United QWL/Fatigue TA
04-02-2009, 07:31 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
DC,
Thank you for your input. I am facing a furlough for the second time in the nine years I have been here. I am NOT happy with the fact that there is a TA that has been negotiated that is man-power neutral, and at the same time the MEC has pulled out of any furlough mitigation talks.
I am also unhappy about the ridiculous pay for things such as apartments and trip drops for Union members to continue the crack job they have done for me to date (re: the wailing wall in ORD regarding housing in DC). To quote a really bad song lyric, what have you done for me lately?
I am as miffed as everyone else, maybe more so, with what management has done to my proud airline. This is the only place I ever wanted to work. I am just as angered over what the union has done to the junior guys. Cobra payments are great and though I didn't use them the first time around, I certainly appreciate them. I hear guys complaining all the time about the requirement for the Cobra payment though, which just further illustrates the lack of any real UNITY. What really hurt though was the lack of any type of retirement restoration for anyone not on the property, age 65 (not an MEC level issue, I know), the seniority of furloughees for pay and everything else important that was given back to the company, the allowance of 70 seat RJs outside of mainline, etc.
As I have stated before, I am an ALPA supporter and have worked to try to help my fellow line pilot and the group as a whole. I realize that the company certainly does not care for us and ALPA is our only friend. That doesn't mean I always like the way my friends behave.
Randy
Thank you for your input. I am facing a furlough for the second time in the nine years I have been here. I am NOT happy with the fact that there is a TA that has been negotiated that is man-power neutral, and at the same time the MEC has pulled out of any furlough mitigation talks.
I am also unhappy about the ridiculous pay for things such as apartments and trip drops for Union members to continue the crack job they have done for me to date (re: the wailing wall in ORD regarding housing in DC). To quote a really bad song lyric, what have you done for me lately?
I am as miffed as everyone else, maybe more so, with what management has done to my proud airline. This is the only place I ever wanted to work. I am just as angered over what the union has done to the junior guys. Cobra payments are great and though I didn't use them the first time around, I certainly appreciate them. I hear guys complaining all the time about the requirement for the Cobra payment though, which just further illustrates the lack of any real UNITY. What really hurt though was the lack of any type of retirement restoration for anyone not on the property, age 65 (not an MEC level issue, I know), the seniority of furloughees for pay and everything else important that was given back to the company, the allowance of 70 seat RJs outside of mainline, etc.
As I have stated before, I am an ALPA supporter and have worked to try to help my fellow line pilot and the group as a whole. I realize that the company certainly does not care for us and ALPA is our only friend. That doesn't mean I always like the way my friends behave.
Randy
Randy,
I am truly upset and sorry that you are facing round 2 of a furlough. You know me, and know that i offer no apologies for National and the lack of support re certain issues. Or for the failings of our own (ie the EMB 170 giveaway).
Do I wish we had a meaningful early retirement and a better furlough mitigation? Sure as hell I do...but the fact is it takes two to agree to something and the company has time after time shown no or little desire to even come close to doing either of those things. Many of the 2172 issues that came out of C11 (and elsewhere) thanks to you and Steve S. and Jim T. are goals of the MEC and pilot group as a whole for the Section 6 process.
From what I know I think this TA is a positive step in the direction we want to go, and something to build upon once in full Section 6 in a couple of days. I certainly don't view it as a final end to the topics covered by the TA, but only the beginning and will let Marco and Steve know that. I look forward to being able to attend one of the meetings they will hold about the TA and hear their take on it.
Give me a call or email and we can talk further.
And should it happen, I look forward to buying you beer when you are back on the property once again.
DC
04-03-2009, 05:10 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 520
1. what does everything have to be NEUTRAL-- manpower neutral, cost neutral-- i mean seriously what gains has a group made if every little decision it makes is NEUTRAL--- as an elected official for UA, i would do everything i could to save as many jobs as i could and would take great pride in that number - especially if it were positive.
2. are you guys saying that a different TA regarding furlough mitigation will be forthcoming? i thought i remember getting all those blast email stating that this was the furlough mitigation/QOL ta talks they were talking of, and like everyone else i want to know where is the mitigation?
3. enought with the cost neutral stuff-- all that does is cause expectation for upcoming contract talks-- since the company is used to not giving in-- what incentive do they have to give/bend on anything.
4. what happened to all those slogans-- fix it now, taking it back, MTFU---- more like GMAB
2. are you guys saying that a different TA regarding furlough mitigation will be forthcoming? i thought i remember getting all those blast email stating that this was the furlough mitigation/QOL ta talks they were talking of, and like everyone else i want to know where is the mitigation?
3. enought with the cost neutral stuff-- all that does is cause expectation for upcoming contract talks-- since the company is used to not giving in-- what incentive do they have to give/bend on anything.
4. what happened to all those slogans-- fix it now, taking it back, MTFU---- more like GMAB
04-03-2009, 06:36 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by SEA 737
Agreed! This is a MAJOR improvement for the pilots especially getting TRIP TRADING back. HOWEVER, there are some reps out there (I hear SFO, DCA, and LAX) who want to shoot this down. They need to hear from you LOUD and CLEAR that enough is enough and all their "chest beating" of the last two years has gotten us NOTHING but a gag order from a Federal judge. It's time to TAKE what we can get, put it our pocket and send the negotiating committee back for more. If they turn this down, trip trading is DEAD until Section 6 is completed. Want to live your commuting life for another three or four years with ZERO flexibility? LAX, SFO, and DCA need to hear loud and clear that LIFESTYLE AND QoL ARE IMPORTANT.
This is just more of the same old crap from these clowns.
SEA/ORD 737/767
This is just more of the same old crap from these clowns.
SEA/ORD 737/767
IMO we better get used to saying NO. Sorry if it makes your commuting life harder.
04-03-2009, 06:48 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by C11DCA
G,
So if you want the LEC reps to be leaders, then why were the TA details leaked prior to the MEC even having a discussion about it?
So if you want the LEC reps to be leaders, then why were the TA details leaked prior to the MEC even having a discussion about it?
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
I am not answering or siding with Gene, but I do want to answer this for myself.
Furlough mitigation is not represented to be a part of this particular TA, and therein lies the problem.
My $.02, take it for what it is worth (less than $.02 on the current market).
Randy
Furlough mitigation is not represented to be a part of this particular TA, and therein lies the problem.
My $.02, take it for what it is worth (less than $.02 on the current market).
Randy
Here's my concern. When trip trading was originally cancelled, there were two reasons given. The first was that the company wasn't playing fair with the constraints. The second was that the elimination of trip trading would have the additional affect of keeping some of the targeted 950 on the property.
No one ever said how many potential furloughees would be saved. The number 200 was thrown out there, but that was based on previous rules and staffing. When I asked my reps, the answer I got was that potential furloughees would be saved, but ALPA didn't want to post a number for fear of what the company would do.
At a minimum, I want this TA to preserve the same number of furloughees as the elimination of trip trading. (That's assuming that the elimination of TT was going to save any. I still can't be sure of that.)
Our council meeting happened before the TA came to light, so I didn't have a chance to ask the question. But I would be pressing hard in closed session to get an idea from TB or SW what that number is.
Hog
04-03-2009, 10:09 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 754
Originally Posted by C11DCA
Randy,
I am truly upset and sorry that you are facing round 2 of a furlough. You know me, and know that i offer no apologies for National and the lack of support re certain issues. Or for the failings of our own (ie the EMB 170 giveaway).
Do I wish we had a meaningful early retirement and a better furlough mitigation? Sure as hell I do...but the fact is it takes two to agree to something and the company has time after time shown no or little desire to even come close to doing either of those things. Many of the 2172 issues that came out of C11 (and elsewhere) thanks to you and Steve S. and Jim T. are goals of the MEC and pilot group as a whole for the Section 6 process.
From what I know I think this TA is a positive step in the direction we want to go, and something to build upon once in full Section 6 in a couple of days. I certainly don't view it as a final end to the topics covered by the TA, but only the beginning and will let Marco and Steve know that. I look forward to being able to attend one of the meetings they will hold about the TA and hear their take on it.
Give me a call or email and we can talk further.
And should it happen, I look forward to buying you beer when you are back on the property once again.
DC
I am truly upset and sorry that you are facing round 2 of a furlough. You know me, and know that i offer no apologies for National and the lack of support re certain issues. Or for the failings of our own (ie the EMB 170 giveaway).
Do I wish we had a meaningful early retirement and a better furlough mitigation? Sure as hell I do...but the fact is it takes two to agree to something and the company has time after time shown no or little desire to even come close to doing either of those things. Many of the 2172 issues that came out of C11 (and elsewhere) thanks to you and Steve S. and Jim T. are goals of the MEC and pilot group as a whole for the Section 6 process.
From what I know I think this TA is a positive step in the direction we want to go, and something to build upon once in full Section 6 in a couple of days. I certainly don't view it as a final end to the topics covered by the TA, but only the beginning and will let Marco and Steve know that. I look forward to being able to attend one of the meetings they will hold about the TA and hear their take on it.
Give me a call or email and we can talk further.
And should it happen, I look forward to buying you beer when you are back on the property once again.
DC
I think something that is being missed are the affects of this TA on the number of reserves needed for each fleet and domicile. I agree that brining up the guarantee to 70 hours won't be manpower negative. I agree that it will be a step in the right direction by tightening up the line ranges. The 30 hour range is way too wide for PBS. I have two problems with it and it's relationship to manpower.
The first problem I have is that there is no line repair for the folks who opt for the lower max. Many folks that opt for the lower max will still end up flying well into the 90s. I know some folks will say "what's the difference" since that's what we're currently doing. I think most of us can agree that the line value changes will just reshuffle some of the flying and not have an affect on the average line build. So, with that being the case, the missing line repair for 87/89 will certainly have a negative affect on the number of reserves needed. It also reduces the fatigue mitigating qualities of this part of the TA.
Someone else mentioned how trip trading affects the number of reserves. They covered it pretty well so I won't. It will have an affect on reserve numbers without creating more line holders.
The biggest problem I have with it is that it seems like we're just trading with ourselves again. If the affects are so neutral then why wasn't this part of the BK contract? There has to be some sort of catalyst to make the company want to agree to this. I think the catalyst is trip trading. I have the feeling that they want it even more than we do and that feeling scares me. We don't even know what the final product of the new trip trading system will look like. Whatever the case, I'm sure it will be manpower negative.
There are some very positive attributes of the TA. I recognize them. I am just challenging the opinion that this TA won't have an affect on manpower.
Good luck to us all. It's been a tough decade.
04-03-2009, 11:56 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
I am happy that a good bunch of you are ASKING the RIGHT questions!
I am still wanting to know, WHERE IS THE FURLOUGH MITIGATION?
Also I heard last night from a "source" that the MEC is close to signing off on the 190's (aka...90 seaters) for a little pay upgrade on the Widebodies...NICE!
ALPA wasn't happy about the pay for Mainline guys on the EMB-190 at 80 an hour for Capt and 40 an hour for F/O.
SAY IT ISN'T SO
I am still wanting to know, WHERE IS THE FURLOUGH MITIGATION?
Also I heard last night from a "source" that the MEC is close to signing off on the 190's (aka...90 seaters) for a little pay upgrade on the Widebodies...NICE!
ALPA wasn't happy about the pay for Mainline guys on the EMB-190 at 80 an hour for Capt and 40 an hour for F/O.
SAY IT ISN'T SO
04-03-2009, 11:58 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by SEA 737
Gene:
Answer this -
When and where was "furlough mitigation" EVER represented to be a part of this particular TA?
Answer this -
When and where was "furlough mitigation" EVER represented to be a part of this particular TA?
Ok--I will answer.
It was on a MEC update that "This will include Furlough Mitigation and more info will be forthcoming"
I will try to see if I can directly locate that info.
SECONDLY--
WHY WOULD IT NOT? NICE ATTITUDE, worry about feather bedding your own little loft and screw the 2172 AGAIN!
04-03-2009, 01:47 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CRJ, CR7, A320, B737
Posts: 229
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
I am happy that a good bunch of you are ASKING the RIGHT questions!
I am still wanting to know, WHERE IS THE FURLOUGH MITIGATION?
Also I heard last night from a "source" that the MEC is close to signing off on the 190's (aka...90 seaters) for a little pay upgrade on the Widebodies...NICE!
ALPA wasn't happy about the pay for Mainline guys on the EMB-190 at 80 an hour for Capt and 40 an hour for F/O.
SAY IT ISN'T SO
I am still wanting to know, WHERE IS THE FURLOUGH MITIGATION?
Also I heard last night from a "source" that the MEC is close to signing off on the 190's (aka...90 seaters) for a little pay upgrade on the Widebodies...NICE!
ALPA wasn't happy about the pay for Mainline guys on the EMB-190 at 80 an hour for Capt and 40 an hour for F/O.
SAY IT ISN'T SO
04-03-2009, 01:58 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 123
From the 2/6/09 MEC update:
The Negotiating Committee met with the Company on Tuesday and Thursday this week in the continuation with their discussions related to the Section 6 Protocol, QWL/Fatigue, PERP and other issues that should produce minor improvements for furloughees. The Negotiating Committee reports that some positive progress was made in the areas of QWL/Fatigue and Section 6 Protocol discussions and both the Company and the Negotiating Committee have agreed to further meetings next week. Although there are no final agreements on those two areas, the Negotiating Committee was encouraged with the progress made this week.
From 1/16/09
The MEC Negotiating Committee met with the Company on Tuesday to receive the Company’s proposals regarding QWL including those affecting furlough mitigation and trip trade improvement tests. The Company did not yet have a response to ALPA’s PERP proposal because the Company is still conducting their internal financial review.
On the QWL issues, the Negotiating Committee is analyzing the Company’s proposal and will discuss its analysis with the MEC at next week’s MEC Meeting in Chicago.
Regarding trip trading, the Company advised our Negotiating Committee that it is willing to meet and discuss a reinstatement of the trip trade program with consideration given to testing modifications agreed to by ALPA and the Company.
From 1/10/07
The UAL-MEC Negotiating Committee met with the Company on Tuesday to discuss Quality of Work Life (QWL) issues, fatigue issues, a Pilot Early Retirement Program (PERP) and a Section Six Protocol Agreement. The Negotiating Committee presented the Company with several proposals that, if accepted, would improve the pilot’s QWL and help mitigate furloughs by narrowing the Line Construction Window and providing a process that would establish three tests exploring improvements to the PBS Line Building process, Trip Trade System, and Pairing Building process. The Negotiating Committee is not optimistic the Company will make substantial improvements regarding the PERP. Company officials have publicly stated repeatedly that they are standing by to help the pilots with QWL types of issues, and Mr. Attarian reiterated these comments last Sunday. The Negotiating Committee is awaiting the Company’s replies to their proposals.
The Negotiating Committee met with the Company on Tuesday and Thursday this week in the continuation with their discussions related to the Section 6 Protocol, QWL/Fatigue, PERP and other issues that should produce minor improvements for furloughees. The Negotiating Committee reports that some positive progress was made in the areas of QWL/Fatigue and Section 6 Protocol discussions and both the Company and the Negotiating Committee have agreed to further meetings next week. Although there are no final agreements on those two areas, the Negotiating Committee was encouraged with the progress made this week.
From 1/16/09
The MEC Negotiating Committee met with the Company on Tuesday to receive the Company’s proposals regarding QWL including those affecting furlough mitigation and trip trade improvement tests. The Company did not yet have a response to ALPA’s PERP proposal because the Company is still conducting their internal financial review.
On the QWL issues, the Negotiating Committee is analyzing the Company’s proposal and will discuss its analysis with the MEC at next week’s MEC Meeting in Chicago.
Regarding trip trading, the Company advised our Negotiating Committee that it is willing to meet and discuss a reinstatement of the trip trade program with consideration given to testing modifications agreed to by ALPA and the Company.
From 1/10/07
The UAL-MEC Negotiating Committee met with the Company on Tuesday to discuss Quality of Work Life (QWL) issues, fatigue issues, a Pilot Early Retirement Program (PERP) and a Section Six Protocol Agreement. The Negotiating Committee presented the Company with several proposals that, if accepted, would improve the pilot’s QWL and help mitigate furloughs by narrowing the Line Construction Window and providing a process that would establish three tests exploring improvements to the PBS Line Building process, Trip Trade System, and Pairing Building process. The Negotiating Committee is not optimistic the Company will make substantial improvements regarding the PERP. Company officials have publicly stated repeatedly that they are standing by to help the pilots with QWL types of issues, and Mr. Attarian reiterated these comments last Sunday. The Negotiating Committee is awaiting the Company’s replies to their proposals.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
