Voting is open
 

You may now choose...head over to ALPA to cast your ballot.

Already voted and learned from past concessionary contacts. No

it’s so nice that you chose to add some examples and reason to your argument this time shadow ;-)

Instead of telling people want to think, why don’t you explain to us your logic rather than just fear of an unknown outcome. Maybe throw in a couple scenarios where this TA stays in place and yet senior people are (more) negatively affected (than with current UPA). I don’t see one where demand is below 67.5% and we furlough less than 2007 pilots. Do you?

Am not telling you what to think or anyone else. My vote is based on the fact that every time we voted in a concessionary contract over the last 23 years (my time here), we were burned each time. Since history has a tendency to repeat itself, I am a solid no.

Maybe for perspective it’ll help us understand your argument If you’ll remind us again what group you represent. Did you say you were upper or middle group?

Curious what is you timeline for a vaccine approval, production, implementation, and availability and cost to decrease enough to facilitate and demand in travel returning. Also what is you timeline for after these metrics have been met that countries will open up travel again to US. Like I have said before several states are not allowing entry unless you can produce tests results.

This is unknown and beyond the company’s control. If these procedures were already in place then you would at least have a base timeline you could go off of. We have nothing other than saying a vaccine may me approved by 2Q of 2021

so what are you basing your travel bounce back off of?

Solid NO
 

CONCESSIONS do not work. Digging out of a concessionary deal is like digging out of a ditch filled with quicksand. SOLID NO VOTE.

big 5, I’m senior lower tier. However, my vote is not for my own income, like many, I would be better off making 73 hours of FO pay and taking the furlough pay. My vote is to work at a strong airline in 2 to 3 years. I would rather be furloughed than work at the United of 2010. Kirby isn’t Tilton. I’m sure they have a lot on common... but their desires for the airline are 180 degrees.

bottoms up, I have painted scenarios for both increased and stagnant demand. I have never said I know what will happen, But if demand is that low, there is a minuscule chance the company carries 85% of our current list.

1500 from the bottom. Voted No. The company can do better.

you may have painted scenarios but you have failed to address the most important factor in starting travel demand. Therefore your scenarios are flawed from the start. Once you can adequately but a baseline down you may start your scenarios from there.

Mudge you must another gig lined up to throw your junior colleagues careers away like that. When do you think you will come back?

i’ve written some pretty lengthy posts… Maybe you missed them?

i’d say if we are just talking about starting travel demand, it actually makes all this much easier. Furlough 5 to 6000 and call back as necessary. I cannot imagine anybody at the company, save maybe the top 5% in certain BES, win with that

He won't be back before 2027

So in an unprecedented situation he is not entitled to HAVE an opinion because it is an unprecedented situation?

What then entitles YOU to have an opinion?

Or to critique his?

If we merge with another carrier, you may be right.

What gives you the right to write a response like that? His vote, his reasons, non of your business.

I didn't know we were all hanging out at Club Pessimism. What's on the menu?

Yes. But most of us saw this coming in March. My guess is 5 years off property. I don't want to come back to less than what I'll be leaving with.

Depends, we have different menus depending on which group you’re in. Will you be dining off the seniors menu? Or should I grab the kids menu?

So you are a Yes vote? If you come back in 5 years with a No vote our pay will have been eaten up by inflation (say 10% down). If you vote yes, in 5 years this TA will have sunsetted and we will have a 5% raise, 1st class, minor RSV fixes, etc... Not sure how a No vote makes us better off in 5 years?

Smart move Mudge!!

For the win! Perfect. Solid NO vote

Labor negotiations are a game of chicken. We all know it. Let's see if they can do better.

If your 5 years holds up (probably accurate) then this TA would have expired 3 years prior. Yeah, your math totally makes sense. Makes me interested to know how you calculate bingo fuel.

I don’t think time is on our side in this case Mudge.

You start with an extra 2000lbs at the gate (assuming narrow body) and adjust upwards from there to avoid a bingo situation.

Bingo is objective.. Market speculation is not.

What is the total bill for this concessionary TA and how much are we actually spending to save the furloughs(temporarily)? The difference is hundreds of million of dollars. Hundreds of millions of dollars out of our pockets to fund Kirby's business gamble. If it's such a good business risk then why doesn't Kirby fund it? He doesn't have to because he's got Insler's hands in our pockets. Lots of promises, lots of fear, lots of shiny useless trinkets.

Don't worry though. Next time the company furloughs it will be different.

I read and digested the TA over the last few days.

I voted this morning.

Nothing written here or anywhere else swayed me.


It doesn't matter if you're Yes or No, vote. It's going to be a close one.

if Kirby truly had the latitude, I think he would gamble with higher staffing. He does however, have a board whose job it is to ensure he does not step too far out of line. The board answers to Wall Street. And gamble of that magnitude would not be tolerated IMHO

You answered my question. Other people's money.

OK… Maybe I missed your point, but can you name me a CEO of a fortune 500 company who is gambling with his/her own money?

Not to mention, I have a job at United in 10 years. Scott Kirby’s next CEO job very much depends on how this goes

No because he ignores the facts for a baseline. He doesn’t acknowledge the WHO or Dr.Fauci who has repeatedly said that a vaccine in 2020 is highly unlikely. A more realistic timeline for a vaccine is estimated as 12-18 months away, which would still be unprecedented for this type of vaccine project. All the pieces of the developmental stages have to work nearly perfectly to meet this projected date. The manufacturing capacity to make the vaccine also needs to be a coordinated global effort. It is also likely that there will have to be a roll-out of a vaccine to the most at risk individuals (health-care workers, individuals with pre-existing health issue) first, as the multiple billions of doses needed may not be able to be produced in such a short time after identification of a candidate vaccine.

So once this above happens. Then throw out your best or worse guess for a travel bounce back. Not a minute sooner. Do you really think the company does not knows this. But you want to finance the pilot salary with your own for the next 24 months.

let’s see 12-18 months for vaccine. 24 month TA. Hmmm...

if Duvie and others would quit hiding behind the nonsense of “IFs and Hope” Or “Maybe in 6-8 months” for their own agenda and use actual facts they would come to the same conclusion. But he doesn’t want to admit that he wants to keep his salary and has no problem having another pilot pay for it.

As that one guy says “Facts don’t care about your feelings”. And that probably means I will be furloughed as well.

Looking forward to seeing these

https://moninicrew.com/products/i-vo...-2-tags-save-1

Ordered!! Thanks

How is he different? If he was so different why wasnt the CBA done a year ago? Remember early openers was to get the deal done at amendable date. United was 2 years plus into negotiations prior to Covid. He is not different in his actions. He may say different things but at the end of the day they are all mostly the same. He will squeeze every penny out of labor he can guarantee.

I guess I should be more specific. Scott should gamble with United's money, not mine. Don't fret for Mahogany Row.

Bottoms up,

I very much agree with your pessimism about the vaccine and/or therapeutic route. Your premise about economic recovery would be sound, if the aforementioned two things were the only route out of economic purgatory. I personally don’t think that is the case. This virus, although certainly more deadly than the common flu, has killed less than 1% of 1% of our population.

I suspect there will come a point of economic pragmatism, where people go forward understanding that COVID-19 may be a part of their lives for years to come. Much like automobile top speed increasing and thus the death toll rising exponentially, corporations may be forced to face economic devastation (or reshaping, to be very optimistic) or return to business “as usual.“ whatever that means in 2021

if you had told the average American that the flu is going to be “twice as deadly this year,” I don’t think many would have really been that concerned (people like your wife notwithstanding). I don’t want to invoke the M-word here but the hysteria around this virus has certainly outpaced the actual threat. I believe with a little time, that will be seen by more and more people. Obviously 200,000 deaths is tragic, but if looked at in a historical perspective, this is a fairly small scale event that is having an outsized economic impact

excellent post Andy.

Conclusion. At its root, trading MPG, abrogating seniority, setting bad precedent, and resulting disparities between fleets and seats are bad ideas and are too high a price to pay. All of us are empathetic to those looking at furlough. The lessons of the past have taught us that creative “solutions” today often harm those we are trying to protect.
This recommendation against the LOA is not meant as an abandonment of those who will very likely be furloughed should the TA fail. We want you to return swiftly to an intact contract that does not damage your future career. Read the TA - objectively and without spin. We strongly believe that all UAL pilots and the future of our profession are best represented by a “no” vote.

MEC members “con” conclusion...