Next week? It almost says
10-21-2012 | 09:32 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
10-21-2012 | 09:39 AM
#32
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
From: B787 CA - SFO
I'm picking up what you're laying down APC, but retro talks have historically only involved straight pay rate differential with no consideration given for other sundry items like work rules, sick time accrual, 401k matching, etc......
Pay disparity, of which sUA has a greater percentage, and time disparity, of which sCAL has an additional year since amenable date, are the primary driving factors the arbitrator will have to take into consideration in determining the split ratio.
10-21-2012 | 10:58 AM
#34
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
For those that think we are being “played” help me understand what the theory is. Is it that you think they are still negotiating for items at the table and this is a joint cover up by the company, JNC, SME and MEC Chairmen and we really don’t have any sections that are in agreement? Or is it that the JNC is writing to much language and just wanting this to be a 1000 page document just to kill time? Or is it the MEC is holding this up so that it comes out once we know who will be the POTUS?
Or is it simply that we have had countless grievances that our side believes we need crystal clear language for all the agreed to terms? With a joint contract like this that will have no history behind it. Consider it as our first ever contract. Any grievance will have to depend on the language inside this agreement, no falling back to either L-CAL or L-UAL past practice. This was what we signed up for by not taking a pre existing contact and expanding upon it.
Look at this way it’s been 80 days since they agreed to the terms of the deal. Let’s say we have 6 guys putting 10 hour days with no breaks 7 days a week writing language on this thing. If they really only had to work on 12 of the sections and that was 400 pages. You are assuming that each page of the contract had 12 hours of time spent on it. That’s drafting, cross referencing other sections to not change intent, meet with the company’s lawyers, debate the changes, redraft, rinse and repeat more than likely 3 or 4 drafts. That’s around 3 hours per draft. Now being a little more realistic let’s assume they took one day off for every six days worked and with some breaks in the day for normal human functions they only put in 9 hours of work a day that’s down to 9:30 per page.
What do you think is a reasonable time to draft a page of a legal document? How much time of these 80 was acceptable to doing so and how much do you feel was spent on “games”?
I for one am glad we took this approach. From previous negotiations when attempting to negotiate language and terms at the same time slowed the process down and you had to negotiate verbiage to try to get your intent equally as you where trying to get the terms you wanted. This way you have the intent already agreed to easier to get the full language you want. Another issue is in long negotiations when the environment you are negotiating in changes and language will not be consistent from when you started until you finish. All of this again creates a difficult process for grievances to end in the satisfaction of the grievant.
Amazing that those that are ready to vote this down and send it back to get more because “its” not enough and willing to wait for the right deal. Yet these same people are not willing to wait for the right language.
Or is it simply that we have had countless grievances that our side believes we need crystal clear language for all the agreed to terms? With a joint contract like this that will have no history behind it. Consider it as our first ever contract. Any grievance will have to depend on the language inside this agreement, no falling back to either L-CAL or L-UAL past practice. This was what we signed up for by not taking a pre existing contact and expanding upon it.
Look at this way it’s been 80 days since they agreed to the terms of the deal. Let’s say we have 6 guys putting 10 hour days with no breaks 7 days a week writing language on this thing. If they really only had to work on 12 of the sections and that was 400 pages. You are assuming that each page of the contract had 12 hours of time spent on it. That’s drafting, cross referencing other sections to not change intent, meet with the company’s lawyers, debate the changes, redraft, rinse and repeat more than likely 3 or 4 drafts. That’s around 3 hours per draft. Now being a little more realistic let’s assume they took one day off for every six days worked and with some breaks in the day for normal human functions they only put in 9 hours of work a day that’s down to 9:30 per page.
What do you think is a reasonable time to draft a page of a legal document? How much time of these 80 was acceptable to doing so and how much do you feel was spent on “games”?
I for one am glad we took this approach. From previous negotiations when attempting to negotiate language and terms at the same time slowed the process down and you had to negotiate verbiage to try to get your intent equally as you where trying to get the terms you wanted. This way you have the intent already agreed to easier to get the full language you want. Another issue is in long negotiations when the environment you are negotiating in changes and language will not be consistent from when you started until you finish. All of this again creates a difficult process for grievances to end in the satisfaction of the grievant.
Amazing that those that are ready to vote this down and send it back to get more because “its” not enough and willing to wait for the right deal. Yet these same people are not willing to wait for the right language.
10-21-2012 | 11:18 AM
#35
SLI best wishes!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: B767 Capt
For those that think we are being “played” help me understand what the theory is. Is it that you think they are still negotiating for items at the table and this is a joint cover up by the company, JNC, SME and MEC Chairmen and we really don’t have any sections that are in agreement? Or is it that the JNC is writing to much language and just wanting this to be a 1000 page document just to kill time? Or is it the MEC is holding this up so that it comes out once we know who will be the POTUS?
Or is it simply that we have had countless grievances that our side believes we need crystal clear language for all the agreed to terms? With a joint contract like this that will have no history behind it. Consider it as our first ever contract. Any grievance will have to depend on the language inside this agreement, no falling back to either L-CAL or L-UAL past practice. This was what we signed up for by not taking a pre existing contact and expanding upon it.
Look at this way it’s been 80 days since they agreed to the terms of the deal. Let’s say we have 6 guys putting 10 hour days with no breaks 7 days a week writing language on this thing. If they really only had to work on 12 of the sections and that was 400 pages. You are assuming that each page of the contract had 12 hours of time spent on it. That’s drafting, cross referencing other sections to not change intent, meet with the company’s lawyers, debate the changes, redraft, rinse and repeat more than likely 3 or 4 drafts. That’s around 3 hours per draft. Now being a little more realistic let’s assume they took one day off for every six days worked and with some breaks in the day for normal human functions they only put in 9 hours of work a day that’s down to 9:30 per page.
What do you think is a reasonable time to draft a page of a legal document? How much time of these 80 was acceptable to doing so and how much do you feel was spent on “games”?
I for one am glad we took this approach. From previous negotiations when attempting to negotiate language and terms at the same time slowed the process down and you had to negotiate verbiage to try to get your intent equally as you where trying to get the terms you wanted. This way you have the intent already agreed to easier to get the full language you want. Another issue is in long negotiations when the environment you are negotiating in changes and language will not be consistent from when you started until you finish. All of this again creates a difficult process for grievances to end in the satisfaction of the grievant.
Amazing that those that are ready to vote this down and send it back to get more because “its” not enough and willing to wait for the right deal. Yet these same people are not willing to wait for the right language.
Or is it simply that we have had countless grievances that our side believes we need crystal clear language for all the agreed to terms? With a joint contract like this that will have no history behind it. Consider it as our first ever contract. Any grievance will have to depend on the language inside this agreement, no falling back to either L-CAL or L-UAL past practice. This was what we signed up for by not taking a pre existing contact and expanding upon it.
Look at this way it’s been 80 days since they agreed to the terms of the deal. Let’s say we have 6 guys putting 10 hour days with no breaks 7 days a week writing language on this thing. If they really only had to work on 12 of the sections and that was 400 pages. You are assuming that each page of the contract had 12 hours of time spent on it. That’s drafting, cross referencing other sections to not change intent, meet with the company’s lawyers, debate the changes, redraft, rinse and repeat more than likely 3 or 4 drafts. That’s around 3 hours per draft. Now being a little more realistic let’s assume they took one day off for every six days worked and with some breaks in the day for normal human functions they only put in 9 hours of work a day that’s down to 9:30 per page.
What do you think is a reasonable time to draft a page of a legal document? How much time of these 80 was acceptable to doing so and how much do you feel was spent on “games”?
I for one am glad we took this approach. From previous negotiations when attempting to negotiate language and terms at the same time slowed the process down and you had to negotiate verbiage to try to get your intent equally as you where trying to get the terms you wanted. This way you have the intent already agreed to easier to get the full language you want. Another issue is in long negotiations when the environment you are negotiating in changes and language will not be consistent from when you started until you finish. All of this again creates a difficult process for grievances to end in the satisfaction of the grievant.
Amazing that those that are ready to vote this down and send it back to get more because “its” not enough and willing to wait for the right deal. Yet these same people are not willing to wait for the right language.
To now claimed that final language only started after Aug 2 this year is not true.
Special MEC Meeting Scheduled Next Week
The United MEC has scheduled a special meeting for Thursday, January 13 and Friday, January 14 in Chicago to receive updates from MEC Chairman Captain Wendy Morse, MEC Vice Chairman Captain Garry Kravit and MEC Secretary-Treasurer Captain Joseph Genovese. The MEC also will receive updates from the MEC Negotiating Committee, and discuss other merger-related items.
The meeting is expected to be conducted in closed session.
MEC Negotiating Committee Update
We have received numerous inquiries from both pilot groups on the status with negotiations. Therefore, the JNC wants to use this week’s update to give its view from 35,000 feet.
As you recall, the Company presented the JNC with a comprehensive JCBA proposal on October 27, 2010. The JNC presented Management with our comprehensive counter proposal on December 15, 2010. On December 17, 2010, ALPA and the Company filed a joint application for mediation with the National Mediation Board (NMB) as provided for in the T&PA (Transition and Process Agreement). Given the time of year of that filing, the NMB would not have the time to engage in mediated negotiations with us on our contract. They did, however, assign a mediator to our case. The mediator assigned by the NMB is Jim Mackenzie. Prior to joining the NMB, Jim completed 31 years as a commercial pilot for a number of major airlines, retiring from Northwest Airlines in 2006 as an Airbus Captain. Following retirement, Jim was a Captain B-777/787 Instructor pilot for Alteon, a Boeing Company and an aviation consultant.
Jim’s labor relations experience included 30 years working in various positions for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). During his career with the airlines, Jim served as Chairman of the NWA Pilot Retirement and Insurance Committee and served as a member of the NWA Unsecured Creditors Committee. His extensive labor relations experience also includes being elected to the Master Executive Council of Braniff International Airlines, Co-Chairman of the Peoplexpress Pilot Merger Committee and serving on various ALPA committees at the local and national level.
That brings us into 2011. We have not yet heard from the NMB regarding initial meetings with them so that they can be briefed on the current status of our negotiations. Of course, there is no prohibition against negotiating without the mediator present, and we have informed Management that we are available to do so at any time. The JNC made the last pass so the ball is in Management’s court. As far as future negotiations are concerned, we anticipate hearing from the NMB soon regarding the scheduling of mediated sessions. Once we do, we will be better able to estimate a timeline for the negotiations. In the interim, your JNC is working on contract language for the six sections on which we already have Agreements in Principle (AIP). This language will be passed back and forth with the Company in a language drafting subcommittee, as will the remaining sections once their general terms are agreed to, until the parties can agree on the full language contract Tentative Agreement (TA) that will ultimately be sent to the MEC and then to the members for consideration.
As always, please stay connected to the process by reading updates from the MEC and your local council representatives.
Last edited by LeeMat; 10-21-2012 at 11:35 AM.
10-21-2012 | 12:19 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Those six sections are the shortest traditionally. Those also if you noticed in the first color charts showed as being done. That’s why I only mentioned them working the other 12 sections, plus LOAs. I never saw one update that said they had language on compensation, scheduling, hours of service or retirement and issuance. Which again is a bulk of the deal.
10-21-2012 | 02:53 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Why is that? Retro is what it is. Of course UAL pilots should get more retro pay than CAL pilots, as our pay is much lower.
UAL pilots will be getting next to NOTHING in work rules, while CAL pilots will see HUGE gains. CAL pilots will see big gains in B/C funds while keeping their pensions, while UAL pilots will see little to nothing. CAL pilots will likely see a decrease in their scope clause thanks to the UAL pilots scope.
That's the nature of the beast in JOINT negotiations
UAL pilots will be getting next to NOTHING in work rules, while CAL pilots will see HUGE gains. CAL pilots will see big gains in B/C funds while keeping their pensions, while UAL pilots will see little to nothing. CAL pilots will likely see a decrease in their scope clause thanks to the UAL pilots scope.
That's the nature of the beast in JOINT negotiations
Cal's are worse but ual's aren't exactly a prized document. You really need to raise your standards and demand more of this contract than status quo on work rules.
10-21-2012 | 05:16 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
For those of you that think you are getting retro you might as well stop posting and get ready to vote NO. There WILL BE NO RETRO. There will be a signing bonus and it will be no where near what you are expecting. Now if the TA gets voted down and retro is re-evaluated maybe but don't bet your career on it. I'm willing to buy a years worth of beer for anyone on here that wants to take a bet on Full Retro being on this TA. Conspiracies aside, MEC meddling, Jeff dragging his feet, SLI paranoia, whatever you believe the cause, it ain't happening.
10-21-2012 | 08:35 PM
#39
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
We must absolutely demand "retro" instead of a signing bonus, and here is why. It is a history refresher for UAL pilots, and a for the CAL side a lesson in what has been "played" on us before, recently.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
