November 18, 2000
To Our Fellow Pilots:
In our last letter to you 3 weeks ago, we described the charge
the MEC had given the Negotiating Committee to secure Merger Protection
Provisions (MPP's) for the pilots of US Airways. These were transmitted
to Mr. Gangwal as protections the pilots require in the proposed
merger with United. They were:
1. Furlough Protection for all our pilots
2. Full furlough longevity credit for pay, vacation, and retirement
3. Additional Early Retirement programs
4. Significant fleet and block hour growth
5. Career enhancements no less favorable than those granted to
UAL pilots
The company finally set a date for these negotiations, which was
yesterday November 17. The Negotiating Committee was also continuing
its work on Parity Review negotiations with the corporation, which
will affect your pay as we proceed to the new year. The MEC was
briefed by the Negotiating Committee that as a result of the discussions
(and the inclusion of the pay rates at United in the mix required
by the terms of the Letter of Agreement #79), the analysis indicates
that we will be making a claim for pay increases
in order to bring us up to Parity Plus 1%. (Read - Pay Raise)
Written statements to the neutral panel are required by February
28, 2001. Further negotiations and their preparations on several
other issues were also proceeding. These included: scheduling
disputes, information sharing to include accurate fleet plan documentation,
discussions on distribution of the retirement lump sum on a pilot's
retirement date, as well as discussions on the Pilot Only 401K
and planning sessions on the distribution and payout of the remaining
4th, 5th, and 6th Stock Option
issuances, which become immediately vested in the event of a merger.
Yesterday, that all came to a screeching halt.
A new Negotiating Committee was elected. Captain John Davis called
for roll call election procedures and so that is how the votes
were tallied for each position. That process is allowed and we
do not disagree with it, as he has tried to allege. What we wholeheartedly
objected to was using that roll call power tactic to remove
experience and continuity from the Committee over the objections
of one half of the sitting members of the MEC.
This year, in response to pilot's requests, and in the hope that
we could assemble the best team for these unprecedented negotiations,
the MEC selected an outside Professional Negotiator, Mr. Jeffrey
MacDonald. Before the election occurred he was asked directly
about his opinion on the staffing of the Negotiating Committee.
He said, "The question concerns the loss of continuity
on the Bargaining (Negotiating) Committee. Does it raise concerns?
Of course, it does. Each of you will have to decide in your deliberations.
I ask you not to ignore the importance of having a continuity
of institutional memory. I have been at the table without this
continuity and it feels very, very risky. Like negotiating in
a vacuum. Please do not underestimate the importance of experience
at the bargaining table. Experience at the table is critical
to managing things at the table. I am not speaking to individuals
but to what one seeks in a team."
To this John Davis later commented, "I have much less respect
for Jeffrey MacDonald, now, than I had for him before his remarks."
The reason for these comments became clear as the election proceeded.
During the election, removed from the Committee were Gerry McGuckin,
Donn Butkovic, and Kim Snider. Kelly Ison, the Interim Chairman
was elected Chairman and Phil Carey was reinstated as Note Taker.
The new members were Jeff Tokash, Ron Nelson, and Rob May.
Each of these newcomer candidates was acceptable to your reps
with the proviso that experienced negotiators remained. During
discussions before the election, a group of representatives, who
included Don and Paul of DCA, Jack Stephan and Kevin Gillespie
of BWI, Mike Tosi of PHL, and Ray Belz and Eric Kudey of LGA,
proposed what we truly believed to be a consensus slate for the
new Negotiating Committee. That slate supported every single
one of the 3 candidates proffered by those with the roll call
majority, while retaining Gerry McGuckin and Kim Snider on the
Committee. Donn Butkovic would come off the Committee and Rob
May would be able to fill the Note Taker position even though
Phil Carey was our 1st choice for Note Taker. This
would result in what we believe to be a well rounded Committee
consisting of Ison as Chairman, McGucken and Snider for experience
and continuity, and Tokash, Nelson and May as new blood. This
was unacceptable to the roll call majority: Davis and Starnes
- PIT, Greenhall - PHL, Milkey and DiOrio - BOS, McKee and Kelly
- CLT. Their "compromise" was to take the 2 slots occupied
by McGucken and Snider, and reduce it to one slot. That wasn't
enough though. They wanted to fill that slot with our Note Taker
candidate, Carey thus removing McGucken and Snider as well. On
five roll call ballots, that is what they did except to
remove Carey from a Negotiator position and return him to Note
Taker. Thus all three Negotiator positions are occupied by new
people with no Negotiating Committee experience.
But the cram down was not complete. A motion was proffered by
Davis to extend "congratulations and support" to the
new Negotiating Committee. It was a thinly veiled attempt to say
to the pilots, -It's OK. Consensus has been reached. See, we're
all together. But the fact is we are not. Even so, your reps
were not going to be forced to vote against an elected
Committee or goaded into voting for a feel-good resolution. At
4:35 p.m. on Friday, our sixth day at this Pittsburgh meeting,
7 of us, half the MEC (including reps from DCA, BWI, LGA, and
PHL) decided to remain in the room, allowed this vote to be taken,
but abstained from it. This we felt would, at least, tell some
of the story. Shortly thereafter a recess was called to move meeting
rooms due to hotel bookings. During this time, hints were made
that "the Chairman might be next". Enough was enough.
Seven members of the MEC collectively came to the conclusion that,
while this was probably just an idle threat, we could not tolerate
any more of this. It was simply not fair to the pilots we represent.
If this was the "business" to be conducted, we were
not going to enable it until your interests would be heeded. We
departed the meeting as a group and, without a quorum, the meeting
adjourned. We could not allow this group to disregard the interests
of the pilots represented by fully one half of the MEC. They mouth
the word "Consensus" and then do what they want. Our
positions, and those of the pilots we represent, were not being
overridden by the majority, they were being ignored. There was
no consensus building going on here. It was a sham of the word
"meeting" and a waste of your money. This, we felt,
had to be highlighted and brought into the full light of day.
When we convene again your reps will, again, make our point that
the MEC represents all the pilots of this airline
- not just the pilots of the other 7 reps who happen to have a
roll call majority. This is not child's play. These are real life,
high stakes events that affect your career. Hopefully, other members
of the MEC will hear the message that this pilot group expects
and deserves consideration for all its members and
their interests. If they don't listen now, they never will. Make
no mistake; the adjournment of this meeting was not your
reps throwing in the towel, just waving it to keep the crowd in
the game. Hang in there, and so will we.
Fraternally,
Donald R. Baier, Chairman Council #138
Paul W. Hocking, Vice-Chairman Council #138