Originally Posted by APC225

"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

Originally Posted by APC225

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

Originally Posted by Flyguppy

You seem to be representing this came from the ALPA UAL LEC 34 reps.

Did it? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald

I am a member of SFO Council 34 and read all the ALPA E-mails. This is a false representation, I can imagine why.

Some Council 34 members have been very active and vocal in their oposition of the TA. I recieved the gist of this letter in a direct E-mail with another person's signature. I'm guessing that someone attempted to post this as a misrepresentaion by removing the name at the bottom, as he had orriginally signed it a member of Council 34. This is not a letter from our LEC.

Whom ever posted this has posted false information.

Originally Posted by APC225

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.

Originally Posted by Flyguppy

I believe it was written by a Council 34 member.

I have yet to see a ALPA letter regarding this.