Ames CAL Pilot Survey
 

To the CAL Pilot's who took the online Ames Pilot Survey, did anyone find it lacking in the subject of "SCOPE"?? When getting to the bottom of the 35+ questions, I just found it kind of strange that only 4 questions even touched on SCOPE (18,19,22,32).....Isn't this kinda a "hot topic" for most, and deserving a bit more attention/focus??

For those who have taken the time to fill it out, thoughts??....Lip service or constructive??

If the UAL Pilot's had this as well, chime in.....

I’m furloughed UA so no survey for me. When I’ve been involved with negotiations in the past we would send out a poll on specific sections we were about to tackle. Do you think that is the case or was this poll all encompassing minus Scope?

I put scope as numero uno for importance. And also asked about relief of 70 seat scope with restrictions or just say no. I just said no. What more needs to he asked? I felt the issue was addressed. I felt the same way after the last age 60/65 survey as well..so.....

I agree. I thought the issue was addressed enough in that I made it number one priority. After all, no scope and everything else doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Made that clear in the comment section.

The questions that really ticked me off were the "variable compensation" questions. I used every last character I could in the comments section to show my disgust about how profit sharing is treated at this company, by this company and where I felt it belongs in our contract (hint: it doesn't...nor does VARIABLE compensation of any type). I will say it until I am blue in the face: either the company believes every employee contributes to profits no matter their union or contract status and should be rewarded for that AS ADDITIONAL REWARD/INCOME or they don't. It is not something for the union to negotiate IMO. If the company truly values US and our contributions to a profitable operation, they should pay us profit sharing, along with every other employee, no questions asked. Secure me scope, work rules, retirement, and hard quantifiable (read: NON-VARIABLE) income!

And I put salary as dead last whenever possible. I want them to get the message that it is work rules first, first, and first, and then once that is achieved, we will sign once we get SWA pay rates for the 737 and go from there. My concern is that they are fishing to see if a yes vote can be bought with pay rates but no work rule changes.

Bingo......

Next to SCOPE, I was gleaming the same thing that you pointed out above. I honestly believe that as time goes on (and by way of this survey), the JNC feels some deep motivation to get something out by way of "just producing a YES vote"....IE something just enough to push a 'hair-line majority', nothing industry leading/encompassing to protect mainline flying both on the regional side & JV/Overseas flying.

The point I was attempting to make in the O.P. was that all this questions asking about Profit Sharing, Stock Options, Stock Grants, Pay Scales, yada yada yada are pointless if SCOPE is not held miles North of paramount. If they are going to 'worry' about the above mentioned items in any JCBA, then SCOPE best have ALREADY been 'locked-up' in iron-clad form.

GOOD to hear others drove home the point on SCOPE in the comments section at the end. The LAST thing we need as a combine carrier is to have 'tunnel vision' soley on the hourly-quan/profit sharing/stock options.....you kind of have to be on property with a J-O-B to collect.....thus, full circle back to the idea of SCOPE.

I know this has been beaten to death & back........Paranoid?? D*mn straight.

This question should not have been asked at all, in any manner, for any reason. That this is even being asked means that they are discussing it. Very disappointing.

It should have been:

32. Management has expressed an interest in expanding the use of medium jets flown by other airlines, as allowed in the current UAL pilot CBA. Do you feel this should be:
a. not allowed now
b. never allowed in the future
c. not even discussed
d. reversed to bring 1500 pilots back
e. all of the above

APC – You might be correct. I’ll only offer one of several possibilities to consider. There could be many reasons they could be asking this question. Not all bad.

Not sure as to the make up on the negotiating committee, but one reason this question could be asked is to merely squash the argument of one of the committee members. I have no inside scoop, but I could see polling the group to get the leverage to quiet down a committee member that’s way off the mark. I’d hate to think that we haven’t learned from our past mistakes (Trade Scope for $$). But the bottom line is you have the final say whether a TA is ratified.

I’m definitely not accusing or have any knowledge. I only want to point out that there are a lot of reasons to poll…. Some not as obvious as the others.

That's a hopeful view and I hope you're right.

However, I would much rather the MEC chair tell anyone who asks--the NC, the company, another MEC member, a pilot, the survey writer--"it isn't up for discussion."

I only need one question on scope.

My scope: ALL CAL/UAL flying to be done by CAL/UAL pilots only!

No need for more questions. No need for long explainations.

I would too. No Scope = a 100% No Vote

Otto....

Simply put, that's PhD level.....Good Man.

"T"....
Feel your pain from the sidelines....no fun.

SCOPE or nothing.....from just about all guys/gals I've flow with on the CAL side. Hopefully we can bring this home on both sides for the good of the future pilot group.

OR how about another perspective?

We KNOW the company wants to eliminate scope (their ultimate desire) or at the very least extend the UAL scope to the CAL operations. So it is being discussed at the table. The company could be saying that our union really doesn't know what we want regarding scope vs. all other parts of the contract if they improve (i.e. make a trade). The union could be saying we know what our pilots want, but let's find out. Let's put all the various options on the table that management wants to discuss with us regarding scope. We'll put in the options, not hide them, and let the pilots show us their desires.

That could be the reason for the question the way it is. You have all the options that management will want to discuss. You have the option the union wishes as the outcome. Now you tell the union which one is best for you (and the combined pilot group) and let them take the results to the company to say, "I think we have a concrete idea of what our pilots want."

Just another way to look at that question.

Sometimes the MEC just needs to protect the pilots from themselves. One third of the pilots voted away their retirement for a dollar and will vote away 2,000 jobs without batting an eye if it means another dollar. The MEC could average their vote with the one third of the pilots who will strike on the issue. It'll be a toss up so they'll be able to go the company with anything they want.

I just think at the core it is an issue that should not be on the table in any way, at any time. There is not even a neutral position here. Like it or not, we're one big pilot group of 12,000 pilots now and not only can we not give away more, but UAL's relaxation of scope must be completely undone. It is OUR problem now. The only acceptable outcome at the end of this is the trifecta of reversal of scope, new FAA rest rules, and retirements kicking in, resulting in not only in all recalls, but a hiring frenzy of 110 pilots per month that goes on for years.

If there was a question at all it should have been:

32. Would you strike to get back from furlough at UAL:
a. 300 pilots
b. 600 pilots
c. 900 pilots
d. 1200 pilots
e. 1547 pilots

THEN they could go to the company and say "We took a survey and CAL pilots are willing to strike to get UAL pilots back on the property. What a surprise!"

Sometimes how you word the question definitively predetermines the outcome.

Forgive my ignorance, but was this a survey that was available to UAL pilots as well that I missed?

Thanks a bunch,

Joe Peck
UAL-IADFO