Search

Notices

Bye Bye ,Leverage

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-06-2023 | 08:23 AM
  #11  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 399
Likes: 49
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear
Ah yes, the old “gotta see it from the company’s perspective”. A classic in one-sided negotiations. They would have paid for captains, but we told them they didn’t have to.
how do you know they didn’t pay for it.. what did we get in exchange for this provision? We don’t know but someone does
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 08:42 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
Default

Ah yes, the old, 'I'm voting yes, but I'm going to scream about how terrible this contract is' thread.

Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.
While I applaud the enthusiasm over this one issue, it's already been beaten to death, drug to the glue factory, repackaged as Elmer's glue, and is currently for sale in individual containers on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Elmers-Liquid...1zcF9hdGY&th=1
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 08:54 AM
  #13  
Line Holder
Veteran: Air Force
 
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 333
Likes: 33
From: DL320A
Default

Originally Posted by Andy
Ah yes, the old, 'I'm voting yes, but I'm going to scream about how terrible this contract is' thread.

Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.
While I applaud the enthusiasm over this one issue, it's already been beaten to death, drug to the glue factory, repackaged as Elmer's glue, and is currently for sale in individual containers on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Elmers-Liquid...1zcF9hdGY&th=1
so they can have worse new hire work rules?
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 08:59 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
Default

Originally Posted by Flyweight
so they can have worse new hire work rules?
The rationale I've heard most often from those airlines' CAs is they don't want to take the pay cut/ are worried about the music stopping.
Every airline has good and bad work rules, etc. If one likes, they can cherry pick how Mesa (insert any airline) is a better place to work than United.


Feel free to return to the regularly scheduled hand wringing over the TA.
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 09:31 AM
  #15  
ugleeual's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
Default

Desperation is setting in…
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 09:38 AM
  #16  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 399
Likes: 49
Default

Originally Posted by Andy
Ah yes, the old, 'I'm voting yes, but I'm going to scream about how terrible this contract is' thread.

Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.
While I applaud the enthusiasm over this one issue, it's already been beaten to death, drug to the glue factory, repackaged as Elmer's glue, and is currently for sale in individual containers on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Elmers-Liquid...1zcF9hdGY&th=1
then make it optional .. not a forced upgrade
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 12:41 PM
  #17  
hummingbear's Avatar
Thread Starter
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 6
Default

Originally Posted by Andy
Here's an alternate thought - maybe, just maybe, this is targeted to other airlines' CAs to jump ship and come to United. You know, F9, NK, G4, B6, AS, LUV, among others.
Which is fine. Make it voluntary & let them come. If pay/QOL is good enough & they feel comfortable, they’ll upgrade.
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 12:46 PM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 42
From: Gear slinger
Default

Originally Posted by 744ButtonPusher
then make it optional .. not a forced upgrade
It already is optional and the reserve rules suck so bad they’re getting 100+ unfilled Captain slots per vacancy and the TA doesn’t over much real improvements to make. 5+ years of reserve appealing.
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 12:56 PM
  #19  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 399
Likes: 49
Default

Originally Posted by Otterbox
It already is optional and the reserve rules suck so bad they’re getting 100+ unfilled Captain slots per vacancy and the TA doesn’t over much real improvements to make. 5+ years of reserve appealing.
Now, go back and read the commend I replied to and tell me why I replied the way I did..
Reply
Old 09-06-2023 | 01:04 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
From: Captain
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear
I’ve argued the safety issue of forced upgrades (which to me is the greater concern), but I think those who are brushing that element aside are also overlooking what a terrible negotiating decision it is. The company has always had free rein to do with NH FOs as they please, but their need to fill CA positions in parity has often worked to our advantage. For example: consider the large growth we’ve seen in mid continent hubs over the past couple of years. This has come largely because, although the company could send all the NH FOs to SFO & EWR, they couldn’t fill the CA seats. This forced them to build more flying out of places like DEN & IAH where more of our pilots want to live. (Heck, we actually got a FL base- which we’ve been whining about for decades- purely because the company couldn’t staff EWR voluntarily.) While ALPA has been encouraging the company to do this for a long time, the company has been reluctant to do it because it costs more $$$. Finally, they realized they had to pay what it cost because they had no alternative. I.e., send flying where the pilots want to be or have no captains to do the flying.

Now they have a much cheaper & more efficient alternative- send as many NH FOs & CAs as they want to the undesired hubs. Pilot desirability now has no impact on how & where they build flying.

In essence, we’re creating a new subset of the pilot group-prospective crews- that will do the work we don’t want to do for cheaper. Today, if none of us wants to sit RSV in SFO, there is pressure on the company to improve RSV rules or commuting benefits; or build more flying where our pilots live. Tomorrow their solution will just be to send full NH crews there.

This will give the company a massive advantage in all forward negotiations. Any time we put pressure on them that the pilots want X, they will know that there’s a crew out there willing to go without X just to get on property. (That has always been true of FOs, but once it is also true of captains, the company’s incentive to appeal to our requests will drop to zero.) Want RSV improvements? Nah, we’ll just get NHs to sit RSV. Commuter benefits? Not when we can just send NHs to the undesirable hubs. Restrictions on reassignments? You guessed it. The incentive to open- & maintain bases like MCO completely dries up when the company can simply staff EWR with NHs. Today we’re negotiating against the company. Next cycle we’ll be negotiating against every pilot on the street who wants to come to UAL.

I gotta hand it to Kirby- he’s been playing chess against our checkers this whole time. Delay, delay, delay. Stash $$$ in a mattress while he wears us down; then once he has a big enough retro check to wave under our noses, ask for forced upgrades & sign quickly. (Isn’t it interesting how the one thing in this contract that is a major concession is the very thing that was absent from all polling & negotiations updates?)

Right now we feel like we’re getting a lot of what we asked for, but I think the time will come when we realize what we gave up to get it.
















This TA will pass for sure both MEC and MRAT
and complaining will not change the outcome
Even though I don’t like some changes
I am a yes vote
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Botched
Major
210
01-19-2019 12:33 AM
MD11FLYER
FedEx
22
01-11-2016 12:53 PM
FlyHigh423
Major
5
10-24-2009 03:58 PM
Precontact
Cargo
90
04-23-2009 03:43 PM
PeopleMover
Major
20
05-30-2008 05:28 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices