ShareThis Page
Pilots stand by veto of offer |

Pilots stand by veto of offer

| Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:00 a.m

Two pilots’ union dissidents said on Monday that recent events had vindicated their decision to veto US Airways’ $295 million concession proposal on Labor Day. And they promised to block any new concession proposals unless the company drops what they claim is its union-busting ways.

“If the company bargains in good faith instead of demanding complete capitulation, then there is a chance for an agreement,” said Fred Freshwater, a Pittsburgh representative on the union’s Master Executive Council. “But I don’t see that happening with this company.”

Daniel Von Bargen, an MEC representative from Philadelphia, said that two weeks of internal and external pressure — including a rebuke from U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn Hills — had not weakened his resolve to veto any new company proposal that he views as anti-labor.

“This is union-busting 101,” Von Bargen said.

The defiant message came on the eve of a two-day pilots’ union summit, beginning today in Charlotte, N.C., to prepare for more talks with the company.

The comments raise concerns about whether US Airways will be able to reach negotiated settlements with its unions, a key ingredient to attracting new investors needed to emerge from bankruptcy.

Without new investors, US Airways may be liquidated, throwing 28,000 employees — including 7,700 in Western Pennsylvania — out of work.

US Airways, the nation’s seventh-largest airline, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 12 after failing to get unions to accept $800 million in wage and benefits cuts.

The company had said early last week that it would give the pilots until Wednesday to negotiate a settlement — fueling union fears that the company would soon ask bankruptcy Judge Stephen S. Mitchell to void its union contracts.

The unions believe the company will make that request as early as Thursday. The company, however, has hinted it may wait until a scheduled court hearing on Oct. 7 to ask Mitchell to cancel its labor contracts.

If Mitchell voids the contracts, US Airways would be able to impose wage and benefit terms on employees.

To gain Mitchell’s approval, the company must prove that it negotiated with unions in good faith.

“I have been saying for two years that the company was engaging in union-busting,” said Teddy Xidas, president of Association of Flight Attendants Local 40 in Pittsburgh.

A spokeswoman for the Communication Workers of America, which represents the airline’s gate and reservations agents, accused the airline of stalling.

“The company … has canceled meetings with our group several times in the past few weeks,” said Candice Johnson. “We’ve provided them with additional proposals and have gotten absolutely no response. We’re bewildered by these actions and by the company’s statements.”

“We are still open and willing to continue negotiations with all of our unions to reach consensual agreements,” US Airways spokesman David Castelveter said yesterday.

Separately yesterday, Xidas said Santorum, R-Penn Hills, owed the airline’s unions an apology for remarks he made last week accusing the four Pennsylvania pilots of trying to “take the airline down.”

Santorum yesterday issued the following statement:

“It was not my intention to single out any one party for the current financial crisis of US Airways … All parties, both labor and management, need to come to the bargaining table in good faith and negotiate a contract that will help the airline achieve profitability and maintain as many jobs as possible.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.