Originally Posted by gettinbumped

I signed on to this forum this morning for the first time in quite awhile. While I didn't read through the entire mass of postings, I did get a flavor of what the general consensus is here. I've had discussions with dozens of pilots about the TA, about its gains and warts. I've heard the battle cries of "don't drink the KoolAid", "all YES votes are fear votes", and "vote ONLY on the merits of this TA. Don't look at ANY other factors". I've watched the town hall videos, engaged the P2P volunteers and reps, and read all the Q and A sections.

I'd say that the negatives of the TA have been FULLY covered here on this board, while the positives have been glossed over, save a few postings here and there.

The ramifications of a "yes" or "no" vote are purely speculative at this point, both by the MEC's and by the forum participants. I will attempt to steer clear of speculation in this point, and simply point out some facts that are very eye opening to me.

- Most of the legacy B-757's are being parked. This has been occurring for awhile, and the latest report at a 767 Sabre training class was that 6 more 757's will be gone in short order, more phased out over a timeline that is looking to be 18-24 months, flexible in both directions.

- L-CAL continues to take delivery of 737's and 787's (see Skynet).

- L-CAL hiring has/will soon include off the street new hires.

- L-CAL recently posted a HUGE bid with north of 200 new Captains, many of them substantially junior to any pilots on the L-UAL property. Even if the L-UAL pilots received a favorable SLI, those pilots would be occupying the seats they were, and will continue to be awarded.

- L-CAL has opened 737 bases in ORD and DEN. Exploring SFO and IAD (rumor is January by L-UAL CP Office).

- L-UAL has opened 757 and A320 bases in IAH

- First 737-900ER slated for L-UAL scheduled for delivery in August 2013.

- Number of 737-900ER sims at L-UAL = 0 (Cannot convert older 737 sims to NG.... I asked while at TK)

- Number of L-UAL PI's in training to teach 737-900 school = 0 (again, confirmed at TK)

- Number of pages of 737-900ER syllabus written for L-UAL = 0

- Number of recalls at L-UAL = 0. Announced, then mysteriously cancelled.

- TPA expiration date 3/31/2013.


Obviously, MUCH hinges on what happens on 3/31/2013, which is unknown by everyone. But the simple fact is that L-UAL is completely incapable of flying the 737-900ER in August absent a TA and an SLI which then allows L-CAL pilots and sims to be used to train L-UAL pilots. So what is the company's "plan B" if the TA is voted down. They could:

a) IMMEDIATELY improve the contract enough that it passes. The NMB has indicated they would re-engage negotiations and require a survey of what the pilots want fixed. Then there would need to be an explanation period, followed by another voting window. Under the best of circumstances, would this allow enough time to get pilots trained to fly the 737-900ER before they are on property in August?

b) Tell Boeing they aren't going to be able to take deliver of the 737-900ER's and either continue to park the 757's anyway, or do the heavy maintenance and rework the leases. FACT: L-UAL has shown that they are MORE than happy to park airplanes.

c) Argue that the TPA should expire on 3/31/13, take delivery of the 737-900ER's, and deliver then to L-CAL, who would need to accelerate training and hiring immediately to have enough pilots to fly the airplanes. Park L-UAL 757's on schedule. Tell L-UAL MEC to grieve it if they think it was done incorrectly.

Obviously, THIS is the rub. Is "c" possible? If the company came to Jay Pierce and asked for his support on "c", would he agree to support their efforts to seek termination of the TPA? No one knows the answers to these questions, though L-UAL's MC put out a communique on what our lawyers feel the 'intent' of the TPA was. Has Jay Pierce ever worked a side deal outside of the 3 party negotiations required by the TPA before? See grievance filed on profit sharing.

Voting on the TA without at least CONSIDERING the above issues is like accepting an airplane with a deferred system based completely on the legality of the MEL and not considering the conditions of flight, weather, etc. NO pilot would do that.



A few other issues that seem to come up a lot on this forum. I see several L-UAL pilots mentioning their lost 2 days of vacation. While this is true for the upper half of the seniority list, many in the bottom half GAIN 5 days of vacation. TA - 11-24 years = 35 days, Current book - 12-20 years = 30 days. Since the vast majority of the bottom half of the list is between 12-20 years, it will be a net gain for most in that group. Vacation dropping would be less lucrative. However, this MIGHT be countered by some increased flexibility. I have zero success with getting vacation drops now as the company tries to close the loophole. Even getting the flight office to vacation drop trips for a sick relative, etc. etc. is often met with "I've already given out our vacation allocation for the month. Sorry, it will have to be without pay".

L-UAL issues with the 767-400 banded with the 747. You can vote down the TA as many times as you want, but this simply isn't going to change. The CAL MEC has pinned SLI hopes on this issue, and cost us MONTHS of negotiating progress while refusing to budge on this issue. The company wants it, and the CAL MEC demands it. Game over, we lose 2-1. (This seems to be a recurring theme)

Forced reassignment into a day off. While this is certainly a give, many facts are frequently left out of the discussion. 1) The company has to go through 7 steps to get to this point, INCLUDING offering the trip to SR manning at double pay. 2) The pay penalty for doing so is rather large. 3) They are limited to twice a year per pilot. 4) If they make this a practice, they MUST put out bids in the offending seat. 5) The fatigue card saves all.

Basic reserve gets 1 moveable day off a month. Indeed, but as a sometimes-reserve pilot, I personally see enough gets to make this and putting the "4 hour rule" in writing a good trade (yes, I know it's 3:30 with the company paying for my short term parking. At a place like IAD, it takes 30 minutes to get to ops anyway from parking, so that's a wash). First, 6 more days off a year. Second, FINALLY the ability to make more than 70 hours on reserve consistently. Third, duty rigs and add pay for reserves. I see much made of the ability to convert short calls to field standby's. Ummm.... guess what? They CAN and DO do that right now!!!!!

I hear: This is a CONCESSIONARY contract. According to JP Morgan's analysts, this contract is worth more than $400 million above current book to the pilots in the first year. You know, the year where everyone is unhappy because most of the good raises and work rules don't kick in yet? Are there gives in the contract? Of course. Are there some things in the contract that we gave up? Definitely. But that doesn't make a contract concessionary in my view. C2000 had HUGE HUGE gives (see 70 seat scope), and I hardly think that anyone would call that a "concessionary contract". In any negotiation, there are going to be gives and gets. Deal with it. You want all gives and no gets? The NMB, Congress, and the rest of the world don't see that as realistic.

Money: This one is my favorite. The people that crunch these numbers estimate that this contract has a $$ value to the pilots of north of $40 million/month. If this process takes 6 months, then the new TA needs to be worth $240 million MORE than it is worth right now JUST TO BREAK EVEN. The response I see to that is "money isn't everything". I bet the company just LOVES to see that answer. Of course, these same folks will say they are voting no because we aren't getting paid enough money (see DAL) to vote yes. They save $40 million of YOUR money every month (plus interest) by this TA not passing. Is that a reason to vote "yes"? That's up to each individual pilot. But to casually discard the math because "money isn't everything" is just foolish.

I read a quote that a L-CAL pilot posted on this forum with regards to the UAL SPC saying that LOA 25 was NOT an SLI grab by Pierce etc. What this pilot neglected to post was the rest of that email, which I have read. In that email, this (I believe P2P?) rep makes repeated assurances that he is carefully weighing both sides. These are sandwiched in between language that makes it clear that he is a STRONG no vote. He then goes on to dissect the UAL pilot numbers and the CAL pilot numbers, breaking down how much of a "no" percentage they need to get to in order to counter the UAL pilot vote. Those numbers, by the way, change every day as L-CAL continues to hire. I'm going to break my speculation rule here: LOA 25 is a huge injustice to the group of L-UAL pilots who endure the "carve out". I can understand the rage and frustration with being "left behind" while L-CAL furloughees get full longevity. SPECULATION ALERT: The painful irony here is that I'm fully convinced that voting "no" makes things worse for these pilots. I've watched Jay Pierce maneuver enough during this process to feel comfortable declaring that he does nothing without an eye on L-CAL SLI benefits. I think it is safe to say that Jay Pierce is not a friend to L-UAL furloughed pilots. So a "no" vote to try to rectify this carve out will (in my opinion) be met with resistance from both the company AND the CAL MC, thus making it's dismissal nearly impossible. Again, MY OPINION, the BEST chance for L-UAL furloughed carve-out correction is a combined MEC controlled by L-UAL pilots. The window for that to happen is closing with every new L-CAL pilot that's added. A divisive statement? Indeed. Sorry, but after enduring the divisive tactics of the CAL MC for a couple of years now, I'm not worried about making things any worse than they already are.

I could go on and counter pretty much every argument on the forum with at least an opposing view point, but that would take up too much forum space and time. I'll close with one final observation from what I consider to be a mis-guisded missive from the SEA Cap rep. He writes:

In June, Doug Parker at USAIR said, "We are obviously disappointed that our flight attendants chose to vote against ratification of a new contract," Doug Parker, US Airways' Chairman and CEO, said in a news release. "This tentative agreement was the result of years of deliberate negotiations and was achieved with the instrumental assistance and hard work of the National Mediation Board (NMB). It was also unanimously approved by the AFA negotiating committee. We will now consult with the NMB and AFA leadership to determine the best steps going forward to one day reach a ratified agreement.” This is boiler-plate language and you can expect to hear something very similar if this TA is rejected.

I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that he was using THIS example to make his case for rejection of the TA, suggesting that there will be quick and marked improvements in the contract with a "no" vote. Just last week, the USAirways Flight Attendants took a strike vote, and are NOWHERE NEAR a new contract. 6 months later. If he wants to use that example, so be it. Applied to us, that's 6 months x $40 million a month with no contract in sight. That's $240 million just to get back to where we stand right now. Just do the math.

I've read the "30 reasons to vote no". I've listened to the "3 things that have to be improved for me to vote yes" and realized that they are different for each pilot, and WILDLY different for L-CAL and L-UAL. We have 12,000 different pilots from two EXTREMELY different pilots groups, and fixing problems on one side causes problems on the other. Is it possible to get a blockbuster contract with such handicaps? I don't know. And neither do you. Is the risk worth the reward with the math that is on the table?

Thanks for listening, crawling back to my hole now.