Vox,



United Daily

Watch: We're ordering new planes!
Posted July 12, 2012

We announced Thursday that we have ordered 150 new Boeing aircraft — 100 Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft and 50 additional Boeing 737-900ER aircraft — for delivery between 2013 and 2022. Watch coverage of the announcement and see reaction from some of our co-workers in a video posted now on the home page Media Gallery.

The 50 additional 737-900ER aircraft will allow us to replace many of our UA subsidiary’s 757-200s, which we fly domestically and which are much less fuel efficient and less operationally reliable than the new aircraft replacing them. The new planes will also enhance our customers’ experience and maximize network opportunities.

"This order is a major step in building the world's leading airline, and we look forward to offering our customers the modern features and reliability of new Boeing airplanes, while also making our fleet more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly," said Jeff. "New aircraft deliveries support our flexible fleet plan, permitting us to tailor future capacity up or down, based on changes in demand or other market conditions.

"These new aircraft, combined with our new widebody aircraft already on order and our existing fuel-efficient aircraft, will solidify our future fleet as one of the most efficient and environmentally responsible fleets among our global competitors," Jeff said.

 

I shot out 4 emails and one UAL-MEC officer called me at home. This person shall remain nameless as they said "I have to work with these guys still", but here are the facts:

The TTA says L-UAL gets the 737 if it's a "replacement" for the 757, but if they delay delivery 6 months it goes to L-CAL. At the moment they have two training plans on the table for a passed TA and a not passed TA so there is no "guarantee" that L-UAL gets those planes.

Throughout the negotiations someone leaked information to management. For reasons of circumstantial evidence it is the opinion of some UAL-MEC officers that CAL-MEC people were the source of the leaks.

CAL-ALPA told the company what their minimum number was for the lump sum without working with UAL-ALPA thereby making the retropay issue twice as difficult.

This officer did not agree with my "doomsday" analysis, but after hearing these additional facts I stand by my original premise. The issue is not getting a better contract from the company, but getting the CAL-MEC under control and stopping them from giving away the farm.

Lastly, the person's argument above basically says not having a contract will cost the company more than having a contract that is richer, and that the union is a "bear" and the company a "bunny". The MEC rep was adamant that this is simpy not true and I agree with him and disagree with the argument presented above. The contract as it stands costs $40 mil to $70 mil a month plus the $400 mil upfront. It is measured by the NMB to be 3% below the cost of Delta's contract in the first year and then more costly in every year after. Meaning the company is signing a deal that will give them the highest pilot labor costs in the industry. I see no reason why the cost of shuffling a few bases and handling some added paper work would stop the company from delaying a "sweetened" offer indefinitely plus why would the NMB EVER say "Oh, you have the highest contract in the world but want more? Sure here you go . . .

It's all about Risk:Reward, and at the moment I see way more Risk than Reward.


Sorry, but looks like I stay a yes vote for now.

 

What did he say about the 1-F-1 min block hour numbers and the 1 for 1 A/C exchange in the T&PA?

 

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret!"

"Gee, I wish we had one of those Doomsday machines."

 

So what if u don't like the outcome of the SLI?.?

Then u have a terrible contract for 5-7 years and and career expectations in the dumps. At least we, as ual and cal pilots can control part of this.

 

Take a look at the UAL Investor website for the SEC filing dated 07/18/12 and on Skynet/Flying Together for "Jeff's Journal" dated 07/12/12.

Both reference the order for 150 737s UCH placed in July 2012 (not to be confused with S-CAL's previous 737 orders) and both documents specifically mention the 737-900ERs in this order will begin arriving in August 2013 specifically at the United subsidiary as direct replacements for the planned 757-200 retirements.

 

Uh-huh. Sure you will. All talk, no walk.

 

"This site is set up to fund a pending legal action against CAL/UAL ALPA (and possibly UAL Corp. & ALPA National) on behalf of United Airlines furloughees who are set up to be unfairly treated in the UAL/CAL merger SLI process-- specifically in regards to the current TA and LOA 25 therein. Funds will go to the law firm of Green Jacobson PC, St. Louis, MO with applicable fees taken from this website to provide hosting and funding services."

https://www.wepay.com/donations/1438698181

 

So which is it? You started this thread by stating that it's not a good contract but you're willing to vote for it to fight the evil CAL MEC. Now, suddenly, it's good enough to vote for.

Neither you nor the CAL MEC has any control over the SLI. Seperate issues. Vote for TURD12 and you may end up with both an intolerable contract as well as an insufferable integration. There is no Eastern scenario;

February, 2012 Transition and Process Extension Agreement:

• 1. Section 13 (A) of the TPA shall be modified to read as follows:
  
  Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough with regard to S- UA Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or after March 31, 2013, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date.

But if you really need an excuse to vote yes, I'm sure you'll be able to create another one...

 

Council 34, SFO

TPA Protections No Longer Expire

Now that the MEC has reached a tentative agreement with the company, the protections in the Transition & Process Agreement (TPA) no longer have an expiration date. We are now free to vote on the merits of the tentative agreement without having to fear that if the TA is voted down the company will shrink the UAL side. They are prevented from doing this by these protections.

Here's the language from the February, 2012 Transition and Process Extension Agreement:

1. Section 13 (A) of the TPA shall be modified to read as follows:

Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough with regard to S- UA Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or after March 31, 2013, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date. Should the Company elect to terminate TPA Section 4- D pursuant to this paragraph, Paragraph 4 of this Extension Agreement shall also be terminated, effective on the same date that TPA Section 4-D is terminated.
The parties HAVE reached a tentative agreement, thus these provisions no longer expire.

If there is any disagreement, it would have to go to arbitration per Section 12 of the TPA, but the language is very clear and straightforward. It would be very difficult for the company to make a case that the intent of this paragraph, to provide incentive for the MECs to reach a tentative agreement, has not been achieved.

As to the argument that if the tentative agreement is not ratified, we no longer have a tentative agreement, that is not correct either. All that can be said is that the parties successfully achieved a tentative agreement prior to March 31, 2013, but it was not ratified. Going forward, the tentative agreement would require modification in order to be ratified by a majority of the combined CAL and UAL pilots.

In short, the three TPA protections will not expire and thus the concerns of some pilots are unwarranted.

Will the NMB Punish Us If We Vote No?

The other fear being widely promulgated is that the NMB will “park” us for a period of time if the tentative agreement is not ratified. This supposition is without merit. The NMB is the government agency charged with overseeing the Railway Labor Act, of which one of its primary purposes is “to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”

It’s quite likely that the NMB would give the impression that they might consider “parking” our negotiations, because that’s how they operate. Uncertainty is one of the most powerful tools they have at their disposal. In reality the NMB would make it a high priority to mediate contract talks between the largest airline company in the world and its pilots, and, if the TA were to be voted down, NMB member Linda Puchala told both MECs she would need to know immediately the reasons why. This clearly indicates resolving our JCBA is a priority. As the government agency charged with mediating transportation labor issues, the NMB has a vested interest in demonstrating its efficacy and credibility—a strong reason for them to stay closely engaged.

Those who hold up AMR or US Airways as examples of the NMB “punishing” parties are wrong in thinking that our situation is analogous. In AMR’s case, the APA held fast on 1992 wages + inflation, and the NMB considered this to be unreasonable. But after two years of close supervision of our negotiations, the NMB knows the parties very well, and knows that we have not been unreasonable at any point. And the US Airways situation has nothing to do with the NMB. It was brought on by the de-certification of ALPA followed by the DFR lawsuits over the integration of the seniority lists.

UAL Management Needs A Ratified Contract

Smisek needs a ratified contract as soon as possible for numerous reasons:
As the UAL 757s are replaced by 737-900s, per the TPA those aircraft have to be flown by UAL pilots, not CAL pilots, and they must be trained by UAL pilots as well. TK has not even begun to gear up for this training.

UAL has been unable to fill vacancy bids on 767s and A320s and is falling well behind in the training and instructor staffing that will be required if the T/A fails to be ratified according to managers at TK. The T/A’s negative manpower impact would easily resolve the looming manpower shortfall.

If the T/A fails to be ratified, UAL will have to hire pilots, including offering UAL furloughees who are flying at CAL the opportunity to move back to UAL, causing a “triple-training” requirement to fill the vacated CAL pilot seat.

If the T/A fails to be ratified, management will be faced yet again with the CAL pilot group not being included in the 2012 profit-sharing plan. This is a significant PR problem for the company.

The requirement to run two separate operations is preventing the company from going forward with the streamlining necessary to achieve the benefits of the merger. At the moment there are all sorts of IT projects on hold.

The domicile protections of the TPA prevent the company from opening new pilot bases, such as a 737 or 787 base in some of the biggest domiciles: ORD, IAD, or SFO.

UAL’s revenues and earnings continue to fall well short of expectations, and lag far behind Delta Airlines, in large part because Smisek has failed to live up to his promise to complete the merger in an expeditious manner. UAL stock is closely held by institutional investors who want a return on their investment and it is obvious, despite benefiting from the world’s best airline network, that the Shares and IT debacles were both caused by gross mismanagement and have cost these investors significant current and future returns.

On the 2012 Q3 earnings call Jamie Baker, an analyst with JP Morgan (UAL’s banker), was outspoken in his frustration with UCH management’s poor performance and lack of transparency regarding, among other things, the pilot contract. One of the few things management had to brag about on the call was the pilot T/A. UCH CFO John Rainey stated how important a pilot agreement was for resolving the other employee groups’ JCBAs and Smisek characterized the T/A as “competitive.”
What Happens if the TA Fails to be Ratified?

There is a lot of pressure to get this deal wrapped up. Most likely the NMB would step in quickly, but even if they did not, the company’s negotiators and the ALPA negotiators would get together in short order to make the TA more palatable, and we would have time and leverage to fix some of the biggest flaws in the TA. The idea that the company would ask for more concessions is just silly, because that would make ratification of a revised TA even less likely. We are on the one yard line, and it’s third down. Let’s not kick a field goal.

Cast your vote based on the merits of the TA, not out of fear.

Fraternally,

Council 34, SFO