So Where is this Agreement In Principle???
10-05-2012, 08:38 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Scott,
CAL parked the 737-300's in 2009-2010 along with a good portion of 737-500's. I believe this was done for the merger and many of our 2005 hires lost our captain seats. Many of the 2005 hires just got back to the left seat due to the planned deliveries finally showing up after being put off five years ago. You don't often here CAL guys claiming that the -300 round dials were parked for the merger do you? I think I will start doing so.
CAL parked the 737-300's in 2009-2010 along with a good portion of 737-500's. I believe this was done for the merger and many of our 2005 hires lost our captain seats. Many of the 2005 hires just got back to the left seat due to the planned deliveries finally showing up after being put off five years ago. You don't often here CAL guys claiming that the -300 round dials were parked for the merger do you? I think I will start doing so.
10-05-2012, 09:03 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by IAHB756
Scott,
CAL parked the 737-300's in 2009-2010 along with a good portion of 737-500's. I believe this was done for the merger and many of our 2005 hires lost our captain seats. Many of the 2005 hires just got back to the left seat due to the planned deliveries finally showing up after being put off five years ago. You don't often here CAL guys claiming that the -300 round dials were parked for the merger do you? I think I will start doing so.
CAL parked the 737-300's in 2009-2010 along with a good portion of 737-500's. I believe this was done for the merger and many of our 2005 hires lost our captain seats. Many of the 2005 hires just got back to the left seat due to the planned deliveries finally showing up after being put off five years ago. You don't often here CAL guys claiming that the -300 round dials were parked for the merger do you? I think I will start doing so.
Scott
10-05-2012, 09:21 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by strfyr51
But If AMR negotiates Isn't THAT what it's all about?? There Is a difference. When the injunction went down at UAL you guys Weren't in negotiations. You WANTED to Negotiate and Tilton Blew you OFF. there's a LOT of difference there. The AMR guys Have what the company IMPOSED upon them. Had the pilot response been across the board I don't think even UAL could have brought any injunction. But the majority of the problems were in the 737 ranks and that's WHY the company targeted the 737's for the "HEAP" and put our brothers out on the streets. Anybody who's in the know knew damn well those airplanes could Still be flying today were the "troublemakers" (no perjoritive intended) NOT Identified in the 737 pilot ranks. What they fought for is irrelevant any more, Simply because it didn't work! At Least the AMR pilots are giving an across the board response so that NO single fleet of pilots can be targeted for retaliation.
They NEED to thank UAL ALPA. and this meeds to be put in your playbook!
I see many differences from then to now. I speak with Capt's all the time who want to refuse airplanes for one reason or another, They KNOW that I know what they're doing and I really don't care Why they're doing it. But Most if not all are polite about it and whether I agree or disagree is of no consequence. we can get it done and NOT be nasty to each other which makes it easier all around. I personally don't think Management gives a damn one way or the other and only the S-co guys get all worked up about it. all the UAL giuys?? Just another DAY in the ongoing saga at SAMC Though NOBODY will be happier than I will when you finally get a contract. Heck! I might go out and get DRUNK!
(I don't drink)
They NEED to thank UAL ALPA. and this meeds to be put in your playbook!
I see many differences from then to now. I speak with Capt's all the time who want to refuse airplanes for one reason or another, They KNOW that I know what they're doing and I really don't care Why they're doing it. But Most if not all are polite about it and whether I agree or disagree is of no consequence. we can get it done and NOT be nasty to each other which makes it easier all around. I personally don't think Management gives a damn one way or the other and only the S-co guys get all worked up about it. all the UAL giuys?? Just another DAY in the ongoing saga at SAMC Though NOBODY will be happier than I will when you finally get a contract. Heck! I might go out and get DRUNK!
(I don't drink)
Don't know why some people just don't stick to reading...puff
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 10-06-2012 at 09:46 AM. Reason: TOS
10-05-2012, 09:33 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Sometimes the myths which get spread are amazing; punish the UAL 737 pilots for being bad! Come on do you really think the 737 pilots were worse than the rest?
The truth is the UAL 737s were largely paid for and not under any financial obligations like lease payments. The reason why this is important is when attempting to "right size" the airline, (ie reducing size) it cost less to park airplanes which have a zero cost to do so (of course they paid for storage and such).
If UAL had parked leased airplanes the payments still have to be made and the cost of those idle airplanes goes way-up because they generate zero revenue. Now if you think I'm daft on this go back and check out the official justification from the previous management and you will find the same story.
Additionally I find it a bit narcissistic to think 737 pilots were being singled out as bad boys and girls.
Carry on with your discussion and insulting of each other.
The truth is the UAL 737s were largely paid for and not under any financial obligations like lease payments. The reason why this is important is when attempting to "right size" the airline, (ie reducing size) it cost less to park airplanes which have a zero cost to do so (of course they paid for storage and such).
If UAL had parked leased airplanes the payments still have to be made and the cost of those idle airplanes goes way-up because they generate zero revenue. Now if you think I'm daft on this go back and check out the official justification from the previous management and you will find the same story.
Additionally I find it a bit narcissistic to think 737 pilots were being singled out as bad boys and girls.
Carry on with your discussion and insulting of each other.
10-05-2012, 09:52 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by Regularguy
Sometimes the myths which get spread are amazing; punish the UAL 737 pilots for being bad! Come on do you really think the 737 pilots were worse than the rest?
The truth is the UAL 737s were largely paid for and not under any financial obligations like lease payments. The reason why this is important is when attempting to "right size" the airline, (ie reducing size) it cost less to park airplanes which have a zero cost to do so (of course they paid for storage and such).
If UAL had parked leased airplanes the payments still have to be made and the cost of those idle airplanes goes way-up because they generate zero revenue. Now if you think I'm daft on this go back and check out the official justification from the previous management and you will find the same story.
Additionally I find it a bit narcissistic to think 737 pilots were being singled out as bad boys and girls.
Carry on with your discussion and insulting of each other.
The truth is the UAL 737s were largely paid for and not under any financial obligations like lease payments. The reason why this is important is when attempting to "right size" the airline, (ie reducing size) it cost less to park airplanes which have a zero cost to do so (of course they paid for storage and such).
If UAL had parked leased airplanes the payments still have to be made and the cost of those idle airplanes goes way-up because they generate zero revenue. Now if you think I'm daft on this go back and check out the official justification from the previous management and you will find the same story.
Additionally I find it a bit narcissistic to think 737 pilots were being singled out as bad boys and girls.
Carry on with your discussion and insulting of each other.
10-05-2012, 10:22 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Coto
"I had heard that although CAL had orders for new aircraft, they didn't have financing in place until after the merger."
True. And how do I know? I went back and read the official reports published by CAL to the SEC.
But, for all you competitive types out there I am not implying or saying UAL or CAL were the buyer in the merger of non-equals.
The merger came about because the people whom UAL and CAL owed money to and the school of predatory fish surrounding them wanted it to go through (not to mention a few not-so good men and women wanted to cash out and/or score at the top of both airlines). It is done and it is time to "harmonize" our two groups of pilots into one.
Financing or not, personally I think it is too bad we purchased more small cockpit, noisy, ancient tech Boeings. But I just fly jets and nobody asked me what I thought on any of these things.
Carry on!
"I had heard that although CAL had orders for new aircraft, they didn't have financing in place until after the merger."
True. And how do I know? I went back and read the official reports published by CAL to the SEC.
But, for all you competitive types out there I am not implying or saying UAL or CAL were the buyer in the merger of non-equals.
The merger came about because the people whom UAL and CAL owed money to and the school of predatory fish surrounding them wanted it to go through (not to mention a few not-so good men and women wanted to cash out and/or score at the top of both airlines). It is done and it is time to "harmonize" our two groups of pilots into one.
Financing or not, personally I think it is too bad we purchased more small cockpit, noisy, ancient tech Boeings. But I just fly jets and nobody asked me what I thought on any of these things.
Carry on!
10-05-2012, 11:21 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 728
One of Gordo's last business deals before he left Boeing was with (recently emerged from BK) CAL for the -500's in 1993.... at insanely high interest rates. Tragically ironic that he would helm CAL a year later and would spend the better part of a decade trying to get rid of the things.
The -300's were mostly owned and were retired quickly in the ramp up for the merger. There are only 15 or so of the leased -500's still flying and they should be gone by the end of the year.
The -300's were mostly owned and were retired quickly in the ramp up for the merger. There are only 15 or so of the leased -500's still flying and they should be gone by the end of the year.
10-05-2012, 07:46 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Capt. B737
Posts: 329
Implications of collusion among CEO's and their publicly traded companies should certainly draw the interest of the SEC. We know where Tilton is at.....what about Larry and Rakesh? Are they sunning themselves on some island they bought? 
10-12-2012, 02:14 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
JNC Update, 12 Oct
All sections of the contract are at or past the initial language drafts. The table below shows the sections that are in the process of final language proofing, which entails a final language review by the collective JNC, style formatting, and the updating of language references to other sections of the JCBA as they become final.
1 - Scope
6 - Seniority
7 - Reduction in Force
13 - Sick Leave
14 - Physical Exams
15 - Worker's Comp
16 - Missing Interned
17 - Grievances
18 - System Board
19 - Safety
22 - Retirement
23 - Instructors/Evaluators
24 - Insurance
25 - Duration
The scheduling sections (5 and 20) have been jointly drafted by the parties but are still in the process of being reviewed by the full JNC, as are Expenses (4), Training (9), Moving (10), Vacation (11), and Leaves (12). Compensation (3), Filling of Vacancies (Staffing) (8), Definitions (2), General (21), LOAs and MOUs are being jointly drafted. In parallel, the JNC is working with management to lay out an implementation timeline for the JCBA.
The JNC is diligently working to bring the entire contract to final language status in as expeditious manner as possible without compromising the integrity of the JCBA language. As always, please stay connected to the process by reading updates from the MEC and your local council representatives.
All sections of the contract are at or past the initial language drafts. The table below shows the sections that are in the process of final language proofing, which entails a final language review by the collective JNC, style formatting, and the updating of language references to other sections of the JCBA as they become final.
1 - Scope
6 - Seniority
7 - Reduction in Force
13 - Sick Leave
14 - Physical Exams
15 - Worker's Comp
16 - Missing Interned
17 - Grievances
18 - System Board
19 - Safety
22 - Retirement
23 - Instructors/Evaluators
24 - Insurance
25 - Duration
The scheduling sections (5 and 20) have been jointly drafted by the parties but are still in the process of being reviewed by the full JNC, as are Expenses (4), Training (9), Moving (10), Vacation (11), and Leaves (12). Compensation (3), Filling of Vacancies (Staffing) (8), Definitions (2), General (21), LOAs and MOUs are being jointly drafted. In parallel, the JNC is working with management to lay out an implementation timeline for the JCBA.
The JNC is diligently working to bring the entire contract to final language status in as expeditious manner as possible without compromising the integrity of the JCBA language. As always, please stay connected to the process by reading updates from the MEC and your local council representatives.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
