JCBA does not give furloughees longevity
11-13-2012, 08:16 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 94
Well said, James. And thanks. A cold Heineken and some Hendrix would suit me well, too. I'd choose some Axis-Bold As Love and crank it.
But my little kids and wife are asleep. And I have more caffeine in me than I should have. That, plus this injustice means I will sleep fitfully, if at all. Too many Heinekens would do me no good. Tap water and a pillow is what I shall get. The only comfort, plus my supportive, warm wife after a stark, cruel day.
SCR
But my little kids and wife are asleep. And I have more caffeine in me than I should have. That, plus this injustice means I will sleep fitfully, if at all. Too many Heinekens would do me no good. Tap water and a pillow is what I shall get. The only comfort, plus my supportive, warm wife after a stark, cruel day.
SCR
11-13-2012, 08:26 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
Here is what one UAL REP has to say (name removed)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here's the answer I am giving to the furloughees who ask me about that longevity question: Who do you guys think demanded that disgusting bit of crap be in the contract? Go ask THOSE guys why it's there because frankly I have no clue how anyone could justify even suggesting that manure much less demanding that it be there. By the time I became aware of it (last week in briefings) it was so far past too late to do anything about it that I just puked and said, "Gee thanks" to our negotiators. I mean, there's a name for this kind of behavior right? A worker who steals something, career wise, from another worker? Hmm, starts with an "S"...
So I'm sorry but I got nothing for you: You're right to be unholy P---ED about it. I can't fix it, and I could not in good conscience scuttle a much needed contract for 11,000+ pilots over it. (That's what the b'tards who insisted it be in there were counting on, right?) So just like the 737 and A320 pilots in Whiteford's BK contract got thrown under the bus you get hosed. I'm not gonna lie or sugar coat it.
But here's the other problem you guys face: While you're complaining about the fly poop in this deal that costs the company more $$ per year than the Delta contract costs DAL, we're Eastern Airlines over here and Lorenzo's gang is just getting warmed up. Gimme some more of that? No thank you - I'm an LA guy, we're living the Lorenzo whipsaw dream out here La La land and it's going nowhere but fat ass ugly once we get past the end of the year and the T&PA fails. So you do the pilot thing and get your way over your short term issues but screw yourselves for life? That's what pilots do all the time! We're good at it, but I'm not going to recommend it to MY pilots.
A fat dose of reality that you wont get on the brain dead forums: You get on with putting Lorenzo's dream team behind us and WE FIX IT going forward. Any other plan is folly and I can prove it, but I'm done here on F'book. Call me XXXXXX, if you can take the back and forth - I'll talk until you're done and answer every question you put to me. Or log into the forums and get your blood pressure cranked up real good, open a bottle and fall over ****ed.
Cheers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here's the answer I am giving to the furloughees who ask me about that longevity question: Who do you guys think demanded that disgusting bit of crap be in the contract? Go ask THOSE guys why it's there because frankly I have no clue how anyone could justify even suggesting that manure much less demanding that it be there. By the time I became aware of it (last week in briefings) it was so far past too late to do anything about it that I just puked and said, "Gee thanks" to our negotiators. I mean, there's a name for this kind of behavior right? A worker who steals something, career wise, from another worker? Hmm, starts with an "S"...
So I'm sorry but I got nothing for you: You're right to be unholy P---ED about it. I can't fix it, and I could not in good conscience scuttle a much needed contract for 11,000+ pilots over it. (That's what the b'tards who insisted it be in there were counting on, right?) So just like the 737 and A320 pilots in Whiteford's BK contract got thrown under the bus you get hosed. I'm not gonna lie or sugar coat it.
But here's the other problem you guys face: While you're complaining about the fly poop in this deal that costs the company more $$ per year than the Delta contract costs DAL, we're Eastern Airlines over here and Lorenzo's gang is just getting warmed up. Gimme some more of that? No thank you - I'm an LA guy, we're living the Lorenzo whipsaw dream out here La La land and it's going nowhere but fat ass ugly once we get past the end of the year and the T&PA fails. So you do the pilot thing and get your way over your short term issues but screw yourselves for life? That's what pilots do all the time! We're good at it, but I'm not going to recommend it to MY pilots.
A fat dose of reality that you wont get on the brain dead forums: You get on with putting Lorenzo's dream team behind us and WE FIX IT going forward. Any other plan is folly and I can prove it, but I'm done here on F'book. Call me XXXXXX, if you can take the back and forth - I'll talk until you're done and answer every question you put to me. Or log into the forums and get your blood pressure cranked up real good, open a bottle and fall over ****ed.
Cheers.
11-13-2012, 08:30 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by oldmako
Syd,
Likewise on the compliment and thank you. It's nice to read both sides of the story because I believe that perspective is essential. I've worn the pin for 26 years, yet I'm among the most junior pilots at UAL. I'll probably never see the 777. But hey, I dig the bus!
I wish that I could list all the injustices laid upon the furloughed guys dating back to 911, but I don't have the memory or the list. How about the bond distribution? Or, the the no furlough clause which evaporated like a fart in the wind? Many other ALPA carriers fought for longevity for their furloughed pilots, DAL included. But not us. There have been several instances in which ALPA could have tossed the the furloughees a bone, yet didn't. Almost like a dollar bill on the end of a string trick. I certainly don't mean to start a Senior vs. Junior spat, only to point out that their union has let them down, time and again. And at UAL, the union has pretty much been run by and for the senior crowd ever since I've been here. Injustices repeated decade in and decade out do not validate them. But they will shape the attitude and the backbone of the recipient. The industry has undergone fundamental change, yet ALPA keeps swinging at the same old pinata while we get raked over the coals by management.
Yes, the senior guys really got hosed by ESOP, by Wolfe and then Tilton. I would be seething if I were you.
My beef is with ALPA and the guys in the left seat who could have used their positions to help move us forward, yet chose to hide under their desks like kids in the old "duck and cover" videos from the 60's. Based on your comments here, I'm pretty sure you're not one of them.
There was a post on the old 2172 forum written by S.S which listed all the times they had been let down. Unfortunately I didn't save it. It would have been handy tonight.
Alas, this horse is near death and the Heinekens are cold and satisfying so I am going to light up an imitation Punch Chateau L and listen to some Hendrix.
Frats.
Likewise on the compliment and thank you. It's nice to read both sides of the story because I believe that perspective is essential. I've worn the pin for 26 years, yet I'm among the most junior pilots at UAL. I'll probably never see the 777. But hey, I dig the bus!
I wish that I could list all the injustices laid upon the furloughed guys dating back to 911, but I don't have the memory or the list. How about the bond distribution? Or, the the no furlough clause which evaporated like a fart in the wind? Many other ALPA carriers fought for longevity for their furloughed pilots, DAL included. But not us. There have been several instances in which ALPA could have tossed the the furloughees a bone, yet didn't. Almost like a dollar bill on the end of a string trick. I certainly don't mean to start a Senior vs. Junior spat, only to point out that their union has let them down, time and again. And at UAL, the union has pretty much been run by and for the senior crowd ever since I've been here. Injustices repeated decade in and decade out do not validate them. But they will shape the attitude and the backbone of the recipient. The industry has undergone fundamental change, yet ALPA keeps swinging at the same old pinata while we get raked over the coals by management.
Yes, the senior guys really got hosed by ESOP, by Wolfe and then Tilton. I would be seething if I were you.
My beef is with ALPA and the guys in the left seat who could have used their positions to help move us forward, yet chose to hide under their desks like kids in the old "duck and cover" videos from the 60's. Based on your comments here, I'm pretty sure you're not one of them.
There was a post on the old 2172 forum written by S.S which listed all the times they had been let down. Unfortunately I didn't save it. It would have been handy tonight.
Alas, this horse is near death and the Heinekens are cold and satisfying so I am going to light up an imitation Punch Chateau L and listen to some Hendrix.
Frats.
Great post! See the crap above from a "REP"
VOTE NO! VOTE OFTEN ....then RECALL THEM!
11-14-2012, 12:09 AM
#16
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B737-800 Captain, Dubai
Posts: 64
So what happens to those of us who are both 2172 and 1437? Do we get credit for this furlough and any time we stay on furlough after being recalled? Obviously that would be just for now, but become settled after SLI?
I am so unbelievably angry to have been shafted yet again, though I'm not surprised. Can't wait to see how bad it will be with SLI if this is the JCBA we get (which wasn't supposed to negotiate any SLI issues).
Randy
I am so unbelievably angry to have been shafted yet again, though I'm not surprised. Can't wait to see how bad it will be with SLI if this is the JCBA we get (which wasn't supposed to negotiate any SLI issues).
Randy
11-14-2012, 02:50 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 168
JCBA does not give furloughees longevity
I've already notified my reps that if this passes my ALPA pin, card and resignation letter are mailed in.
We are also taking ALPA on via DFR lawsuit.
A scab is a scab. These guys are worse than scabs.
We are also taking ALPA on via DFR lawsuit.
A scab is a scab. These guys are worse than scabs.
11-14-2012, 05:06 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 30 West
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
flame away, flame suit on.
i dont' believe ALPA could do this. How could ALPA do this legally?
i dont' believe ALPA could do this. How could ALPA do this legally?
I think the answer in the end will be that they can't. A union can't discriminate against any single group that they represent.
They can't give all CAL pilots full furlough longevity and give UAL pilots hired in 2007-2008 full furlough longevity but then deny it to the UAL pilots hired from 1999-2001. Going forward this TA gives all future furloughees full longevity as well. The only group that is denied this is the 99-2001 pilots.
For those of you who don't know what we're talking about let me give you an example. I was hired at UAL in 99 and then furloughed in 2003. I came back to UAL in 2006 and furloughed again in 2008. I have 6+ years of service at UAL in my 7th year of pay and hired 13.5 years ago.
After the SLI if the next senior CAL pilot to me is a 2001 hire I will get to bump to his longevity of 11years. If I'm stapled next to a 2005 hire I get to bump to his longevity of 7 years. If I get stapled behind a 2008 hire I go backward to 4 years of longevity.
The way the TA is written and how this part of the TA is explained in ALPA's video I would be paid at that year of my longevity. If I get stapled behind a 2008 hire I drop from 7th year pay and go back to 4th year pay. Keep in mind that this only affects the 99-2001 hires. Everyone else gets all credit for time spent on furlough.
Before people on this forum start talking about how ALPA doesn't have a duty to represent us because we're furloughed think about this. I, as well as many others in this situation have a bunch of UAL pilots junior to us still on the property flying at UAL. If I'm going to be on the receiving end of this, so are all the other pilots that are active but junior to me.
It's very easy to see why they did it. ALPA merger policy says that longevity is taken into account during a SLI. I'm not sure how much weight is given toward longevity during an SLI but the CAL MEC must think that there is a fair amount.
If this TA is passed with the present wording, UAL ALPA will probably find themselves in court explaining why they didn't fairly represent this group of pilots. The motivation on the part of the CAL MEC will be very easy to prove. In the end we will probably find out that the UAL MEC sacrificed this group of UAL pilots for a back room deal with the CAL MEC. I have a feeling that it has something to do with the $400 million dollars and how it is to be split up. UAL gets more money and CAL gets the seniority.
Clear as mud?
11-14-2012, 06:48 AM
#19
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 94
It's crystal clear to me, as a fellow year 2000 hire.
It's diabolical. And so wrong on so many levels. Those that worded it this way, those that voted it up during the vote two days ago and those that vote yes for this heaping pile of feces should hang their heads in abject shame. Disgraceful.
Each one of you have lost my respect forever.
Together, the 1999-2001 furloughees will sue every party culpable for this incalculable injustice. And we will prevail.
SCR
It's diabolical. And so wrong on so many levels. Those that worded it this way, those that voted it up during the vote two days ago and those that vote yes for this heaping pile of feces should hang their heads in abject shame. Disgraceful.
Each one of you have lost my respect forever.
Together, the 1999-2001 furloughees will sue every party culpable for this incalculable injustice. And we will prevail.
SCR
Last edited by SoCentralRain; 11-14-2012 at 07:03 AM.
11-14-2012, 06:56 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
If there is any doubt about ALPA's legal obligation to represent us, I have it in writing from an ALPA attorney in January who said that the minute we began paying dues at CAL, they were obligated to repressnt us.
Originally Posted by Learjet driver
I think the answer in the end will be that they can't. A union can't discriminate against any single group that they represent.
They can't give all CAL pilots full furlough longevity and give UAL pilots hired in 2007-2008 full furlough longevity but then deny it to the UAL pilots hired from 1999-2001. Going forward this TA gives all future furloughees full longevity as well. The only group that is denied this is the 99-2001 pilots.
For those of you who don't know what we're talking about let me give you an example. I was hired at UAL in 99 and then furloughed in 2003. I came back to UAL in 2006 and furloughed again in 2008. I have 6+ years of service at UAL in my 7th year of pay and hired 13.5 years ago.
After the SLI if the next senior CAL pilot to me is a 2001 hire I will get to bump to his longevity of 11years. If I'm stapled next to a 2005 hire I get to bump to his longevity of 7 years. If I get stapled behind a 2008 hire I go backward to 4 years of longevity.
The way the TA is written and how this part of the TA is explained in ALPA's video I would be paid at that year of my longevity. If I get stapled behind a 2008 hire I drop from 7th year pay and go back to 4th year pay. Keep in mind that this only affects the 99-2001 hires. Everyone else gets all credit for time spent on furlough.
Before people on this forum start talking about how ALPA doesn't have a duty to represent us because we're furloughed think about this. I, as well as many others in this situation have a bunch of UAL pilots junior to us still on the property flying at UAL. If I'm going to be on the receiving end of this, so are all the other pilots that are active but junior to me.
It's very easy to see why they did it. ALPA merger policy says that longevity is taken into account during a SLI. I'm not sure how much weight is given toward longevity during an SLI but the CAL MEC must think that there is a fair amount.
If this TA is passed with the present wording, UAL ALPA will probably find themselves in court explaining why they didn't fairly represent this group of pilots. The motivation on the part of the CAL MEC will be very easy to prove. In the end we will probably find out that the UAL MEC sacrificed this group of UAL pilots for a back room deal with the CAL MEC. I have a feeling that it has something to do with the $400 million dollars and how it is to be split up. UAL gets more money and CAL gets the seniority.
Clear as mud?
They can't give all CAL pilots full furlough longevity and give UAL pilots hired in 2007-2008 full furlough longevity but then deny it to the UAL pilots hired from 1999-2001. Going forward this TA gives all future furloughees full longevity as well. The only group that is denied this is the 99-2001 pilots.
For those of you who don't know what we're talking about let me give you an example. I was hired at UAL in 99 and then furloughed in 2003. I came back to UAL in 2006 and furloughed again in 2008. I have 6+ years of service at UAL in my 7th year of pay and hired 13.5 years ago.
After the SLI if the next senior CAL pilot to me is a 2001 hire I will get to bump to his longevity of 11years. If I'm stapled next to a 2005 hire I get to bump to his longevity of 7 years. If I get stapled behind a 2008 hire I go backward to 4 years of longevity.
The way the TA is written and how this part of the TA is explained in ALPA's video I would be paid at that year of my longevity. If I get stapled behind a 2008 hire I drop from 7th year pay and go back to 4th year pay. Keep in mind that this only affects the 99-2001 hires. Everyone else gets all credit for time spent on furlough.
Before people on this forum start talking about how ALPA doesn't have a duty to represent us because we're furloughed think about this. I, as well as many others in this situation have a bunch of UAL pilots junior to us still on the property flying at UAL. If I'm going to be on the receiving end of this, so are all the other pilots that are active but junior to me.
It's very easy to see why they did it. ALPA merger policy says that longevity is taken into account during a SLI. I'm not sure how much weight is given toward longevity during an SLI but the CAL MEC must think that there is a fair amount.
If this TA is passed with the present wording, UAL ALPA will probably find themselves in court explaining why they didn't fairly represent this group of pilots. The motivation on the part of the CAL MEC will be very easy to prove. In the end we will probably find out that the UAL MEC sacrificed this group of UAL pilots for a back room deal with the CAL MEC. I have a feeling that it has something to do with the $400 million dollars and how it is to be split up. UAL gets more money and CAL gets the seniority.
Clear as mud?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wolf
Regional
10
02-18-2008 05:27 AM
