for the better.
“I voted ‘No’ because at the very moment when you were ready to go to the wall and fight for what you deserve, your MEC was ambushed with a stunning capitulation which we never saw coming. Because this document encumbered your MEC with a bad option and a worse option, but no good ones.
“I voted ‘No’ because I have faith in the strength you've shown throughout this process. Because I have more faith in you than this TA does. Because I believe this TA abandoned you—the most unified pilot group in our company's history—on field of battle. I voted ‘No’ because you asked me to fight for you, I promised you that I would, and when I leave the fight it's supposed to be on my shield, not my horse.
“I voted ‘No’ because if I'd told you just one month ago that I'd consider the elements of this TA as acceptable, you'd have recalled me.
…
“Most importantly, I voted ‘No’ because this is fixable.
“I don't heed the fear mongering. When I hear ‘The company drew a line in the sand,’ I take a deep breath, recall the Unity you've shown, and say...So? When I hear ‘If we don't take this crummy deal now it could be a while before we get a better one,’ I say...Our pilots would rather wait one year for the right deal than live with this one for eight.
“Will the economy be a lesser one next year? Maybe. Will the NMB take a break for a bit? Maybe. Those are considerations. Understand though, that they are only considerations. Those aren't unassailable monsters hiding under your bed at night, as some would have you believe. Understand that there's a bit of fear mongering going on, brought to you by those who are emotionally invested in this TA for having created it, and who will suffer great embarrassment should you reject it in confirmation that they fell short of the mark.
“Please also understand; Basic human nature dictates that anyone who creates a TA and is charged with presenting it to you in webcasts, videos and road shows is unlikely to say that there were mistakes made. They are not likely to tell either you or your MEC that there was money left on the table. It's basic human nature to say, ‘If we didn't get it, it couldn't be gotten.’ Personally, I don't believe a word of that because my faith is in you—the pilots who are the power in that video above.
“You Are The Solution
“Again, I'm not here to arm-twist your vote. I'm here to explain mine and to reassure you that the world doesn't end if you reject this TA. If you stand firm, you aren't going to be stranded in a negotiating desert. If you turn it down and send us back to the table, your MEC will have a mandate to:
“Poll you
“Learn what needs to be fixed
“Fix it
“That might happen in a month or it might happen a year, but if you want it then it will happen, because you will make it happen.
“If you don't reject this TA? Well, we will all just live with it.”
Those words from 8 years ago have not grown stale, and I thank Don for composing them then (To be clear, Don does not oppose this TA. He is an avid supporter).
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt should not control your decision about the path forward. While nobody can tell you exactly what will happen, I can tell you a few things that will.
The MEC will have to LISTEN to you. We will need to learn why the TA was rejected and what it will take to achieve a TA that you will overwhelmingly support.
The Negotiating Committee has stated that they will not be around for a TA 2.0. They’ve worked hard for the past 7 years, and they believe they have delivered the very best TA that they can. We will need to reconstitute the Negotiating Committee with talent from among the membership, and I can assure you that the talent does exist.
There will likely be changes on the MEC itself, either with resignations or recalls. Nominations and elections of new MEC members will again rely on talent from among the membership, and again, I can assure you that the talent exists among our membership.
Once our teams are assembled and we have listened to your wants and needs, we will have to refocus and reengage. We will still be in NMB Mediation, so our meeting schedule will be determined by the Mediator. The will and determination of the membership, as demonstrated by picketing events, an historic Strike Authorization Vote, and a display of dissatisfaction with the TA, will empower our Negotiating Committee to bargain for a TA that we can be proud of, a TA that will be worth the wait.
How long will it take? Nobody knows. We obviously would want to do it as expeditiously as possible, but there’s no guaranteed time frame, and I wouldn’t dare promise any deadline.
I believe it would be worth noting at this point that a change in the Regulated Age from 65 to 67 could change the perspective of a pilot nearing that age. Being able to wait an additional 2 years to capture an improved retirement could be an important factor in decision-making. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3935, Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, a.k.a. the FAA Reauthorization Bill, on Thursday, July 20, with the Age 67 provision intact. Senate consideration is next.
Two of the important elements of our Negotiations Plan were to increase pilot unity and secure an overwhelming ratification vote that produces pilot engagement. I believe we have definitely achieved pilot engagement. However, I am regretfully not as confident that we have generated unity or secured an overwhelming ratification vote. I think we need to do a better job of listening to you, and I am 100% committed to doing just that. Whichever path you choose to take, I am honored to represent you.
In Solidarity,
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
