boxer6

...and do what's right?

So, after reading the associated thread on the special carve out to deny longevity credit for the group at UAL hired from 1999 to 2001 it seems pretty clear how unethical that move was.

I'm sure the CAL furloughees from post 911 are glad to gain longevity when it was specifically denied them in their current contract but how does that make you feel to gain that at the expense of your soon to be brother/sister. Are you OK with that? If this is now the new paradigm remember, it's only a matter of time when the poo sandwich will be on your plate. Be careful of what you are willing to accept as acceptable behavior.

Maybe I'm a dreamer but wouldn't it be nice for the CAL folks to join their brothers and sisters at UAL and say to Jay pierce and their MEC, NO... this is unacceptable and egregious behavior and even though this MAY help us on SLI we are not willing to live, for the rest of our careers, with HOW we played the game. Lets try to advantage ourselves in SLI but let's do it on honest terms and follow an ethical path to the arbitrators table.

I'm sure every CAL pilot is saying to themselves, wow..thats pretty s..ty what happened there. Are you going to say, gee I'm glad that's not me or actually stand up for your brother.

We shall see.

IAHB756

I don't think the CAL pilots are who you need to worry about. The rest of this contract will get the NO vote. It is your own UAL voters to be worried about. My very unscientific poll of forums and Facebook groups supports my statement above.

reCALcitrant

Agree with both of you.

WarEagle28

I agree with IAHB756...it's not the CAL guys you have to worry about. UAL MEC voted 12-3 to send it to the pilots...CAL MEC 7-4. I'm a NO vote for many reasons to include full longevity for all furloughees. When they truly fix the Scope, Pay, Retro and furlough credit, I'll vote accordingly...until then...NO WAY!

Airhoss

J.P. Held the entire process hostage over this issue and it's why we are dealing with it now. Not a slam on L-CAL guys but you guys need to have a serious conversation with Mr Peirce about this...

As far as retro and pay is just me or does everybody else see that the first year wages are what they are so that it looks like we are getting a retro check?

the difference between the first and second year is about 400 M. So the company is financing the "retro" money from the lower first year wages. I.E. it balances out and costs them nothing. There is NO RETRO in this TA. It's fuzzy math and I've seen better switch and bait offers at my local used car dealer..

unitedflyier

As a twice furloughed United pilot and still out I don't get to vote.

I have been waiting like many others to see what the contract looks like and to see if ALPA has changed it attitude towards us. Shame it seems not. There isn't much to entice me back.

I hope you all vote it down, and vote again to strike and send a strong message to the company and ALPA.

boxer6

I am quite sure there are plenty of reasons to vote no. Including the fact that Bethune came into the crew room and announced that money was left on the table (profit sharing?) when the yes vote was made in C2002. Nobody wants to be made the chump twice.

This is a seperate issue in that the back room deal that was made and perpetrated by BOTH sides is so low and unethical that it needs to be conveyed to both MECs, and their chairmen, that this is something not be tolerated and needs to be rectified immediately, regardless of what perceived benefit that was the initial motivator.

As we try to improve this profession does anyone think this is a good example of why a pilot group should join ALPA? Their own brothers did this with the approval of National. I'm sure the Skywest pilots (or any group) will look at this and for vote ALPA in when the next drive comes around.

God, we're our own worst enemies. Really.

intrepidcv11

Gordon wasn't around for Contract '02.

stknrdr

This is one of the most important emails I have ever sent. Please read carefully.

From TA LOA 25 Merger Transition Issues:

4. Pay Longevity Credit for Furloughees
Upon date of signing, any pilot who is, or previously was, furloughed and whose accrued
pay longevity is less than that of pilots hired on or before 5/6/08 shall receive additional
pay longevity credit for time spent on furlough, but only to the extent that such credit
does not provide a pay longevity date prior to 5/7/08.

What's going on here? 5/6/08 is the Date of Hire of the JUNIOR CAL pilot. He, and every other CAL pilot that's ever been furloughed at CAL will get full FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT (FLC). How many current UAL furloughees get this credit? Answer: ONLY THOSE JUNIOR TO THE JUNIOR CAL PILOT. Think about that. All the UAL furloughees senior to the junior CAL pilot get what? They get ZERO furlough longevity credit EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT UAL CONTRACT HAS A SIDE LETTER THAT PROVIDES FULL FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT. BY VOTING FOR THIS CONTRACT WE ARE AGREEING TO MORE THAN VOIDING THIS SIDE LETTER.

This is a horrific financial loss to all but a few UAL furloughees. BUT THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN THE MONEY.

Read the rest of the paragraph:

When an Integrated Seniority List is presented to the Company that satisfies the terms of Section 5 of the Transition and Process Agreement (“TPA”), pilots who are or previously were furloughed shall receive
additional pay longevity credit for all time spent on furlough (read: "furlough longevity repair") provided that they have additional time on furlough which was not credited for pay longevity purposes upon date
of signing, and provided further that the application of such additional credit does not result in any s-United pilot having a pay longevity date that is earlier than the pay longevity date of the next most senior s-Continental pilot.

This "furlough longevity repair" will be limited to the results of the Integrated Seniority List (ISL), and MAY NOT APPLY IF STAPLED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST OR IF PLACED IN A POSITION SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN DATE OF HIRE. THERE'S NO VALUE HERE.

SO WHY DID THIS PARAGRAPH GET WRITTEN?

ANSWER: BECAUSE DENYING S-UAL FULL FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT WEAKENS THEIR UAL PILOT POSITION ON THE INTEGRATED SENIORITY LIST. AND IF IT WEAKENS OUR FULOUGHEES, WHY WOULD IT NOT DO THE SAME FOR THE REST OF THE S-UAL PILOTS, ESPECIALLY IF IT GOES TO ARBITRATION? METHODOLOGIES THAT WORK AGAINST ONE PART OF THE LIST GIVE AMAZING POWER TO AN ARBITRATOR.

IN SO DOING, WE HAVE CREATED A TWO-TIERED PILOT GROUP: CAL FURLOUGHEES WHO WIN AND GET 100% FLC, UAL FURLOUGHEES GET ZERO EXCEPT FOR A FEW OF THE MOST JUNIOR. HOW MUCH WILL THIS BE WORTH IN DOLLARS? BUT IT DOESN'T END THERE.

THE REAL DIVISION THAT WILL LAST A LIFETIME AND CREATE DECENSION IN THE COCKPIT FOREVER WILL OCCUR WHEN IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT S-UAL FURLOUGHEES GOT SCREWED IN THE FINAL ISP BECAUSE THE S-UAL MEC GAVE THE S-CAL MEC THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSIST THAT LONGEVITY WAS PART OF THE EQUATION. HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER FROM THAT? SENIORITY IS FOREVER. SO IS BETRAYAL AND HATRED OF YOUR FELLOW PILOTS WHO VOTED FOR AN AGREEMENT THAT DID THIS TO THEM.

WE STOOD SOLID AGAINST THE 1985 B-SCALE. THOSE THAT DIDN'T ARE CALLED SCABS TO THIS DAY.

Gus Arscott, Member, UAL-MEC (1991-93, 1998-2002) .
B-400 Captain Member Negotiating Committee (1993-1998)
ALPA # 55-4444 Chairman, MEC Membership Committee (1985-1991)

IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE FORWARD TO AS MANY S-UAL AND S-CAL PILOTS THAT YOU KNOW.

reCALcitrant

He retired in 2004.