SeamusTheHound

Copied this from another forum. It makes sense and I agree.

"Rob,

Thanks again for taking the time yesterday to talk about the T/A; I know you LEC guys are putting in a lot of time on the phones.

Despite our conversation, I am still planning to vote "NO" on this T/A as is. I'm not afraid of the alleged veiled threats by the NMB to "park" us for any amount of time; the reality is that the NMB wants to see a deal on the table as soon as possible too, so parking any party is not a realistic outcome.

Contrary to the fear of encountering a long delay in a renegotiated deal, I am confident that three substantial changes could be made that would swing my vote. All three of these changes would require minimal revision, and would not require give-and-take (other than the Company gives some more, and we take down our strike):

1. SCOPE: LOWER THE THRESHOLD / CAP TO 123 76-SEATERS. By far the most abhorrent provision, we should have a 20% lower threshold than Delta on 76 seat RJ's for triggering the addition of new United small narrowbodies. That threshold currently stands at 153 76-seaters, and should be lowered to 122. Keep in mind that Delta made their agreement by bringing a 717 order to the table; United has NO airplanes on the horizon in relation to this trigger.

2. PAY: REDUCE THE DELTA DISPARITY IN 2013. Pay is not the most important aspect of this agreement to me, but the quickest and easiest way to improve the bargain is to reduce or eliminate the disparity in Delta pay on January 1, 2013. Even if we narrowed the gap to 4% beginning in January, that would at least be a token from the Company that would win my vote.

3. RETRO: PUT $120 MILLION OF EQUITY ON THE TABLE. We cannot continue to reward foot-dragging in this industry with 24 to 36 month amendable periods. The total lump sum amount offered by the company is paltry, and it is NOT 100% retro, 91% retro, or anything close to that number, and the MEC knows it. As we discussed, I think that the MEC's failure to provide a retro "snapshot" continues to be disingenuous. There is no reason that the Company could not add $120 million in newly-issued, restricted stock to the combined pilot group, to be vested over the period of the agreement.

All three of these changes can be completed in less than a week, and more likely in one day.

We took a strike vote for a reason: to ensure that management knows that we have the resolve to obtain an INDUSTRY-LEADING agreement. Unless we have lost that resolve, we owe it to ourselves to send this agreement back for the improvements listed above.

I WILL BE VOTING NO."


I agree, and will also vote NO until there is more on the table for our combined pilot group.

jsled

Oh, I am sure those changes can be made overnight. The JNC has only been negotiating for 2.5 years! Vote no so the company can save 1.3M per day while running this operation like US AIR? The TPA is coming in April, we'll need to take a little time to renegotiate that. And with our faithful allies (CALALPA) at the table, I am sure it will be a piece of cake.

sarcastic Sled

PS. BTW, you don't get to line item stuff. It's YES or NO. If NO, then the whole TA is open for fixes. I am sure the company will want a few tweaks as well...perhaps that mistake about the Q400 being in the 76 seat limit?

Captain Bligh

You see gentlemen (and ladies), Sledster is the true embodiment of the shackle around our collective ankles. Obviously intelligent and unemotional in his assessment. He's got many very valid points and refuses to let hyperbole and conjecture colorize his perception of the TA. He's also likely senior enough (with hopes to remain so) to avoid some of the horror show this TA's language will prove to be for some less senior pilot's QOL.

For all those "know-it-all, flow through FOs" I've flown with at CAL for the past couple years, who keep getting more and more vocal about how they'd never allow a contract with such loose language to be ratified...here's how it happens.

JSled has actually READ the document as opposed to regurgitating untrue vile spew and opinion. He takes a good hard look at the offer on the table and decides that the good far outweighs the bad for himself. He assumes he can dodge the worst of the bad. He's also realistically assessed our chances of improving. He's even quantified the cost of attempting to do so @$1.3M/day. He is also new at working for Jeff/Fred.

Mark my words, most of you will all eventually become like him. We will never make a stand against management at this airline going forward because of the costs of doing so.

So... Here's to all of you reserves that get "double pumped" for back to back on calls ending with a red-eye, and you fools who thought you'd deviate and head straight home rather than DH back to base, but got denied by scheduleing. Most of all to you hopeless souls that never in a million years would have bid a reserve position, but find yourself on a training freeze commuting to reserve with a 2.5 hour call out and no control over your life, remember, THIS IS HOW YOU GOT THERE.

Unless I start to hear a preponderance of NOs from the UAL side, I too may just vote yes, because I am becoming more and more like Sled every day. Either send it back 100% forgo the pay and stop lying to yourselves about how quickly Jeff will tender offer #2, or suck it up. That includes the granola bar for crew meals, hotel committee being ignored, the longevity furlough credit screw job, CAL's PBS system (ha ha) and every other vile way this TA could be interpreted and implemented by Hannibal Lecter.

SpecialTracking

Preach on Bligh. I think the UAL side needs an edumacation of how bad it can get.

Free Flyer

Sled,

Let them rework the Q400. Last I checked it wont make the 900 mile limit that is also attached to the RJ limit put in this TA. Reference 1-C-1b which states that 80% of all United Express flights must be under 900 statute miles.

Hard to run a bunch of slow Q400's all over when we get to fly our 737/A320's on those supposed RJ 170 routes that are capable of 900 miles and more!

Free Flyer

Ottolillienthal

Regardless of how old you are, how senior you are, or how junior you are; this is the contract of your career.

If you were furloughed and just came back to work recently, then these words are very very true to you. For, you know changes in scope that allows 900 nautical mile RJ's to capture the lions share of the domestic market may mean you will stay at the bottom for the forseeable future.

If you are super senior and want a big check before retiring that you know you are getting cheated with this so called signing bonus.

If you are a long term stake holder and have a dog in this fight for years to come, then this contract won't really be ammendable for the next 7 to 10 years. That's about how long it takes to negotiate with this management team, regardless of what it says in black and white regarding amendable dates.

This is not Delta plus a dollar. This is now how we collect on a past due loan. This is not what ALPA should be doing to further the profession and advance our issues.

The 76 seat RJ is a job stealer and a profession killer. Just say no! In the next contract management will increase the RJ range from 900 NM to 1200 and then go after the 92 plus seat RJ. They will advance their cause unless they know we mean business. Every 7 to 10 years management will do what it can to lower the cost of labor. That means putting more RJ pilots at the stick with lower wages. Outsourcing our jobs cannot be in the best interest of this profession.

Ottolillienthal

I don't care how long it takes to make the appropriate changes.

This is the contract of my career.

I have over 23 years to go here. I can wait 23 days, 23 weeks, or whatever it takes to do the right thing.

This isn't another one of those "sign it before midnight or the glass slipper is broken" kind of contracts. Remember the emerency liquidity shortfall and bankruptcy possibilities that had us negotiate and sign a concessionary contract in 2 weeks for POS 02? Never again.

This is simply business and thats it. We do business right, or we shouldn't be doing it at all. This is just dollars and sense. So far, this company owes me over 250K in back wages the loans I have given to management. I want what is owed to me, and I want reasonable job protections, and to work in a profession that has honor, dignity, and respect. Forward movement up the career ladder can be both tangible and non tangible, but we need to be monetarilly remunerated for what we have done to keep this airline alive and now profitable.

In 20 years I hope I can be a wide body captain, but that will only happen if the career path keeps getting the profession moving in the right direction. RJ's, more RJ's, bigger RJ's, and RJ's with more range, is akin to a graveyeard spiral for this profession. It's a Grandslam for management as they put more bonus money in their pockets at our expense and continue to fly the same routes with cheaper labor. If you can lower your seat cost per available mile by getting pilots to fly from Chicago to New Orleans on a bigger RJ due to lower wages, then you can just put that money right in your pocket.

Crazy..........RJ's keep getting bigger, and our take home checks (buying power) keep getting smaller. The last 10 years have been pretty sukkey. Look at the Legacy's that have led to this: Lorenzo, Tilton, Ornstein, and now Smizek. It's all about cutting the legs from underneath your pilots. They can't buy fuel smart, so they cut their pilots pay.

Oil refineries for everyone, but that's another topic...

Captain Bligh

Another colorful euphemism that describes this TA just came to mind. With the loss of Agency shop language, the larger pay gap ups, for certain UAL Base Equipment Statuses, gutting of the language and the furloghee's loss of longevity, This TA is a lot like Fleet Qual pay in exchange for seniority destruction and contract abrogation without all the ugliness of Jeff having to try to bust the union during a strike.

Crazy Canuck

Bill Lumberg....Is that you??

floydbird

Here, here, Otto....

Psst, hey, UAL lineholders....you know how you like having a schedule? How you sacrificed higher pay so that you could hold your seat with plenty of seniority so you wouldn't have to sit reserve? Well, have you ever heard of "Inverse Assignment"? Yeah, you're on reserve now too....those days off on your schedule, you didn't really want those, right? This little beauty makes you a system reserve so that you can cover managements manpower problems. Oh, they'll give you some shiny silver to compensate, I'm sure little Bobby and Sue will understand when you can't make it to the play or soccer game---because you didn't really want that day off, and you don't get a choice.

Hey, UAL furloughed pilots....remember how they said longevity for furloughed pilots was a top priority? Boy they really came through on that one....longevity for everyone!!! Hoorayy!! Except for the UAL furloughees who have been furloughed twice. You see, in ALPA-land, being furloughed once is much worse than being furloughed twice, so you two-timers, no furlough longevity for you, that is, until after ISL, and then, although unlikely, maybe you'll get some, but you will be linked to AND restricted by the unrelated CAL pilot that is senior to you. You see, in ALPA-land, being furloughed by CAL is the greatest injustice of all, for they get full and complete, day-for-day longevity restoration for all time spent on furlough...Period. Seems fair, no?

Oh, and scope....remember Whiteford's little side letter that opened the door for UEX Embraers? How it was universally panned by all of us as a screw-job....got him labeled as Whiteferg? Well it turns out in ALPA-land, Whiteferg was just too dang restrictive....our best and brightest agreed that we ought to increase that gross weight allowance, and 70 seats just weren't enough to let management do their handy-work--give 'em 76....and you know there's room for about 90 seats on those bad-boys, so you know whats coming in the next contract, right???....

You know how you liked vacation drops? Say so long to those, too.....here in ALPA-land, 3 reserve days off=4.62 days of vacation....that sweet 2-day trip worth 13 hours? In ALPA-land, that'll cost you 4 days of vacation. That awesome pay raise you'll be getting? Not quite as much as you think since you'll be paying a lot more out of your pocket for your benefits---after you've paid your payroll taxes on your bigger paycheck.

woohoo, sweet deal...I say vote yes.