Agree,

And that was one of my points. In my perfect world, we'd build to 78 again with a lower cap. And, as you said, no bank on furlough.

As to surplus reduction lines, I thought the 60 surplus reduction hour option was still there in the contract? Of course, the "option" is mgmt's.

Frats,
Lee

 

TW,

Not active in the fight, but I personally had no problem with anyone that elected to stay after the change. In fact, I flew with a 320 Capt about a month prior to the rule going into effect. He was in good financial shape according to him but the pension hit obviously hurt.

He said nonetheless, he'd be okay and was looking forward to it. Anyway, the rule was announced to be effective on his birthday. Flew with him in late December on a trip after the change. Asked him why he didn't retire as he had it all planned out with the pension hit and all? He said something along the lines of he was going to but then realized he needed to teach me way more! I laughed and told him I hoped he had bought a lottery ticket before his good luck ran out!

Again, no problem with the change itself. More the way it came about. That said, everyone has to realize it changed the progression landscape that of course was already destroyed by prior events. This of course added to it.

I can understand both sides of the argument. And will say that an extra 5 years of stagnation was one consideration in taking a voluntary furlough. I don't blame those that elected to stay or praise those that I saw elect to retire on time. They all made the best decision for them given the change in the playing field.

Frats,
Lee

 

Not really thread drift. PBS does allow the company (I assume you're CAL, but same is true at UAL) a lot of flexibility. But, that contract flexibility is what creates the problem. Yes, seniority will be abrogated to the extent necessary to fulfill the flying and solver requirements.

PBS sucks the more junior you are in fleet/seat. No doubts.

While I doubt you'll ever get PBS off the property, Pandora's Box and all, contractual changes to line cap, etc., that are made have to be programmed into the system. If the flex of line min and cap are reduced, the quality of the solution is improved and the latitude allowed by the large differential will decrease the pendulum you probably see in monthly line quality as well as possibly getting more of you "wants" in your monthly bid.

PBS at UAL provided the mechanism to stop end of month carryover conflicts, stop vacation override and training conflicts, etc. It caused probably 500-700 furloughs at that time (nothing to do with current furloughs).

Since you have it, the only way to tame it somewhat is to provide less latitude to the company in min/max build criteria. PBS will always maximize the solution to include not giving number 1 in category their wildest dream if it can't minimize open time to target and/or have to build an illegal line for someone lower in category. And yes, I have some time working the scheduling committee under my belt previously.

BTW, who is the CAL PBS vendor? UAL is Ad Opt. You guys using Carmen? To the best of my knowledge UAL finally went with Carmen for the trip builder some years back. They were testing it at any rate.

Frats,
Lee

 

I guess I don't get this concept of capping pay credit. Maybe I am reading everyone post wrong? This is a line construction thing in my mind. I picture capping the line construction to 80 hours. The people that want to fly more can find extra time because people will always want to get rid of some. Don't limit us, limit the company. With people on furlough everything should be done to get them back, including a pay cap if needed.
I am just looking for answers.

 

So I'm guessing that you're okay with guys crossing a picket line too? After all, they probably have/had a good reason to do it................yeah, right.

 

TW, I fought age 65 tooth and nail. I bombarded Congress and the FAA with e-mails, letters, and faxes. It's done. Age 65 is the law of the land and that genie can't be put back in the bottle. I'm not going to throw stones at anyone who stays to age 65; it's their choice. Based on retirement numbers, age 65 is now the norm and no one going forward should feel badly about working to age 65.
The only thing that bothers me about the age 65 debate is the excuse that they needed 5 more years to save for retirement. My ex-wife is a spendthrift; no matter how much I tried to change her, she never saved a dime. 11 years after our divorce, she is so deep in debt that she's going to lose her house and have to declare bankruptcy. If one hasn't built up a fairly nice nest egg for retirement by the time they hit 50, chances are that they never will. Saving money for retirement/rainy day isn't fun; it's not sexy and it's a lot of deprivation. It's camping trips with the kids to the local park instead of a trip to Disneyworld. It's buying a used car instead of a new car. It's renting instead of buying that really nice house. If one decides to not save money during their working years, I don't care. But I don't want anyone to come crying to me about having to work a few more years because they don't have enough in savings to retire - if they didn't care enough to save during their peak earning years, I sure as heck don't care that they have to beg on the side of the exit ramp in their senior years.

I post too much personal information but here's another chunk of it: I'm flying out to Denver this weekend to put the final touches on my 22 YO daughter's retirement savings plan; she graduated from nursing school and recently got hired, making a tad more than $22/hr. And she's still babysitting part time for the extra money. She feels rich. She's already set up her 401K to have 3% go into it due to the hospital's 3% match. And now that she's got some money stashed for a rainy day, we're going to set up a Roth IRA for her to max out every year.
None of that's very fun; instead of saving money, she could buy new clothes and take a vacation to Vegas or Cancun. But she's had a front row seat to my ex-wife's financial train wreck and has no desire to follow in her footsteps.

 

2010
Profit Sharing Accrual $224M
UAL Pilot Share 5.9% of W2
CAL Pilot Share 3.9% of W2

[updated with 3rd quarter numbers]
2011 Jan-Sep
Profit Sharing Accrual $242M
UAL Pilot Share TBD% of W2
CAL Pilot Share ZERO

The profit sharing accrual this year already exceeds all of last year. Assuming UCAL earns as much (as a percentage of 3rd quarter) in the 4th quarter this year as it did last year, they will earn $278M in Q4 for another profit share accrual of $55M for a total profit share accrual in 2011 of $297M. This is a 19% increase over last year.

If this 19% increase is applied to the 5.9% of W2 that UAL pilots got last year, then UAL pilots may get over 7% of their W2 this year.

If this 19% increase is applied to the profit sharing that 58% of the CAL pilots voted for in C02, and to what the union was able to achieve in the TPA, CAL pilots will get ZERO.

Happy Valentine's Day.

 

No, but constantly forcing everyone into one small little box with no flexibility does nothing to foster pilot goodwill. Call it what you will, the scab thing is nothing more than an excuse for control. Too many pilots get off on trying to control the pilot group. You can have a great contract and have flexibility at the same time but too many see this as it's not my way so you are against us or a scab. Sorry, it's not wrong to have a different opinion.

 

As of today, the company says that $242 million has been set aside for profit sharing for 2011. Profit sharing is 15% of the profit. Doing a little math, as of Q3 UAL-CAL has $1.613 BILLION in profit. Analysts appear to be correct that United Continental is projected to earn between $1.2 and $1.5 billion this year at minimum (assuming a potential Q4 loss for a traditionally weaker quarter?).

But don't mind me, I'm just a CAL pilot who obviously costs the company money and doesn't deserve to share with the employees who make the company the money.

 

beeker,

While there have been some improvements to this concept, they are far from a perfect answer. Whether PBS was there or not, if you give the company some 20 hours of line build flexibility in their month to month operation, the result is fewer pilots, less QWL, poor schedule quality, and the list goes on.

You narrow that window, all things improve in a great many ways. It isn't rocket science to figure how a min line credit of 70 or a max of 95 doesn't give way to much flex to the company as well as the effect on manning requirements.

As to a credit cap max with furloughs, it limits certain pilots by not allowing them to pick up the slack. If the max build credit is 95 but reduced to 85 when there are any furloughs, you reduced the company's flex.

Sure they will speed and min-man regardless of the cap restriction. Just nowhere near as much when you provide a 25 hour pendulum for them to play. They'll run you at 70 when it suits them and 95 when it suits them.

And, that minimizes the necessary reserve coverage when they have that flex.

Frats,
Lee