Building Common Ground.
 

Being a "Glass Half Full" kinda guy, I'm hoping I can start a thread where we build some common ground. I for one am excited to be a part of the world's largest airline and understand that the process of integration is difficult but that having the pilot groups working together will result in an infinitely superior result versus the calamity that otherwise would come from a brawl. So here it is: my thoughts on what we ALL have in common.

1) I like my job, and would like to strengthen my future job security.
2) I believe I am underpaid at present.
3) The Aer Lingus IAD-MAD flight is an attack on our union and profession and must be stopped.
4) Feeders are a reality that can't be undone, but it's time to draw the line and keep Continental's 50 seat restriction.
5) I expect my quality of life to get better NOT worse.
6) I have no desire to benefit from the SLI at the expense of CAL pilots, but I hope not to be hurt either (although I sure would like to be EWR based and stop commuting . . . anyone want to trade IAD 767 for EWR 767 :D)



So that's it for now. I know those are the easy ones, and I know it's tempting for the cynical side of our brain to step in with a "you're such a naive loser" comment, but I hope anyone posting here will work towards a positive discussion on what we have in common.


Cheers,

JP

Good thoughts.
 

Good post. I would like to think the average pilot at both carriers is in that area. There of course will always be extremes in both groups.

Regarding your point on scope, I believe that scope is a definite focus for the JNC. Having said that, do you think that 50 seat is recoverable while also stemming the JV issue?

I ask because everything in this process gaining a JCBA has a cost associated with it. That is just fact. Sure the ALPA cost versus the company's cost may not be the same. Nonetheless, negotiating capital will have to be expended to achieve any desired contract milestone.

That is the reality. Always has been without some huge leverage which I don't see here. Say the JNC stems the JV issue while giving into a reduced but allowed 70 seat RJ utilization by the new company that is tied to a much reduced percentage of block hours. Would that be satisfactory? Or, they agree to take a significantly smaller pay raise to stem the JV issue and cap RJs at 50 seats. Or.....

Where is your sight picture on "acceptable?" Suffice it to say that the pilots deserve gains in all areas. Is the realization among both groups that they will not get it all?

Just playing a little devil's advocate here. If Joe Pilot expects 40% pay, benefits increase, 50 seat, no more JV, etc......they are going to be sadly disappointed.

I can say it is nice to be observing from the sidelines as a voluntary furlough from UAL.

Frats,
Lee

Lee - we get it bro, you are a VOLUNTARY furlough. You state it in every post you make...what gives? We got your situation loud and clear from the first time you stated it.

I'm also observing on mil leave from CAL. But it really serves no purpose in posts I make, unless it directly relates to mil leave at our airline.

It would be nice to have some input from normal everyday line pilots on this forum. You know someone who has flown a full line of time in the last few months. Haha.

It only took 3 friggen posts to turn negative........nice job.

Adds to the fact that
 

...I don't expect anyone to take care of my interests. I know how to and am not afraid to walk away. Sure, with recall rights......I won't hold my breath. That is a safety net full of big holes so I never counted on it.

Being on mil leave is a great way to watch this whole thing. I didn't have that option anymore.....too old.

I do enjoy the show, however.

Frats,
Lee

You're such a naive loser. :D

Chill out Kernal...

.....and that would be spelled "Colonel".....as in the "Full Bird" to you.

Lee....

Couple questions for you.

You refer to being "vol. furloughed" over at the U.....of the 1400+ pilots serving furlough, how many of you guys/gals are actually "Voluntary" as opposed to out-right without a position??

You also said that you did some work with UAL with Block Hours v Scheduling.....was that pre-PBS, or after that transition?? Reason why I ask is just curious how much PBS was able to cut back (rough guess, not science) on required staffing pre vs post PBS implementation your your side of the fence.

SC

I agree for the most part. See my responses above.

You're completely missing my point. I'm not calling you out because you're furloughed, involuntary or voluntary. For all the involuntary furloughs, I don't know the pain, but I'm sure it sucks and my hat is off to you. I'm not biased to anyone's situation in all honesty.

What I'm asking, is why on every post do you state you're a voluntary furlough? Why is that necessary, i.e. what gives? It doesn't give credibility to your posts, unless I'm completely missing something. What gives credibility is factual data in an unbiased situation. I just don't understand why you must post your scenario everytime you write, that's all...

Got it, thanks.

Negotiating capital spend bringing scope back in isn't just spent to get rid of those RJs with no benefit to most of the group of pilots.

Less / smaller RJs means potentially more jets at mainline. More jets means more pilots. More pilots means you get to bring those furloughs back (and do some hiring) and that all the pilots on the list enjoy a higher percentage on the seniority list. That means the option of better QOL, or being able to bid better paying seats or equipment.

I'm sure most everyone knows that, but its good to remind those few who don't think scope affects them at all since they're senior enough that they don't have to worry about losing their jobs over it. Bringing back scope helps EVERYONE. It could put you in that captain seat or in that widebody seat. Or get you off reserve. All those could result in some pretty big QOL or pay increases that you're not even directly negotiating for.

I certainly can't speak for Lee, but from an outside point of view, I would guess that he points out that he is a voluntary furlough because it shows he elected to leave vs. being shown the door (for many, it's the second time in 11 years). Apparently he is in the enviable position to sit on the sidelines until/when the time should come that things improve enough to make it worth his while to come back, so perhaps he feels he is less emotionally involved in the process and can view things a little more objectively. Obviously I don't know, just guessing.

Those who were forced out the door and either don't have a job, or have one that is less than ideal are especially eager to have the JCBA preserve SCOPE, restore work rules and pay and put them back in the cockpit. Whether furloughed or currently working, one only has to look at the abundance of heated posts related to this merger to see that opinions are strong and, for some, emotions are running a little high.

What??? We deserve industry standard?????:eek::eek: F that. Last I checked we are now flying for the largest airline with the most synergies and routes and blah blah blah. Smisek certainly didn't get industry standard with his package. I fully expect darn near industry leading. I don't hear any southwest pilots complaining about the money they make inhibiting their future career. Maybe I am not understanding you here and I apologize.

We should be paid what we're worth. The airline industry had a big downturn over the past decade so we took paycuts. Now the economy is starting to improve and we deserve a raise. But I do not expect UAL 2000. I do not expect a massive 25-30% raise. I expect a modest raise like what Delta and Northwest pilots got after the merger. I DO NOT expect our contract to be way out of the league of American, Delta, and US Air (some of our biggest competitors).

The fact is that when your company is doing good and making money, you have a better chance of receiving increased compensation. Just look at FedEx, UPS, and Southwest. They routinely make money, so they earn more. It's really that simple. I'd like my airline to make money too because that more than anything guarantees job stability, advancement opportunities, and the opportunity for increased pay. I don't want to choke the golden goose. If United starts making big money consistently, then we can (and should) ask for more money. But right now, I DO NOT expect our contract to be very industry leading.

FWIW I am also on vol furlough with about 70 above me. Would guess at least 50-100 below me were volunteers also.

I don't want to thread drift, but I am glad you are not on the JNC. All eyes are on us. A LEADING contract is the only acceptable contract. The cost of a pilot is the cost of a pilot. MGT lined their pockets with cash and will bail in a few years. We are here for decades. MGT has been stealing from front line employees for decades. We are NOT WN, FEX, UPS. This is the new UAL. I'm tired of paying money to come to work and being treated like a third class citizen. I have been trained by the military and the airlines and my additions to the right seat of this merged airline come at a premium. My family has paid also. If we can make money in the worst economy in decades, then we can be paid appropriately.

Also, several who took a voluntary furlough had it eventually turn into an involuntary furlough.

I gotta tell you I read the same complaints over and over and the end result is ultimately going to be this is the aircraft, and this is what it pays. If you're stuck as a new hire at ABC airways earning $21/hr so be it, that's the contract and you agreed to it. Most of us work two jobs in order to make the numbers work on a monthly basis, you're only working 18-19 days, giving you time to do so.

Everyone seems to forget that these airlines are publicly traded companies, and have an obligation to the stockholder to show quarterly profits, and pay the flight crew members peanuts, endlessly forgetting that it is the skill and competence of these crew members
that moves this equipment safely and efficiently. Sure a wide body Cpt. should make $200/hr, and the cabin crew should make $45, but the problem is you're getting paid what we were 17 years ago, and that is so not right, I wish I new the answer.

Interesting.....Thanks for the intel.

AMEN Brother! Sing it. They keep telling us we are the biggest and the best while they give themselves industry leading pay. Well, compensate me like I'm the biggest and the best. Besides, pilot pay accounts for, what, 6% of the airline costs? With $1.5 Billion in annual synergies, they can afford it.

At UAL we gave up $3 Billion in concessions. Almost every dollar of that was squandered on bad fuel hedges, special dividends, and poor decisions regarding loan repayment. If management had done NOTHING with regards to those 3 thing we could still be making C2000 wages and be in the same spot!

iahflyer, really?!?! I was going to get into the underlying economics of the airline business, the relative cost of labor, the importance of establishing a marker as the premier airline--to set a precedent for the rest of our buddies across the street. But I'm sure it would be a waste of time. Pull your head out and see the big picture.

I believe 150 plus
 

SoCal,

I can get the exact numbers but I want to say 150 or so "voluntary" furloughs that actually mitigated a junior furlough. That is to say some folks knowing that they would be furloughed took a hit early to secure other employment. They were going to be furloughed anyway.

Before, during and for a short time after PBS. My rough estimate is 600 pilots system wide. That was when UA had over 9000 pilots still. That is a rough estimate.

Some other work rule changes during the BK contract to save the A plan axed another 300 or so.

That was of course the immediate effect. The long term impact happened with relaxed scope which has done far worse to decimate the pilot numbers and flying at UA.

Frats,
Lee

My implied point exactly.

Lee

Makes me totally credible. Let's you know where I come from. Not hiding behind some kind of facade that most on these boards do.

Wow, was that hard to understand.

If a furloughee of either company posts how the JCBA should return furloughs above all else without stating they are a furlough would that make you read it differently?

As a junior UA guy, should I tell you I think the senior tilt on the last 2 UA contracts makes me sick. Would it mean more if I said I was senior?

It is called perspective. You see, I really don't have a vested interest. The day a letter ever arrives, I'll open it, weigh the choices, and decide. UA/CAL could go away tomorrow and it wouldn't change my next day one bit. And, that is said hoping the best for everyone because I have many friends at UAL. Don't take the example wrong please.

Stay safe in whatever capacity you are serving in.

Lee

Yes....
 

You summed it up.

Frats,
Lee

+1! I haven't outsourced the management of my expectations. Accordingly, they are still high.

Alright - as a "piggyback" if you will to your post, my question to you (as a VOLUNTARY furlough) is:

do you think furloughed pilots at UAL should go ahead of any of the former CAL pilots (now obviously UAL) that are all now active flyers on the CAL seniority list (i.e. CAL now having zero furloughed pilots)?

Given that Glenn Tilton parked 104 UAL Guppies in order to "right-size" the airline for the merger and threw all those guys under the bus, yes.

I doubt that will happen, but this merger has been in the works for years and those lost jobs are a direct result of it. Those guys paid the ultimate price and some form of consideration should be paid to them to reflect that.
I doubt that will happen, again.

And as an aside, the loss of planes caused a huge shift in seat (and pay) loss across the bottom 2/3 of the airline. 737 Captains went back to 77 and 67 F/Os seats...767 F/Os went back to 320 F/Os and so on.

We're angry for good reasons. However, along those lines we're not angry at CAL as some imply. 98 percent of the guys I fly with are mad at UAL management and the way we've been collectively boned since 9/11. They are also realists and understand the positives that this merger COULD bring to us if the company is run correctly. Mr Smisek would do well to realize that that we're not willing to forget the past and just go with the flow now that we are (soon) one carrier. The vast majority of us are not going to accept anything less than an industry leading JCBA.

The JSLI is the next step.

my 2 cents

So, what exactly are you saying, your statement is pretty vague? Are you saying their "consideration" should be going above active guys on the CAL seniority list?

And how exactly does the fact YOUR management ******ed the UAL furloughed guys over have anything to do with any pilot's careers at CAL; i.e. why is it justified for a CAL flyer to be punished because Tilton furloughed a UAL guy 3 years ago - well prior to the May 2010 announcement? I'm not saying this in jest, I really want to know what you think...

As far as I know, the merger announcement happened in the spring of 2010. Prior to that, there was NO merger, whatever "right sizing" you like to call it. The slashing of UAL's fleet and labor force could also have been because you guys hemmoraghed money for multiple quarters prior to 2010...or maybe not, that's just my op.

Last, I'll take my post one step further, kind of in the same direction you took yours. When I got hired at CAL a few years ago, we had one of the fastest moving career expectations in the industry. We were hiring so many guys, and had so many retirements - guys were no-sh*t holding captain on the 737 within 3 years'ish. I literally could have been making $150K a year within 3-4 years at the company. Then of course age 65 hit us and...well, you know the rest of the story. Yet our awesome upgrade times had ZERO to do with your career or your airline in general - you were still furloughing at that point. Now, here's my question - shouldn't I be given "consideration" above UAL guys because when I was hired I could have held captain early in my career before being affected by age 65?

The answer is of course not. It had nothing to do with your collective joint airline careers, just like your airline's furloughing (or "right-sizing" as you like to call it) had nothing to do with ours. It's all in the past.

We won't be deciding the seniority list, won't have a single thing to say about it, so the point is really pretty moot.

Having said that, in the new ALPA merger policy, longevity is one of the factors. Do I think that someone with 8 years on property (11 years seniority) should go ahead of someone with 1 or 2 (3 years of seniority)? My answer is yes. I do realize there are other factors that go into the formula, and I believe it's likely to go to arbitration in the end. The point is, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't have any say in the process, so what I think (or for that matter, what anyone else thinks) really doesn't matter in the end. So I'm not sure I see the sense in arguing about it.

At this point, I'm really more concerned about the JCBA and I truly hope it is a good one. As for the rest, it's all going to turn out the way it turns out and personally, I'm not going to work myself up about things I can't control.

For the record, I fully expect I will get stapled because that is just the way my career has gone thus far. Any anger I have about that will not be directed at anyone I might eventually work with regardless of whether they originally started at UAL or CAL.

We had 3 year upgrades when I got hired as well. Didn't mean anything then, and doesn't now.

As far as my assertion that this thing was in the works, well its pretty obvious wasn't it? There was a recent document floated which pretty much proves it. If I can find it, I'll toss it up here. It won't matter however.

Do I think that our guys on the street will get hosed? Yes. Do I think they should? No. That's all I'm saying.

If I were at CAL, I would be taking your side of this argument, and if you were at UAL you'd be taking mine. This ****ing contest will get us exactly nowhere. You asked for an opinion and got one you didn't like. What do you expect a UAL guy to say? "Sure, hose em again!"

As I said, our opinions are farts into the wind anyway.

However, our two CEO's just walked (probably ran, laughing all the way) away with incredible bonuses off our backs. And just what did they do to deserve such handsome rewards, other than make us work harder and give up a LOT for THEM? We deserve a LOT more than what you think. You give me the impression you're ready to take whatever they hand you, and you'd be thankful. Glad you're not on the negotiating committee. :confused:

I'm curious about this, and maybe you - or anyone else on here - know the answer. I will be the first to admit my knowledge on airline history is marginal at best...

Has there ever been a merger in the past since ALPA has been around where furloughed pilots went ahead of active pilots at the other company? I really have no clue and maybe someone on here has some insight...

Good words.

I'm ready to base trade when you are. :D

(Dulles residing EWR 757/767 FO)

Just for the record, UAL was not furloughing when age 65 hit. Age 65 started in Dec 07. UAL hired pilots until Mar 08 and then started furloughing in Sep 08. I know it doesn't change your point of view but just thought you might want accurate info.

Management knew this merger was coming...it WAS right sizing...period.
The slicing of the fleet was directly because of the upcoming merger.

They dont plan 6 months in advance..they plan ahead years..especially for a merger of this size.