CAL MEC Message 11/02/10
11-02-2010, 09:02 AM
#1
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 24
CAL MEC Message 11/02/10
147 Pilots On The Street
Yesterday, the UAL MEC Chairman and UAL local council representatives put out a series of strident blastmails on the subject of the JCBA, SLI and the union’s compensation proposal. In these communications, they seek to place blame on your MEC and its officers for not yet having reached agreement on a JCBA. We are taken to task for being honest about our intent to hold firm in our insistence that a fair and equitable seniority list integration process be followed. They cry foul that we have adamantly held that ALPA merger policy must be adhered to and that the Protocol agreement agreed to by both MECs be followed in its entirety. (The Protocol is available on the CAL MEC Web site.) Please allow me to clear up some of the many inaccuracies contained in yesterday’s UAL communications.
The issue we face today with the compensation section is really quite simple. We were told several months ago by UAL MEC members that they had passed a resolution mandating that the B-747 be given premier aircraft status when the aircraft pay groupings were designed. In short, the UAL MEC wanted the B-747 to be the singular aircraft in the highest aircraft category for pay purposes. We had different ideas and insisted that an approach that created the most pay for the most pilots be considered. This issue came to a head in September at a joint session of the two MECs where, at the direction of our MEC, I advised the UAL MEC that we were not interested in the UAL methodology and that we favored allowing the Joint Negotiating Committee to work, unfettered by SLI considerations, on a solution that would be best suited for all CAL and UAL pilots.
Although the UAL MEC did not initially agree to this tack, eventually with the help of ALPA National the JNC was allowed to proceed with formulating a solution absent any SLI consideration. They did so after a few days of work in October. The JNC agreed on the solution, the two MEC chairs agreed on the solution and the CAL MEC agreed on the solution. The UAL MEC said no. With this stalemate hanging over our heads, we received management’s compensation proposal last week. Again, following the meetings with management, the JNC met in an attempt to come up with suitable aircraft groupings. Again, the JNC reached consensus on a proposal to be used to counter management’s proposal. I can only assume, based on yesterday’s missives from UAL, that yet again, the UAL MEC has rejected the JNC’s work. It is very clear that the problem is not with the CAL MEC or the JNC. The problem rests solely with the UAL MEC and their insistence that the compensation proposal enhance their SLI argument.
To further complicate matters, the UAL MEC has proposed a resolution to the ALPA Executive Council suggesting that the Council mandate that the JCBA cannot be used in the SLI arbitration. In essence, the UAL MEC wants to restrict the arbitration panel from hearing the whole truth. They want to carve out parts we believe would be necessary for the arbitrators to understand both pilot groups’ full stories. We will, of course, fight for the truth to be told in its unvarnished entirety.
Interestingly, while Capt. Morse holds up the new DAL contract as the model in her blastmail, she doesn’t acknowledge that the DAL contract has identical pay for the B-747 and B-777 aircraft: exactly what the JNC had proposed and she herself had approved for her MEC’s consideration. Unable to convince anyone of the merits of an irrational argument, now Capt. Morse and the UAL MEC are trying what can best be described as an attempt to shift blame from themselves by providing their pilots inaccurate information.
The CAL MEC believes that ALPA merger policy and the protocols we have agreed upon should be followed as we work to negotiate a JCBA and then an integrated seniority list. The CAL MEC is upholding our agreement – to leave the SLI and JCBA as separate processes. To carve out pay rates (or anything else for that matter), would be the antithesis of those agreements.
To our pilots, the UAL MEC, the United pilots, and to the UAL MEC officers, we will continue to honor the agreements that we have made regarding the JCBA and the SLI processes. We urge you to let these agreed upon processes work as they were designed so that we all can begin to reap the benefits of a new collective bargaining agreement. The goals we established many months ago have not changed. Together, we must work to reach agreement on a new contract that meets or exceeds the demands of our pilot group and to achieve a fair and equitable seniority list integration.
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
November 2, 2010
Yesterday, the UAL MEC Chairman and UAL local council representatives put out a series of strident blastmails on the subject of the JCBA, SLI and the union’s compensation proposal. In these communications, they seek to place blame on your MEC and its officers for not yet having reached agreement on a JCBA. We are taken to task for being honest about our intent to hold firm in our insistence that a fair and equitable seniority list integration process be followed. They cry foul that we have adamantly held that ALPA merger policy must be adhered to and that the Protocol agreement agreed to by both MECs be followed in its entirety. (The Protocol is available on the CAL MEC Web site.) Please allow me to clear up some of the many inaccuracies contained in yesterday’s UAL communications.
The issue we face today with the compensation section is really quite simple. We were told several months ago by UAL MEC members that they had passed a resolution mandating that the B-747 be given premier aircraft status when the aircraft pay groupings were designed. In short, the UAL MEC wanted the B-747 to be the singular aircraft in the highest aircraft category for pay purposes. We had different ideas and insisted that an approach that created the most pay for the most pilots be considered. This issue came to a head in September at a joint session of the two MECs where, at the direction of our MEC, I advised the UAL MEC that we were not interested in the UAL methodology and that we favored allowing the Joint Negotiating Committee to work, unfettered by SLI considerations, on a solution that would be best suited for all CAL and UAL pilots.
Although the UAL MEC did not initially agree to this tack, eventually with the help of ALPA National the JNC was allowed to proceed with formulating a solution absent any SLI consideration. They did so after a few days of work in October. The JNC agreed on the solution, the two MEC chairs agreed on the solution and the CAL MEC agreed on the solution. The UAL MEC said no. With this stalemate hanging over our heads, we received management’s compensation proposal last week. Again, following the meetings with management, the JNC met in an attempt to come up with suitable aircraft groupings. Again, the JNC reached consensus on a proposal to be used to counter management’s proposal. I can only assume, based on yesterday’s missives from UAL, that yet again, the UAL MEC has rejected the JNC’s work. It is very clear that the problem is not with the CAL MEC or the JNC. The problem rests solely with the UAL MEC and their insistence that the compensation proposal enhance their SLI argument.
To further complicate matters, the UAL MEC has proposed a resolution to the ALPA Executive Council suggesting that the Council mandate that the JCBA cannot be used in the SLI arbitration. In essence, the UAL MEC wants to restrict the arbitration panel from hearing the whole truth. They want to carve out parts we believe would be necessary for the arbitrators to understand both pilot groups’ full stories. We will, of course, fight for the truth to be told in its unvarnished entirety.
Interestingly, while Capt. Morse holds up the new DAL contract as the model in her blastmail, she doesn’t acknowledge that the DAL contract has identical pay for the B-747 and B-777 aircraft: exactly what the JNC had proposed and she herself had approved for her MEC’s consideration. Unable to convince anyone of the merits of an irrational argument, now Capt. Morse and the UAL MEC are trying what can best be described as an attempt to shift blame from themselves by providing their pilots inaccurate information.
The CAL MEC believes that ALPA merger policy and the protocols we have agreed upon should be followed as we work to negotiate a JCBA and then an integrated seniority list. The CAL MEC is upholding our agreement – to leave the SLI and JCBA as separate processes. To carve out pay rates (or anything else for that matter), would be the antithesis of those agreements.
To our pilots, the UAL MEC, the United pilots, and to the UAL MEC officers, we will continue to honor the agreements that we have made regarding the JCBA and the SLI processes. We urge you to let these agreed upon processes work as they were designed so that we all can begin to reap the benefits of a new collective bargaining agreement. The goals we established many months ago have not changed. Together, we must work to reach agreement on a new contract that meets or exceeds the demands of our pilot group and to achieve a fair and equitable seniority list integration.
Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
11-02-2010, 09:26 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
Aha, there they go again, trying to confuse us with facts and logic!
Seriously though, I think JP's response to WM is measured and restrained. It's time to move on with the JCBA folks and not play into managements hands by bickering among ourselves.
Seriously though, I think JP's response to WM is measured and restrained. It's time to move on with the JCBA folks and not play into managements hands by bickering among ourselves.
11-02-2010, 09:31 AM
#3
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
I agree that this was measured and restrained, and I'm a UAL pilot. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two arguments. Now to both sides.... fix your petty freaking problems and MOVE ON. I can't even IMAGINE what Management is saying behind closed doors right now.
11-02-2010, 09:33 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Nice. 
It's always interesting to see a union (CAL MEC) advocate a disassociation between pay and aircraft size, particularly when the aircraft are not a common type nor close to the same size.
UA's 744 seats 374 in the "new" config while UA's 777 seats 269 and CAL's 777 seats 276. That is a huge difference in size and even more remarkable considering that CAL bands the pay for the different 737's into two groups.
Methinks this is all about the SLI and all the screaming just appears to verifiy it (on both sides.)
I agree with the other posts that the important thing is to move on, while at the same time I don't think it is in the best interest of the "new" United pilot group to not have a higher pay rate for truly large airplanes. UAL is now the world's largest airline and a prime candidate for the 747-8 and/or A380 when neither one might have been justified at the predecessor companies.
It's always interesting to see a union (CAL MEC) advocate a disassociation between pay and aircraft size, particularly when the aircraft are not a common type nor close to the same size.
UA's 744 seats 374 in the "new" config while UA's 777 seats 269 and CAL's 777 seats 276. That is a huge difference in size and even more remarkable considering that CAL bands the pay for the different 737's into two groups.
Methinks this is all about the SLI and all the screaming just appears to verifiy it (on both sides.)
I agree with the other posts that the important thing is to move on, while at the same time I don't think it is in the best interest of the "new" United pilot group to not have a higher pay rate for truly large airplanes. UAL is now the world's largest airline and a prime candidate for the 747-8 and/or A380 when neither one might have been justified at the predecessor companies.
11-02-2010, 10:09 AM
#6
work nights and weekends
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: United SFO B-737
Posts: 202
Originally Posted by SKMarz
If UAL MEC and CAL MEC can't get this figured out and agreed upon, and soon....we really are doomed because this type of conflict is just what management loves to see.
11-02-2010, 10:14 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
So basically.....
The CAL MEC is attempting to keep the 747 pay banded to the 777, which was a bankruptcy concession given up by the United pilot group.
And the CAL MEC is not wanting this concessionary item to go away because they do not have an aircraft of comparable size and they feel it will be detrimental to them in the SLI arbitration.
Is that what this is about in a nutshell?
The CAL MEC is attempting to keep the 747 pay banded to the 777, which was a bankruptcy concession given up by the United pilot group.
And the CAL MEC is not wanting this concessionary item to go away because they do not have an aircraft of comparable size and they feel it will be detrimental to them in the SLI arbitration.
Is that what this is about in a nutshell?
11-02-2010, 10:40 AM
#8
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
So basically.....
The CAL MEC is attempting to keep the 747 pay banded to the 777, which was a bankruptcy concession given up by the United pilot group.
And the CAL MEC is not wanting this concessionary item to go away because they do not have an aircraft of comparable size and they feel it will be detrimental to them in the SLI arbitration.
Is that what this is about in a nutshell?
The CAL MEC is attempting to keep the 747 pay banded to the 777, which was a bankruptcy concession given up by the United pilot group.
And the CAL MEC is not wanting this concessionary item to go away because they do not have an aircraft of comparable size and they feel it will be detrimental to them in the SLI arbitration.
Is that what this is about in a nutshell?
11-02-2010, 10:46 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
In my opinion, I think it's a bad idea to keep a SIGNIFICANTLY larger aircraft tied in pay to a smaller one. Sets a bad precedent for new airplanes a la the 787 you mentioned. The fact that it was banded in the first place was a CONCESSION. I should think that we try to get back as many of those as possible in this contract.
That being said, I would think it GROSSLY unfair to think that a higher pay for the Whale would somehow entitle the pilots on that aircraft to move to the front of the seniority line on the ISL.
I should think there is some middle ground here.
That being said, I would think it GROSSLY unfair to think that a higher pay for the Whale would somehow entitle the pilots on that aircraft to move to the front of the seniority line on the ISL.
I should think there is some middle ground here.
11-02-2010, 11:01 AM
#10
work nights and weekends
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: United SFO B-737
Posts: 202
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
I think you hit the nail on the head. The rumor is running rampant at CAL that the UAL MEC wants (more like is demanding) that UAL will have the TOP 500 slots on the seniority list since they will fly the biggest airplane. How fair is that? It's also rumored that if this happens, NO CAL pilot will EVER break the top 500 since it will ONLY be for B747-400 pilots which will be fenced. Again, how fair is this? My personal opinion is that maybe this merger wasn't such a hot idea for anyone but the CEO's who were rewarded HANDSOMELY for this transaction. I agree that if we can't get past this, we've got some major soul searching to do.
Mergers are usually not good for employees only management, unless perhaps you are number one at the new company.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
