Management threatens NPA again!

[BR715]

Heard around the water cooler that if we do not allow the retired training department guys to stay that the company will not furlough but fire every pilot that is in his or her probationary year. Could not believe it when I heard this. As far as I am concerned this is the defining moment for our union. Do we have what it takes to stand up to the company? I am already starting to get that funny feeling the NPA will sign a letter of agreement allowing the instructors to stay. If this is the case I believe our union is a dead animal!

 

[labatt]

We have to hold the line on this. I agree with your analysis completely. If this happens, the damage to the airline would be severe as the pilots revolt.

If the BOD votes on this, I feel we would have no other choice than an immediate vote for impeachment of any BOD member trying to pass it. Here we go again.

At least we are finally starting to build a little unity as virtually everyone I talk to on the line is on the same page. Good luck to everyone.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I thought the union just sent out a blast mail, or maybe it was on the NPA forum that specifically said the company has NOT approached the union about any concessions or changes to the training department furlough policy.

 

[Lear70]

I thought the union just sent out a blast mail, or maybe it was on the NPA forum that specifically said the company has NOT approached the union about any concessions or changes to the training department furlough policy.

They did. It was in the P2P update.

I'm hoping this one is just a nasty rumor although the company DOES keep repeating their habit of doing nasty things right after they get side letters they want... this last one saves them over $300,000 per year.

Anyone who thinks this management team will EVER do ANYTHING on the up-and-up with the pilot group is simply delusional.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Translation?

Are we all supposed to know what NPA is????:0

 

[fugghedabowdit]

Using my super sleuth capabilities, and looking at their backgrounds, I would bet that its the AirTran pilots union.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I would think as much, but I've never heard of NPA...thought they were ALPA anyway

 

[michael707767]

for those who don't know, is the issue here letting the retired training dept guys return to active flying now that the age is 65?

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

More then that. You have the old guys past 65 in the TRN. dept. that if furloughs go down they will be the first to go. The company might want in LOA that will let them stay. If the NPA budges on this, its time to recall again.

 

[labatt]

Not quite Michael, however that is another issue. If the NPA BOD approves it, (over 60 guys that were check airman coming back on line), it will be sent to the membership for ratification and will fail 100%.

What everyone is getting hot and bothered about is a rumor. Our current contract says that if they furlough a single pilot, all of the instructors in the training deptartment not on the seniority list will be laid off. I would guess that would be about 20 guys. The rumor is they will fire instead of furlough line pilots on probation to get around that clause and save the training dept.

 

[Lowrider717]

The contract says "LINE PILOT", and I would not put it past this Co.Mgt. to interpret that as not including probies. Then also interpret that when talking about probies, since furlough is not specifically addressed in the "may be terminated, disciplined, suspended without cause" and without protection of the Contract, that they use that excuse to lean the group.

Terminate? Maybe, but not for reasons of "reduction of force", we have provisions in the contract for reduction in force. And I believe even the probationary pilot is still a LINE PILOT, and thus covered under the reduction in force language. I also believe that the section discussing the right under the contract of a probie is for disciplinary action, not downsizing. So, downsizing is NOT a perfectly acceptable reason for terminations. But that doesn't stop the company from interpreting differently, or our Genious Legal Counsel-Laura from advising our BoD to fold this hand again!

 

[Lear70]

Terminate? Maybe, but not for reasons of "reduction of force", we have provisions in the contract for reduction in force. And I believe even the probationary pilot is still a LINE PILOT, and thus covered under the reduction in force language. I also believe that the section discussing the right under the contract of a probie is for disciplinary action, not downsizing. So, downsizing is NOT a perfectly acceptable reason for terminations. But that doesn't stop the company from interpreting differently, or our Genious Legal Counsel-Laura from advising our BoD to fold this hand again!

I know this is going to irritate some friends of mine but, believe it or not, most of the crap that came out of the last few years of LOA's and items given up at System Board or before arbitration were not Laura telling the NPA they weren't winnable, they were AP capitulating to the company.

The one thing I've taken from my NPA involvement is, if the notes that were taken during all those System Boards and pre-arbitration talks were made public, the pilot group would probably want to drag AP out onto the tarmac, tarred, feathered, then thrown into a running engine of a 737. 'Nuff said.

As far as this discussion goes, it's really not worth getting spun up about... yet. There's 3 separate issues here:

1. Terminating probationary pilots outright to accomplish a reduction in force. The answer: it's illegal and would likely result in the overnight operation implosion of the airline when those termination notices came out. I don't think even Kolski and Anderson have those kind of cajones.

The reason it's illegal: we have two COMPLETELY different sections that deal specifically with this - Reduction in Force and Discipline. You can't terminate a probationary pilot without a discipline charge. Period. The point of a separate probationary discipline section is to disallow them access to the grievance system (which I disagree with, but I digress). Because it's illegal, they'll have to furlough if the want to reduce the work force which is, amazingly, covered in the "Reduction of Force" section.

2. Reduction in Force requires the furlough of training department instructors and the bidding / appointment of line pilots to the training department. The NPA has come out and said they have NOT been approached by the company about this.

Might Kolski or Anderson or Klaus or even Floy made some off-handed comment that has made its way back to the water cooler? Possibly. But the contract is very clear and they'll have to get relief on this from the NPA or risk a deliberate violation of the contract with negotiations ongoing with the mediator. Again, nothing they haven't done before, but you'd get an almost immediate negative reaction on the line from the pilots getting furloughed or downgraded knowing the company was willingly violating this section.

3. Return to flying after age 60, i.e. the "Bill Mann" issue. Anyone who doesn't think this one is Dead On Arrival is dreaming. I predict at least a 95% NO vote on this WHEN it comes to ratification, as it opens the door for a LOT of retired guys to displace line Captains back to F/O and F/O's to the street if they furlough AND bring back over-60 guys.

Using my super sleuth capabilities, and looking at their backgrounds, I would bet that its the AirTran pilots union.

Super Sleuth... *snicker*

 

[Lowrider717]

most of the crap that came out of the last few years of LOA's and items given up at System Board or before arbitration were not Laura telling the NPA they weren't winnable, they were AP capitulating to the company.

The one thing I've taken from my NPA involvement is, if the notes that were taken during all those System Boards and pre-arbitration talks were made public, the pilot group would probably want to drag AP out onto the tarmac, tarred, feathered, then thrown into a running engine of a 737.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[scarlet]

Yeah upsat employees can cost the company alot of money,

CAL runs better than most airlines and actually treats their employees well, (SWA as well) and look they win all the AWARDS. You would think MGT. teams would take some lessons from CAL?=BUT NO

 

[OPECJet]

You deny your newbies access to the grievance process? Are they paying dues? Can you say duty of fair representation?uke:

 

[Lear70]

You deny your newbies access to the grievance process? Are they paying dues? Can you say duty of fair representation?uke:

Not for terminations, but... ummm...

EVERY airline is like this. :0

That's why probation exists. Look at ALPA bylaws, they're the same way.

At most airlines, any new-hire can file a grievance over any part of the contract EXCEPT for terminations. This is why everyone is so careful during probation, although just being a normal person, flying your trips, being extra careful not to miss a jumpseat or commute is usually enough not to have to worry about it.

It's not any different here than anywhere else, the difference is that the RUMOR is that management has threatened to outright terminate probationary pilots to accomplish furloughs. Means no benefits paid, no access to jobs back, AND they get to keep their instructors in the training center. First time I've ever heard of a major airline trying that (or any airline I can think of for that matter).

AGAIN, it's just a rumor. Don't get spooled up over it... yet.

 

[millhouse21]

TSA threatened to do it to some J41 FOs after Sept 11. They told the probationary guys "accept a voluntary furlough (out of seniority) or we'll fire you." As far as I know, they all took the furlough but a grievance was filed. The union won the grievance right around the time the company was recalling anyway. I guess the company really won that one.

 

[Axel]

The contract says "LINE PILOT", and I would not put it past this Co.Mgt. to interpret that as not including probies. Then also interpret that when talking about probies, since furlough is not specifically addressed in the "may be terminated, disciplined, suspended without cause" and without protection of the Contract, that they use that excuse to lean the group.

Terminate? Maybe, but not for reasons of "reduction of force", we have provisions in the contract for reduction in force. And I believe even the probationary pilot is still a LINE PILOT, and thus covered under the reduction in force language. I also believe that the section discussing the right under the contract of a probie is for disciplinary action, not downsizing. So, downsizing is NOT a perfectly acceptable reason for terminations. But that doesn't stop the company from interpreting differently, or our Genious Legal Counsel-Laura from advising our BoD to fold this hand again!

Wow. I've seen this before. CHQ fired 125 probationary Saab guys right after 9/11 rather than furlough in seniority order. It saved the $$ it would have cost train them on the Embraer had they furloughed in seniority order.

They got away with it, too. They said that RIF event or not, they do not need a reason to fire probationary pilots and the judge agreed.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Sounds like Gemini Cargo just did the same thing. Fired. But sounds like they have one foot in the grave anyway.

 

[Colonel Savage]

Not for terminations, but... ummm...

EVERY airline is like this. :0

That's why probation exists. Look at ALPA bylaws, they're the same way.

At most airlines, any new-hire can file a grievance over any part of the contract EXCEPT for terminations. This is why everyone is so careful during probation, although just being a normal person, flying your trips, being extra careful not to miss a jumpseat or commute is usually enough not to have to worry about it.

It's not any different here than anywhere else, the difference is that the RUMOR is that management has threatened to outright terminate probationary pilots to accomplish furloughs. Means no benefits paid, no access to jobs back, AND they get to keep their instructors in the training center. First time I've ever heard of a major airline trying that (or any airline I can think of for that matter).

AGAIN, it's just a rumor. Don't get spooled up over it... yet.

What's the difference between being "furloughed" as a probationary pilot with no recall rights like USAir is doing starting this fall, and being terminated or fired.

Perhaps they are being "separated" from the company, and can reapply if hiring ever resumes? Is that a better word?

The word "fired" gets thrown around quite a lot when people get laid off or separated through no fault of their own. That shouldn't be considered getting fired.

 

[Max Powers]

Wow. I've seen this before. CHQ fired 125 probationary Saab guys right after 9/11 rather than furlough in seniority order. It saved the $$ it would have cost train them on the Embraer had they furloughed in seniority order.

They got away with it, too. They said that RIF event or not, they do not need a reason to fire probationary pilots and the judge agreed.

That's what happens when you have an Anthony Scalia or Clarence Thomas - Republican conservative judges are not good for the common man. Just look at the decisions they make.

 

[XRMEFLYER]

That's what happens when you have an Anthony Scalia or Clarence Thomas - Republican conservative judges are not good for the common man. Just look at the decisions they make.

That is quite a leap in logic Max. Communism isn't so great for the common man either. Just ask the tens of millions murdered by Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung , Pol Pot, Castro and other "Heroes of the People."

 

[Axel]

That's what happens when you have an Anthony Scalia or Clarence Thomas - Republican conservative judges are not good for the common man. Just look at the decisions they make.

That statement belongs in the Rabid Politics forum: aka "Non-Aviation Chat."

It had little to do with the bent of the judge and everything to do with the skill of the lawyers. Is Airtran in Section 6 and if so was notice thereof served on the company?

United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case IPO1-C-1617-M/S
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2) the Court DISMISSES the Union's claim regarding the terminiation of the probationary pilots and flight attendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dispute is a minor dispute under the RLA and must be resolved with the appropriate adjustment board.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]4) the Court DENIES the Union's motion for for preliminary injunction with respect to its claim that DEFT unlawfully failed to participate in NMB-sponsored mediation. The Union failed to serve [Section] 6 notice on DEFT, and there is no evidence that DEFT waived its right to insist upon such notice. eod 12/05/01 [/SIZE]

 

[Lear70]

What's the difference between being "furloughed" as a probationary pilot with no recall rights like USAir is doing starting this fall, and being terminated or fired.

Because AirTran's furlough language is different? Not sure what you're saying about USAirways is even true (that they don't have recall rights), but AAI's furlough language retains recall rights for both non-probation and probationary pilots alike.

The word "fired" gets thrown around quite a lot when people get laid off or separated through no fault of their own. That shouldn't be considered getting fired.

I've never seen that kind of generalization made about furloughed pilots. Everyone in the world understands the term "laid off". It's going to be a sticky point on their job applications going forward: "Were you ever terminated from a job before?" "Yes, but it was more of a furlough because they needed to downsize, even though it will show up as a termination and, ummm..." And that's if you're lucky. Netjets and XOJet both have that question on the Application, so you never even get to explain what happened, as you never make it past initial selection.

Would really suck for these F/O's IF the company stoops that low...

It had little to do with the bent of the judge and everything to do with the skill of the lawyers. Is Airtran in Section 6 and if so was notice thereof served on the company?

Yes and yes.

AirTran has been in Section 6 negotiations (on and off) for several years. Furlough notices are required 60 days out per the Contract (much further in advance than the WARN act provides for).

That's why everyone's waiting for the end of the month - if they want to reduce man power along with the block hour reduction effective September 1st, they're going to have to put the notice out around that time period to comply.

If I had to bet, they'll put a notice out for several hundred people just to scare the crap out of everyone right before the Negotiating Committee heads up to D.C. for renewed talks where they will likely ask for concessions in exchange for retaining jobs.

Personally, I don't see how they can cut any more than 50 pilots and still have enough people to cover the holiday schedule (if it ramps back up as usual over Sept and Oct flying).

It's nothing but a game of "see who blinks first" to them; we're a number, nothing more. Sad, really...

 

[Colonel Savage]

"Not sure what you're saying about USAirways is even true (that they don't have recall rights)..."

It's true, probationary pilots who are furloughed at LCC do not have recall rights, as explained to me by an aviation attorney.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Yeah upsat employees can cost the company alot of money,

CAL runs better than most airlines and actually treats their employees well, (SWA as well) and look they win all the AWARDS. You would think MGT. teams would take some lessons from CAL?=BUT NO

If AAI treats the NPA pilots like CAL ALPA and CAL does, you entire training department will be over 60 gummers.

Ask all the CAL furlough bait how many of them were instructed by over 60 training deptartment scum keeping a line pilot out of the training building and forcing one more furlough as a result?

CAL buys those trophies.

 

[jester757]

If AAI treats the NPA pilots like CAL ALPA and CAL does, you entire training department will be over 60 gummers.

Ask all the CAL furlough bait how many of them were instructed by over 60 training deptartment scum keeping a line pilot out of the training building and forcing one more furlough as a result?

CAL buys those trophies.

DAL training department is made up of 50% gummers. If it happend once it can happen again. From the company's point of view it is just cheaper in the end. Do you think some bean counter cares who trains some "stupid pilot?"

 

[OPECJet]

Not for terminations, but... ummm...

EVERY airline is like this. :0

That's why probation exists. Look at ALPA bylaws, they're the same way.

At most airlines, any new-hire can file a grievance over any part of the contract EXCEPT for terminations. This is why everyone is so careful during probation, although just being a normal person, flying your trips, being extra careful not to miss a jumpseat or commute is usually enough not to have to worry about it.

It's not any different here than anywhere else, the difference is that the RUMOR is that management has threatened to outright terminate probationary pilots to accomplish furloughs. Means no benefits paid, no access to jobs back, AND they get to keep their instructors in the training center. First time I've ever heard of a major airline trying that (or any airline I can think of for that matter).

AGAIN, it's just a rumor. Don't get spooled up over it... yet.

I know what probation is and why it exists. What I was asking is if probies are denied the grievance process following a termination, but yet asked to pay dues.

I'm also familiar with ALPA, and how that works. Spent a while in that system. Probies aren't assessed dues in ALPA, you know how it works as well as I do.

At any rate, best of luck over there keeping the newbies around!! Hope it works out.

 

[stall022]

I know what probation is and why it exists. What I was asking is if probies are denied the grievance process following a termination, but yet asked to pay dues.

I'm also familiar with ALPA, and how that works. Spent a while in that system. Probies aren't assessed dues in ALPA, you know how it works as well as I do.

This is no longer just a water cooler rumor. It was confirmed during the npa conference call today. So now along with the threat of being furloughed we have the threat of being fired outright. Anyone know of a good aviation contract lawyer if this happens?

the NPA passed a ruling after 9/11?? that probies pay dues after 90 days. BUT, are still on probation until the anniversary date of your initial check ride or your first PC, whichever occurs first.

 

[rhino3040]

This is no longer just a water cooler rumor. It was confirmed during the npa conference call today. So now along with the threat of being furloughed we have the threat of being fired outright. Anyone know of a good aviation contract lawyer if this happens?

the NPA passed a ruling after 9/11?? that probies pay dues after 90 days. BUT, are still on probation until the anniversary date of your initial check ride or your first PC, whichever occurs first.

I smell a major lawsuit on the horizon. Paying dues for something that does not represent you in the first place makes me sick to my stomach.