Work rules have value. If the new pay rate is the CAL scale UAL pilots will get retro pay, back to their amenable date of 1/1/10, based on this new scale. CAL pilots will get no pay-scale retro because their pay scales have not changed.

By the same token, if the new work rules are UAL's then CAL pilots will get a retro check, back to their amenable date of 1/1/9, based on the increased value of the work rules. UAL will get no work-rule retro because their work rules have not changed.

True retro is not just based on pay scales, it's based on the entire value of the new contract. P.S., neither CAL pay scales nor UAL work rules are acceptable in a JCBA.

 

The "kicking and screaming" as you call it, has NOTHING to do with whether or not CAL guys should receive profit sharing. It has to do with Jay Pierce working a backdoor deal with management. A deal that may very well cause a delay in the JCBA. It also shows that Jay is not working together as agreed upon with the UAL reps. Would you want the UAL reps to go off on their own and work deals behind the CAL reps backs? I sure wouldn't....we are supposed to be working together for a common goal.

Management knows this and will capitalize on it...wait and see. Jay did not do CAL guys a favor.

 

Huh?? I'm not aware of any provision in the T&PA that says our JNC must use the merger announcement date as the "zero date" to negotiate retro pay going forward.

Either way aren't you guys making less than we are? So either way shouldn't you get higher retro pay whether we use merger announcement date or our respective amendable dates?

But I see that your amendable date was one year after ours so maybe that is what you mean regarding a possible disparity. Not sure what the value of that year's difference would equate to but just thought it would still be worth more to your side.

I'm not sure either L-CAL or L-UAL pilots would be happy just giving up on the 1-2 extra years of money for the sake of simplicity to use the merger announcement date. Doesn't seem right to me that we should leave more money on the table for management. Would be another kick in the nuts to be told, "Here is your retro but really it only goes back to May 2010 not until January 2009."

 

While I can understand your frustration, it will only cause a delay in the JCBA if the MECs allow it to. Let the MECs hash this out with each other but the task of our JNC should be to get the JCBA done. They should still be able to work to that goal without this being a distraction.

We've been ticked off at the company for continual failure to come to the table with counter proposals to negotiate. Obviously they latest has been the scheduling section which they have had for 5 months now with the last session still not producing one because they have to "rework" the proposal.

Management has said to the press and to the pilots that delays have happened in the past because of internal union strife (L-CAL ALPA MEC/IAH rep issue, UAL MEC issues, pay banding, etc.) not them. For the most part it is BS and we know it.

Both MECs need to direct their respective negotiators to hunker down, negotiate with management, don't let outside issues and leadership changes bog us down at the table and let the MECs work these other issues out. Don't give management any reason to believe we are anything but ready, willing, able and available to sit at that negotiating table. All other distractions are just BS for them being able to get this done with the support of the line pilots....

...unless you are saying one party should tell it's JNC members to stall or not negotiate.

 

Can you site some specific examples of retro work rules compensation? Traditionally retro compensation is linked to pay rates and if not, will pale in comparison to the compensation portion of the package.

End result being that unless there is specific language that veers from a traditional retro formula, the UAL Pilots will be receiving a larger retro check.

 

Yes, as I would support your Pilots if the shoe were on the other foot. Why you would even question this beyond me.

 

Your kidding right?

 

Just for my information, among contracts over the last ten years, how many got retro pay and how many got signing bonuses?

 

Problem is at the majors, the contracts have been concessionary or bankruptcy w/exception of Delta/NW.....

 

Off the top of my head,

-- first class DH costs more than coach DH
-- a relief pilot rest area costs more than 3 seats in coach (the "IRO seat" on the 757)
-- 5 hours of add pay for reduced rest costs more than nada at CAL for the same
-- contractual rest beyond FARs costs more than FAR min rest
-- rigs cost more than no rigs (ever flown a 7 hour 4 day? that pays 7 hours?)
-- three days of annual sim training costs more than two days at CAL
-- having a full crew complement for a sim event costs more than not (two FOs together is not uncommon)
-- whatever UAL is paid for sim training costs more than the 2:25 per day at CAL
-- whatever UAL is paid for ground school costs more than the 2:25 a CAL pilot is paid for eight hours of ground school
-- having the same number of days off during your sim month costs more than training on your days off at CAL (days off are prorated down during the sim month)
-- ground training in a real classroom with a professionally trained instructor is cheaper than self-run CBT training at home, on your own time
-- requiring 16 hours no duty before a redeye costs more than FAR min rest before a redeye
-- does UAL have an CA relief pilots? none at CAL (last time CAL was hiring off he street a 777 CA could show up to find all three FO/IROs were still on probation)
-- reserve. where to start. Reserve at CAL is like a behavioral science experiment to see what happens when you fly a pilot to FAR min rest, max flight time, min days off, max duty time, with no predictability to a work/time off schedule, and deduct pay when he calls in sick or fatigued--and see what happens.

I used to have UAL's contract so that's just from memory. But an MEC member summarized it this way to me in describing what the company and the joint negotiating committee has found: CAL pilots are "meat on a hook."

The CAL contract language is so weak and the rules so broad that it affords a flexibility to management that far exceeds that in UAL's contract. UAL's contract is mature and settled. Grievances have been filed and settled and the language and rules tightened up over decades of use. CAL's has had two contracts, 97 and 02 and is little more than suggestions that the company will try to comply with if it wants to. Or not.

This flexibility is far less expensive. If CAL pilots flew UAL workrules it would cost an extra $111M per year in compensation. If UAL pilots fly CAL workrules it would save UCH $127M per year. This is why the scheduling section isn't done.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ost%202010.htm

If CAL were to get UAL's contract it would mean we've been getting $111m less per year in QOL benefits than we could have had if UCH had settled on the amenable date. Applied retroactively (just like pay) CAL pilots would get $333m in work rule retro (which would average $75k per pilot).

Will we? Ha.

I've gone past my allotted bandwidth, but here's another chart. If CAL pilots get UAL workrules UCH would have to hire 642 pilots....

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm

Based on the MIT data a CAL pilot is over 10% cheaper than a UAL pilot. A CAL pilot flies 10% more hard hours per year but the cost per year is approximately the same. There's very little soft time here.