|
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 3129654)
Nah, that's not accurate. I just don't want us to open up the contract to help them fix their problem.
My view is that “their problem” are the jobs of thousands of our fellow pilots. Once our staffing is sorted out, no matter which way it goes, Mr. Kirby will keep living in a huge house and rubbing shoulders with Davos attendees. Although I’m sure his pride will take a hit, I truly doubt his overall lifestyle will change that much whether we are 9000 pilots or 13,000. Likely, there will be a bonus structure in place for him to become wealthier than when he took the reins. Thousands of pilots on the other hand, will tell stories for the next four decades about their time on the street and the people they knew who got divorces, or killed themselves, or took terrible flying contracts for 20 days a month away from their kids. not wanting to solve their problem is not going to materially change the life of C-suite executives. They will find work elsewhere. It will for absolute certainty change the lives of the pilots who occupy United cockpits for decades to come |
I just don't see the same rainbows and sunshine that you do. I see a pilot group ten-years from now in a weakened position because of this type of agreement. I see the company opening and closing the "Pilot Money" valve as they see fit in response to Geo-Political events, seasonal travel fluctuations, etc. I think this is a lousy way for us to deal with their problem. And from what I have seen so far, I no longer trust the union. One need look no further than the "new and improved" SRLs. And exactly what the hell is wrong with the MC NOT squashing his FC-travel issue? You have got to be kidding me. The optics of that mess are brown and stink to high heaven.
The last rumor I heard? That this thing does not contain iron clad language to prevent furloughs past six months. So, we all jump and clap and in six months they whack away anyway? Twenty years ago the old guys were screaming from the rooftops, give them the hourly rate, do not touch the work rules, do not open up the contract. We got some of the bucks back, but we never got those rules back. They were right then. I'll read it and decide. |
Originally Posted by duvie
(Post 3129659)
not really. A little bit of thought and analysis would reveal that we are the only work group with training requirements that require much more forethought than every other group. Once large reductions are made to our staffing, it will take years to undo, regardless of what demand is doing.
That is the reason that IF our leadership truly doesn’t want to lose market share, they HAVE to do something creative with our work group. We might reject it, but we will definitely shrink significantly if our furloughs ending up matching 2021 demand. To address another point of that post, other groups are taking 32 hour weeks to try and create more positions for the same amount of work. Customer service, dispatchers are in talks, and I believe the caterers considered it. if you want to vote NO because you don’t want to give up some of your pay, then by all means do so. I don’t think many reasonable people think that’s wrong. What’s wrong are the reasons why many are proud no votes. The world changes. This isn’t 2004 and Kirby isn’t Tilton. it’s also worth saying that there are certainly circumstances I would not vote yes for. Both if contractual provisions are compromised in anyway and if we had a different leadership team. Talk to your buddies at Delta, Mr Bastian is a man about margins and metrics, size is an afterthought . But I don’t think we have a single indication that Scott Kirby wants to “shrink to profitability.” And if our contract is entirely intact, I for one will take a few year MPG gamble on the future of United |
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 3129682)
I just don't see the same rainbows and sunshine that you do. I see a pilot group ten-years from now in a weakened position because of this type of agreement. I see the company opening and closing the "Pilot Money" valve as they see fit in response to Geo-Political events, seasonal trave fluctuations, etc. I think this is a lousy way to deal with their problem and from what I have seen so far, I no longer trust the union. One need look no further than the "new and improved" SRLs. The last rumor I heard? That this thing does not contain iron clad language to prevent furloughs past six months. So, we all jump and clap and in six months they whack away anyway?
Twenty years ago the old guys were screaming from the rooftops, give them the hourly rate, do not touch the work rules, do not open up the contract. We got some of the bucks back, but we never got those rules back. They were right then. I'll read it and decide. I think the biggest/scariest consideration is if this modification allows the company to exercise any rights to make changes going forward, whether by pure choice, or based on metrics. I could not agree more with you, that allowing our contract to become dynamic based on the economy would be worse than the concessions given in the years after 9/11 |
Originally Posted by Beewatcher2
(Post 3129683)
If it’s important to the company then they can pay for it.
we have a unique choice to play a large part in the future of this airline. We can choke the golden goose and see where that gets us, or try and extend the life of said goose as long as possible. In many ways, I imagine this debate has a lot to do with how many years a person has left at the company. It is absolutely a gamble, and could be taken away from us in six months and we could be right back where we are now. If we vote no however, I would be very surprised and actually a little dismayed if our leadership kept us staffed… That would be a recipe for bankruptcy |
As stated by oldmako:
"And from what I have seen so far, I no longer trust the union. One need look no further than the "new and improved" SRLs." Yet, us pilots still believe any "hard snapback" would be fully honored. SRLs were written into our contract, same paper "hard snapbacks" will be on, and they were changed on us overnight, without any ratification from the whole group. You guys really believe this time will be different, or just re-drawing the line in the sand again?? |
THEIR problem will become our problem if we are not willing to help get through this first of its kind situation.
|
Originally Posted by CAL 73
(Post 3129714)
As stated by oldmako:
"And from what I have seen so far, I no longer trust the union. One need look no further than the "new and improved" SRLs." Yet, us pilots still believe any "hard snapback" would be fully honored. SRLs were written into our contract, same paper "hard snapbacks" will be on, and they were changed on us overnight, without any ratification from the whole group. You guys really believe this time will be different, or just re-drawing the line in the sand again?? what part of the contract was not honored, or implemented to the letter of the law? As far as I can see it, additional options were given alongside the normal UPA provisions. |
The long awaited 29 page TA is out, check MEC email.
|
Originally Posted by rvfanatic
(Post 3129794)
The long awaited 29 page TA is out, check MEC email.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:36 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands