At issue is....
 

I've spent the past two days thinking about what has happened to our collective progress, or lack thereof depending on which "side" you listen to. I referenced a section of the latest "Magenta Line" put forth by the EWR reps. It's important enough that I felt compelled to post it again in its own thread.

" 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 literally stunned me. I'm not even sure how to react to this, but I've been trying to collect my thoughts. In my mind, this is a micro example of our main issue. In an attempt to keep this from a name calling, finger pointing mess, I will explain why I find this disturbing to say the least.

1) Two years ago, management verbally committed to using UAL work rules as a base line, and negotiating up since they are hugely concessionary rules only extractable in Ch 11. They withdrew that promise the minute the DOJ approved the merger.

2) 15 or so months later, we still can't get to UAL work rules. While the EWR reps might be shocked at how far management moved, I'm shocked that we've spent this long trying to undo another management broken promise.

3) I can't believe that a MEC rep would post this opinion, as it publicly tells the company and the mediator that we are more than happy with the pace of negotiations. I find this mind boggling, as spending over a year to still fall short of a previously promised position is management stalling at its best.

4) If it's taken us this long to negotiate to keep our CRAPPY work rules, how long is it going to take to negotiate the REAL meat of the contract, which is scope? JP's assertion that we are starting super negotiations rings hollow to me, as that was promised in January, yet we still meet once a week with no real decision makers who skip meetings when it's convenient? If JP truly believes management when they recently agreed to a June 15th target, then JH's request that they put it in writing should be no problem.

Long and short. I'm trying to understand this publication by the EWR MEC. I have no personal beef with the CAL pilots that weren't scabs. I don't even have a personal beef with JP, though I firmly believe that he and Wendy mishandled this merger in epic fashion. I want action, and I want results. And I'm not understanding how every UCH pilot doesnt feel the same. Could somebody please explain to me how putting this Magenta Line out helps us with a Joint Contract? That's the stated goal that everyone claims to be working towards?

By the way, this isn't about CAL vs UAL. I was EXTREMELY vocal about my displeasure with how Wendy handles the UAL MEC at the beginning of the merger process

GB..
It just my opinion.. but I believe the ML was put out to the CAL 170 pilots, so they could have an understanding of how the process should work, and why they feel that they were blindsided.

The ML that is posted on this Forum is missing the header, (I believe) so I am going to post it here.
Mind you, many CAL pilots are trying to figure out this unilateral move by your side.

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
Magenta Line, Friday April 27th

So.. as far as your question is concerned- "How does this help us with a Joint Contract", I don't know. I do feel that your MEC doing what they did without the approval or even knowledge of my MEC doesn't help us either, with regards to a Joint Contract.

When this merger came down, there were many of the CAL side that were worried that since you (the UAL Side) outnumbered us, you would be able to push through a deal that you felt was better to your side, or at least met your minimums.. without the CAL side having enough power to stop it.
But under the guise of a JOINT Neg Comm, and with the two MEC's talking to each other, we were assured that nothing would be forced upon our side. That it would be give and take on both side.

After the UAL MEC announcement on the 16th of April, many CAL Pilots are trying to figure what is going on, and where does this lead us.
The Magenta Line is meant to address the concerns of those pilots.

BTW, did you not think that the last part was dead on?

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.

Tomorrow is April 30th. One of the deadlines of your announcement. Let's see what happens next.

Motch

CAL work rules will be illegal in two years. Not much of a point discussing them.
The UAL contract is actually fairly close to being legal.

This is about trust. I know L-CAL pilots deserved profit sharing but JP broke ranks to get it. Between that and the SOC, the trust is gone and from my point of view as a L-UAL pilot, I hope no one on the UALMEC ever trust JP again. It's that simple. Moving unilaterally is certainly not preferred but we are where we are. Actions, not words. JMO

I agree. This is exactly what I told my LEC reps in January. FWIW I also wrote the same thing to the ALPA President.... At least the my LEC reps listened!

I agree with the original poster regarding our EWR reps words concerning the pace of negotiations. I hate every word of it. I also despise JP saying almost the same thing to the press about a month ago. Here's some of the problem. UAL pilots won't ever control who the CAL MEC chairman or who the CAL reps are...

Let me reiterate, the UAL side with its recent actions have just made it harder, not easier, to replace anyone the UAL side might not like on the CAL side.

Anyone ever heard the old Aesop's fable regarding "The wind and the sun"? While not a perfect analogy, I think you'll get my point. The more the UAL group tries to affect the leadership of the CAL group, the less likely anything will happen to the CAL leadership.

Even the reps that I'm pretty sure don't agree with JP on most issues, support him when it comes to having the UAL MEC dictate who will lead the CAL group. That's reality here. The more the UAL MEC pushes to have the CAL chairman removed, the less likely its going to happen.

How did that whole "Glenn's gotta go" campaign work out?

It's human nature and psychology here. If you want someone gone and you know they're bad for the company/union you can't force them out when you work for the other side. You have to convince the other side (CAL side) that the person is bad for them. Explaining to CAL pilots that the person who got them profit sharing is the bad guy is not going to be a successful campaign.

You bring up some very interesting and valid points. There is a lot of politics and ego involved on both sides. More than I'm sure both pilot groups desire.

I'm wondering myself why JH chose to make the announcement he did without the prior cooperation of the CAL MEC. I'm purely speculating here, but I wonder if the part of the magenta line that I quoted is the reason. Despite management promises for a quick contract, we are 2 years in with not a single major section agreed to. This is wholly unacceptable. I don't know what has been going on behind the scenes, but with JP's continued public proffering that things are going well, and the EWR reps astonishment at how great management is being regarding the work rules that they promised over a year ago, it might be that continued efforts to draw the line in the sand with management have been repeatedly rebuffed by JP and the CAL MEC. At some point, JH has to produce for the UAL pilots, as that is his job. 2 years with nothing of substance to show for it is a long time. When does it become so long that we can't wait any longer without doing SOMETHING? For me it was about a year ago.

I'm truly saddened and dismayed that this has played out the way it has. But for me the time has come to act. As I've said before, I would get behind any leader from either side that wants to send the message to the world that enough is enough. Tomorrow will be a new era one way or another. Hope we can all find a way to work together in the future. Both MEC's and MC have been entirely inflexible in this regard for far too long

As far a work rules, I know that was the JNC's early stance (a'la Heppner/Owens) coming to the table, but no where have I ever read that the "company's" stance as to where the starting/gamet point stood?? I'm ALL for have the starting point there, and land miles North of that even. DON'T get me wrong.....just trying to dice facts v oppinion.

As far as 'withdrew'.....They've (MGT) have pulled back on several items over the corse of the process, "smoke and mirrors" vs that of 'good faith' come to mind?!?! R&I being one of the most recent topics of pull-back on MGT's part. (See below)

JNC: 04-27-12
"The group reviewed the progress achieved during the week in the area of Scheduling, and spent significant time addressing ways to surmount the current difficulty in resolving disability, and retirement and insurance (R&I) issues. Actuaries are being used to resolve differing opinions in the valuation of certain items in R&I in an effort to break the log jam".

I recall that as well, except they were saying it well into the summer. I think they changed their view when they actually started negotiations in the fall and really saw UAL's contract and said no way.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the actions of the UAL MEC are less about trying to "dictate" their will upon the CAL group and more about getting something done about securing a LONG overdue contract in spite of the actions (or inaction) of the management lap dog of a CAL MC.

Pierce,

-refuses to support integration training efforts

-goes outside of tpa to secure monetary gain(profit sharing or grievance?)

-lip service support for a release request while proposing more meetings and protocols

-stipulates UAL MEC drop profit sharing grievance against UCH for his support of joint MEC meeting

Can you please post some sort of Blastmail/MEC News/Rep Email that backs up this statement.
If it is true, I will question him on it, at the local council meeting.

Motch

Spoke to rep.

Ok, can you at least tell us which council, which position.. when you heard this?
That way, when I question my guys (and gal) I can point to a specific person.

It's my understanding you have 6 different councils, with FO & Capt Reps plus Sec Treas...
When I directly questioned your Council 11 Sec Treas in IAD last Wed (Apr 25th) about a meeting with Jay P.. he backed off of his statement.

He stated that Jay P has been invited to meetings with your MEC Chair, and he refused. When I asked him directly-
"Are you saying that your MEC Chair, Jay Heppner.. invited Jay Peirce to a meeting to discuss the fact that the UAL MEC was going to be putting out an announcement requesting release.. just after agreeing to a June 15th timeline with the company?!"
His answer was.. "um, no".

Think it's kinda important that we try to stick with facts as much as possible, because all these rumors will do nothing more that break us further apart.
That's also why Emails are King! Hard to deny something you put on paper, with your name to it.

Motch

PS>If your MEC is anything like ours (and from what I've read and heard.. it is), what one council says and does may be very different than what another council says and does... on some issues.

Motch,

Just ask the question based on the info you have now. Do you REALLY need to have an airtight case before asking your reps questions??

Personally, my rep wouldn't tell me what the specific condition(s) was, but he did say it was outrageous and ridiculous. Methinks you have enough justification to ask questions at this point.

Yeah, I do..
I'm not going to waste my time, or my reps time with the dozen of so different rumors that I hear and read every day.

If I hear something directly, I post it. I posted the date and who I spoke with in IAD the other day.. nothing to hide.

Again, this being a Forum where 99% of the posters aren't identified, most of the stuff I read on here I take with a grain of salt as there are literally only a handful who have had the balls to identify themselves.. and therefore have put their reputations at risk.

There's a new UAL(CAL) Pilot Forum.. United Pilot Forum
Join up.. put me down as the reference (if you want, or don't~).. and then we can all talk like we were at a Union meeting, or bar.. where we know who we are talking to, and can verify what people are saying.

Motch

Hi SoCalGuy,

My source for that is my reps, via the JNC at the time. Before the DOJ approved the merger, the company successfully snowed Wendy and JP into thinking they would have a quick, good contract including UAL workrules as a baseline. This kept Wendy and JP from lobbying the DOJ to protect our interests ala Delta. As soon as the DOJ approved the merger, negotiations went violently backwards. In my opinion, this was the BIG failure of our union leadership on both sides. We blew the leverage we had, and we have never recovered. Cost Wendy her job, rightly so.

The JNC update that you quoted comes just a week or so after the JNC update stating the company retreated to 2010 positions on R&I.

I'm sick of JNC updates. They are grasping at straws about "progress". I'll agree we are making progress when we actually reach a TA on even ONE major section.

Delta opened up early, and they are meeting most days a week. Reports are they are perhaps weeks from a deal. I'm not satisfied

Agreed. A friend of mine just got off the phone to our Capt Rep who said there was no truth to the rumor that JP had talked to the NMB. I forwarded him JP's blast mail posted here in which he says he did just that. It was a real eye opener about how much our individual reps actually know. It's also a reason why I appreciate that guys post the releases from their MEC's and MC's. It keeps things a little more honest. I fear that too many times on both sides, our MEC's are posting things that they want us to hear to further their position.... Not necessarily what is most accurate. Seeing the CAL and UAL MEC statements here allow us to pin out reps down with tough questions.

^+1
Exactly!
In this day and age, there is no reason NOT to cross potentate the messages that are coming out of the MEC/LEC.

Do they (the Reps) really believe that what they are putting out is NOT going to make it to the other side.. or that the company ISN'T going to be reading them?
Hell No.

As you states, it's easy to pin the reps when you have their written words, or a rebuttal from the other side.

What I also find somewhat interesting is that, with all the Local Councils out there.. we have only seen a handful of Blastmails/News.. coming from EWR, CLE, The CAL MEC, The UAL MEC, a UAL West Coast Council and an East Coast Council.

I did read a UAL Blastmail from (Capt?) Barton.. kinda interesting.

Motch

This was just posted on the Delta Side of the Forum.
Interesting reading.

Guess saying "See, we're all screwed up- it's Jay P's fault (and not the company).. Delta's is already close to a deal!" might not be the prudent thing to point at.

Long time lurker/occasional poster, but I can't not share this one. Let me say right up front that this is 3rd hand so please don't shoot the messenger!

OK, here goes:

Jumpseater with us today claims to have ties to a CPO and was told by his buddy in the CPO that we should see a TA on 18 May. Supposedly the MEC will see it on the 15th, and to us on the 18th. Details include 20% increase to the rates with "COLA" type increases per year later. 717s are in the deal and supposedly via a lease from Boeing after turn in from SWA. SWA pays some penalties etc but we get "new" leases from Boeing. Company will offer 500 early outs, and hiring will begin quickly. 50 seaters reduced to around 125 total. Now for the bad news: Supposedly company wants 90 seaters with some type of production balance. Also they want increased Code share with Alaska. The reason he claims the company wants a deal done quickly has to do with the loan for the refinery.

Again, please don't shoot the messenger. There is no way I can confirm any of this...it is just the rumor I heard today with a lot of details and a firm date (supposedly). I guess we will know soon.

Ready for incoming...Philly

So.. would that deal be acceptable here? Cause to me, it's a NO Vote.

Mind you, a 20% increase off of $114 for a Delta 757/767 driver would be $136 an hour, for me (756, 5hyr pay as of 1 Jan 2012 I'm getting $95! The most junior guy on the UAL list on the 757/767 is getting $109!)

So, do we pull the trigger on whatever we had planned last year (with regards to our pay banding) or do we readjust? I would have hoped that our MEC's with the JNC's would have been talking with ALPA National and knew what the Delta guys were shooting for.
Then again, with what is currently going on between our two side and no word yet from National.. not sure what to believe anymore.

just keeps getting better~

Motch

Some more inside info...

Pierce has known about this strategy since January. EWR reps say they learned about it from the news... explain that!

ALPA national has known about it and is fully on board and Moak is filing for release today, and had taken Pierce to the woodshed for not getting on board with it.

We have criticized our previous chairman for her milquetoast approach, and we demanded as the membership a more aggresive approach, thank goodness we are getting it.


Previous message:
April 28, 2012

Dear Fellow Pilots,

A question for the Pilots of United Airlines: Are you content with the pace of negotiations in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; and would you be content if negotiations extend into 2013?

On the Tip of the Spear.

We are United,


Captain Jay Heppner
Chairman, United Master Executive Council

I can't answer that because two years into negotiations, we haven't even STARTED talking about pay yet. Delta opens early and they are already further along in negotiations than we are... Apparently. The only thing that seems clear is that they are meeting MUCH more frequently than we are.

It would be a NO vote for me too, based on the scope

Your getting paid that because you're essentially a new hire.
the most junior guy at United has been in this industry about 3 times longer than you (yes, do the math, 5*3 = 15). Hang in there, you'll get to the top of the longevity scale some day.

How do you know JP knew about plan since Jan? What is your source?

You do not need proof to ask a question of your representatives. Unless you think they will not be forthright with you.

A dozen or so rumors a day is a bit of a stretch.

Motch,

As is the most senior F/O on the 756 at UAL. 12 years is the top of the longevity scale and there is no one with less than 12 years at UAL.

As far as that deal in relation to UAL they can increase our codeshare with Alaska any percentage of the current codeshare they want.

No..
Delta Management, just like UCH Management.. may have put something on the table, before the Union has.
You forget that UCH actually did put a compensation package on the table, last year.
Delta +$1.
A ****ty deal that the CAL + UAL Pilots rejected wholeheartedly.

It does sound like they are meeting alot more than we are. Which begs the question.. why? What does Delta Management need that would push them to offer something to their pilot group?

Delta Management isn't doing this because of the kindness of their hearts.

Motch

PS> They can offer anything they want.. if Scope is on the table (as in.. the company wants more relief), all bets are off.

This whole deal is about 1 thing and 1 thing only.

SCOPE.

Everything else is just the devil in the details.

We might sign a really cool cba. But, if the langauge gives the company the ability to keep up all the RJ flying, expand the RJ flying, or expand Aer Lingus type deals, then we all might as well go out and apply to Air China Southern.

Did they talk about scope, outsourced flying, Aer Lingus, RJ's?

They negotiate that way because their management team has placed a value on labor relations. Look no further than how they did their merger. Labor was on board or they weren't doing the deal.

Jeff doesn't subscribe to that philosophy. I'm not sure why JP can't understand that.

BTW. I'm on an airplane right now and the Captain just said: "There is something I must tell you. This flight is proudly being flown by Continental crewmembers on a Continental airplane".

Perhaps that's the type of atitiude JH received when he has tried to advance the joint negotiations.

I would be embarrassed if I were on a United plane and the crew said, This is a Legacy United Crew and we are operating on a Legacy United Aircraft. I've never heard of someone even thinking of such a thing. Aren't we ALL pilots working for a common cause. When is this "we are better attitude"going to end. It's infantile.

No sh@@##t. CAL guys, get over it, you got the United name. You didn't sign up for it, but I didn't sign up to be managed by Hillbilly airlines that thinks weak ****ty coffee is premium service. None of us wanted this merger, but we ALL want an industry leading contract. Get over it, accept circumstances as they are, grab a picket sign, and hold the line. I'm hoping we get released. We can ALL earn our battle stars in this conflict.

Our MEC blastmails as recently as last week have been instructing CAL pilots to make that announcement. Just FYI....

When this strategy first came out months back it was clear to some that CAL ALPA wanted to distinguish its self from S-UAL pilots...It,s painfully obvious now why Fred and his friends, (JP )wanted this done...There are rumors going around that JP has known about JH strategy since January...Remember by JP own admissions he and JH were on speed dial and talked a few time per day shortly after JH took office...Some time in March the communications stopped and the joint meeting never took place. PS grievances were filed against UCH. Now we come to find out that JP wants the grievance against UCH dropped as a condition for any joint MEC meetings to take place....Again this has management hand writing all over it....$40 millions dollars buys a lot of friends if one want to sell its soul to the devil.

If it is true that JP wants the UAL grievance on PS dropped as a "pre-condition" to any joint meetings than JP is nuts.

He has no standing in a seperate MEC's grievance process.

However.......National will likely drag its feet on the matter, and that I can guarantee you. That grievance will never get settled favorably for the UAL pilots. It will go to level 2 and languish, awaiting a grievance review board and be on a slow boat to China waiting for National's equivilent of the OJ Simpson legal dream team to arbitrate. I'd say in 3 years you might see some movement.

That is the real leverage here. "labor was on board...."

Well, if we want to get this moving, we need both MEC's on board with a joint strategy to advance joint negotiations that may reach a joint empasse with a subsequent joint cooling off period leading to a joint release and an implementation of an effective and well planned joint SPSC effort to affect a well executive joint JOB ACTiON .

It's all about labor stability. The value of it all boils down to dispatch completion factor, and on time performance. Co-Worker Jeff puts those two items into his bean cruncher and comes with with what you, the widget maker is worth. If those 2 metrics are affected, than that changes what you are worth. The duration of the effect further changes the formula.

It works like this:

DR +/- CF =VoP. ....Status quo daily bean cruncher formula
VoPxTime/DR+CF=LS ....Time value to BoD
VoP x Time/DR+CFx summertime(holidays)=LS ....Summer time and Holidays

DR= Dispatch Reliability
CF= Completion Factor
VoP=Value of Pilot
LS=Labor Stability

Sent out by Pierce? Why am I not surprised. Just a step to divide the pilot groups. If Jay Heppner did that I would very, very disappointed.

So ummm, why is my L-CAL MEC not asking for release? Even looking at this objectively, there's nothing good that can come from continued division. I thought the 'J' in JCBA was somewhat important...