Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Magenta Line - Friday, April 27, 2012 >

Magenta Line - Friday, April 27, 2012

Notices

Magenta Line - Friday, April 27, 2012

Old 04-28-2012, 12:53 PM
  #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 30
Default Magenta Line - Friday, April 27, 2012

Magenta Line - Friday, April 27, 2012
Today is Friday, April 27, 2012 and we have 5 items for review today.

The last two weeks have been among the most interesting and the most frustrating in our tenure as your elected reps. We understand that the result for our pilots has been a renewal of questions about the path to a deal under the RLA and the strategy of a “petition for release”. Questions have been raised about joint strategy and the value of unilateral strategic decisions. Please bear with us while we try to answer some of your concerns. Put on your strategic hats as you read and be mindful of how all of these pieces tie together.

Item 1: “Petition for Release”

In December of 2010, management and the JNC entered into mediated negotiations for our Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement. As you all know, we have negotiated since then with an ever increasing presence from our assigned mediator, and recently, the addition of the Senior mediator for whom he works. All of this occurs under the supervision of the three member National Mediation Board. It’s important to keep in mind that the role of the NMB under the Railway Labor Act is to facilitate a deal so as to avoid a disruption in interstate commerce, not to “allow us to go on strike”. A strike is not the goal of mediation, it is the failure of the process.

In mediated negotiations, the NMB will decide how long to keep the parties in negotiations (or, in the alternative, not schedule negotiations, i.e. put the parties “on ice”) before moving on to the next step. What is that next step? Either party (management or ALPA) may petition to the NMB, or the NMB may offer on its own, for a proffer of arbitration. A “proffer” is a request that the parties agree to resolve their difference in binding arbitration. If either party declines this offer, which is the norm, a 30 day “cooling off” period begins the day after either party declines, during which the pilots MAY NOT engage in “self-help,” but negotiations may continue in an attempt to come to a deal. If, after 30 days, there is no agreement, both sides will be released to “self-help” (a strike or other legal job action in our case and a lockout or unilaterally imposed contract terms in the case of management.) However, if the NMB believes a release will cause significant harm to commerce, it will recommend that the President convene a Presidential Emergency Board.

The PEB is a three person panel appointed by the President, tasked with writing a report with recommendations for resolution of the items in dispute. Once a PEB is convened, any release to “self-help” is, at that point, further delayed until 30 days after the PEB report is released. This report is non-binding and, therefore, may be declined by either party. As we stated, the release may commence 30 days after the report is issued- unless, Congress steps in, legislates an agreement, and imposes it on both parties.

It bears repeating that the role of the NMB is to facilitate a deal, not a strike. A release to “self-help” is a tool used by the NMB as a last resort, generally when they believe it is the only remaining path to a successful conclusion to the negotiations. The release will only happen if the NMB believes that all remaining avenues have been exhausted, that maximum effort has been applied to negotiate a deal and that the number of open items remaining is small enough that they can be resolved in a relatively short amount of time. This is not speculation or opinion, this is what the NMB officials have told us directly many times.

Item 2: Unity and Joint Strategy

We hear all the time “Management fears unity” and “Our leverage is in a unified pilot group and unified union leadership”- this is a common theme in all negotiating cycles. We hear those same sentiments now in our path to a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement for all of the pilots of United Airlines and Continental Airlines. While there is truth to these sentiments- it is an incomplete truth. Our leverage comes from unity behind a sound joint strategy. Unity behind a flawed strategy instills no fear and brings no leverage- it merely provides management with an entertaining side show to enjoy while they have their way with us. When negotiating a joint agreement, the ONLY sound strategy is one built jointly from the ground up, one that is properly vetted and implemented jointly and with the best interest of both pilot groups, as advocated by all the duly elected representation, being paramount. Each and every pilot working under United Continental Holding, Inc. deserves to be protected and represented in every negotiating strategy decision- whether they wear a black uniform to work, or a blue one.

As you have heard from your MEC and your MEC Chairman, two weeks ago, CA Pierce, as directed by our MEC, agreed to a process of using small group negotiations, with an appellate process to break logjams with the goal of reaching the terms of an agreement by mid- June. This process was approved by CAs Pierce and Heppner and the company under the supervision of the NMB and was modeled after the small group negotiating setting under which the recent uptick in progress occurred. Ironically, this same process, in its commitment to methodically negotiating through open items should also have the result of paring open items down to a number where a request for a proffer of arbitration would be appropriate. Last Monday, CA Heppner announced his initiative to “petition for a release” on June 1st if we have no deal. You all know by now that your MEC was not included in that decision, the planning or the vetting of that strategy. Additionally, CA Heppner announced that they had hired a lobbying firm to “put pressure on the NMB”. Again, we were not briefed on or included in the decision. Many pilots have contacted us to ask Will this work? What happens June 1st? How does a lobbyist help? These are good questions. We laid out the process in Item 1, but, as for the rest….We simply don’t know, CA Heppner hasn’t told us.

Last week your MEC directed CA Pierce to work with CA Heppner to put together a protocol to how and when any “petition for release” would be pursued, to be agreed to by both parties. In other words, we asked to enter into their strategy as full and equal partners- to protect your rights and represent your interests. Additionally, we directed him to get CA Heppner to set up a briefing for him by their lobbying group. CA Pierce had already gotten feedback from the NMB, on which he briefed us, and we were given input in session by our members of the JNC and our attorneys. All we want is the complete picture of the plan by talking to all the parties involved, not just a lobbying group, so we can evaluate the strategy before we dive in. After all, that is what you elected us to do. Thus far, those requests have been declined. Apparently, we are expected to jump aboard as passengers on a train already leaving the station, no questions asked. We simply cannot do that. Any attempt to marginalize your MEC, your MEC Chairman or your negotiators, marginalizes you- and the stakes are just too high for us to allow it.

Our commitment to you remains unchanged. We will support any strategy that moves us to the industry leading contract you have directed us to achieve. We will support any strategy that we believe will get us to that goal in the shortest amount of time. We will continuously assess timeline vs. quality in our efforts to achieve the RIGHT deal in the shortest amount of time. We will be constantly aware of the lessons we learned in the aftermath of Contract 02- deadlines can be met, but at what cost? We know you are frustrated- so are we- but we won’t do this deal in a careless way simply to hit some target date that we didn’t set. We know what that looks like, we live it every day. We, too, want the best deal we can get in the shortest amount of time and are onboard with any viable plan to get us there without sacrificing quality. We also believe that our pilots deserve a voice at the table in any negotiating strategy we employ, both in the planning stage and the implementation. CA Heppner needs to brief CA Pierce on his strategy and work on an agreement to include us as equal partners- you deserve no less.

Item 3: Have we learned anything?

Just last week, as you know, we suffered complete mismanagement of our PBS bid run - one that resulted in a complete rerun and the delay of our May awards. It’s really another version of the same old story - Continental management makes an idiotic decision (in this case, a scheduled computer system outage right in the middle of the bid window), the union questions the intelligence of said decision, our advice is disregarded, meltdown ensues, union brings it to management’s attention, they fix the original problem, it results in disruption to pilot’s lives, management refuses to compensate us, senior management abdicates all responsibility and picks some poor sap to “apologize.” Sound familiar?

Why does management continue to ignore our advice, screw things up, expect it to be fixed on the backs of the pilots, and then show a complete disregard for the disruption it causes us? BECAUSE THEY CAN!

We live under a contract in which the PBS section was a blank check to management, and we even had to negotiate the terms of implementation, outside the CBA (PBS Implementation LOA) after the fact. Nowhere does our contract prevent management from doing a re-run of the bid, the LOA only sets parameters where we can demand one. Nowhere does our contract mandate a penalty for any management errors resulting in this type of disruption. We can ask - and we did – but we received the inevitable “No” (oh, “sorry,” and an apology…)

How does this happen? The answer is easy: careless negotiating under an artificially imposed timeline. A timely resolution to contract negotiations is desirable, of course, but you have to do it methodically and carefully, or you live with the consequences for many years. Have we learned anything?

Item 4: Secretary-Treasurer Editorial

The overwhelming majority of our pilots are not interested, and even annoyed by, union politics and process. You are justifiably tired of waiting, you want a great contract, and you want it right now. Believe me, we are right there with you. The unfortunate reality is that we must deal with the hand we have been dealt. Our contract effort has been greatly complicated by many factors. First, union membership is the lowest it has ever been in modern times, greatly reducing our political power. Second, Washington is flooded with corporate money. Third, the courts have become tilted against unions in recent decades. Fourth, most major news media outlets are controlled by huge corporations, and slanted toward the corporate viewpoint. Last, but certainly not least, we remain two separate pilot groups and two MEC's, yet we must jointly negotiate a common contract.

It is easy to grab onto the sound bites that have recently been published in releases from the United MEC, and believe that ANYTHING different than what we have been doing, would be better. Unfortunately, that would be playing right into management's hands. Management stonewalled us for an entire year, but the reality is that we finally did begin to make MEDIATED progress on a JCBA in recent months. I spoke one on one with our Negotiating Committee Chairman Captain Dave Owens for 45 minutes several weeks ago, and he provided me great details on the progress made to that point. I was frankly amazed at how far management has moved to improve scheduling work rules beyond what any Continental pilot has ever experienced, at least since 1983 and before. The slave labor days of no contract, C'95, C'97 and C'02 will finally come to a close.

Our MEC is willing to explore any SOUND strategy that will help us finish this agonizing process. With that said, it would be a gross dereliction of duty, to simply rubber-stamp a United MEC strategy that Continental pilots did not take part in developing, and which we have not even been briefed on. Continental pilots deserve representation all the way to the finish line. We did not elect a single United MEC representative, and not a single United MEC representative has a duty to represent a single one of us. Until the JCBA, SLI and merger are all completed, and we have combined into ONE MEC, the interests of the Continental pilots must be represented by the Continental MEC.

A unilateral strategy on the part of either MEC is doomed to failure. It is as reckless as it is arrogant, for the United MEC to unilaterally make and implement strategic decisions about our JOINT Collective Bargaining Agreement, which Continental pilot representatives took no part in, and first learned of via the press. This merger was announced on day one as “a merger of equals.” Indeed, it was the Continental shareholders who received a premium in the stock merger. This merger does NOT in any way, shape or form resemble American Airlines buying Reno Air, or Southwest buying AirTran. “Merger of equals” means equal partners in negotiating a JOINT Collective Bargaining Agreement. “Equal partners” does not mean that one party unilaterally makes critical strategic decisions, then announces, “this is the plan, (blindly) follow us.”

With all of that said, our entire MEC recognizes the fact that we have all waited far too long to get out from under a terrible contract that completely gutted the already immature and incomplete IACP C'97. If we persevere just a little longer, we can truly WORK TOGETHER with the United MEC as EQUAL PARTNERS to JOINTLY secure the JOINT contract we all deserve. There is simply no other way. Stay tuned, stay informed, and do not allow management to shift the blame – and your anger - toward our union.

Item 5: Next Local Council Meeting

The next Local Council 170 meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2012 from 11 am to 4 pm at the Newark Airport Marriott. Given current events, your LEC Officers strongly encourage all pilots who are off to attend this very important meeting. No blastmail can take the place of hearing first hand all the happenings of this very intricate and sensitive process known as JCBA negotiations. Be an active participant and part of the process by attending.

Please continue to state, “This flight is proudly being flown by a Continental Airlines crew,” during your welcome aboard PAs.

That is all for today, thank you.

Fraternally,

Chairman Captain Jayson Baron
[email protected]
(610) 442-3817

Vice Chairman First Officer Tara Cook
[email protected]
(610) 220-8904

Secretary/Treasurer Captain Tim Boyens
[email protected]
(786) 309-1776



Captain Jayson Baron
Airline Pilots Association, International
Continental Newark Captain Representative
Local Executive Council 170 Chairman
610 442 3817
SKLJ is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:18 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Default

Glad someone posted the ML from my council..

It would be nice if someone would post the UAL Blastmails and MEC News. I'm lucky enough to get them through my UAL friends. Interesting reading.

Motch
horrido27 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:24 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Default

Originally Posted by horrido27 View Post
Glad someone posted the ML from my council..

It would be nice if someone would post the UAL Blastmails and MEC News. I'm lucky enough to get them through my UAL friends. Interesting reading.

Motch
I sent your LEC rep a question via email. Maybe you wonder the same thing I did?
Does MC Pierce have to be briefed on the strategic plan prior to the CAL MEC receiving the briefing? Has the CAL MEC asked (or offered) the opportunity to receive the briefing without preconditions?

AxlF16 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:40 PM
  #4  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 38
Default

Originally Posted by AxlF16 View Post
I sent your LEC rep a question via email. Maybe you wonder the same thing I did?
Does MC Pierce have to be briefed on the strategic plan prior to the CAL MEC receiving the briefing? Has the CAL MEC asked (or offered) the opportunity to receive the briefing without preconditions?

It would be nice if everybody sent these guys an email with questions and COMMENTS. If you have time, call them.
WarWagon is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:47 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Default

Originally Posted by WarWagon View Post
It would be nice if everybody sent these guys an email with questions and COMMENTS. If you have time, call them.
I kept it very brief since I'm a UAL pilot...
AxlF16 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:47 PM
  #6  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

Originally Posted by AxlF16 View Post
I sent your LEC rep a question via email. Maybe you wonder the same thing I did?
Does MC Pierce have to be briefed on the strategic plan prior to the CAL MEC receiving the briefing? Has the CAL MEC asked (or offered) the opportunity to receive the briefing without preconditions?

FWIW......I spoke with a CAL-LEC Rep yesterday. From what he shared, there is a way to make this happen, and he himself was push for that. It would require a 'vote' by the LEC's (comprising the MEC) to allow this 'group/initial briefing' to happen. This tells me there is a viable avenue to makes it possible for the entire MEC to be there upon JP's initial briefing.

It could all be a moot point. From what I've heard, JH may have taken that offer off the table to brief the entire CAL-MEC and MC as a group?? Confirm??

Either way, will be interesting to see what is shared.
SoCalGuy is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:50 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Default

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy View Post
FWIW......I spoke with a CAL-LEC Rep yesterday. From what he shared, there is a way to make this happen, and he himself was push for that. It would require a 'vote' by the LEC's (comprising the MEC) to allow this 'group/initial briefing' to happen. This tells me there is a viable avenue to makes it possible for the entire MEC to be there upon JP's initial briefing.

It could all be a moot point. From what I've heard, JH may have taken that offer off the table to brief the entire CAL-MEC and MC as a group?? Confirm??

Either way, will be interesting to see what is shared.
Excellent question. I will ask my reps about that.
AxlF16 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:07 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

I stopped reading when I read this:

" I spoke one on one with our Negotiating Committee Chairman Captain Dave Owens for 45 minutes several weeks ago, and he provided me great details on the progress made to that point. I was frankly amazed at how far management has moved to improve scheduling work rules beyond what any Continental pilot has ever experienced, at least since 1983 and before. The slave labor days of no contract, C'95, C'97 and C'02 will finally come to a close."

This sounds like a management briefing, not a Union blast mail. How can anyone be astonished at management moving towards our BANKRUPTCY work rules?!? They stink. They are not a holy grail, yet this communique sounds GRATEFUL that we are approaching them.

How can we be surprised that there has been some progress made towards UAL work rules? Heck, they've been talking about them for what, 15 months?!?! COME ON GUYS. JP's negotiating blast mail sounded like something I would expect to hear from Smisek.

So did the CAL MEC direct JP to go straight to the NMB and give them direct assurance that the CAL pilots have no interest in being released? Once again going behind every interested parties back to further his own agenda, while in the same breath decrying JH for acting in the same manner.

So congratulations to JP. He flexed his muscle, and has proven that he can completely derail any initiative that might be taken to push contract talks along. We all win, right? I'm sure you can detect my sarcasm. I'm looking forward to a continuation of happy JP updated on the SUPER negotiations. Oh wait.... I thought we started expedited negotiations in January? Phew!! We've closed a BUNCH of sections from those once a week meetings.

JP's own update proudly trots out a management commitment to try to have a deal by mid June. JH's request merely attempts to make them put their money where their mouth is.

We've been at this for YEARS. Management trots out super negotiations talk to placate the troops and get through the summer. I'm sad to see that JP buys it. I'll bet anyone here $1000 we don't have a TA by June 15th now that JH's plan has been torpedoed by JP. According to JP, management seems to think the plan he has in place is going to get us there, so let's see how confident we all feel about his leadership. Shouldn't be hard, because we now KNOW JH will be pushing to get it done.

$1000. Any takers?
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:08 PM
  #9  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by horrido27 View Post
Glad someone posted the ML from my council..

It would be nice if someone would post the UAL Blastmails and MEC News. I'm lucky enough to get them through my UAL friends. Interesting reading.

Motch
Hey Motch,

Fair request. I'll post any info I get coming up.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:10 PM
  #10  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

Originally Posted by AxlF16 View Post
Excellent question. I will ask my reps about that.
Ax~
May want to confirm this as well from one of your LEC Reps......

The same LEC Rep I spoke with yesterday did say when addressing the option mentioned above, there are some other periphery variables in the equation that throw "kinks" in the process preventing the meeting to "just happen" with a finger-snap. He said when looking at the CAL vs UAL MEC's "P and Ps", there are some 'differences' in how each MEC conducts business/meeting/ect.....NOT having all "P and Ps" be identical, this did have some challenges when making the aforementioned meeting "just happen".....but NOT insurmountable.

I would think ALPA v ALPA would be seamless?? See what you can find out on your end concerning that topic as well.
SoCalGuy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAL EWR
Regional
1
09-11-2009 04:18 PM
CAL EWR
Major
1
09-11-2009 04:16 PM
CAL EWR
Major
9
08-10-2009 07:00 PM
CAL EWR
Major
8
07-12-2009 04:50 PM
CAL EWR
Major
10
06-18-2009 10:55 AM

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices