Airline Pilot Central Forums - Agreement in Principle

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - Agreement in Principle (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/130986-agreement-principle.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxlF16 (Post 3126555)

Maybe we should also read the contract we already have. This isn't the first furlough and it won't be the last. Why do you suppose that we never negotiated anything like this into our current contract? For that matter, do you know how our current contract deals with furloughs? Did you know that our changes to our Line Credit Floor and Cap in the event of furloughs are already addressed in our contract? If you think the consternation is about cuts to pay then you just aren't paying attention.

Apparently that would be too simple. Who do we see about a refund for all the negotiating capital we spent on those sections we are tossing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by E6-B (Post 3126548)

I like how we've gone from 'Thoughts and prayers' for the furloughees, to 'They want to cut my pay WTF?!?!?'.

Best commentary on “thoughts and prayers” that’s ever been spoken.

https://youtu.be/JlTkSPyhT2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenitynow (Post 3126401)

Just to clarify. If the rumors are true, anybody going to 50% pay was eventually facing 0% pay (at least threatened) so the pilot you are saving from the street is yoursel and the other lower 1/3.

Not exactly. The largest threat of furloughs that came from BQ was 3,900. The last time I saw the seniority list it was at ~12,400 after the early outs. 12,400/3 = 4,133. So, with 4,133 pilots in the bottom 1/3, there are about 233 pilots who will take a 50% pay cut and probably a displacement as well having never been threatened with a furlough. A large number of those pilots are the double furloughees. I would submit that this would be the biggest kick in the jimmies to them of their careers since it would not be coming from the company, but from their brothers and sisters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxlF16 (Post 3126440)

I've always been a TI supporter...he was a rainmaker as Grievance Chairman. I know we're just seeing the skeleton of the AIP through the rumor mill, but it's concerning on a lot of levels. First is that WE, the pilot group, have somehow taken some ownership over preventing furloughs! History will surely show it was a strategic mistake to even open that Pandora's box. Second is the notion of segmenting the pilot group?! IMO the horse is out of the barn and the damage was done as soon as we entered negotiations using that framework. Another strategic mistake. The outcome of the AIP/TA/MR is irrelevant when it comes to the damage this will cause to ALPA unity. I agree with you that this framework was crafted to get 50%+1....unity be damned.

If this comes to MR and is voted down, who will be cast as the bad guys when the furloughs happen? The 'middle ⅓' ...that's who. If it passes and we have the 'top ⅓' raking in premium pay and high credit time while the 'bottom ⅓' gets stuck commuting to reserve for 36.5 credit hours who will be the bad guys? The top ⅓, that's who. I can't even fathom that we helped create this new divisive scheme...

Hell, I haven't even seen the contents of the vessel yet...but I can already see that the vessel is hopelessly flawed from a unionist point of view.

Amen to that, brother Ben!!!!

I’ve been reading through this post. Some good points and considerations and some very bad ones.

As a 20yr narrow body Captain twice furloughed guy...my view....Full pay to last day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxlF16 (Post 3126440)

Be careful of hero worship. It took the Delta guys a LONG time to shake off the guys who were the "smartest guys in the room", and some say the DAL PWA still hasn't recovered. And the opportunity only presented itself because they believed their own press releases and pushed a really, really bad TA, and the pilots finally stood up and took notice.

He may be the second coming, but remember just because a guy made things happen in one area, doesn't mean he can't be a train wreck somewhere else or at another time.

According to the ALPA email tonight: “If accepted, the MEC will determine if it meets the requirement for membership ratification”.

I don’t like the sound of that whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogbelch (Post 3126602)

According to the ALPA email tonight: “If accepted, the MEC will determine if it meets the requirement for membership ratification”.

I don’t like the sound of that whatsoever.

Glad I’m not the only one who noticed that. This went from everyone gets a say to “father knows best” in a hurry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 130shadow (Post 3126270)

That and the “carve out” crowd who are being pay protected for whatever reason and this will pass with no problems. Just imagine taking a lower mpg so some guy junior to you can be paid for a seat he can’t hold. Unreal.

I’m a latecomer to the thread and haven’t read all the way through yet...so forgive me if you changed your tone somewhere along the line. But based on what I’ve read thus far, I’m really, REALLY getting tired of hearing you whine like a little girl.

While you were out there playing bunkie on your plush global trip, other people decided to take a bid, go to TK for a month, and then slog it out as NB captains. They bid captain, you did not. You COULD HAVE, but you chose not to.

So now, it looks like we could have a situation where there WERE displacements because those displacements (for some) could be CANCELLED. That means a lot of those people will go back their NB captain seat....just as if this whole crapshow had never happened. So you will STILL be playing bunkie on your plush global trip and they will STILL be slogging it out as NB captain. He can hold that seat. Because there is NO LONGER a displacement. And their hourly rate will remain the same. Yours will too. Again, just as if nothing had happened.

As far as the wording in the TA, yada yada, who knows. It isn’t even a TA yet. But so far I’m just not seeing what your problem is.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogbelch (Post 3126602)

According to the ALPA email tonight: “If accepted, the MEC will determine if it meets the requirement for membership ratification”.

I don’t like the sound of that whatsoever.

What is that you don’t like?

If the MEC accepts a TA, by policy there’s a three question test to determine if the TA should go to the pilots for membership ratification.

This TA as rumored would meet that test. Say what you will about the content, but that phrase is simply stating MEC policy.

Read the policy manual, that phrase is about the most benign thing is this entire thread.