September 8, 2020 Special MEC Meeting Update: Agreement in Principle

Today, the MEC received a briefing from the Negotiating Committee on an Agreement in Principle (AIP) reached with management that positions United pilots, all of us, to weather and recover from the coronavirus pandemic while keeping our seniority list intact. The MEC has determined this AIP meets their previous direction, which was stated in my letter following last month’s Special MEC meeting on August 5:

To be clear, we will not enter mitigation discussions which hold pilots hostage to pay rate reductions, scope concessions, or unacceptable work-rule changes. Any potential mitigation must achieve our goals: stop planned furloughs, stop displacements, and include long-term permanent gains for any short-term, fully recoverable modifications. Management continues to say they want to reduce involuntary furloughs so they can excel during a future recovery; now is the time to see if they are willing to pay for that flexibility.

Ultimately, the United pilots will decide what course of action we take, if any, through the membership ratification process.

Despite having an agreement in principle, final contract language is not complete. Until approved by the MEC, releasing details would be premature. The MEC policy manual requires the following process:

• Turn the AIP into final contract language as a Tentative Agreement (TA)
• MEC receives TA for a seven day review period
• MEC votes to accept or reject the TA
• If accepted, MEC votes to send the TA out for Membership Ratification (MR) in accordance with published MEC policy.

We expect the MEC to vote on the TA next week, at which time all pilots will receive full final details of the agreement for review. Details on the Membership Ratification voting procedures will follow in order to have the results by the end of the September.

Please continue sending PDRs and reaching out to your LEC representatives if you have any questions.


Captain Todd Insler
MEC Chairman

 

“long-term permanent gains for any short-term, fully recoverable modifications.“

Uhgg. Glad we get to vote on this.

 

It costs nothing to take a look. I'm happy to do so. Though I think it is unlikely I'll see anything I like, it's a good chance to see what the NC and company think is a good compromise. So little is known about what they do... I'm looking forward to reading it.

Maybe we can give up the "energy bars" in Ops and get something of value for them.

 

Can I just go ahead and vote NO?

NO Concessions! Been down that road before... How did that work out....Oh But this time will be different!

 

Rumor from "the Gardener" 67/57/39 MPG. Top 3rd/ Middle 3rd/ Bottom 3rd.

and remember... It's only temporary, and and and you get a permanent prize at the end.

 

If the deal is no furloughs and no displacements, then it’s definitely worth a close look. I understand that people are worried about the potential implications in the event of bankruptcy. However, I’m very curious to see the details.

 

And the middle third gets a downgrade to go with their MPG reduction?

 

Love the instant "no" vote crowd. Nothing to even consider for a week. Yet whatever it is, it's a "no".

 

Yep. What a surprise.

 

What exactly are these implications of bankruptcy? Is the concept of a reduced MPG so novel that a bankruptcy judge wouldn’t possibly allow it unless we first did so on a temporary basis under specific restrictions?

One can argue about the temporary or restrictive nature of a reduced MPG scheme, but what do we gain in a potential bankruptcy by refusing to negotiate such a provision?