I think that it is incumbent upon fellow employees to look at with an open mind measures to save other fellow employees jobs if possible. I think it’s the right thing to do!!! Having said that, any tentative agreement would have to have water tight language with a number of snap backs as part of it. Those snap backs could not be controlled by the Company either. The metrics would have to be objective. One of the snap backs would have to include that if the Company files for bankruptcy, we snap back immediately to pre-concession levels. Also any LOA would have to contain the word “temporary” throughout the agreement.

 

Unfortunately, in reality no contract, LOA or agreement is ever water tight. Or at least it’s only water tight until a good legal team torpedos it.

I get what you are saying, just know that snap backs will always be iffy and will be challenged.
Anything you give up will be a long protracted battle to regain.

 

I understand the concern of those who are in the furlough bubble. Hopefully CARES 2 will come into play and this will moot for the time being. This is going to be a very divisive issue and regardless of what side an individual is on, our union is not going to fare well.

 

Why should our Union be maligned for trying to give their members (some of which have asked them to do so) a choice? Our MEC represents us all, not only the pilots that are senior. Who our Union represents has nothing to do with seniority. I urge everyone to reach out to their Reps and give them their opinions. Otherwise, you can’t really get angry at them. They listen to their constituents.

 

I think it's reasonable for the negotiating committee to consider mitigation options, i will keep an open mind, but i completely understand why some are opposed to even cracking that door. For good reason, my 23 years at UAL tells me that your premise that we can save other employees jobs is flawed. I also think your trust in s water tight agreement is flawed. The idea of a snap back at BK is unworkable. The company would have to agree that we could terminate the agreement with no notice, and at any time, for it to work. I just don't see any discrete event we would use choose to trigger the snap back? I'm expecting to hear the legal opinion on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of such a contractual clause. In my experience UAL will never agree to the things you list as requirements. I could be wrong so I'm keeping an open mind.

 

The union is working to save jobs while protecting the contract at the same time, they just are not doing it publicly. Another factor is that the company isn’t listening. To them, we are an asset as long as we are productive, and a cash burn problem when we are not. As someone else had mentioned, TI said in one of his town halls that the company is more interested in focusing on short term cash burn, even if it cost more later in when revenue has returned. I do think that people have contacted their reps, but more people have told them not to weaken the contract, than to agree to concessions. We’ve all seen what happens. Even though you may think that you have solid language for snap backs, or other protective features, as Hoss said, their legal team can always torpedo the language and our watertight clause is suddenly a sinking ship.

 

Divisive for two reasons. First in it's most basic sense of asking those not furloughed to accept large concessions to save jobs. Is that what we should be doing? I'm fairly confident that most are either for or against taking concessions to prevent furloughs. Some might like to malign polling data at Delta but by a 90% margin they were against concessions and 1941 Delta pilots are about to be furloughed.

Second is the desire for choice or just give us a chance to vote. I look at it as a chance for the MEC to sell the agreement vs letting it stand on it's original merits. For example if we voted on a straight forward proposal that to save X number pilots it will cost Y dollars and pilots will contribute Z percentage based on your UPA guarantee. Pretty simple but would it pass? Most likely no. So the deal needs to be sweetened and this is where the sausage gets ugly. The union will tout gets from a company desiring not to spend a dollar unless forced to. The valuation of these gets will be in question, especially when you consider the immediate benefit vs a provision promised in the future. (think money immediately in your pocket vs a LTD increase or FC dh) Also, are we paying for contractual improvements that were already agreed to prior to this mess starting? Will this be enough to ratify an agreement? Probably not. The only way to get this passed is to essentially buy votes through one group taking larger cuts than others. That group will be in the minority and will be voted down enough to result in passage. That sausage you wanted a choice on has turned into scrapple and will produce a metric ton of division.

 

What is the difference between "concessions" and "furlough mitigation?" They both involve taking a 10-50% pay cut on top of the huge pay and QOL cuts already made through not getting a new contract and now COVID. I'm getting furloughed and I can't believe that we're actually discussing this.

 

Maybe it's part of the bargaining stage of grief. There's been a big uptick in people who want further furlough mitigation as of late, and I'm guessing a good chunk are the people who just got the 1-2 gut punch of a warn notice and furlough notice on the same day.

I don't really see the point of any further attempts to mitigate furloughs. Honestly, if we are furloughing more than any other legacy carrier and actually increased our furlough number after early outs, why have any hope that any sort of cuts to our contract or pay would offset any job losses.

The only thing I got out of our furlough mitigation so far was my furlough date got moved up a month.

 

Like all issues these days, the majority want this to be black and white. Unfortunately it isn’t.

giving any kind of concession to pay rates or QOL (that affects the company bottom line) won’t save a single job. A decrease in the ability of each pilot on property to fly above X hours (in the form of hard caps) definitely changes the staffing model.

I’m in the boat of taking a 40% cut already from the down grade, that said, I can take another 10% if it means someone else preserving 100% of their income. I don’t think it’s “the right thing,” I just think that I’m safe (for the moment) because of nothing other than timing. Flying with new hires as a junior CA helps to remind you how many people beneath you on a seniority list have a Much better resume, better flying abilities, better interpersonal skills, etc and that your position above them is largely not due to things you did, but a mix of hard work AND luck.

I didn’t create my genetics, the culture in my house as a kid, the adversity that helped me without breaking me, my age/flying experience during the last two down turns (flying vs on the street) etc..... I’m A huge fan of the philosophy of hyper accountability. Taking charge of your life is the only path to happiness. But I think a lot of people overestimate what they really have control of in their life and therefore take credit for things that were just sheer good luck.

so although many claim to come at this from a viewpoint of preserving the UPA… I think that is mostly a narrative to disguise the fact that they are scared of taking another pay cut and/or more pay cuts down the line.

The temporary nature of any LOA will either be upheld, or it won’t. If it is not upheld, then all other agreements that we have with the company are effectively out the window as well… In that scenario we all have a lot more to worry about than a 10% reduction in mpg