Home

Negotiations Update - Thursday, July 02, 2009

The APA negotiating team met with AMR negotiators for three days of federally mediated bargaining. At the direction of the mediator, the session was held in Baltimore, Maryland.

Management was scheduled to present a long-awaited proposal addressing pilot stagnation, but failed to do so.

What management did present was a letter where they stated, “The Company is willing to agree to furlough protection provisions which provide for no involuntary loss of employment as a direct result of productivity gained through negotiated changes to work rules.”

This minimal furlough protection only applies to the impact of any productivity gains management is able to extract out of this negotiation. The furlough protection would not apply to any downsizing or over-manning unrelated to productivity, and is of such a limited application it’s really no protection at all. It did reveal a management desire to extract productivity WITHOUT addressing stagnation.

Other specific proposals discussed included the following:

Training Lock-ins: APA presented a counter-proposal to make the lock-ins 18 months up and down. (APA’s original position was 12 months up /18 months down.) APA also proposed a plan in which pilots in lock-ins can bid to new status provided they carry the balance of their existing lock-in to their new bid status. This idea was originally discussed in an AMR proposal in May.

AMR responded with “no change” from their last proposal.

Leaves of Absence: APA passed a new proposal that AMR will consider all LOA requests and must grant all personal LOA requests up to a floor of 50 total pilots on LOA. These figures approximate the historical maximum of pilots on leave. When pilots are on furlough, the LOA pilot floor increases to 100. Once granted, leaves can only be terminated early by mutual agreement.

AA countered with what are basically today’s policies except they agreed that leaves cannot be terminated early without mutual agreement.

APA countered again with a new proposal addressing AMR’s stated concerns relative to large requests for LOAs over just one month. The new counter allows AMR to meter-in LOAs when management gets large number of requests at one time.

TULE Scope of Work: With direct input from our TULE liaison to the committee, APA passed a proposal defining the scope of work for TULE pilots. It sets out a list of various types of flying that would be TULE work and types that would be acceptable for line pilots. Generally, the flying delineation is based upon whether or not an aircraft would be capable of carrying revenue passengers. The proposal also prohibited pairing TULE pilots with line pilots.

AMR did not offer a counter-proposal.

Co-Terminals: APA and management reached consensus on a co-terminal agreement that gives management latitude for trip selections with different airports three times a year coincident with a “major” schedule change. APA and management are working on a notification mechanism whereby the company will identify, in advance, which months they are identifying as “major” schedule change months. Contract language is being developed.

17.P – Failure to Qualify: A tentative agreement was reached and contract language agreed to. Pilots unable to complete training for a new bid status, due to circumstances beyond the pilot’s control, will return to their previous status and be given a reinstatement right for the vacated bid status they weren’t able to complete training in.

Staff Pass Travel: In spite of no prior movement by AMR, APA passed a revised counter-proposal.

AMR rejected the proposal outright.

Union Travel: Again, in an effort to encourage some bargaining progress, APApassed a new Union Travel proposal for pilot travel for union business.

AMR again rejected this proposal outright.

Probation Proposal: APA passed a revised probation proposal that was modified to address AMR’s previous concerns about a pilot’s inability to complete initial training yet not be on probation. The modified provision terminates the probationary period upon the satisfactory completion of initial IOE.

In spite of addressing AMR’s stated concerns, AMR rejected the proposal.

Parking Permits: APA and management reached a consensus on what efforts the company must make in an attempt to eliminate administrative processes that take more than one visit to obtain a parking permit. The reimbursement amount for non-domicile (commuter) parking when no employee parking availability exists for commuters is still under negotiation.

CRAF-Supp. Z: APA presented a revised Supp. Z –Terrorism proposal revising the lump sum payout and limiting the subsequent salary and benefit payments to a maximum of 15 years. APA tied this proposal with acceptance of AMR’s request for CRAF Stage 4 flying.

AMR countered with their previous Supp. Z proposal and separated CRAF into a separate proposal.

Section 21: AMR passed a new Section 21 proposal that removed some of the regressive elements of management’s previous proposal. APA countered with a proposal that also removed some items in an attempt to move closer toward agreement. Consensus was reached on minor areas of Section 21, such as incorporating protective provisions from MOUs like ACARS and FOQA; renaming CR-1 to PEH (Personal Employee History); and other housekeeping items. Further discussions occurred on PEH entry duration and grievability, grievance filing specifics, chief pilot and VP decision rendering and specifics, electronic personnel files, and management’s obligation to keep APA apprised anytime a new company rule or policy is posted to JetNet.

Section 22 (PAC): At the conclusion of May’s negotiating session, APA passed a Section 22 proposal that matched management’s proposal. We believed this would result in conceptual agreement on the new PAC structure. At this session, in a bait-and-switch move, AMR passed a revised Section 22 proposal. APA and the mediator saw this for what it was—a delay tactic.

As management’s “new” Section 22 proposal did not significantly change the overall structure of the new PAC, APA once again passed a Section 22 counter-proposal incorporating some of AA’s changes, in an attempt to close this out. AMR agreed to this bullet point concept of the new PAC. Still unresolved are the different grievance pathways (flowchart) of how grievances will flow into, or around, the new PAC.

Section 23: The elements of the new three-member board appear to be agreed to. Still negotiating avenues designed to reach timelier grievance resolutions. The mediator suggested setting up a sub-committee to work on the remaining Section 23 issues in non-mediated sessions. APA agreed.

Section 6 Training / Deadheading: In May, APA withdrew all of our training-related proposals except for training pay value, and our deadheading proposals.

AMR presented an entirely new proposal attempting to capture more open time for CKA proficiency and route qualifications into certain airports (TGU, La Paz, EGE, UIO).

Section 7 Hotels: AMR presented a new hotel proposal stating that they will only “take into consideration” Internet availability and cost when making hotel selections.

APA countered with a proposal, stating when the parties cannot agree upon an acceptable hotel, that the decision would be determined by a neutral. This is a practice in place at other airlines.

Section 8 Moving Expenses: Management passed, for the third time in a row, their same moving expenses proposal. In consideration of management’s failure to move, APA elected not to counter with any movement toward management.

Computer Stipend: AMR rejected APA’s proposal outright.

IRS 409a / CPA Proposal: In what appeared to be an admission that APA’s beliefs about IRS 409a may be correct, management passed a new CPA payout proposal. The company laid out some suggestions for compliance. APA has forwarded the proposal to our benefits counsel for review. After receiving counsel’s opinion, we will follow up with management on this issue.

Section 10 – Sick: Management was scheduled to reply to APA’s last sick proposal from May. AMR re-submitted their previous sick proposal with no changes.

On this important issue, APA elected not move further without management movement.

This month’s bargaining session adjourned after three days. The parties are next scheduled to meet again during the week of July 20.

Negotiations Update - Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Your APA Negotiating Committee met for three days last week with AMR management under the supervision of NMB-appointed mediator Mike Tosi and visiting mediator, Jim MacKenzie.

The first session was Tuesday, May 5^th. In this session, the company passed a bundle of 6 proposals in an all-or-nothing approach to moving items off the table.

Those involving Sections 2 (Co-terminals/Satellite bases) and 11 (Leaves of Absence) showed no movement from previous proposals.

In section 12, management wants the ability to unilaterally define the scope of work done by Tulsa Maintenance and Engineering pilots through Flight Manual, Part 1.

Management’s proposal in Section 17 (Lock-ins) demonstrated some willingness to address a pilot’s ability to vacate a lock-in as a result of hardship.

In Supplement H(2) management proposes that AA fly Stage 4 CRAF (Aeromedical Evacuation) and APA has stated a willingness to do so in exchange for improvements to Supplement Z (Terrorism, Sabotage, or Hostage Benefits). Management proposed an extremely slight improvement to Supplement Z by offering extended 50% COBRA benefits for 33 months to pilots’ beneficiaries.

APA will respond to this bundle in the next series of sessions.

Management passed refined counterproposals to Sections 22 (Pre-Arbitration Conference) and 23 (System Board of Adjustment). APA promised to respond during these sessions.

APA passed a new training proposal that reflects current contractual practice with training pay to be discussed if and when management’s compensation proposal ever materializes. APA withdrew its home-based training proposal because of management’s unwillingness to reasonably address the most basic pilot needs in this area.

APA and the mediators listened to Managing Director, Airline Profitability and Financial Analysis at American Airlines, Kenji Hashimoto, give the presentation that he recently showed to the NMB.

On Wednesday, May 6^th, management had been tasked by the mediator to make its case to explain how Scope exceptions have been beneficial to the pilots of American Airlines. Instead, the company’s negotiators dusted off a sales pitch for flying a 76-seat jet at Eagle and non-owned commuter air carriers in the interest of “remaining competitive.” Scope Committee chairman, Captain Len Turcotte, countered with a presentation showing the large amount of flying that has been lost to Commuter Air Carriers, as well as Domestic and International codeshare partners. That presentation is available on the APANegotiations.com website under “Hot Items”.

Vacation was later a topic of discussion, with a focus on unrestricted five-day slides, vacations starting in one month and carrying into the next month, and unequal vacation trades.

Leaves of absences were subsequently discussed and the two parties agreed that a company subject matter expert was needed, so these talks were to be continued on Thursday.

On Thursday, May 7^th, APA had anticipated receiving a Scheduling counterproposal from management. Instead this merely ended up being a reporting out of the activities and consensus of the Scheduling Sub-Committee. Management has owed APA a response in this area for four months.

The previous day’s discussion of leaves of absence was continued. APA will use the information to draft a counter-proposal.

APA responded to last month’s management proposal on Sick Time. This proposal showed some movement toward APA on the issue of new-hires having some access to sick time coverage. APA’s new counter-proposal moved toward this by reducing the amount of an “advance” a new-hire pilot would receive.

APA presented the Sections 22 and 23 counter-proposals promised on Tuesday.

Management broached a new topic by raising the issue of using new technology (such as “smart phones”) for communicating with pilots. APA presented concerns about this in the areas of a pilot’s obligation to have and use such a device, coverage lapses, malfunctions, and the overall philosophy of availability.

APA and management signed a tentative agreement on Section 19.C.1d (Intrabase TDY). That agreement is posted on the APANegotiations.com website, under “Tentative Agreements reached to Date.”

This round of talks concluded late Thursday afternoon with the June bargaining sessions tentatively scheduled for either the third or fourth weeks, in Baltimore, Maryland. The parties have agreed to an ambitious agenda. APA is still asking for the maximum time at the bargaining table and management still continues to refuse to address APA’s stagnation and furlough needs or produce a pay proposal. Additionally, they continually refuse to meet without the mediator present.

Negotiations Update - Monday, April 06, 2009

On Tuesday, March 31, APA and AMR management resumed negotiations under Section 5 of the Railway Labor Act. Mediator Mike Tosi presided over these sessions, which were only the third set this year.

Tuesday’s session began inauspiciously as management immediately lurched off-agenda with a financial presentation containing information that was publicly available and had been so for more than a week. Despite the fact that Section 1, Scope, was actually on the agenda, AMR negotiators announced that they were unprepared for those discussions and sought postponement until Wednesday. Once again, the mediator allowed AMR negotiators to unilaterally change the agenda. The remainder of the day was consumed with questions about APA’s Distance Learning (DL) proposal, after which management responded with their previous DL proposal with a small grammatical change. APA presented a revamped sick proposal, which still includes a Personal Time program. In this proposal, APA specifically referenced the FAA’s interpretation of “Fitness for Flight” as referenced in the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 8. Later, discussions continued regarding Sections 21-23 specifically geared toward developing and incorporating an accelerated grievance and arbitration process.

On Wednesday, management had been tasked by the mediator to make their best case for how exceptions to Scope have been and will be beneficial to the pilots of American Airlines. Management began with a PowerPoint presentation that was actually a pitch for APA to allow a Scope exception permitting Eagle to fly a 76-seat Embraer in a two-class configuration. From the outset, the presenters were unable to tell APA if the on-screen data included international ASMs and, when compared to the competition, they failed to present data for the largest domestic competitor, Southwest Airlines, which has no small jet feed. When questioned how going from 14,400 pilots to 8,000 pilots was good for the APA membership while Eagle nearly doubled in size, management abruptly stormed out of the talks. They refused to return to the table to discuss any topic, and the remaining day of bargaining was lost.

Talks resumed on Thursday with a management response on Sections 21-23 and a counter to APA’s proposal on sick time. Management refuses to address their draconian administration of sick time usage. APA responded on co-terminals, satellites, surface deadhead, CRAF, Supp Z. Management refused to address the unsanitary and overcrowded conditions in LaGuardia Operations.

Further talks are scheduled for May 5-6. Management continues their refusal to meet without the presence of the federal mediator and has yet to produce a proposal on pay or address APA’s concerns about career stagnation and furlough mitigation.

Railway Labor Act - Controlling contract negotiations.