USAPA / US Airways MOU

[Turtle21]

what exactly is in this mou? Pay increases, scope, furlough protection?

Good:
--Excellent pay rates for narrow body and wide body aircraft

Bad:
-- forfeiture of SnapBack provision in our current contract to pay rates much higher than the pay rates now being offered
-- allows 15% reduction of narrow body aircraft per year with no end
-- allows 20% reduction of wide body per year, no end
-- allows unlimited increase of E-190
-- allows unlimited code share

Those are some highlights

 

[dollacrackho]

What pay rates are they offering on the 190?

 

[cbrown1]

What are the rates?

 

[Tweaker]

$116 / hour PIC, max scale.

3 year parity with DAL which according to USAPA slides was $130. Confirm?

 

[Turtle21]

$116 / hour PIC, max scale.

3 year parity with DAL which according to USAPA slides was $130. Confirm?

3 year review/discuss total cockpit cost with Delta. I.e. company gets to declare various total cost factors, math magic. Just a promise to review.

 

[caseyd]

No, I mean if he has learned, at least as far as LCC pilots are concerned. If he has learned, he'll be able to cut LCC flying 10 percent a year, resetting the average each year, of course allowing another 10 percent to be cut each new year. That is what he argued in front of Bloch, to no avail.

What if he has figured out a way around that? Then we, both east and west, versus APA, will find out just what he had in mind for the west and east pilots. Ie. shrink the west 10 percent, give to the east, reset the average, then shrink the west another ten percent, rinse and repeat. Only this time it will be shrink LCC, give to AA, rinse and repeat.

There are enough 'mays' in that MOU that it appears this may be drug out. If so we east and west, would realize what the company had in mind for the west before TA 10 arbitration stopped it.

I swear.. You guys sleep with the lights on.....you are scared of everything.

If you spend five more years on loa93 you deserve it.

 

[caseyd]

So basically the company (IMO) can come back and use anything they want as force majeure.

Oil goes up 1 cent - hey force majeure and you're furloughed

CEO needs a new BMW - hey force majeure and you're furloughed

Put a no furlough section and leave out the force majeure and I'll be more inclined, but with the force majeure sentence following every no furlough clause I've ever seen and they aren't worth the paper they're written on.

More scared of the dark!

 

[caseyd]

Good:
--Excellent pay rates for narrow body and wide body aircraft

Bad:
-- forfeiture of SnapBack provision in our current contract to pay rates much higher than the pay rates now being offered
-- allows 15% reduction of narrow body aircraft per year with no end
-- allows 20% reduction of wide body per year, no end
-- allows unlimited increase of E-190
-- allows unlimited code share

Those are some highlights

And yet more scared of the dark....the whole airline gets traded out 320'sfor 190's....330's for 190's.....767 for 190's

All the while delta and UAL are adding 737 and 320....

Your gonna cost yourself huge unless you grow a pair.....

 

[Citjok]

I swear.. You guys sleep with the lights on.....you are scared of everything.

If you spend five more years on loa93 you deserve it.

What do you expect from being f&*^!d by management and "the union" for many, many, many years.

 

[DCAA320]

What do you expect from being f&*^!d by management and "the union" for many, many, many years.

Not to mention management doesn't even use any of that his/her K Y when they do it.

 

[vetrider]

I swear.. You guys sleep with the lights on.....you are scared of everything.

If you spend five more years on loa93 you deserve it.

Actually it's C2004 for me. I'm not scared, just trying to look at what I can realistically expect. The company doesn't need the mou to merge, but it does need the mou to further take from the west pilots in the interim.

 

[vetrider]

OK, got it, my bad, first 3 rounds on me :beer:

No worries. It's all good.

 

[Turtle21]

Actually it's C2004 for me. I'm not scared, just trying to look at what I can realistically expect. The company doesn't need the mou to merge, but it does need the mou to further take from the west pilots in the interim.

This MOU allows DUI to turn LCC into the next Eagle outfit with slightly larger planes.

 

[Flying Horses]

Emotional is when pilots fixate on the past internal union dispute rather than on what the company wants to do going forward. If your vote feels good because you hope it hurts the other pilot group (regardless of how bad it also hurts you) then you are emotional.

The fact is the MOU hurts all of us. It is full of concessions, even though we are not in bankruptcy.
--The furlough protection last less than two years.
-- He can reduce the fleet by 15% per year for narrow body and 20% for wide body
-- he can code share on any carrier that code shares with AA
-- he has no limit to the E-190s he can add

Our concessions pay for the APA pensions.... It goes on and on. We are not in bankruptcy. Why should we agree to more concessions?

DUI promises there will be over a billion dollars of profit gained by synergies, he better not be relying on more concessions from us to get to that number!

I posted this same post in the other "MOU" thread. I'm not sure which thread will end up "living" so I posted it in both places....

This MOU is not full of concessions - rather full of protections. It is what the name says, a memorandum of understanding between the company and the union that explains how the pilots of US Airways will be protected in the event of a merger with AA. It clarifies and addresses the concerns of the USAPA negotiating committee and puts it into a legally binding document.

About your points:

1. Furlough protection - what you said is just plain incorrect. In section 10, it clearly states that furlough protection will last for the entire duration of the new contract, which is 6 years.

2. Reducing fleet by 15 or 20% - what you wrote is actually distorting and taking out of context the meaning of that section. What that section is actually referring to is protections for US Airways pilots, not concessions, as your point sounds like. It is explaining that, during the time of seperate operations from when a merger is announced and full integration of the seniority lists and flight operations, one side (AA or US Airways) cannot grow (or shrink) at a different rate than the other side. This section further makes sure that one side cannot grow widebody fleets while the other side only grows narrowbodies - everything has to grow more or less equally. And, again, this section only applies limitedly. It ends when seniority fences come down or 18 months after getting a single operating certificate, whichever comes earlier.

3. Code sharing - Why shouldn't management be able to code share on AA? We would be the same airline after a merger, right? And, why shouldn't we maintain the current code sharing that AA already does? Nothing in this MOU says that any more code sharing will occur than already is occuring.

4. No limit to E-190s - Why would there be a limit to E190s? E190s are mainline aircraft flown by mainline pilots. Just as 320s are mainline aircraft flown by mainline pilots. It would be like telling the company you cannot add any 320s, 737s, etc to the fleet, but only 330s or 777s from now on. Any extra 190s that we may get would be growth aircraft, anyway. The fear that the entire new merged American Airlines would become 1 giant E190-only airline is just rediculous. And in this MOU, it even eases the worry that US Airways would become this giant E-190 only operation, while AA pilots would be flying all of the higher paying widebodies - by stating that extra E190 aircraft would be required to be distributed fairly to both sides.

Other points:

1. The Change of Control clause - what seems like a concession is not really a concession, in my opinion. The higher snapback wages that this change of control clause refers to will never happen in a million years, thus it can't be a concession if there is nothing really to lose. The company is just asking for the elimination of this worthless clause in the current contract, just so it will be easier to merge the airlines with more flexibility (and even maybe cheaper). But, it really is just a nuisance clause, as far as the company is concerned. Because the company can easily get around this jsut as they did during the AWA merger. (Because obviously AWA took control of the new merged airline, their management, their HQ, etc, but on paper it shows the old US Airways bought AWA to go around the COC clause, which would happen in this case as well). In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with giving the company more freedom to merge the airlines in the easiest and cheapest way possible. This will make for a stronger new merged airline, which will benefit all employees.
One more thing - if a merger does not go through with AA, the COC clause stays in tact anyway.

2. Loss of LPP's - this is meaningless, because McCaskill-Bond seniority integration supercedes (and incorporates LPP's) in a much better, fairer way.

3. Loss of min hulls/utilization - what appears to be a concession is not to me. These current protections protect the staffing (thus, jobs) of the pilots. These protections are simply being replaced with different kind of protections to protect jobs and staffing. These consist of furlough protections and pay-protections for displacements. The pay-protections will pay protect any pilot who gets displaced. 330 to 320, 767 to 737, or 320 to 190, etc. The company would not include these protections in the MOU and the AA Term sheet if they plan to shrink the airline. Besides, the min hulls/utilization that US Airways currently have would not work after a combined operational integration with AA anyway (there would be no more original US Airways or original AWA to have these min hulls). The min hulls/utilization protections that are currently in place are only designed so that 1 side (AWA or US Airways) could not shrink away while the other grows. These min hulls would not be included in a Joint contract anyway.
OK I'm almost done.

What this MOU does give to US Airways pilots is assuredness that US Airways pilots will be paid the same high rates offered to AA pilots on Day 1 of the meger. It assures equal representation of USAPA negotiators at all Joint contract negotiations. It gives US Airways pilots a nominal signing bonus. (This is small, I know, but without this MOU it would be zero.) It gives US Airways pilots furlough protection, displacement pay-protection, and other protections. It ammends the original AA term sheet to say a pay parity review with DL and UA will be at year 3 instead of year 6. It clarifies that a pilot can keep sick bank time in excess of 1000 hrs, if they have it currently. (The AA term sheet, of which the new merged contract will be based on has a sick bank limit of 1000 hrs) And there are other protections, too.

If this MOU does not get approved then all of these protections are gone, and eventually these so-called concessions will have occured anyway, because they will all be removed in the new American Airlines contract anyway. A contract, that will be negotiated solely by APA, then imposed on us when the merged US Airways-AA have been declared a single carrier by the NMB. In the meantime (months,years?) US Airways pilots will be paid their current ultra-low wages and maybe get furloughed.

In conclusion, I feel it is imperative to vote yes on this MOU. In my opinion, this MOU is good for all US Airways pilots, West, East, and "Third-Listers." This is not like a TA where you can vote no, and then go back to negotiating. If this does not pass, then the MOU and its protections would simply go away, with the merger still going through, with US Airways pilots looking from the outside and getting paid their current ultra-low wages for the foreseeable future.

Thank you for your time reading this!

 

[LearLove]

Hi management. Is it hot out there in PHX? Any sand storms this past week?

I posted this same post in the other "MOU" thread. I'm not sure which thread will end up "living" so I posted it in both places....

This MOU is not full of concessions - rather full of protections. It is what the name says, a memorandum of understanding between the company and the union that explains how the pilots of US Airways will be protected in the event of a merger with AA. It clarifies and addresses the concerns of the USAPA negotiating committee and puts it into a legally binding document.

About your points:

1. Furlough protection - what you said is just plain incorrect. In section 10, it clearly states that furlough protection will last for the entire duration of the new contract, which is 6 years.

2. Reducing fleet by 15 or 20% - what you wrote is actually distorting and taking out of context the meaning of that section. What that section is actually referring to is protections for US Airways pilots, not concessions, as your point sounds like. It is explaining that, during the time of seperate operations from when a merger is announced and full integration of the seniority lists and flight operations, one side (AA or US Airways) cannot grow (or shrink) at a different rate than the other side. This section further makes sure that one side cannot grow widebody fleets while the other side only grows narrowbodies - everything has to grow more or less equally. And, again, this section only applies limitedly. It ends when seniority fences come down or 18 months after getting a single operating certificate, whichever comes earlier.

3. Code sharing - Why shouldn't management be able to code share on AA? We would be the same airline after a merger, right? And, why shouldn't we maintain the current code sharing that AA already does? Nothing in this MOU says that any more code sharing will occur than already is occuring.

4. No limit to E-190s - Why would there be a limit to E190s? E190s are mainline aircraft flown by mainline pilots. Just as 320s are mainline aircraft flown by mainline pilots. It would be like telling the company you cannot add any 320s, 737s, etc to the fleet, but only 330s or 777s from now on. Any extra 190s that we may get would be growth aircraft, anyway. The fear that the entire new merged American Airlines would become 1 giant E190-only airline is just rediculous. And in this MOU, it even eases the worry that US Airways would become this giant E-190 only operation, while AA pilots would be flying all of the higher paying widebodies - by stating that extra E190 aircraft would be required to be distributed fairly to both sides.

Other points:

1. The Change of Control clause - what seems like a concession is not really a concession, in my opinion. The higher snapback wages that this change of control clause refers to will never happen in a million years, thus it can't be a concession if there is nothing really to lose. The company is just asking for the elimination of this worthless clause in the current contract, just so it will be easier to merge the airlines with more flexibility (and even maybe cheaper). But, it really is just a nuisance clause, as far as the company is concerned. Because the company can easily get around this jsut as they did during the AWA merger. (Because obviously AWA took control of the new merged airline, their management, their HQ, etc, but on paper it shows the old US Airways bought AWA to go around the COC clause, which would happen in this case as well). In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with giving the company more freedom to merge the airlines in the easiest and cheapest way possible. This will make for a stronger new merged airline, which will benefit all employees.
One more thing - if a merger does not go through with AA, the COC clause stays in tact anyway.

2. Loss of LPP's - this is meaningless, because McCaskill-Bond seniority integration supercedes (and incorporates LPP's) in a much better, fairer way.

3. Loss of min hulls/utilization - what appears to be a concession is not to me. These current protections protect the staffing (thus, jobs) of the pilots. These protections are simply being replaced with different kind of protections to protect jobs and staffing. These consist of furlough protections and pay-protections for displacements. The pay-protections will pay protect any pilot who gets displaced. 330 to 320, 767 to 737, or 320 to 190, etc. The company would not include these protections in the MOU and the AA Term sheet if they plan to shrink the airline. Besides, the min hulls/utilization that US Airways currently have would not work after a combined operational integration with AA anyway (there would be no more original US Airways or original AWA to have these min hulls). The min hulls/utilization protections that are currently in place are only designed so that 1 side (AWA or US Airways) could not shrink away while the other grows. These min hulls would not be included in a Joint contract anyway.
OK I'm almost done.

What this MOU does give to US Airways pilots is assuredness that US Airways pilots will be paid the same high rates offered to AA pilots on Day 1 of the meger. It assures equal representation of USAPA negotiators at all Joint contract negotiations. It gives US Airways pilots a nominal signing bonus. (This is small, I know, but without this MOU it would be zero.) It gives US Airways pilots furlough protection, displacement pay-protection, and other protections. It ammends the original AA term sheet to say a pay parity review with DL and UA will be at year 3 instead of year 6. It clarifies that a pilot can keep sick bank time in excess of 1000 hrs, if they have it currently. (The AA term sheet, of which the new merged contract will be based on has a sick bank limit of 1000 hrs) And there are other protections, too.

If this MOU does not get approved then all of these protections are gone, and eventually these so-called concessions will have occured anyway, because they will all be removed in the new American Airlines contract anyway. A contract, that will be negotiated solely by APA, then imposed on us when the merged US Airways-AA have been declared a single carrier by the NMB. In the meantime (months,years?) US Airways pilots will be paid their current ultra-low wages and maybe get furloughed.

In conclusion, I feel it is imperative to vote yes on this MOU. In my opinion, this MOU is good for all US Airways pilots, West, East, and "Third-Listers." This is not like a TA where you can vote no, and then go back to negotiating. If this does not pass, then the MOU and its protections would simply go away, with the merger still going through, with US Airways pilots looking from the outside and getting paid their current ultra-low wages for the foreseeable future.

Thank you for your time reading this!

 

[Trogdor]

This MOU is not full of concessions - it's full of protections.......
In conclusion, I feel it is imperative to vote yes on this MOU!

Excellent summation. USAPA isn't telling us that the professional negotiator and the NAC are recommending a YES vote. In fact, at the union meetings last week, the negotiator said this is the only offer we're going to get. He indicated that we must vote this in otherwise the US pilots will be left without a seat during the merger. This is the best deal we will get and all US pilots must vote YES.

 

[Bringupthebird]

This MOU allows DUI to turn LCC into the next Eagle outfit with slightly larger planes.

So the east would be getting a raise?

 

[Crzipilot]

So management wouldn't think of starting to send back airplanes and parking them early??? Of course not. See that balanced block time is for all the increases that are going to occur!!! (How many planes did DAL/NWA return?)

Oh BTW, the block hour mins were not a function of the TA. Min hulls and block time were a function of our contract for some time. The TA just enabled us to give you that protection. This MOU throws that away.

Essentially first year AA can be pulled down 15%, LCC pulled down 20%. domestically. 20 and 25 Internationally.

With that pull down, how many 81 seat RJ's can be released? How many can be released prior to a single certificate. Hmmm..I think about 75 on the LCC side.

AA green book, was I believe, the number of RJ's can equal 110% of the narrow body number. Replaced I believe with a 4 Rj to 1 ML ratioa for 71 and under RJ. and 2RJ to 1 ML for 71-81 seats.

Of course though we have never seen a management team that has wanted to make us smaller. We've had that airbus order of "More than God can count"

If the min block time has been in our contract for who knows how long, why can't management make a committment, no matter how small of how low they are actually going to take us? Sure no furloughs, but that's due to retirements while DUI right sizes the markets and removes seats.

Not to mention the MOU attaches us to undecided things, such as the addtional 2mil/yr for the 190 pay. The 12mil/yr for pay protections, the requirement to come up with equal cost concessions for that extra 3% raise each year?!?!?

A few other things, but health care cost. It's open ended, just that AA agrees to pay more. So how much higher shall our costs go up?

 

[Turtle21]

Excellent summation. USAPA isn't telling us that the professional negotiator and the NAC are recommending a YES vote. In fact, at the union meetings last week, the negotiator said this is the only offer we're going to get. He indicated that we must vote this in otherwise the US pilots will be left without a seat during the merger. This is the best deal we will get and all US pilots must vote YES.

That is not true. The NAC and the lawyers said a NO vote would strengthen their negotiating position.

You seem to be saying if we don't capitulate now we won't be able to sit at the negotiating table. HELLO, we are at the negotiating table, and if we give in to their demands now, they will dismiss us from the negotiating table..

When you agree, negotiations are by definition OVER.

NEVER say "yes" until you can live with it.

I don't know why pilots are gullible enough to think they must buy their way to the table, when they are already at the table and only at it until their first "yes".

 

[Turtle21]

So the east would be getting a raise?

That's correct, the East will get a windfall. Vote NO more windfalls for the East.