Template or Starting Point
 

What’s your opinion?

1) The Negotiationing Committee should take the Delta TA as is and ask the company to match it and get an offer on the table now.
2) The Negotiationing Committee should sit down with the company and start new negotiations asking for multiple improvements above those in the Delta TA.

Check your premises.

The MEC is still waiting for recall results of the C171 (IAH) Chair and an interim and permanent FO rep along with the final election results in C57 (LAX). They will also elect a MC likely by the end of January.

Hopefully, they can give the NC some marching orders based on what they know of the Delta pilots' AIP, but the company was unresponsive using Delta's deal as an excuse. What we want to ask for regarding sick leave, STD, LTD, reserve improvements and other work rules will not be simple, but our initial ask will obviously exceed Delta's deal.

Negotiating 101.

Nothing will move forward until DAL has a ratified contract.

If it does pass the “floor” would be the starting point for us.

Meant to include a poll but I’m on an iPad and it didn’t work. Don’t suppose a mod could change this to a poll? Otherwise I suppose I can just try again later.

Taking the Delta agreement as is would only make sense if everything in it is better than our current book. My understanding is that under their proposal we’d give up first class deadheading and current reassignment protections as just a couple of examples. Any deal that they get is the foundation that we build on. We shouldn’t give up any current rules or protections, only improve them. If their proposal passes ratification we will have the time to analyze it and put in real world examples across the seniority spectrum and see how the math works out. We need to do this right, not fast.

Perhaps my assumptions are naïve but I start with the assumption that when I say “Delta TA” the implication is our current contract plus Delta’s improvements with zero “gives”. My second assumption is this is not a total rewrite of our current contract rather adding of QOL and pay changes so “ getting it right” this time should be straight forward and take weeks not months.

I am a lucky man and hopefully I will retire early within a couple years and have my financial ducks all in a row so this contract cycle will have little to no impact on my future but what I am concerned about and what drives my question is what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) as a common sentiment at UAL that there is much to be gained above the gains in the Delta TA.

To be clear it is my understanding that the DeltaTA includes improvements across the board that are fairly simple to implement such as pay per vacation day, pay per training day, pay for SCs, pay for holidays, pay for all reassignments, limits on reassignment length, limits on number of SCs, etc. Further I fear pilots in favor of taking time to “get it right” may not have put a number on the cost of waiting.

In round numbers each month that passes without a contract is costing individual pilots $3k or more. That’s including forgone pay raises and interest on retro. So any “gains” must be worth the cost. 6 months extra $20k for whatever improvements we get. 9 months $30k. Worst case . . . The economy falls into recession and the company chooses to pull all offers.

So again assuming we’re talking about an offer with zero gives and most or all of Delta’s gets what does “getting it right” mean and more importantly how much are pilots willing to pay to “get it right”?

Can we get the Delta Negotiators over here on FTFPL for a few months? I'll buy their steak and cake if they work with our NC. I understand their motives aren't exactly aligned since it would be rational for them to favor pay over work rules. But I think their input would be valuable for reserve, sick time, retirement, and other issues. If we want all of Delta's gains I think we need some people with a deep understanding of those gains over here ASAP. We're both ALPA, right? So why not?

I think that we’re in agreement for the most part. We have 15,000+ opinions as to what the ideal contract should look like, and everyone won’t be happy. I never have understood the mantra about insisting on a total rewrite. Some sections need more work than others, but most of any new contract is keeping the parts that you like and addressing the parts that you don’t. If Delta ratifies a new contract, hopefully we follow with something worth voting on, however I’d expect it to take several months to get to that point. We can write what ever we want, but the company still has to sign off on it. We’ll see what Delta gets and how serious Kirby is about us moving forward.

If the company wants to fix narrowbody CAP vacancies, they need to fix reserves. Reserves needed to be fixed regardless.

No FSB's, unless proven use for irregular ops only (Hurricane, bomb cyclone, etc..).
SCs cannot be made after 1300, unless irregular ops.
Reserves should have higher MPG with more days off. 14 min days off vs 12.
Remove visiting reserve.
Cannot assign reserve into a line month, without day restoration.
Limit rolling days off.
Allow Reserves to pick up PP on days off or allow reserve the same %PP amount if having to wait after line holders haven't grabbed after a set time (15 mins).

I'm a NO without reserve fixes. This part of the UPA was supposed to be fixed for this round of negotiations. Nothing was accomplished.

Get rid of global.

when you pick up a trip or are assigned a trip, you get the same benefits/protections as a line holder (reassignment, etc)

How do you staff short notice changes under your plan? Delay a flight until a short call reserve can get to the gate? Weaken line holder reassignment rules to cover last minute changes? Honest questions. Reading the various post on this site, it seems that reserve rules are the most important part of any contract. They are important, but they definitely don’t top the list.

So your saying in your limited imagination that you can't improve res and line rules at the same or can't improve one at the expense of the other. Glad your not on the negotiation committee.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. Both need improvements. An airline needs the ability to quickly cover seats when things change at the last minute. We currently use FSB for that purpose while reassigning a line holder is more difficult. Other companies don’t have FSB, but they can easily reassign line holders to cover time sensitive issues. I was simply asking how the poster would address that.

Just make FSB something people can bid on or pick up for premium $. It will create market efficiencies where it goes to people who want it. It potentially also raise the bar for the company to only do as many FSB / SC as they truly need - not because they can.

I’d agree, but the post I replied to said no FSB. Personally I think that FSB is here to stay because it gives the company a bunch of flexibility when short notice problems come up. They’re not going to want to give that up, nor will line holders vote to relax reassignment rules to cover what FSB currently does. A definite improvement would be exactly what you mention. It’s probably in the company’s best interest to pay more for FSB and SC transitions than to eliminate them. I’d imagine that many who live in base would bid FSB/SC if it was more lucrative.

I’d bid to commute up for a block of 5 SC/FSB days of it meant I couldn’t be converted on all my other reserve days. Rip the bandaid off, if you will.

​​​​​​So your saying we can't get ride of field stand by because the company needs it. Like I said I sure hope your not on the negotiation committee. You Sound like one of those selling the tumi ta.

Work on your reading comprehension. I’m saying that FSB is valuable to the company and they will want to keep it. Line holder protections are valuable to the majority of the pilots and they won’t vote to give those up to eliminate FSB for those on reserve. Keeping FSB with limitations to how it is used and add pay for when it is might be something that the company and the pilot group would agree to. It takes two sides in agreement to get a contract. Simply eliminating FSB without maintaining the ability to quickly cover staffing issues when they pop up isn’t something that the company will sign off on. I’ll ask you the same question that I asked the other guy. If FSB is eliminated, and if the current line holder protections are maintained, how would a flight be covered if a pilot timed out or got sick close to departure time?

You seem more concerned with what the company needs are than the pilots. How did united work before they had field standby? How does every other major airline operate without field standby? You my friend are a used car salesman wet dream.

How about trip modification alerts where lineholders are provided an alert for a trip when they transit a hub. Allow lineholders to voluntarily move to a more desirable pairing. You don't want that Omaha, NE pairing in the middle of winter? Well, there's a pairing swap that will keep you pay protected for your original pairing, but allow the company to swap you for pay protection and some amount of premium so they don't have to staff FSB.

Let's work on voluntary ways to solve these issues. Chances are there are a couple guys who would much rather do one of these trips if given the opportunity. Once a crew swaps to the short notice, they now have more time to fill the other pairing or offer it up for premium.

The only con to this type of pairing is they would probably increase sit time in hub cities to allow for company flexibility. So, increase our trip rig and it becomes a win-win.

I think the reality for FSB is there is an extremely small minority of pilots here which really "like" FSB, and they will fall on their sword to keep it.

If you like FSB when you defend it, admit it. For the vast majority of reserve pilots at United, most hate it.

How about how they do it now PP.
Dude just fly the line with your way of thinking we'll go backwards on this next contract.

The long term best interest of this pilot group is my concern, not what makes life easy on the company. Having said that, this is a negotiation and knowing what your opponent considers important is essential. To answer your question, other companies operate without FSB by lacking some of the line holder reassignment protections that we currently have, or they simply take longer to recover. Now, please answer mine. Without FSB, what solution would you propose that both the company and pilot group would accept to cover last minute issues without giving away our current line holder protections?

Field standby has never worked anywhere I have worked except to abuse crew. DL doesn’t have fsb and it seems to be working good enough.

Even the regionals are getting rid of it

I'll just say this: I certainly did my share of SC and FSB last summer. I was never used while on FSB, but I was used several times off SC. Anecdotal, sure, but.....

Been a long time, but I preferred FSB to SC as a commuter. Less time on the clock away from home. I’m all for giving it away and putting limits on number of short calls if the company wants to give that to us for free, though, without reducing lineholder protections. The only way I could see that happening is to raise the g-line and in some cases where the LPA is near the max, reduce flying or growth. That just doesn’t seem realistic to me, but who knows.

It is my understanding that at Delta it is much easier to reassign line holders to cover last minute disruptions, where doing that is harder at United due to our line holder protections. A friend at Southwest says that they don’t have FSB, but they’re all basically on reserve once they show up since the company can reassign at will, and often do. Since Jersey won’t answer my question, I’ll ask you. What solution do you think would be acceptable to both the company and the pilot group to cover what FSB currently does? I agree with others. The vast majority of the pilots are line holders and that is where we spend most of our career. Giving up line holder work rules to enhance reserve won’t get the pilot votes. Keeping or even improving our current rules while simultaneously rewriting reserve rules probably won’t get the company vote. Since it takes two sides coming to an agreement to get a contract, what is the solution? I see a possible solution that both sides would agree to would be keeping FSB, but put rules in place defining when it can be used, how frequently, possibly bid deliberately, and what the add pay would be. The company would find it acceptable because they still have the option, and those on reserve would see it as an improvement since there would be rules that limit involuntary assignments and provide additional pay when it is.

Nicely stated. It's not so much the act of, but the issue of transparency, definitive limits, and compensation for efforts above basic reserve.

I’d be curious to see the number of trips given off FSB that could have been covered just fine by one of many on SC.

Having someone on FSB just generates unnecessary urge by crew desk to use them while they’re on the hook. Usual tactic is to DH them before they expire to cover a trip in another domicile the next day so they “save the bullet” there. Just in case. Bet if SC paid 5 hours to show in <1 hour they’d see comparable response.

I can see the need for FSB for some widebody international where the whole crew pumpkins if it takes a while to replace someone but that’s about it

I have no problem with FSB as long as it comes with a major pay incentive and there’s transparency in who gets it assigned and why. If the company feels like it’s critical to maintaining ops then they can pay a premium to keep it.

Is there any drive for / is anyone interested in regulating min reserve levels?

They were doing just this during Covid testing in case someone was positive.

FSB with pilot concurrence only. Allow the company to put serious premium on it - just like PP. I am sure people will scoop it up if FSB pays say 8 hours if unused and maybe 150% for the trip is used.

How about we increase the MMG for SCR. Force the company to build separate lines for LCR, SCR and FSB. If LCR is converted to SCR, the MMG goes up to SCR MMG. Install hard limits on LCR to SCR conversions. MMG should be mid 80s for the credit.

If the company wants reserve coverage, have them pay for it.

GREAT Post.
I understand I get a bit of flak about "always" grouping pilots into 3 categories.. LUAL, LCAL and Post Merger.
History needs to be communicated here.

Prior to UPA2012, LCAL (to my understanding) did not have any sort of FSB. But I do believe we had "looser" Reassignment rules. At the same time, this was also pre 117 and I also don't think we were doing the long haul flying like we are doing now.
So, as Hedley asked- What is a solution?
I agree that FSB sucks. But why does it suck? Is it cause of the way scheduling arbitrarily assigns it? Is it because it doesnt give Add Pay? Is it because (as Pilots), some don't want to work on Reserve?
This discussion has shown that some actually don't mind it, some HATE it, and others (many) are indifferent to it.

I understand WHY we have it, just expect to be compensated for it. You put on your uniform and have to sit at the airport for a few hours, ok.. but it should net you some Add Pay (1hr).
Our Long Haul, International WideBody Trips net the company boocoo bucks (look it up, younger generation! LOL). Having a pilot(s) sitting FSB is their form of insurance. OK. But FUPM>
As someone mentioned- Would love to see the stats on
Bases breakdown on FSB
Fleets
Seats
And then, usage.

Ironically, when I look at EWR today, I see 4 pilots (on what I assume are FSB's- 13P & 10P) One A320 crew, and one 737/Guppy! crew.
Again, we can argue the merits of those 4 slots- but maybe it's a good deal for them if they get used.. or maybe it's a bad deal if they get used. Either way, they SHOULD have gotten 1 hour of ADD Pay (in my opinion) and there NEEDS to be transparency on those assignments.
Also a bit strange as they AREN'T the International stuff I thought they would be scared of canceling and need protecting. Maybe they are more worried about the massive Narrow Body flying we have and they just feel those 2 times are strategic for those aircraft..
Maybe something else we NEED to have is set FSB times and therefore, everyone knows.., m-f at 10am there's always a FSB on the the 73Guppy~ etc..

Till ILC23, be well..
Always
Motch

It’s been a long time ago, but at LCAL I’m pretty sure that FSB was in the contract, but it was hardly ever used. The lack of reassignment rules negated the need. We were all on reserve once the trip started ……. And it sucked.

1 hr add pay for FSB didn't we just shoot that down in tumi TA. How about 5hr add pay and voluntary for SC and FSB maybe that'll get my vote. Line holder should get 5hr add pay for each leg reassigned until back on original schedule. Think bigger people.

I can go either way with FSB IF it pays 5 hours min regardless of use. I get 3-4 unused FS now so sure 20 more hours of pay.

LC 18 hours ....Silo crap gone. No more 6 day blocks of RSV for NB we do not have 6 day trips. Global gone bye bye. 14 days off min

SC has to be picked up like Delta TA with 2 hours of add pay.

RSV can pick up PP why should only the top 10% @ UA eat at the table.

Right, and VDO should be 100%. Why is a rsv worth less?

This would be one of the most important items to me if I were a prospective new hire. A huge part of QOL is schedule flexibility and to have a beautiful bright light at the end of the reserve tunnel is final piece most of us would need in order to see UAL as the obvious no-brainer destination.