Northwest Flight Attendants Reject Second Tentative Agreement

[PCL_128]

About the newhire first-time jumpseater: I'm sure that you, as an experienced jumpseater, fully explained to him the various unwritten rules of jumpseating on anybody

Of course. All of the Pinnacle pilots, and the JS Committee especially, try to let the new guys know how to handle JS etiquette.

I'm sure that you briefed him on those things and that the MULTIPLE Pinnacle pilots that have done one/all of those things just on flights that I have been on were simply guys that haven't met YOU yet, right?

Remember, the vast majority of Pinnacle FOs have never had another 121 job before coming here. The company does a piss-poor job of explaining JSing to new guys, so they have to learn it from the Association or from word-of-mouth. My class had the good fortune of getting a long JS lecture in ground school at my last airline before ever getting near a JS. Pinnacle doesn't do the same thing with newhires, unfortunately. I understand your frustration with some of this, but try to keep in mind that these guys just don't know any better yet. They aren't doing anything intentionally, so just take them aside and explain it to them if you see them making an ass out of themselves.

 

[PCL_128]

We didn’t give them NEWCO, they got COMPASS.

Symantics. Compass is just NewCo with a dressed-up name. They wanted a seperate airline for the 51+ seat aircraft, and they got it. Those airplanes were rightfully yours, and you gave them away. The 90-seaters will come next in a few years. Then the 110 seaters, and so on. You haven't learned your lesson about outsourced flying yet, so I'm sure you never will.

 

[DTW320]

Compass is just NewCo with a dressed-up name.

Wrong.

If you had done the comparison I asked you to a few posts ago you wouldn't be CONTINUING to spew your non-sense. It's apparently a lot easier for you to just keep making things up. Don't bother you with the facts (as I and AV8R have) youve made up your mind. Alllrightythen.

 

[DTW320]

Of course. All of the Pinnacle pilots, and the JS Committee especially, try to let the new guys know how to handle JS etiquette.



Remember, the vast majority of Pinnacle FOs have never had another 121 job before coming here. The company does a piss-poor job of explaining JSing to new guys, so they have to learn it from the Association or from word-of-mouth. My class had the good fortune of getting a long JS lecture in ground school at my last airline before ever getting near a JS. Pinnacle doesn't do the same thing with newhires, unfortunately. I understand your frustration with some of this, but try to keep in mind that these guys just don't know any better yet. They aren't doing anything intentionally, so just take them aside and explain it to them if you see them making an ass out of themselves.

I understand your frustration with some of this, but try to keep in mind that these guys just don't know any better yet.

So, just to be clear....Are you making excuses for your dumb*ss newhires?
There's never a reason to do stupid things on a jumpseat.

Sound familiar?

PS. Still waiting on your comparison of our TA scope vs UAL/USAir/Delta as well as the one between the NWA Newco proposal vs. our TA.

 

[PCL_128]

Wrong.

If you had done the comparison I asked you to a few posts ago you wouldn't be CONTINUING to spew your non-sense. It's apparently a lot easier for you to just keep making things up. Don't bother you with the facts (as I and AV8R have) youve made up your mind. Alllrightythen.

Trust me, I did the comparison long ago. There are certainly differences in the original NewCo proposal and what eventually became Compass, but you seem to be missing my central point here: any scope concessions were unneccessary and a huge mistake!!! The problem that we have is called "seat-creep." Every few years management comes back and demands "just a few more seats, that's all." Eventually there will be nothing left. You don't seem to understand that management is carrying out a long-term campaign of eliminating all narrow-body mainline jobs in favor of outsourcing. They take 5 seat here, and 4 seats there, and now you've given up airplanes that are the exact same size as the DC-9-10s that were flown by your pilots just a couple of years ago. In a few years they'll want to outsource airplanes that are the same size as the DC-9-50s that you're flying now. It never stops until you stand up for yourselves and lay it all on the line.

 

[PCL_128]

So, just to be clear....Are you making excuses for your dumb*ss newhires?
There's never a reason to do stupid things on a jumpseat.

Sound familiar?

Comparing jumpseat etiquette to scabbing? Sorry, not in the same league.

PS. Still waiting on your comparison of our TA scope vs UAL/USAir/Delta as well as the one between the NWA Newco proposal vs. our TA.

If it's a comparison you're looking for, then take a look at a back issue of the Across The Table newsletter. I think I remember seeing one there. As for me, I'm not going to waste time expounding on it because I think it's irrelevant. Yes, all mainline carriers made concessions on Scope, and all of them made a huge mistake. Is your point in this to say "They did it first, stop blaming me!"? If so, then that's a very poor justification.

 

[DTW320]

Trust me, I did the comparison long ago. There are certainly differences in the original NewCo proposal and what eventually became Compass, but you seem to be missing my central point here: any scope concessions were unneccessary and a huge mistake!!! The problem that we have is called "seat-creep." Every few years management comes back and demands "just a few more seats, that's all." Eventually there will be nothing left. You don't seem to understand that management is carrying out a long-term campaign of eliminating all narrow-body mainline jobs in favor of outsourcing. They take 5 seat here, and 4 seats there, and now you've given up airplanes that are the exact same size as the DC-9-10s that were flown by your pilots just a couple of years ago. In a few years they'll want to outsource airplanes that are the same size as the DC-9-50s that you're flying now. It never stops until you stand up for yourselves and lay it all on the line.

Oh, OK. So we should have simply refused to move one inch from our prior industry-leading scope despite what is happening to scope at other bankrupt and non-bankrupt legacy's. I'm sure the BANKRUPTCY judge would have appreciated that position and ruled in our favor, since labor has such tremendous leverage in the BANKRUPTCY court. So we should have struck, if the judge allowed it, and then Gary Wilson would have given us anything to stop it(flashback 1998 when non-Bankrupt NWA was making record profits and took a strike vs give us 3% raise).

You say that the great evil is us giving up scope yet, even though you feel so strongly about it, YOU happily take a job at a carrier whose entire existence is a result of our scope. Do as you say not as you do huh?

 

[DTW320]

Comparing jumpseat etiquette to scabbing? Sorry, not in the same league.



If it's a comparison you're looking for, then take a look at a back issue of the Across The Table newsletter. I think I remember seeing one there. As for me, I'm not going to waste time expounding on it because I think it's irrelevant. Yes, all mainline carriers made concessions on Scope, and all of them made a huge mistake. Is your point in this to say "They did it first, stop blaming me!"? If so, then that's a very poor justification.

No Peanuckle, I'm not looking for a comparison for myself, I am very familiar with it. It seems though that YOU are not. YOU come here and say that our TA gave them Newco....everything they wanted. Simply, Totally, FALSE and you offer nothing more than BS rhetoric. If you've done the comparison long ago I think you are need of a re-read.

You should quit your job flying RJ's immediately so as to stop contributing to the erosion of Scope at the legacies. Based on your comments how can you possibly disagree with that and keep flying'em?

 

[Dumb Pilot]

The ultimate excuse of the mainline pilots. They negotiate the erosion of their QOL, they negotiate the out sourcing of their flying, they bring the bar lower each time. And then turn around and point fingers at the people that accept the positions that THEY CREATED.
You where too chicken $hit to fight and die for your rights while accepting mediocre conditions and at the same time putting language that hurt Mesaba jobs directly while accepting what your MEC said It would be a "Die on this hill issue" Newco.
Hypocrisy at its best

 

[PCL_128]

Oh, OK. So we should have simply refused to move one inch from our prior industry....etc....

You seem to have a very defeatist attitude. You allowed McClain and his like to brainwash you into thinking that you were helpless. Rejecting the TA and continuing to fight would certainly be the more difficult and uncertain action to take, but few things in life that are worth it are easy. You took the easy way out, and now the entire profession suffers because of it. Your own Council 20 Chairman put it best before the TA vote. Here's a refresher (bold emphasis is mine):

DETROIT MINI UPDATE
A letter from the NWA LEC officers to the pilots of ALPA Council 20


TO: All Council 20 Pilots
FROM: LEC Chairman
DATE: March 10, 2006
RE: ALPA/NWA Restructuring Agreement (Tentative Agreement) (TA); Council 20 Chairman's Perspective:

[Beginning edited out to allow to fit in single posting]

The Northwest management plan of "last man standing" failed. Management was unable to negotiate voluntary concessions from all labor groups, fares remained depressed, and fuel costs increased substantially. NWA filed for Chapter 11 and joined the ranks (including DAL) of those no longer standing. As is too often the case, those who are responsible for bad decisions are not held accountable. Those with no influence on those decisions are expected to concede a substantial portion of their career value to cover the incompetence and bailout of a management team that is paid very well to make much better decisions. Unfortunately, the justification for labor's making (what would otherwise be very foolish) concessions is to save the airline and save our jobs. We are essentially placing a very high value on a greatly devalued career.

The greatest travesty, in my opinion, is the time we have invested in what has become a bad investment. Time can never be recovered. Some of us have invested more than others. Some will cut their losses and find a better, more rewarding career. (For those pilots who can, you owe it to yourself and your family to do so.) The effect of this TA is not just the six to eight years we will be exposed to the terms, but it is career-altering for most pilots who are not in their final years at NWA. You will be better off finding something that pays more, has better benefits (including retirement), and affords your family a better quality of life. There are MANY alternative careers that will likely be more rewarding. Taxi drivers, bus drivers, teachers, postal workers, and even some secretaries make more than many airline pilots. Often pilots have advanced degrees and experience in other more rewarding professions. If a career in commercial aviation is not going to provide a respectable standard of living, acceptable work rules, and a retirement that will support us after retirement, it is time to take a stand, or move on to something better. This TA seems to protect pilot jobs, but in the process we seem to have simply traded good jobs for bad (and even more so for the more junior pilots). While we have provided alternative employment (with a subsidiary or another carrier) for our most junior pilots, we may have facilitated their furlough. There are times when job security (and our scope) can be a ball and chain. So the good news may be that our furloughed pilots will have pilot jobs available, but the bad news is the jobs will likely not be worth having for many of those pilots.

I suppose a fair question is what are your expectations of an airline career, and how has that been altered by the Chapter 11 process? We all knew we would be making substantial concessions, but what is necessary, and how much is enough? Should we expect a better TA? How much risk are we willing to take to achieve our level of expectations? If we reach our maximum level of risk tolerance, we simply have to reduce our expectations to match that tolerance. In my opinion, that is what will determine how most pilots will vote on this TA. It should be no surprise to anyone that the level of risk pilots are willing to take may depend on the magnitude of their investment. Those with the most years invested, may be more inclined to limit their risk and accept the TA as their new level of expectation. Those with fewer years invested, may be more inclined to risk more rather than accept a lower level of expectation that will have a much greater detriment to their career. Under the best of conditions, it could easily take another 20-plus years to recover from this TA. I don't think anyone expects to fully recover in one contract, regardless of the state of the airline.

Although we were told that $358M was enough, it was not. If we were to get credit for our revenue-enhancing concessions, the total value of this TA would exceed $500M. If given credit for the soft money, or even a substantial part of it, we would not have had to concede the deep pay cuts, we would not have had to concede the deep degradation of work rules, we could have had better benefits at less cost, and we could have had a better retirement contribution. We paid for our 5 percent retirement contribution during Chapter 11 by permitting NWA to charge our DBP with any excess PBGC insurance premiums. Our revenue-enhancing concessions supposedly paid for our future pay increases, which do little to mitigate even basic cost of living increases. So, as to the question of whether or not we paid too much for an agreement, the answer is clearly: YES. As to whether of not we should expect a better TA, one with fewer concessions, the answer is again: YES. And so what are the risks of the membership voting down this TA?

If the TA is rejected, the judge may allow NWA to impose; he may specify the terms; he may advocate an extension (with negotiations); and he may even reject the 1113c petition. Until the judge rules, NWA could impose terms without or before the judge's decision, but the judge does have to rule on their 1113c petition. In any case, NWA management will most likely need a consensual agreement from all labor groups before they can get exit financing. So what is the better choice, taking the terms of the (long-term) TA, or taking the risk of improving the TA in an effort to better match (higher) career expectations? I am sure you will hear about all of the worst-case scenarios of imposed terms, and those are calculated risks. If NWA needs a consensual agreement to exit Chapter 11, imposed terms are a short-term problem. We have reserved our right to all legal self-help options, and NWA has indicated they will seek an injunction to stop a strike. The outcome of that challenge and counter-challenge could take days, weeks, or months. It is in both our and management's best interest to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement. The pilot membership will have to decide what is acceptable. I do not find this TA to be acceptable.

Although there was enough votes to have stopped this TA at the MEC, most on the MEC wanted the TA to go to the membership for a final decision. The compromise was to pass a resolution that ensured the TA would go to the pilots, but the MEC would debate and decide on a vote recommendation at the upcoming MEC meeting. We made it clear that we expected full contract language to be completed for our review and available to all pilots before road shows and/or membership ratification. Unfortunately, the MEC chairman published his vote recommendation (yes) in Ziplines before the MEC position had been determined. The MEC chairman is obligated to represent the view, position, and (policy) of the MEC. Contrary to the Ziplines, the differences among the MEC on the TA are well known. In any case, the MEC vote recommendation will be addressed (and determined) by the MEC next week. We have conceded too much and compromised the quality of our careers at Northwest beyond what was necessary to ensure a successful airline restructuring. My recommendation to the Council 20 pilots and to the MEC is a "no" vote.

The MEC Negotiating Committee has just distributed the latest Across the Table (ATT). Please take the time to review the ATT; it can be downloaded (in three parts) from the www.nwaalpa.org website. The level of concessions and cost to our career is obvious.

We (ALPA) need to find a better (and much more effective) way to protect pilots and our careers. It should be apparent to all; we have, to a large degree, failed miserably in that respect in the Chapter 11 environment. It has been a perfect storm, and we have been challenged by limited options and limited leverage, but, in my opinion, we have assumed that we have no other recourse; we have assumed the role of victims. We can do better.

Fraternally,


A. Ray Miller Jr.

​

You see, it's not just the lowly RJ Captains that feel the way I do. Your own MEC didn't have enough votes to recommend this TA. Your own Council 20 Chairman recommended a NO vote and stated that you are facilitating the furloughs of your own pilots with this new scope language. What a shame that more people didn't listen to him.