United AIP
12-04-2015, 04:44 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B777 FO/IRO
Posts: 264
United AIP
So I'm reading everyone's comments about this AIP. No one knows exactly what the proposed AIP entails. But I will offer my 2 cents on this part.
We as a pilot group should do the following with any proposed TA that comes our way.
1) Never allow a pilot to negotiate a contract. Hire a professional negotiator. We as pilots are button pushers, not negotiators. Keep it that way. Let someone with experience do this instead of a bunch of pilots just because we think we know it all.
2) Restrict anyone from the MEC Negotiating Committee from going to a management position within the airline for either the length of the contract that is forwarded to us or for 10 years. That way the MEC Negotiating Committee has to work under the rules that they pass on to us.
3) Enact a minimum of a 5% raise each year after the contract expires. It'll bring the company back to the table quicker versus just operating without a contract for many years.
Thoughts and advice? I'm open to all options.
We as a pilot group should do the following with any proposed TA that comes our way.
1) Never allow a pilot to negotiate a contract. Hire a professional negotiator. We as pilots are button pushers, not negotiators. Keep it that way. Let someone with experience do this instead of a bunch of pilots just because we think we know it all.
2) Restrict anyone from the MEC Negotiating Committee from going to a management position within the airline for either the length of the contract that is forwarded to us or for 10 years. That way the MEC Negotiating Committee has to work under the rules that they pass on to us.
3) Enact a minimum of a 5% raise each year after the contract expires. It'll bring the company back to the table quicker versus just operating without a contract for many years.
Thoughts and advice? I'm open to all options.
12-04-2015, 09:28 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by Free Flyer
So I'm reading everyone's comments about this AIP. No one knows exactly what the proposed AIP entails. But I will offer my 2 cents on this part.
We as a pilot group should do the following with any proposed TA that comes our way.
1) Never allow a pilot to negotiate a contract. Hire a professional negotiator. We as pilots are button pushers, not negotiators. Keep it that way. Let someone with experience do this instead of a bunch of pilots just because we think we know it all.
2) Restrict anyone from the MEC Negotiating Committee from going to a management position within the airline for either the length of the contract that is forwarded to us or for 10 years. That way the MEC Negotiating Committee has to work under the rules that they pass on to us.
3) Enact a minimum of a 5% raise each year after the contract expires. It'll bring the company back to the table quicker versus just operating without a contract for many years.
Thoughts and advice? I'm open to all options.
We as a pilot group should do the following with any proposed TA that comes our way.
1) Never allow a pilot to negotiate a contract. Hire a professional negotiator. We as pilots are button pushers, not negotiators. Keep it that way. Let someone with experience do this instead of a bunch of pilots just because we think we know it all.
2) Restrict anyone from the MEC Negotiating Committee from going to a management position within the airline for either the length of the contract that is forwarded to us or for 10 years. That way the MEC Negotiating Committee has to work under the rules that they pass on to us.
3) Enact a minimum of a 5% raise each year after the contract expires. It'll bring the company back to the table quicker versus just operating without a contract for many years.
Thoughts and advice? I'm open to all options.
WRT to #3, I've always thought we should have a penalty if management stonewalled negotiations like a 5-10% per year pay increase if a new CBA wasn't competed before the amendable date. My rep said though, that management will never agree to a punitive pay increase like that because then we might be the ones dragging our feet if the pay increase is more than we think we can get from management. Still, I'd rather have the contractual pay increase in the CBA and let management come and get it, rather than have to wait 2-3 years for a new contract.
12-04-2015, 11:21 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 396
With record profits and qualified pilot shortage, there's no excuse for not being able to score a contract of a lifetime. Oh wait, we have the "Bad News Bears", aka ALPO, at bat. In regards to hiring "professional" negotiators, your ALPO rep will tell you that we HAVE "professional" negotiatiors until his face turns blue. I say, how's that working out for us thus far?
12-04-2015, 03:17 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B777 FO/IRO
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by 2loud
With record profits and qualified pilot shortage, there's no excuse for not being able to score a contract of a lifetime. Oh wait, we have the "Bad News Bears", aka ALPO, at bat. In regards to hiring "professional" negotiators, your ALPO rep will tell you that we HAVE "professional" negotiatiors until his face turns blue. I say, how's that working out for us thus far?
12-06-2015, 04:26 AM
#7
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 12
A lot of early chest thumping, but the logic is sound. As far as I understand, this isn't a full contract, only a two-year extension. Assuming it's somewhat palatable (and the 13% rumor is a great start), there's very little to lose.
If this goes through, the benefits are immediate and in two years the leadership starts negotiating again, but from a 13% better starting point.
If it fails, it will still be another two years before they open the contract anyway, there will be 13% less pay until then, and a 13% lower starting point the MEC will have to negotiate back. Not to mention, it will most likely require the replacement of the MEC (reference Delta and Southwest) and put in question the credibility of ALPA's ability to represent it's pilots. The incentive for any new MEC to reach a TA will be shot. Reaching a TA would be the largest threat to union leaders.
If this goes through, the benefits are immediate and in two years the leadership starts negotiating again, but from a 13% better starting point.
If it fails, it will still be another two years before they open the contract anyway, there will be 13% less pay until then, and a 13% lower starting point the MEC will have to negotiate back. Not to mention, it will most likely require the replacement of the MEC (reference Delta and Southwest) and put in question the credibility of ALPA's ability to represent it's pilots. The incentive for any new MEC to reach a TA will be shot. Reaching a TA would be the largest threat to union leaders.
12-06-2015, 04:43 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by bvt1151
A lot of early chest thumping, but the logic is sound. As far as I understand, this isn't a full contract, only a two-year extension. Assuming it's somewhat palatable (and the 13% rumor is a great start), there's very little to lose.
If this goes through, the benefits are immediate and in two years the leadership starts negotiating again, but from a 13% better starting point.
If it fails, it will still be another two years before they open the contract anyway, there will be 13% less pay until then, and a 13% lower starting point the MEC will have to negotiate back. Not to mention, it will most likely require the replacement of the MEC (reference Delta and Southwest) and put in question the credibility of ALPA's ability to represent it's pilots. The incentive for any new MEC to reach a TA will be shot. Reaching a TA would be the largest threat to union leaders.
If this goes through, the benefits are immediate and in two years the leadership starts negotiating again, but from a 13% better starting point.
If it fails, it will still be another two years before they open the contract anyway, there will be 13% less pay until then, and a 13% lower starting point the MEC will have to negotiate back. Not to mention, it will most likely require the replacement of the MEC (reference Delta and Southwest) and put in question the credibility of ALPA's ability to represent it's pilots. The incentive for any new MEC to reach a TA will be shot. Reaching a TA would be the largest threat to union leaders.
Scott
12-06-2015, 09:01 AM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
There is an enormous amount to lose. We have something they want. They are talking to us primarily because of that. To trade that leverage for 13% is using very questionable SA.
Scott
Scott
Is that enough for the leverage we have? That's for the MEC and potentially us to decide. The MC and the negotiating committee think it is, and since they are the ones with the books open I tend to trust their judgement.
Could we do better by waiting for a full Section 6? Perhaps. But I'm looking around the room and seeing some pretty weak deals offered at SWA and DAL, and NO deal at UPS. All these airlines are negotiating during unheard of profits and operational performance. I just don't know if Section 6 is the open checkbook that some believe it will be. And God help us if the economy changes in the next 2-4 years while we are negotiating it. Then we just squandered $720,000,000+ of pilot money.
I can respect your opinion Scott, that we would be better served by waiting for Section 6. But I don't think those that would ultimately vote for the deal have "questionable SA". Just a different perspective and calculation of how much leverage we actually have. It's a basic risk reward calculation.
12-06-2015, 09:23 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
If I do some quick maths, at around $200,000 for the average UAL pilot (which will be close after the proposed pay raise), you are looking at a 15% raise over the current contract (16-3-2 vs. 3-3). That's about $60,000k per pilot, or approximately $720,000,000 over the life of the extension. That doesn't include the fact that there is an additional 15% added to our 16% BC fund.
Is that enough for the leverage we have? That's for the MEC and potentially us to decide. The MC and the negotiating committee think it is, and since they are the ones with the books open I tend to trust their judgement.
Could we do better by waiting for a full Section 6? Perhaps. But I'm looking around the room and seeing some pretty weak deals offered at SWA and DAL, and NO deal at UPS. All these airlines are negotiating during unheard of profits and operational performance. I just don't know if Section 6 is the open checkbook that some believe it will be. And God help us if the economy changes in the next 2-4 years while we are negotiating it. Then we just squandered $720,000,000+ of pilot money.
I can respect your opinion Scott, that we would be better served by waiting for Section 6. But I don't think those that would ultimately vote for the deal have "questionable SA". Just a different perspective and calculation of how much leverage we actually have. It's a basic risk reward calculation.
Is that enough for the leverage we have? That's for the MEC and potentially us to decide. The MC and the negotiating committee think it is, and since they are the ones with the books open I tend to trust their judgement.
Could we do better by waiting for a full Section 6? Perhaps. But I'm looking around the room and seeing some pretty weak deals offered at SWA and DAL, and NO deal at UPS. All these airlines are negotiating during unheard of profits and operational performance. I just don't know if Section 6 is the open checkbook that some believe it will be. And God help us if the economy changes in the next 2-4 years while we are negotiating it. Then we just squandered $720,000,000+ of pilot money.
I can respect your opinion Scott, that we would be better served by waiting for Section 6. But I don't think those that would ultimately vote for the deal have "questionable SA". Just a different perspective and calculation of how much leverage we actually have. It's a basic risk reward calculation.
If history holds, the MEC will gloss over the specifics and sell this as industry leading. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But to be endorsing something as substantial as FAR 117 extensions and FRMS changes without fully understanding their ramifications by looking forward to a 13% pay raise is short sighted. We are nothing if not predictable.
Scott
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
