Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
I'm ready to vote on the TA. >

I'm ready to vote on the TA.

Notices

I'm ready to vote on the TA.

Old 10-30-2012, 08:44 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Default

We've all suffered loss of dignity and financial strength, but when it comes to voting on a business contract, I would suggest putting emotions aside and looking at this vote as a business transaction that for me rests purely on whether I think we can do better.
I disagree that Jeff needed to come to the table, they were happy dragging this on, playing pleasant welcome aboard videos...followed by getting our backside kicked by our competitor. They came to the table because the NMB forced the issue...if voted down and another NMB assignee is called on after a long cooling off period there is a good chance he or she may not be sympathetic to our cause.
I am as fired up angry about what has happened to all of us in varying degrees, but when I fly or do business...I don't do them with emothion. It never works out good. For those that have decided already to vote NO...I say Jeff most likely has offerred a CBA that is at least the same overall package $$ amount as the Delta CBA and you won't have much of a leg to stand on when your screaming bloody murder to Mitt's Bain NMB appointee. I agree that all of the issues people want to fight over are important, but it must come down to do you think you can do better? Is it worth 3-12mts pay to fight for $200mil more in retro/lump sum payout while Jeff pockets $800mil in delayed CBA savings? I can look past a few dollars less in straight pay if I win having more money at the end of the day via larger B/C funds that bring real tax advantages over the DAL CBA...keep an open mind, be smart and do the math. If you aren't happy but don't think you can do better without net harming yourself...you can vote yes and not help Jeff while making a stand. But come out voicing you are not happy with the CBA.
ChrisJT6 is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 08:58 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Shrek's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,814
Default

Originally Posted by ChrisJT6 View Post
We've all suffered loss of dignity and financial strength, but when it comes to voting on a business contract, I would suggest putting emotions aside and looking at this vote as a business transaction that for me rests purely on whether I think we can do better.
I disagree that Jeff needed to come to the table, they were happy dragging this on, playing pleasant welcome aboard videos...followed by getting our backside kicked by our competitor. They came to the table because the NMB forced the issue...if voted down and another NMB assignee is called on after a long cooling off period there is a good chance he or she may not be sympathetic to our cause.
I am as fired up angry about what has happened to all of us in varying degrees, but when I fly or do business...I don't do them with emothion. It never works out good. For those that have decided already to vote NO...I say Jeff most likely has offerred a CBA that is at least the same overall package $$ amount as the Delta CBA and you won't have much of a leg to stand on when your screaming bloody murder to Mitt's Bain NMB appointee. I agree that all of the issues people want to fight over are important, but it must come down to do you think you can do better? Is it worth 3-12mts pay to fight for $200mil more in retro/lump sum payout while Jeff pockets $800mil in delayed CBA savings? I can look past a few dollars less in straight pay if I win having more money at the end of the day via larger B/C funds that bring real tax advantages over the DAL CBA...keep an open mind, be smart and do the math. If you aren't happy but don't think you can do better without net harming yourself...you can vote yes and not help Jeff while making a stand. But come out voicing you are not happy with the CBA.
Yep....still a NO vote for me.
Shrek is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 09:11 AM
  #13  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Default

I voted no for everything UAL ALPA ever presented me with since I was hired in 95. I won't get to vote this time as I am a vol furlough. I would be inclined to vote yes this time for one reason - right now we are held prisoner, not by the company, but by ourselves. The sooner we get a JCBA and and SLI, the sooner we can move forward, and plan our lives.

The most contentious thing is scope, and for good reason. ALPA screwed the pooch 15 years ago on this. We could have negotiated to fly them, at lower rates than a 737, but we refused. The result? We created more, smaller seniority lists, in effect we "divided and conquered" ourselves. Management had to have wet themselves.

The 50 seaters are history. They were never efficient. With "scope" we can negotiate to fly them on our list, or let the company outsource. Flying a 76 seater is a business decision that we have no control over. We do get to control weather we fly them or not.

No 76 or 90 seaters? That is not our choice. We do get to negoitiate whether we fly them or not.

You didn't come to UCAL to fly an RJ? Too bad, so sad. You can put your resume out to other airlines if you are too good to fly a smaller aircraft. I actually heard a bunch of senior turds back in the late 90's demanding they put 777's in bases with more senior pilots because they deserved it. Not that it made any sense, schedule wise.

But until we have a JCBA and SLI, we are our own worst enemy. Smallsack has to be hurting himself laughing at all the retarded infighting we are doing. Right now he is not the enemy, WE are.

We have seen the enemy, and it is US.
Probe is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 09:32 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Default

Walking on the blade of a knife:

Approve a contract with such concessions, and all future contract prospects are toast.

Vote it down and risk going the way of USAir.

Tough call to make.
threeighteen is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 10:03 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

I've heard that one (of many) Plan Bs is that if one MEC votes no and another votes yes, they can and may attempt to implement the contract with the yes group and continue a side negotiation with the no group just to keep things moving and provide the illusion of progress for the board and banks. Isn't this is what happened at DAL?
APC225 is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 10:34 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by ChrisJT6 View Post
We've all suffered loss of dignity and financial strength, but when it comes to voting on a business contract, I would suggest putting emotions aside and looking at this vote as a business transaction that for me rests purely on whether I think we can do better.
I disagree that Jeff needed to come to the table, they were happy dragging this on, playing pleasant welcome aboard videos...followed by getting our backside kicked by our competitor. They came to the table because the NMB forced the issue...if voted down and another NMB assignee is called on after a long cooling off period there is a good chance he or she may not be sympathetic to our cause.
I am as fired up angry about what has happened to all of us in varying degrees, but when I fly or do business...I don't do them with emothion. It never works out good. For those that have decided already to vote NO...I say Jeff most likely has offerred a CBA that is at least the same overall package $$ amount as the Delta CBA and you won't have much of a leg to stand on when your screaming bloody murder to Mitt's Bain NMB appointee. I agree that all of the issues people want to fight over are important, but it must come down to do you think you can do better? Is it worth 3-12mts pay to fight for $200mil more in retro/lump sum payout while Jeff pockets $800mil in delayed CBA savings? I can look past a few dollars less in straight pay if I win having more money at the end of the day via larger B/C funds that bring real tax advantages over the DAL CBA...keep an open mind, be smart and do the math. If you aren't happy but don't think you can do better without net harming yourself...you can vote yes and not help Jeff while making a stand. But come out voicing you are not happy with the CBA.
I would define one way of losing your dignity is by allowing others to drive your vote with non-factual information and irrational thought, emotions included. Once you buy it, you own it. Regret is a lonely way to live.

The majority of your post is based upon your belief which only Jeff, his right hand, the Mec, and Mitt can verify. I am confident we will hear many platitudes in the future to drive the vote. Much light will be shed if and when the TA is released and contract comparisons are made.

You are correct when pilots should be smart and do the math. They also should not check their brain at the door when they go to a roadshow or talk to The Great Swami across the center console.
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 10:41 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,911
Default

Originally Posted by APC225 View Post
I've heard that one (of many) Plan Bs is that if one MEC votes no and another votes yes, they can and may attempt to implement the contract with the yes group and continue a side negotiation with the no group just to keep things moving and provide the illusion of progress for the board and banks. Isn't this is what happened at DAL?
Not exactly. At Delta, the Delta union signed a letter of agreement instantly improving their own situation. The NWA union was not part of this. Then Lee Moak's response was that their new LOA would be something to build off of for the JCBA. The JCBA ended up being exactly the same as the new Delta contract after the LOA. At that point, the Northwest pilots had no choice, but to vote yes. The Delta pilots could have voted it down and screwed the NWA pilots, but the Delta pilots have never voted anything down. It passed on both sides, and Delta had a joint contract before the SLI was ever decided. The SLI went into effect the day it was released. About 6 months later, pilots were crossing over.
hockeypilot44 is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 10:56 AM
  #18  
SLI best wishes!
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default

Originally Posted by APC225 View Post
I've heard that one (of many) Plan Bs is that if one MEC votes no and another votes yes, they can and may attempt to implement the contract with the yes group and continue a side negotiation with the no group just to keep things moving and provide the illusion of progress for the board and banks. Isn't this is what happened at DAL?
There you go 100% retro accomplished for one group. One side can keep $400 million all to themselves!. This JP guy is good!
LeeMat is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 10:57 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 View Post
Not exactly. At Delta, the Delta union signed a letter of agreement instantly improving their own situation. The NWA union was not part of this. Then Lee Moak's response was that their new LOA would be something to build off of for the JCBA. The JCBA ended up being exactly the same as the new Delta contract after the LOA. At that point, the Northwest pilots had no choice, but to vote yes. The Delta pilots could have voted it down and screwed the NWA pilots, but the Delta pilots have never voted anything down. It passed on both sides, and Delta had a joint contract before the SLI was ever decided. The SLI went into effect the day it was released. About 6 months later, pilots were crossing over.
Thanks. Interesting how this may not play out in the linear fashion we all imagine. Management has a lot of options, we have a few.
APC225 is offline  
Old 10-30-2012, 11:28 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Default

"I say Jeff most likely has offerred a CBA that is at least the same overall package $$ amount as the Delta CBA"

Not true. Rumor has it will be found that when this possible contract, if applied at DAL, actually would increase DAL's overall pilot costs as much as $200 mill.

Wait for the road shows before any individual item(s) over ride the contract as a whole.

Oh and who says JP is the one who would votes yes? "There you go 100% retro accomplished for one group. One side can keep $400 million all to themselves!. This JP guy is good! "

"Don't panic, be happy..."
Regularguy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RockBottom
Atlas/Polar
1
07-13-2005 11:02 AM
Freighter Captain
Major
2
05-12-2005 11:45 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