Search

Notices

TPA L-UAL MEC update

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-04-2012 | 03:17 AM
  #31  
New Hire
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: 777 F/O
Default Contract

Divide and conqeur is the plan for our current management team! If we are going to restore our contract back to a standard worth working for we will need to work together. No SCOPE no contract!
Reply
Old 01-04-2012 | 06:19 AM
  #32  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr
I think it can be justified because the way it was explained it was settled via a CAL CONTRACT GRIEVANCE. This wasn't a T&PA grievance. This grievance resulted from language located within the CAL PILOT CONTRACT...the same contract which does include profit sharing language, albeit with a sunset date.

The issue of profit sharing and the grievance were solved as it relates to the CAL pilot contract. Again, I'm not commenting on the merits of profit sharing as a negotiating tool, but answering how it can be justified from what I believe a lawyer could argue.

You know that last year the CAL pilots won a monetary award in regards to the continued violation of the scope clause when CAL put their code temporarily on flights for sale on some mobile sites? It was a small monetary award in the low five digits, but that too was a grievance born of the CAL contract. If the CAL pilots had settled that for six-figures as an example (instead of the little we got), would the UAL pilots see this as getting something extra too??

If you can find something in your contract that you can use to get more money, then I am all for it...as it relates to your contract.
What part of your CBA was violated in reference to the 767-200 parking? I'm just curious. I thought it was in reference to the TPA "flying ratio" provision, but I'm always open to the real facts. Thanks.
Reply
Old 01-04-2012 | 06:35 AM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by FACSofLife
What part of your CBA was violated in reference to the 767-200 parking? I'm just curious. I thought it was in reference to the TPA "flying ratio" provision, but I'm always open to the real facts. Thanks.
The 767-200 grievance related entirely to the CAL contract '02 and had nothing to do with the TPA. The CAL contract contains language to protect CAL pilots in the even of a merger. The UAL contract does not have this language and therefore the UAL pilots are in a much more precarious position. The language that was negotiated in the TPA for block hour protection was to protect the UAL pilots as CAL's contract already had it.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Ferd149
Mergers and Acquisitions
117
11-08-2023 07:41 AM
Flyguppy
United
228
10-26-2012 03:23 PM
Redeye Pilot
United
94
10-18-2010 08:08 PM
WatchThis!
Major
0
06-16-2005 11:07 PM
WatchThis!
Major
0
05-19-2005 03:22 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices