gettinbumped

Man I've written 428 posts trying to say this exact thing and you did it in 1. Very nicely put. Hopefully we get final language soon and hopefully we will get a vote either way.

Hilltopper89

Thanks for your (and others here) mentorship. I'm learning.

Sunvox

Thanks.

I even thought of a corollary to my final paragraph.

The Con's are all under the impression that this offer is a sign of weakness on the side of the company since it is so unlike their prior behaviour. I would argue the exact opposite is true. Times are good. We have new leadership. Delta, a company famed for positive labor relations, just had a TA asking for QOL concessions turned down. UCH management has been presented with an opportunity to offer their pilots guaranteed industry leading wages and with no QOL give backs AND there's an extra bonus in that UCH can be seen as helping fix an ALPA goof AND UCH might be able to fix the minor but irksome issue of duty extensions on long haul flights. This would be a win-win for all sides. Management gets fixed costs for five years so the new boss can make plans, and the pilots get paid top wages without having to give up anything or fight in negotiations for years.

This is not an offer of desperation. This is an offer designed to show good will, and take advantage of a political wind created by the Delta TA refusal. It might even look good on Wall St. if UCH is seen as turning the corner in labor relations. If we refuse the offer management will shrug their shoulders, shake their heads, and continue with their plans to make billions using the rules that are already in place. There is zero evidence this is an act of desperation other than it's unusual, but when seen in the context of the Delta TA failure maybe it's not so unusual after all.

Anyways, that's my guess.

uafurlough

My concern is what we are going to have to give up on FRMS. I don't particularly care to fly across the Atlantic (past the English Channel) with only two pilots. I wouldn't want to be part of a four pilot crew that has a duty day of twenty two hours.
While on furlough I flew part 121 supplemental, three crew members, and we had no max duty day. Eighteen to twenty hours wasn't uncommon. My longest was thirty two, with a double crew, but with a DH on one end (on board the freighter), so they would only have to pay 50% pay for the DH. I don't want to do that again, and question its safety.
A raise and getting rid of LOA 25 would be great, but at what cost over the next twenty years.

Flytolive

Minor? Irksome? The ultra long-haul flights are the key to the most lucrative portion of United Airline's network and one of the few advantages United management enjoys over DAL.

BTW, the 747-400s that were parked the ramp for six weeks because Dubinsky said no were a win-win too.

gettinbumped

To me this is a very legitimate concern and question. Final language detail will be critical here. I hope that the negotiating committee is experienced enough to have good sense with what is safe and reasonable, but time will tell.

SpecialTracking

***** wrote the following. My responses are in bold.
.................................................. .......................................
I'd like to summarize the discussion as I've seen it in this and other threads only because I like hearing myself talk Why, don't you take this seriously?


Pro: The rumored value of the offer is sufficient for me to accept a continuation of the current contract as the value of the offer exceeds the value of any improvements I anticipate.


Con: We, ALPA-UAL, have leverage of which we are not taking full advantage. We should tell the company no and force an early entrance into Section 6 negotiations and further force the company to offer a pay raise AND major improvements in QOL issues such as reserve. The corporation is in such dire need of relief on a few key issues that they will agree to this quickly. Clearly we didn't try hard enough and are rushing.That CON surely is complicated and makes me, well...you forgot one scenario. The TA is rejected and goes back to negotiation for modification of one or all of the extension negotiating bullet points.

For the cons I have a few questions:

Question 1 - Of those individuals who seem so certain that we have unused leverage, how many of you have tried to communicate privately with any of the members of the negotiating committee Phil, Jeff, Brad, or Greg?

ahh . . . crickets
That's what the survey and roadshows are for.

Question 2: Of those who say we are selling out cheap, how many of you have put pencil to paper and calculated actual dollar values of the offer including the future value of that money and including your 16% B-Fund money AND laid that alongside what YOU expect would improve in full Section 6 negotiations THEN weighed the two?

ahh . . . again crickets . . .
Dunno, I'm not privy to ALPA's Economic and Financial Analysis data. I figure with my my $4k+/yr to ALPA, it should yield some answers, or not, during the roadshows.

Question 3 How many contracts does the average pilot get to vote on in a typical career?
Has absolutely zero bearing on this situation.

Question 4 - What is the average time to negotiate a new contract for an ALPA carrier?
we aren't negotiating a full contract are we?


Lastly Question 5 - Has anyone calculated the value of the back pay junior L-UAL pilots will get as a consequence of repairing the LOA 25 injustice?

ahh . . . yes . . . I see . . . crickets
Red herring. I'm supremely confident that there is a large group of pilots who want the 2172/1436 compensated.



Pilot work rules have vastly improved over the decades. Yes some years pilots go backwards and some years they go forwards in terms of QOL. We got our head handed to us in bankruptcy and were told three years ago that we'll get them next time. But I'm sure you are supremely aware that we are not negotiating a full contract or QOL terms, except possibly reserve assignment processes. This raise is NOT backwards and corrects a major injustice that was known as LOA 25. Whenever is a raise regressive? Leaving money on the table makes one scratch their head though. Again, you're using LOA25 is a red herring. True we all can find items in our current contract we'd like to see improved, but what price do you place on those improvements? Don't know. ALPA should know the value to the company by extending the contract for 2 years and should share that information allowing us to make an informed decision.

Let's do a quick "back of the envelope" analysis that others can refine or correct as I'm sure I'm missing some facts and details, but just so we can have a general idea of the "price" we are being offered to live with the QOL as it is . . .


let's take a middle seniority bloke who is a 777 FO

2016 payrate $184.59
2015 payrate $179.21

Net $5.38 or 3%

Assuming the rumor of 16% is based on 2015 rates then we have:

AIP payrate $207.88
2016 payrate $184.59

Net $23.29

so $23.29 x 85 hours x 36 months = $71,267
and $71,267 x .16 B-Fund =$11,402

so . . . .

Drum roll please . . .

The company is offering me $82,000 to extend my current contract 3 years AND they will make the folks harmed by LOA 25 whole AND they promise during that period I will never get paid less than Delta pilots.
not getting paid less than Delta is swell. Being compensated less than Delta is a true to life nut cruncher. Couching this as industry leading pay, well is a sales job at it's best.

Umm . . . really . . .

I'm sorry James et al. This seems silly.


My wife is a senior executive at a major corporation. We have friends that are CFOs and even CEOs. In general we socialize top shelf liquor I gather with folks in upper management or banking. (Not saying I like these peopleWhy not? I'm sure they like you, in a veneer sort of way. ; just stating facts) I can assure you they would read this thread and the pilot bravado and laugh. There is a simple element folks who talk about using leverage are forgetting. To you the pilot this is real and meaningful money. To a corporate CEO this is a tiny fraction of their longterm forecast. In their eyes offering to settle quickly and give you a raise without asking much in return is already infinitely generous. Sorry, but they are getting quite a lot in return in terms of a multi billion dollar contract extension and a FRMS allowing them the ability and flexibility for the ULR flying plans. Would you do me a favor and go onto the UAL Pilots Forum and describe management as generous? I could use a some cheap entertainment. They have zero incentive to offer more; the corporation is earning billions as is and yes they'd like to earn a little more, but their NOT going to offer the pilots the moon Who wants the moon? How about receiving a just compensation adjustment for what we are sacrificing? for what is to them a mere incremental return on equity. Changes in pilot QOL cost the company forever forward and are not taken lightly. We agreeIt's fun to talk about leverage and being tough and improving QOL, but negotiations are NEVER quick or easy. This pay raise could be a rare opportunity for pilots to experience "quick and easy" just once in their career that is IF the rumors are true. They always expect us to take the path of least resistence.

SpecialTracking

It's all about the information we receive to based a reasoned vote on. Certainly we all can agree on that.

gettinbumped

Absolutely 100% agree.

Sunvox

Don't really want to parse through and edit out excess verbiage so let me just answer the points without having to post them incomprehensibly in between another post.

First, no, I don't take comments on APC too seriously either those I make or those of others.

Second, all the points you make are valid from YOUR viewpoint and there in lies the tragedy. For whatever reason pilots are terrible at knowing when they have leverage and when they don't. If I had been Chairman during the bankruptcy I would have pushed for us to strike while in Chapter 11 and test the law. At that moment in time the future of UAL was at stake and the company would have blinked. Right now the company has zero reason to blink and every reason to take a LONG time in negotiations. Your view is that of a "minion".

Third, either you don't understand the meaning of Red Herring or you yourself are employing an ironic use of a complex thought in an attempt to distract readers from the issue at hand. The one "get" beside money in the rumored AIP is an undoing of the LOA 25. The fact that this would be likely to be included in any agreement is totally irrelevant to the question of the value of this AIP. Your inability to understand this is quizzical at best.

Fourth, you say "we aren't negotiating a full contract are we". All I can say is "wow". If you don't understand why I asked what I asked and why your comment utterly misses the point then you really shouldn't be debating with me.

Fifth, again "wow". Raises are never regressive, true. The reference was in regard to the QOL give backs turned down by Delta pilots, and your inability to follow this train of logic shows your command of English is lacking.

Lastly, you mention but one point of actual leverage in your entire answer. FRMS. Sir, what is the value of the advantage in dollar terms? I don't know either, but I do know that as a percentage of the total pie it is very, very small. That is NOT leverage.

Your points are nonsensical and you utterly ignore the question at hand. Does the rumored AIP offer enough value to extend our contract and if not why not? Because we can do better because we have "leverage"? Is that your answer? And, while you're answering that how about telling me what a "just compensation package" looks like and what makes it "just", and then tell me what our "sacrifices" are today? I can't wait to here your answer because it should get a good laugh at the next dinner party I attend.

Honestly dude if you think we have "leverage" you have no clue about realpolitik.

re·al·po·li·tik
[rāˈälpōliˌtēk]
NOUN
a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.