The center of the bell curve (and by far the largest demographic group) contains the “silent majority.” This group is mostly reasonable and willing to examine and entertain solutions that provide incremental improvements in quality of life and economic benefits. They appreciate what they have and look to build on it in the future. The management equivalent of this demographic has a similar mindset. They recognize the contributions of the pilot group and appreciate the sacrifices the pilots make on a daily basis. They believe the best way to move the freight is with our own pilots and look to find ways to further that end. They are the management group that took professional risk by entering into a negotiated labor agreement with us--the first legitimately negotiated labor agreement ever consummated on this property. It is this group (on both the union and management sides) to whom we targeted our communications.
The remaining group consists of quite a small number of both pilots and managers. This bunch chooses to ignore the fact that there are groups on both sides engaged in bilateral discussions for the purpose of developing labor agreements that will significantly impact their lives. I occasionally come across persons of this genre and am invariably overcome with awe and disbelief. Bless their hearts.
The reason I have taken the time to examine this demographic spread with you will become evident later in this piece. At this point I would like to introduce three topics I feel are timely and relevant to us as a group. I will list and discuss them in what I consider the order of relative importance:
The quality of the pairings and the lines. B777 pay and ultra-long-range work rules. The impending opening of the Paris and Hong Kong FDAs.
While we were busy negotiating the Contract and in the months since the implementation, management has been gradually cranking up their “optimizer.” The result has been a steady degradation in our quality of life. I submit they have finally gone too far (I fly the MD11 internationally and have first-hand knowledge of the degradation of that flying. I believe the same is happening domestically, but only through anecdotal evidence.)
One of our goals in Negotiations was to eliminate the need for the SIG and PSIT by achieving ironclad scheduling rules. About halfway through the process (when our first Mediator told us to give it up) we knew we would not achieve that goal. We then set about the task of strengthening the ability of the SIG to dispute and otherwise influence bad pairings for the better. We had some minor successes in that area, but in the final analysis we all knew that in the scheduling arena there is no justice—just us! It is now time for “us” to get involved (some of you already have). Register your complaints with your Block reps and demand demonstrative action. If things don’t get better quickly we should reconsider our participation in the SIG and PSIT as well as other alternatives that might present themselves.
By the way, historically this sort of thing has happened every time we have become distracted as a group. Make no mistake about it, we are currently quite distracted. The twin topics of age 60 and the FDA LOA have provided fertile subject matter for the proponents of hysteria. Unfortunately, whenever we are busy lobbing hand grenades at each other management sits back and tightens the screws. It is really important that we maintain focus in this quality-of-life area.
In short order we will begin preparing for the introduction of the B-777F into our fleet. There have been some questions asked concerning pay rates and ultra-long range work rules for this aircraft type. I caution you to not also allow this subject to distract us from our proper focus. Our management has stated quite clearly in each and every press release on the subject that the B-777F is a seamless replacement for the cancelled A380 (We maintain a file containing copies of all press coverage on the subject in the Association’s Communications Office.). I ask you now to refer to pages 3-4, 7 and 10, as well as page 12-22 of your programs (a/k/a the “Operational Sections of the Agreement” dated October 30, 2006). On those pages you will find both pay rates and operational rules which recognize the size difference and ultra-long range capabilities of the A380 versus the MD11. While there is some MTGW difference between the B-777F and the A380, we feel that is irrelevant to this discussion. The book rates for the new aircraft are seven percent higher than the wide body rates. According to the Boeing web site, the MTGW of the B-777F is 766,000 pounds. That number is 21.2% greater than the MTGW of the MD-11—more than justifying the 7% pay premium assigned originally to the A380. The ultra-long range parts of the International Grid (page 12-22) are similarly interchangeable as they were negotiated in recognition of the type of flying and not any specific aircraft type. All I feel is required for the introduction of the B-777F is a pen and ink change lining through A380 and writing in B-777 in all relevant areas of the Contract. The Negotiating Committee has recommended this position to the MEC.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana---“The Life of Reason” volume 1, 1905
Now back to the demographics of our group and some relevant history. In 1995, after two years of full-contact negotiating, our ALPA Negotiating Committee brought us a Tentative Agreement. In their judgment, the TA was the best deal available at the time and merited ratification. We were a pretty fractured group back then, however, and the loud, vocal element was in full feather. They denounced the TA, the negotiators and the leadership that recommended it. Sadly, truth and facts were never requirements for publication of their hysterical rantings. The TA failed, we lost ALPA, and we descended into three years of rudderless wandering. In 1998, two TAs later, we approved a contract that contained significantly less in many areas than the failed 1995 TA. Most notably, in the area of Scope, the Holding Company was mostly not obligated, and there were some quite onerous poison pills in the 1998 Agreement. The 1995 TA obligated the entire Company and was quite simple and straightforward. In Work Rules, the 1995 TA contained a 1:3.43 Trip Rig. The Trip Rig in the 1998 Agreement was 1:4. Of course there were other things, but I think you get my point.
Our collective bargaining process was hijacked by the loud and vocal minority in 1995 much to our collective detriment. We were not only set back in the areas of quality of life and economics, but our collective self respect and self image hit bottom. It took us the better part of ten years to recover.
We now have in front of us a Letter of Agreement that adds economic benefit to those pilots who choose to bid either of the new FDAs in Paris or Hong Kong. Before it was even finished and published, the loud and vocal minority was putting up vitriolic posts on the internet message boards and blast emailing the world demanding you vote “no” to send some sort of message to someone. Much like 1995, they propose no credible plan for how to proceed if and when the LOA goes down. Also, again like 1995, truth and fact appear to be optional. Astonishingly enough, we have even had such a communication from a Block Rep who was actually present at the site visit to Guangzhou , and also present at the negotiating session at the Memphis Hilton on April 19, 2007. At the April 19 session he participated as we informed management that we felt Guangzhou was an inadequate location for the FDA base, that they needed to make the base Hong Kong , and that they needed to build ground transport or deadhead legs onto every pairing and on the clock for pay. We also turned down the rent support offer they made at that meeting, and subsequently settled for a greater amount. The Block Rep to whom I refer told you the Negotiating Committee took Management’s first offer. I am flabbergasted.
Those who post on the internet found expensive Hong Kong apartments and asserted those prices are the norm. What is more troubling, however, is that people would rather believe the internet chat boards than rationally discuss the matter with their Association representatives. For the record, we assumed a housing contribution of $2000.00 per month per pilot. Adding the $2700.00 per month contribution from the Company makes $4700.00 per month available for housing expenses (rent, utilities, internet). There are very nice housing accommodations available in both Hong Kong and Paris at that amount.