USAPA - Gutting the west contract

[Fast43]

Unfortunately USAPA is on the company's side pulling for the change. For a union that is "built from the pilot up" they sure spend precious little energy actually polling the pilots as to what their direction should be.

That's because "their" direction is wherever the Angry F/O club wants it to go !!!!

The Company should be told to pound sand or negotiate the change in the body of the Joint Contract.

The fact that they would even consider this is unflippin real.

Fast

 

[Bad-Andy]

No doubt USAPA is a horrible union. But, the intent of the age 58 rule was never to give a guy 7 years of captain pay without having to upgrade. With two years left it becomes almost as cheap to pay a guy captain wages instead of training him. But that is not the case with 7 years left. I think this rule should be changed. If you want captain rates for your last 7 years, upgrade.

You are kidding, right? Or being sarcastic (I hope)? While most of us agree in principle (if you want the money, upgrade), it is still in the contract that after 58 they get pay protected. Too bad for management. Our response should be the same one management gave this week at the table -- parity with a single contract ONLY.

Specifically, I am referring to the pass issue for furloughed West guys. The west contract only gives furloughed guys passes for six months. The East contract gives them for the duration of the furlough. USAPA asked the company to extend them to the west furloughs for at least another 6 months (preferably for the duration). Management's response -- nope, not until there is one contract. What the heck is that?!?!?!?!? It would not cost the company a penny, yet they said no. And then they had the stones to ask USAPA to change the pay protection age from 58 to 63, costing the members a lot of money (it will further reduce the number of people being paid as Captains...). And USAPA took the bait??? That is crazy... Just when I think they can't do anything even more stupid in CLT...

 

[JetMonkey]

what is the DOH of the most senior west guy currently furloughed (on the street, not with a letter)?

thanks

8/30/04 Currently till April, then another 20. 7 more in May which will then take it back to June 2004.

 

[capt_zman]

Unfortunately USAPA is on the company's side pulling for the change. For a union that is "built from the pilot up" they sure spend precious little energy actually polling the pilots as to what their direction should be.

You pushed so hard for the Age 65 rule and now you don't like the ramifications???????

Maybe you should have heeded the advice, "Be careful what you wish for....."

 

[reepicheep]

You know this one issue might actually get you guys to work together and all pull in the same direction.

Good luck. You'd have had a better chance of Hitler & Churchill taking tea on the Bismark & making up.

 

[Bringupthebird]

You pushed so hard for the Age 65 rule and now you don't like the ramifications???????

Maybe you should have heeded the advice, "Be careful what you wish for....."

How do you get that?

I still think Age 65 was the right thing, regardless of it's current effect on me.

Now I'm trying to allow those F/O's who are 58 to bid and hold CA pay without being trained, per the AWA agreement.

The company might not like Age 65, but I'm fine with it. 58 year old F/O's would like it if USAPA wouldn't try to undercut them. Younger, senior F/O's like it (with the Age 58 bypass in place) because they would get back to the left seat sooner and stay there longer.

That leaves you, USAPA and the company in opposition.

Perhaps you should heed the advice "One is known by the company they keep."

 

[Bringupthebird]

Is there anyone else besides Z-man who thinks it's perfectly alright for a group to come in and begin dismantling your contract just because they can, with no regard to how it will affect pilots.

Remember, we're not talking about a change that affect both east and west. The change USAPA is proposing is solely to the west contract.

 

[capt_zman]

You wouldn't have a problem if Age 60 was still here.

I'm sorry if you think it's wrong that your contract is going to get modified, but again it's an ugly ramification of Age 65 and current day economics. And be prepared, there are many more ramifications that are headed our way that WE are not going to like because of that crappy law.

But hey, at least we get to still work until we're 65.

 

[wingslevl]

I still think Age 65 was the right thing, regardless of it's current effect on me.

That's when I stopped reading...

 

[Bringupthebird]

You wouldn't have a problem if Age 60 was still here.

In case you're missing the point, the problem is with USAPA, not Age 65.