Carl Spackler

Sorry jack. I stand corrected.

Carl

Carl Spackler

As you know, I'm not an East pilot...but here's my understanding. LOA 93 was supposed to have contained a pay snap-back clause for the East pilots. Management claimed that it really wasn't there, and ALPA (at the time they negotiated it) thought there was. ALPA is gone now and replaced with USAPA. USAPA had no expertise to defend it because they didn't negotiate it. The ALPA dude came to the hearing with no negotiator's notes and apparently did not even attempt to defend anything. Thus, the snap-back LOA language was successfully portrayed by management as not meaning what ALPA thought it meant.

Carl

Carl Spackler

To LittleBoyBlew...your point is well made.

Carl

alfaromeo

Wow, you might be able to cram a few more things that are wrong in that paragraph but it would be difficult. LOA 93 was negotiated without any snap backs. LOA 93 was an add on to the previous LOA that had a series of pay raises built in the out years out of bankruptcy. LOA 93 reduced the current pay rates by 18% with no snapback language whatsoever and cancelled the pay raises that were built into the out years from their first bankruptcy.

All of the US Air pilots that negotiated the agreement thought so, except the one guy who showed up to testify. That is why only guy showed up, because the others thought the case was a joke. The one guy who testified vigorously tried to defend his claim of a snapback by comparing freezing pay rates to a training freeze, which apparently was the only other part of the contract that contained the word freeze in it. He did not have his negotiator notes because he knew they would say there is no snapback. His testimony was embarrassing.

USAPA produced another star witness who was a member of the MEC at the time of the negotiations. He claimed that he understood there was a snapback in the deal. The company produced a document that he wrote and sent to his pilots, trying to urge them to vote no on the deal because there were no snapbacks. He tried to explain this discrepancy by claiming he just assumed that a new deal would be negotiated before the snapbacks would take effect. More embarrassment.

The company produced a massive volume of evidence including pay tables that went through 2011 that had been initialed by all the negotiators on both sides. No snapbacks. There were also extensive negotiator notes that discussed ALPA asking for snapbacks but the company refused. In exchange for no snapbacks, the company negotiated two $35 million lump sums for 2010 and 2011 (maybe 2009 2010, I forget) which they paid according to the contract. There were extensive costing documents that went out through 2012 that showed no snapbacks. The evidence was so overwhelming that at one point the arbitrator said "no mas" and let them go on their way.

In short, this was another legal fishing trip by our favorite, now fired, attorney to increase billable hours. USAPA leadership was more than willing to go along as it deflected attention away from the fact that in four years they have accomplished nothing. They are bankrupt and have multiple lawsuits in multiple venues and have no way to pay for it.

Read the transcript Carl, or at least do some type of study at all before making a fool of yourself once again. So yes ALPA negotiated this deal but anyone who read the language of the LOA would deduce that there were no snapbacks anticipated. ALPA had nothing to do with this case as they are no longer the bargaining agent for Airways. The "ALPA guy" that showed up is in fact an Airways pilot represented by USAPA acting as a witness for USAPA and was called the "ALPA guy" because USAPA wants to further deflect attention away from yet one more butt kicking.

If anyone asks why the West pilots are celebrating, it's because the East leadership said that if they won this grievance, they would never negotiate a new joint contract and they would let the West pilots fester out in Phoenix forever. Karma is a b....

Carl Spackler

I don't have LOA 93, so could you post it so we could read it for ourselves?

Carl

hockeypilot44

You deserve US Airways. It is the worst of the worst of any airline that is not a regional. You will never see a pay raise, never see a combined list, and make comments like the above for the rest of your career. Enjoy your career at US Airways. You are just as much to blame as the east pilots.

Puros

Thanks for posting the whole story. Interesting, to say the least. It looks to me like the east pilots are nothing but professional goose chasers!

sailingfun

Carl, ALPA never thought it was there. That is why they lost the grievance. You should ask a USAIR friend to read that section of the contract. There is no mention of a snapback. Its written nothing like a snapback clause. In the roadshows after signing the contract ALPA told the pilots there were no snapbacks in the contract. That was used against them in the hearings.

hockeypilot44

Why did they put an expiration date on the letter of agreement? It might not use the word "snapback," but there was an expiration date. What was the point of the expiration date?

alfaromeo

I can find the grievance transcript, but I can't find the original LOA. Maybe one of the East pilots has it. I think it is on my old computer that my kid has at college now.