Regularguy

"I think perhaps this is a tactical move by the UAL MEC (and perhaps BOTH) to put additional pressure on the company to get the JCBA moving. If they pony up for you guys, then they will create havoc over here. And if they are forced to give US additional compensation somewhere, they'll incite the CAL guys. We need to do something to get el hefe moving. "

This is worth repeating!

EWR73FO

I think most will honestly say, if we had the provision and you didn't, it would not amount to a hill of beans for us if you could get it. The whole TPA is outside the contract of both airlines so changing this is nothing more than whats already been done. The PS issue is not arbitrary. It's about doing whats right by mgmt. If this was something the UAL did not have and we were trying to get it, I see the point. We are asking for the SAME thing to be extended to us that you already have. Pure and simple. Nothing more than you have and nothing less. I don't understand why this would create havoc at UAL.

13n144e

Wow. You can't even tell when we're essentially in agreement. Like I've said before, the UAL MEC's kitchen sink proposal pretty much torpedoed any prospect of CAL profit sharing. I don't like repeating myself but if that is what it takes...

Uh, no it's not. Maybe if you bothered reading some of this stuff before posting... Aside from your inexplicable misinterpretation of the Council 11 message, though, we are again in agreement:
No negotiating and no LOA's. If that means no profit sharing, so be it. Nothing should be done outside of our respective contracts and the TPA. NOTHING. Please refer to this consensus when the company unilaterally starts moving around 737's and A320's and messing with the block hour ratios. But somehow I think you're suddenly going to find the current arrangement is not all that satisfactory...

jsled

Your above quote works both ways..


PS is CONTRACTUAL COMPENSATION at UAL. CAL currently has higher CONTRACTUAL payrates than UAL. So why can't we ask "for the SAME thing (payrates) to be extended to us that you already have. Pure and simple. Nothing more than you have and nothing less. I don't understand why this would create havoc at (CAL)."

Sled

EWR73FO

Sort of.......you have pay rates, we have pay rates. This is all or none. You got it, we don't. We earned it, the same as you. We simply have a mgmt team that 52% of our pilots continue to believe when we are told things like, "you won't need profit sharing in the TP&A because a JCBA will be finished before 2011."

UalHvy

As far as the contract is concerned it is.

A320

Let me get this straight. the LCAL guys want PS because the LUAL pilots have it even though it is part of the LUAL CBA and not theirs. Now LCAL guys are offended that the LUAL guys are saying that they want something too that the LCAL guys have like furlough, domicile and block hour protection.

oldmako

What is important to consider in this pi$$ing contest is that the L-UAL group is contractually entitled to PS. It's part of their compensation. The L-CAL pilots PS expired and they are no longer contractually entitled to it. They voted for it. Does it suck? Of course. Are they pi$$ed? Of course. Please notice that I used the word 'contractually' twice

So, the L-CAL MC approached UCAL mgmt and requested to be included in 2011 PS and thereby receive compensation over and above their CBA. Is THAT fair to the L-UAL group?

IF UCAL mgmt were to give the L-CAL pilots something over and above their contractually agreed upon remuneration, then of course the L-UAL pilots would feel compelled to ask for additional compensation as well. Say for example, L-CAL pay rates until we get our JCBA. That would be fair. And that occurred after and as a result of L-CALs request for PS.

So, to say that the UAL pilots are after a "money grab", or have "torpedoed" anything is inaccurate and divisive.

As I said in my previous post, I think this plan may have been formed by both MECs to find a way to apply additional pressure on UCAL mgmt. But is important to remember that it was formulated after L-CAL requested to be included in 2011 profit sharing. Either group receiving additional compensation outside of their CBA will cause heartburn for the other.

It's a $chit sandwich. So are BOTH of our contracts. At UAL, we don't want your pay and we don't want our work rules. We fully expect to make significant improvements over both and I sincerely hope that this imbroglio fires up the resolve in both groups to work toward the contract we deserve. Jeff got his, its past time for us.

Its just business. Remember who your true adversary is. FLY THE CONTRACT! FLY SAFE!

EWR73FO

No. Simply not true. I am absolutely for every provision of the TPA that can be killed on Dec 31st. I want every UAL to have the same protections that CAL pilots enjoy. I think both MEC's should have approached this together to ensure that there both sides problems with the TPA were adequately addressed. The problem is that both MEC's signed off on yet another POS addendum to another already worthless contract and now we are stuck trying to deal with it.

I don't want to begrudge any pilot to opportunity to make more money on a continuous basis. We simply are asking for the PS on the money we earned the company that was SUPPOSED to have been there with a completed JCBA however many years ago.

All of this is bickering to the nTH degree anyway. I'd trade all of the this, the old CBA's, the TPA, PS, etc. for an industry superior JCBA tomorrow.

EWR73FO

How is a one-time check comparable to continuous pay rates for the foreseeable future because you know a JCBA is not around the corner anytime soon?