May 23, 2012


Dear Mr. Smisek:

I wanted to take the time to respond to your letter dated May 21, 2012 in which you acknowledged your role in politicizing, posturing, and unnecessarily delaying reaching a competitive agreement with the 12,000 pilots of United Airlines. In that letter you clearly stated that the Delta TA has raised the standard for pilot pay and you have every intention of offering rates of pay that are comparable to the Delta TA. We couldn’t be more pleased. You also clearly framed your argument that competitive pay is tied to scope and productivity. Since we seem to be in agreement on pay it is these last two items that I’d like to address in this letter.

After carefully examining the scope provisions of the Delta TA and the underlying CBA it is clear that Delta Airlines’ management operates under the assumption that they can be more successful collectively if their mainline operation is growing and vibrant. In short, they use limited outsourcing as a way to strengthen and grow their mainline operations and allow the pilots of Delta Airlines to share in those rewards.

In contrast, United Airlines management’s view of scope and United pilots is that they are a hindrance to the success of the organization. As such, United management has a long history of searching for loopholes in or abrogating altogether the limited scope provisions contained in our CBA to the detriment of United Airlines pilots. It would be foolish of you to believe that we will assist you in destroying our careers and our families.

While I can not speak for all 12,000 of my United brothers and sisters, I think you will find that the vast majority of us are more than willing to work hard productively for the success of United Airlines. Because of the failings of the RLA and our federal court system we realize how inextricably our future is tied to the success of our airline. Unfortunately, when this management team uses the term “productivity enhancements” they use it as a euphemism for “free workforce.” They use it to describe an ideal situation where management can waste a pilot’s time at airports, layovers, and other places, for no pay whatsoever.

Work rules attempt to place an economic penalty on the inefficient use, by management, of limited labor capital. Work rules also attempt to protect our ability to achieve proper rest and to enjoy some of the trappings of a middle class lifestyle we have worked so hard to achieve. In short, work rules attempt to drive management to work us hard and then send us home. The key to finding a more efficient workforce is to identify the many, many times management uses three pilots to do the work of one, not because of some archaic CBA provision, but because of the decision makers inability to apply logic, problem solve, and utilize this company’s limited resources in a way that brings maximum value to the organization.

In your letter you state that negotiations have gone on long enough. However, it appears that the reason they have gone on so long is that the pilots have been asked to subsidize the unwillingness or the inability of this management team to manage effectively. We have been asked to insulate management from the rigors of the competitive marketplace through less than industry average wages, benefits and work rules. We will not do so. We expect you and your team to manage at least as well as our competitors.

We are in agreement that this has gone on long enough. Thankfully, we now have a firm deadline for the conclusion of negotiations.


Respectfully,

The united pilots of United Airlines