One cornerstone has been leaked (Compensation), Retro pay is no longer on the table, and multiple reps have confirmed that scope is worse than current CAL and similar to Delta's. That is more than enough for me to vote NO! The entire concept of having four cornerstones means those four sections take priority and they must each be industry leading. Two out of the four have proven to be sorely lacking. For that reason (and no retro) there is no need to even see the rest of the TA to decide on my vote.

More importantly, we must understand that the when the company needs a contract they will pay up. I believe that that time is now, meaning if we reject this insult of a TA we should see a more realistic counter from the company soon thereafter.

What is everyone else thinking? Respectfully, if you are still undecided please explain. Thanks.

 

Mitch,

Good post. I am not a CAL or UAL pilot but if this TA fails what is your expectation that the pilots could go back to the company and fix these areas to acceptable terms? Do you think/believe this would occur quickly or is this headed UsAir and America West of 7 + years.

Just curious because I think the No voters (I hear you and think your reasons are solid) should also understand that an unknown delay might be out there for "X" amount of time.

My 2 cents.

 

Voting no is one thing. Voting without seeing the actual TA and an informed membership is another.

I too have reservations about the leaked info, but let's wait and see if the rumors are true. I have found UAL rumors to rarely be true, even iron clad leaks.

My reps know exactly where I stand on the rumored pay rates and scope. That should be the basis for their support or lack of during the MEC reviews. Have you contacted your LEC and told them your views?

 

Scope, work rules and compensation in that order for me.
The big question is, will we be parked by the NMB or will UCH come back to the table soon after the big NO vote? Fear will be a factor with this vote, the MEC knows it and IF the TA gets release to the line with a recommendation, it will pass. They will sell it and scare you at the same time.

 

I believe people need to have a definitive idea of what they want in a contract before a TA is presented. Don't wait for external forces to shape your opinion. If this means writing down section by section what you expect and revisiting your expectations when the TA is presented, then so be it.

Wanted or not, we are going to hear all kinds of opinions. Mine being an example here. I hope that we can filter out the noise, remember what we gave in the past, and make a rational decision about our future based on fact and not suppositions.

 

Well said Lee.

 

If the contract is turned down, the results won't necessarily depend on who gets elected, or how the economy is recovering.

It will be more dependant on the board and whether or not Jeff's job is in jeopardy. His job should be on the line for nonperformance, stock price, and investor confidence. Anyone up for some lack of synergy and a side of bonus?

 

Great points Dave. Also, since the one of the cornerstone sections leaked and confirmed to be true is well below industry leading then shouldn't that be enough to vote no. Unless MPG is 130 I can't see how these pay rates are acceptable. And add the fact that we are getting a measly signing bonus should be even more compelling.

 

Don't make a decision without seeing the actual agreement.

 

I will add you never walk in to purchase a car without having an idea of what you are willing to pay for it.