[QUOTE=jsled;1169600]+1

 

Don't bid any of these positions - It'll cost them a lot more on the UAL side buying hotels and deadheading. I'm sure CAL has something similar. Make them pay and don't do thier work for them.

 

[QUOTE=jsled;1169600]I'm pretty sure management would pursue the same route as Delta if we just asked for the contract that Delta got. Instead, we are asking for way more than Delta. What is managements motivation to sign a JCBA?

Delta + 1 and we could have a contract tomorrow.

 

[QUOTE=iahflyr;1169669]BS. the comprehensive proposal from the company, the so called DAL +1, is below DAL current rates AND it includes up to 250 95 seaters. It was/is a joke. In order for UCH to pursue the same route as DAL, they would of had to of approached us BEFORE the merger announcement. That did not happen. DAL also gave equity to the pilots BEFORE it hit the open market. That obviously did not happen here, either. SO, what was DAL's motivation to sign a JCBA and give pilots equity?? They saw value in having the pilots on board with the merger and were willing to pay for it. This management did/does not see value in having ALPA onboard. It's that simple.

I hope somebody turned the APU off before the next morning from my last go-dark Den termination flight. It had been on since TPA.

http://www.unitednegotiations.com/em...y_10-27-10.pdf

 

[QUOTE=jsled;1169705]I thought that in the DAL/NW merger they didn't have a "JCBA" but rather the DAL MEC worked out a side-deal LOA with Mgmt that basically forced the NWA guys to the table. And didn't the DAL guys get more "equity" in the deal than the NWA guys?

 

Their Go Forward Plan, with us or without us.

 

This isn't even close to DAL/NWA so it's not a valid comparison. NWA was essentially absorbed into the DAL system. In our case, committees are choosing the best system between the two. The bias is toward LCAL practices but LUAL practices are favored in some instances.
For DAL/NWA, it was essentially the DAL contract used with a few minor changes. Our JCBA is looking like every aspect of our contracts are being negotiated. It's a longer process but I expect it will result in a MUCH better outcome than simply updating either the UALALPA or the CALALPA contract.

Up until ~Feb this year, I was labeled a pessimist by stating that I didn't expect a TA prior to fall 2012. I still expect a TA by late fall 2012. Am I now being wildly optimistic?
Further, I don't expect TA1 to pass so we're likely not going to have a JCBA until early 2013.

 

Exactly. Our mechanics got 11.5K signing bonus, which according to some mechs I have spoken with was app. 80% retro. Lets say we get something similar on a 20% pay raise (to equal DAL + a little). For me, that is 50K straight retro, and 40K would be 80% of full retro. For 12000 pilots, that would be 480M just for the signing bonus. If the average salary is say 110K, then a 20% raise would cost 264M/yr. So, in the first year alone, a new contract would cost the company around 740M. Followed by 260M/yr plus raises. Are they expecting that kind of savings thru the "synergies" of flying each other's metal? So for those who ask "what is the company's motivation to sign a JCBA?" I say there is none. Not now, not when they are ready to mix crews, not ever. Not untill this place is in meltdown. US AIrways is doing just fine. In fact, I believe they set an all time company record for a quarterly profit last year.

SLed

 

Uh, NO !!!

Might be a 20% increase for you but equates out to around 1/2% for me. Shooting kind of low aren't you? Thanks but I'll pass.

 

[QUOTE=jsled;1169705]You're absolutely right jsled and you've saved me the trouble of having to refute Tom or Jackson, whichever pens under the name "iahflyr". These are not the musings of a line pilot. TOTAL BS. Not even the scabs thought Delta plus a dollar would have really meant Delta plus a dollar.