[FONT="]Negotiating Committee Update[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]As you all know, the negotiating Committee has been engulfed in the implementation process of our new collective bargaining agreement. While we have been able to work cooperatively with MAG management to resolve most issues, one issue seems to be eluding our best efforts at a resolution. As you recall from the road shows, we used the following example to best illustrate and explain the new language regarding schedule vs. actual: [/FONT]
[FONT="]“If you are a reserve pilot and you are assigned to fly one leg scheduled at one hour, but it takes you two hours to fly that leg, then the hour of over-block will be added to your minimum guarantee and your new pay will be 71 hours.” [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]When our payroll subcommittee was working to ensure that the new software was being properly programmed to reflect this new reality, it became apparent management and our negotiating Committee members had drastically differing views on this topic. Upon further investigation we realized that there was a fundamental difference in how we viewed schedule vs. actual. Because the Company’s original negotiators are no longer involved, we wanted to clarify our intent by reviewing with them the eight questions we reviewed with the Company’s negotiators during the negotiations leading to our TA. Here are those questions for your review. [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line and flies 80 hours. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 80 hours.[/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line. He/she over-blocks by one hour. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 81 hours. [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line with 4 trips worth 20 hours each. On the last trip, he/she flies 5 hours under. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 80 hours. [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line with 4 trips worth 20 hours each. During the first trip, the pilot over flies the trip by 5 hours and overflies the last trip by 5 hours, what is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 90 hours. [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line with 4 trips worth 20 hours each. During the first trip, the pilot is dropped 5 hours by crews scheduling. The rest of the three trips are flown as scheduled. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 80 hours [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line with 4 trips worth 20 hours each. During the first trip, the pilot suffers maintenance cancel of 4 hours. He over flies the monthly schedule by 5 hours. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 85 hours [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded a 60 hour line. He overflies his schedule by 5 hours. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 80.83 hours [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]A pilot is awarded an 80 hour line with 4 trips worth 20 hours each. On the first trip, the pilot over-blocks by 5 hours. For the rest of the month, he under-blocks by 5 hours. What is the pilot’s pay? ALPA – 85 hours. The company’s original position was that pay would be 80 hours, which is why the first TA failed. [/FONT]
[FONT="]First we read these questions to Paul Foley and Chris Pappaioanou as it relates to a line-holder. They agreed with our position to every question. Second, we read these questions as it relates to a reserve pilot. This is where we differ in opinion. The language in question is in section 3.C.1: [/FONT]
[FONT="]All pilots will be paid on the basis of scheduled (as published on the pilot’s final bid award) or actual block flight time for each flight segment, whichever is greater.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The Company’s position can be summed up as follows: [/FONT]
[FONT="]Any over-block that a reserve flies should be credited towards their guarantee, not above it. They rest their position on the fact that in parenthesis it says “as published on the pilot’s final bid award.” They contend that a reserve’s final bid award is zero; therefore any overage will be credited towards their guarantee. They feel, that in the case of a pilot not breaking minimum guarantee, they are paying him for the over-block by paying him minimum guarantee. In addition, they argue that they would have never agreed to a system that allows reserve pilots to game the system. For example, they don’t want a reserve pilot flying 20 hours and getting paid 80 hours. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Furthermore, as we attempted to resolve this issue we made numerous inquiries to different company personnel. We put together cold hard data in order to determine exactly how much money our difference of opinion would cost the company. These inquiries eventually lead to Mike Lotz’s desk and, unfortunately, he elevated the dispute to another level. Mike Lotz is now taking the position that if you had a line awarded to you below the minimum guarantee, any over block would be “credited” towards your applicable guarantee. [/FONT]
[FONT="]We simply disagree with this view. Our argument starts out by referencing the eight questions. If the company agrees with us on how you pay a line holder, please show us where in the contract it differentiates between a line-holder and a reserve pilot. As a matter of fact, it clearly states “all pilots…” The company has clearly shown in both past and current practices that “all pilots” refers to line holders as well as reserve pilots. The parenthetical reference the company rests their position on,
“(as published on the pilot’s final bid award)”, was placed in the language to stop the company from extracting the scheduled time for a flight segment from the flight plan release. This would obviously lower the scheduled times throughout the system. We wanted to make sure that the company used the scheduled time provided to us by our partners and published to the DOT. This language was never intended to separate line-holders from reserves. Furthermore, we argue that a reserve pilot’s final bid award is 70 (or 75.83) and not zero. In addition, clear negotiating history exists showing that we fully intended to change, and did change, the old language from “credited” to “paid.” At the time this was negotiated, all of our reserves were flying well over 70 hours. While we understand that reserves may not be currently flying 70 hours, the bottom line is this is what their negotiators agreed to. As for their position that line holders awarded a line lower than their minimum guarantee should have their over block “credited” towards their guarantee, this position is simply untenable. The contract language negotiated by MAG management and ALPA does NOT say pilots will be “credited”—it says they will be “paid”. [/FONT]
[FONT="]In the event we are unable to resolve the issue of “scheduled vs. actual” as it applies to reserves flying under guarantee, it will be resolved via the grievance process (including arbitration). [/FONT]
[FONT="]We are currently reviewing all of our legal options with our ALPA professional staff and ALPA National Officers. These options include but are not limited to, revocation of PBS by our MEC; a formal “bad faith bargaining” complaint with the National Mediation Board; and a “group grievance.” Our attorneys are in the process of arranging a formal meeting with MAG’s legal advisors. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The MEC is also reviewing additional options. In the coming weeks you may be asked to visibly demonstrate your dissatisfaction with MAG management’s short-sighted handling of this issue and flagrant disregard of clear contract language. We will also be taking this issue to the airline industry media and to our codeshare partners and, ultimately, the flying public. ALPA National has assured us of their full financial and logistical support in this effort. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The tragedy in this whole matter is that the concept of “scheduled vs. actual’ is well-established, the contract language is clear, the negotiators for both sides were in full agreement at the table, and the cost for MAG to properly comply with the contract provision as written is nominal. To put it in perspective, on a pilot payroll of nearly $9 million per month, the additional cost for MAG to comply with the contract as written is only approximately $70,000 to $80,000 per month---around 0.89 percent of payroll. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The simple facts are that during negotiations we set out to provide a system where pilots would not lose money during the course of a bid and that they would be paid for all the flying that they did. There never was any intent on creating a system with loopholes. It was clear that the first TA failed because of a glaring issue that would not be acceptable to the pilot group. The bottom line is that if our company can continue to work towards a more efficient operation and pilots are allowed to fly what they are scheduled to, the negotiated agreement will have minimal cost exposure. If we can not use our pilots efficiently and are forced to continually change the plan that was put in place, awarded schedules, there will be a much larger cost exposure to the company. [/FONT]
[FONT="]As always, we will keep you updated on all of our progress.
