TA Poll
 

Where does everyone stand on this thing?

Hard No, we sold safety and that’s unconscionable! Yes a massive improvement over Tumi, but we never fought hard enough and could have done much better. DAL still leads the way and in a few areas AA is better then our TA.

DAL has even less stringent rules for baby captains than this TA does. Stop grandstanding and get real.

You need a poll on this???

100% NO vote here

Won’t let me vote
 

It wont let me vote but I’m 100% yes vote

Where will the captains come from?
 

It seems one of the biggest gripes is low time NBCAs. However, if senior FO positions have become so desirable where will new NBCAs come from?

The vast majority of the no voters are only voting that way because they know it will pass with flying colors. They want to be able to smugly tell people they voted no, for whatever nonsense reason they have. If it was down to the wire and they knew their vote would make a difference, they would vote yes. It’s like voting for a 3rd party candidate when you live in Texas or California. They will spend the next 5 years telling everyone they meet that they voted no.

My guess of the split is 68% yes. It’s not industry leading except for pay which is what will sell it but not what we asked for. The RSV changes are a confusing joke with very limited LCL, Sick time increase? Really 12 more hours a year? Way behind DL. Then we have the giveaway chokehold you shall be Capt to a new hire? What happened to this place! This is a bad deal but it pays well so the gleam in the eyes of greed will vote for it.

BS, we actually wanted tangible QOL improvements.

Hard yes. Haven’t talked to a single no yet amongst friends. Only no voters you see are the usual complainers on Facebook and people hiding behind their screen names.

my guess is 70/30 pass

I'm voting no, but I haven't actually read it yet I'm just going off what people are saying on Facebook

Still reading the TA but my stance was zero concessions. I also had a couple of important to me improvements that are not there so I'm not happy. I would think if we sent it back, a few changes would be made quickly (happened in the past) and sent back out. For that reason I have no fear of voting no if I should decide that.

Carter1, Might be some truth to it, but certainly not all No voters are complainers or hiding. Last year it was been the Yes voters who hid. There are a number of reasons to vote either way and we should respect each other for it.

when official vote is in, it will be 70-80% Yes, consistent with pilot group voting behavior at Delta and AA.

I agree. I wish there was more respect amongst everyone in all regards when it comes to all of this.

you’ve got my respect even though we differ in opinion. People are allowed to disagree, I wish people remembered that

How about an undecided answer? We are 3 days in…

I respect a difference in opinion. When I begin to disrespect that is when certain loudmouths feel the need to rally others to their way of thinking,

The T/A, from everything i've read so far, is 85% good, 10% not so good, and 5% terrible. For me and my family, sick time is a downright pathetic excuse of an improvement. ESB is absolutely useless with all the barriers in place. Not happy that we are the only ones still playing the 50 and 75 percent premium game. 767 still pays as a NB, and 350 hour forced captains should, at the minimum, concern us all. I respect and can absolutely see why someone would vote yes. I unfortunately am having a hard time looking past the terrible. Whichever way you slice it I can't see how this total package matches Delta. We exceed them slightly in some areas, but fall way short in too many others.

It's not like that, at least for me and my NO vote. I think the improvements in QOL fell short of what was promised to us through the various communications. There are certainly improvements that match Delta, so for that alone, I believe it will pass.

That said, the NO vote for me also represents the "eye of the tiger" that we don't practice enough. All talk. not enough action.

I didn’t realize that DAL was the standard for safety.

Hard no.

Forced upgrade for many reasons is not okay.
My 2 hills were rolled into days off-even if in a base (which is crazy since RSV is at 50%). The other was locking in an approved calculus for a gline.

It’ll pass because $$$.

Nobody said it was, but if a Delta (or any other major) baby captain puts one in the dirt, it will be a huge setback for all of us. I don’t see any of you hippocrates out there making a stink with those other airlines’ “risk taking” (including ALPA carriers). The reason you aren’t into it is because you perceive it as somehow reducing some of our theoretical leverage 4 years down the road when our next contract is due… mmm k, just say that then.

They don't/can't include left seat slots in new hire drops at DAL. At a minimum, I think we can agree that everyone at DAL who bid for the left seat at least wanted it at the time they bid it.
And I agree the poster that you replied to in that allowing the company to include these spots in a new hire drop at United does diminish the company's need to make the position attractive enough, contractually, to improve the terms in the future.

We negotiate with the next vote in mind, only and almost always. The company negotiates two and three contracts down the road. Concerning 8-F-12, we were certainly outmaneuvered.

Red herring. Delta mgmt has no desire to upgrade new hires.

We have worked our way into the worst sick leave program in the country. Anyone having a good month that gets sick will have to make a decision; let's see, call in sick and lose $10K off my monthly paycheck or show up sick as a dog. Hmmmm, wonder what people will do. What an absolute joke to put in a pay cap if you have a sick call in that month. The rest of what we have in front of us that everyone is so excited about is industry standard at best. We will be stuck with this crap for the next 10 years. I love the attitude of the no-voters just want to tell people they voted no. Ummmm, no, actually we know what it means to have leverage and understand what our worth is.

Sick leave is dealbreaker for me, I'm so tired of bringing all kinds of my flying partners "allergies" back home to my family and unfortunately all changes only reinforcing fly sick company policy which includes minimal sick time accrual, company radar with number of sick calls and now the 95h add-on.

Deleted quoted wrong post.

Not grandstanding, It’s my strong opinion. You have your opinion (which you’re entitled to have) appears to settle for less or mediocrity. That’s your choice and fine but I disagree.

You’re thinking of the slogan for “MegaForce”….not “Rocky III”

hmm… “dealbreaker”? What deal are you hoping for? The TA as written is what’s on the table… no modifications in the works… you either vote Yes or No. are you a solid No because the SL isn’t like Delta? What are you going to do about it when this passes? Even if this fails, which is highly unlikely, you honestly think company is going to say “let’s give them the DL sick leave and they’ll all vote yes!” ???

Everyone arguing that forced 350 hr UAL-time captains are unsafe (450 hrs if we count OE) need to remember that there are still higher regulatory minimums which apply to operating as a captain in 121 operations.

The regionals have been having forced upgrades fly United passengers (and DHing UAL crewmembers) for some time now—with much less support. Regional captains are often a one man band when it comes to dispatch and mx and pax issues—UAL captains have a much more robust and proactive support network than the average regional CA. I didn’t see this type of uproar about safety when SkyWest forced their FOs to upgrade.

It’s a huge kick to the nether regions for QOL for the unlucky forced upgrades, which is a great reason to dislike the proposed forced upgrade language. It’s also somewhat of a “poop flows downhill” move to force a new hire to upgrade into crap QOL but not a 30yr WB FO (into much better QOL)… those are more plausible reasons to not like contractual forced upgrade language.

The safety argument is valid and really needs to be had with the FAA if the regulatory 121 upgrade minimums are not sufficient, or if the FAA approved AQP upgrade program does not weed out current SICs who could not be competent PICs. Have the QOL argument with the companies.

All that said—I would not want to be forced to upgrade in any circumstance. I bid for it when I felt ready.

People who are for this like to make it about “low time CAs” because it’s easier to defend; but the real issue is forced CAs. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem w/ the reduced mins if they got rid of the forced upgrade part. Pilots should upgrade when they choose to take on the extra responsibility, and if not enough people are making that choice, the job needs to be made more enticing. Forcing upgrades is a terrible idea & we’re bringing the industry down by championing it.

Can we make that the next lanyard? “We’re not the worst!”

You are 100% correct. And I wish more people understood this. I think people with previous 121 background who understand how the system has worked in the past decade get it. This "forced upgrade" does not go into effect until the Fall of 2024, so there's literally a year where we will all get to test and see how this contract actually does its thing behind the scenes in re: RSV rules and improved QOL where there is any.

This delay in implementation may therefore make the whole "forced upgrade" a moot point and may not even be required - but let's say Fall of 2024 comes along and we still have a CA problem - well.......whoever comes to United at that point will be well aware that it may happen to them and it's something they have chosen to accept by applying here. Let's not forget that Part 121 rules require 1000 hours of SIC on a jet in order to upgrade - meaning, the 350 hour requirement may not qualify the new hire anyway.

Let's look further into that fact:

§ 121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.(a) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft (or as second in command of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots) unless the pilot:

(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as:

(i) Second in command in operations under this part;

(ii) Pilot in command in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter;

(iii) Pilot in command in operations under § 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter;

(iv) Pilot in command in eligible on-demand operations that require the pilot to satisfy § 135.4(a)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter; or

(v) Any combination thereof.

(c) For the purpose of satisfying the flight hour requirement in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a pilot may credit 500 hours of military flight time provided the flight time was obtained—

(1) As pilot in command in a multiengine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane or powered-lift aircraft, or any combination thereof; and

(2) In an operation requiring more than one pilot.

In other news, European and South American pilots who make less than half of what we make and are exposed to way worse QOL while still flying the same airplanes and in even worse environments than we do, are reading this tread and shaking their heads. I always like to throw a bit of perspective into the mix, even though some may regard that as irrelevant. I respect everyone who chooses to vote No, but I do agree with the other poster that perhaps half of the NO voters would most likely vote YES if they felt this would not pass.

Ah, the old, “let’s just vote yes & see how it plays out” argument. That one’s never bit us before…

Did we just go from “industry leading” to “hey, at least we’re better off than the South American pilots”? Nice pivot.

As soon as the pay rates and retro formula were confirmed this was a 75-25 lock to pass, the ensuing discussions are just noise.

I was a yes and voted yes in this poll. However the more I dig into this the more I lean towards No

bingo…………..

Just like GJ in EWR when he saw the recall hand writing on the wall.

You sort of answered your own question. If your current AQP program isn’t tough enough it’s time to start weeding them out. I’m assuming United’s upgrade training is designed for experienced pilots who probably spent a few years in the left seat already.

I think everything you said is accurate but I’d like to add on to your regional example with forced upgrades. Most the FO’s those CA’s are flying with at SkyWest have very little 121 experience that just came from a Cessna 172. So it’s actually worse than you describe.

You know why it hasn’t been an issue at SkyWest? Because that training department will wash you out the second they see a lack in leadership or airmanship skills. They’re not afraid to send you back to the right seat.

This is why most regional FO’s who are afraid to upgrade jump to a ULCC. The crazy part is they’ve been rewarded for that action with job offers from the big 3. A lot of them are on a United seniority list which is what makes this entire scenario so ironic if they’re forced to upgrade at United.