Cal mec jcba ta pro statement
11-21-2012, 06:39 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by horrido27
Maybe you'd like to answer why we have an A380 payrate that is almost $100 more than the 74's?!
Not to mention, our 74 payscale is $20 less than Delta.
Industry Leading...
NOT
Motch
Because the A380 weight difference makes ALPA policy justify the payrate and the 74 rate at Delta in August was not what we know it to be today, but then I suppose if you had been the negotiator at the table you would have known that Delta was about to renegotiate a new payrate for the 74 so you would have gotten the company and the NMB to agree to some number not yet in existence 'cuz you're a negotiating guru.
NOT.
Joe
11-21-2012, 06:40 PM
#12
I'd rather be hunting
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: B737 Captain
Posts: 91
From the MEC proTA statement
"Finally, the Retained Management Rights clause in our current and past contracts' Scope sections has been removed from the entire contract. This clause has been cited by management in various arguments and System Boards."
Several years ago I asked one of our CALAPLA lawyers to explain why we had this in our contract. The answer I was given was that “the court” assumes that the company has this right anyway. I then asked, “If so then why does it need to be in the contract? “ I did not get an answer to that question. Two intersting facts 1) this is gone from this TA and 2) That CALAPA lawyer is still with us.
One of the several problems I have with this contract is the way it is written. I want a CBA that does not need an attorney to interpret it.
IMO The only fact I know for sure is we have spent a lot of money and time for something that is not the best we can get.
I am still voting NO.
"Finally, the Retained Management Rights clause in our current and past contracts' Scope sections has been removed from the entire contract. This clause has been cited by management in various arguments and System Boards."
Several years ago I asked one of our CALAPLA lawyers to explain why we had this in our contract. The answer I was given was that “the court” assumes that the company has this right anyway. I then asked, “If so then why does it need to be in the contract? “ I did not get an answer to that question. Two intersting facts 1) this is gone from this TA and 2) That CALAPA lawyer is still with us.
One of the several problems I have with this contract is the way it is written. I want a CBA that does not need an attorney to interpret it.
IMO The only fact I know for sure is we have spent a lot of money and time for something that is not the best we can get.
I am still voting NO.
11-21-2012, 07:49 PM
#13
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Originally Posted by horrido27
Not sure how to post the link to the DAL Pilot Help Thread.. but asked and answered if their PWA will allow 2 man, unaugmented 9 hour Flight time trips. No at Delta, yes at United under this TA.
Good Job.
NO
Motch
Good Job.
NO
Motch
Copy the URL from your browser's URL bar and paste into your reply/post.
Regarding the flight time rules, the UA TA is FAR 117 compliant, the DAL PWA may not be in some areas (rumor alert). I'm not an expert on the DAL contract but I'd like to hear more about it from someone who is regarding FAR 117. FAR 117 goes into effect Q3 2013, however should the UA TA pass my understanding is that UA will be operating in compliance with the new rules as of date of signing.
My experience with 2 leg, 9+ hour flight time days was on the DC-10 flying Hawaii turns out of SFO. Having the FE onboard made it legal for 2 pilots to fly over 8 hours, and those are actually still the existing rules. In hindsight as long as you could plan the rest prior to the one day Hawaii turns weren't bad. In fact, one day trips off the west coast were the last time I had 21-22 day-off lines.
Under FAR 117 the ability to fly Transcon turns, or something like JFK-SFO-ORD (unaugmented), becomes possible. Every pilot needs to determine their fitness to fly and to operate a flight based on all factors. However, given the option and adequate safety margins I'll take the more efficient schedule any day.
Sorry for going off topic, I guess this more of a FAR 117 discussion.
Last edited by HSLD; 11-22-2012 at 12:30 AM.
11-22-2012, 03:48 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by horrido27
Not sure how to post the link to the DAL Pilot Help Thread.. but asked and answered if their PWA will allow 2 man, unaugmented 9 hour Flight time trips. No at Delta, yes at United under this TA.
Good Job.
NO
Motch
Good Job.
NO
Motch
Think about that statement. European flights plus 8 hours will still need IRO's. The only place you will see something like this will more than likely be domestic. Keep in mind that the new FAR's take the flexability out of flight hours. The "legal to start, legal to finish" no longer exists. Therefore, the company would be crazy to schedule anything close to 9 hours. If there was even the slightest hiccup that could bring the flight hours to greater than nine before the last leg departs, then the company would need to recrew or cancel the flight.
This is a non-issue.
11-22-2012, 05:02 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 215
[QUOTE=CAL EWR;1296988]Today is Wednesday, November 21, 2012 and there is one item for your review.
Item One: Tentative Agreement Pro Statement
The following is a reprint of the Tentative Agreement Pro Statement published earlier today by the majority of the CAL MEC Status Representatives who voted in favor of sending the TA to the pilots for your review:
PRO Statement
Scope
While we may have deprived the company from outsourced 76 seat jets in the past, that deprivation never rewarded our pilots with the ability to fly them, nor did it afford the company an additional means necessary to generate the revenue we required of them for our increased salary and benefit demands. Industry conditions, competitors and the NMB made it more or less inevitable that scope would have to be modified, if we were to make necessary economic progress in the JCBA.
Knowing our pilots' distaste for UAX 76 seat jets, we secured industry leading provisions related to this change, that would ensure United pilot jobs would be protected.
...
No one else can tell you how to vote. It is up to each individual Member In Good Standing to decide, after careful review and consideration of all available information, whether or not the Tentative Agreement is acceptable to you and your family.
Fraternally,
Capt. Jayson Baron, Council 170 Chairman
F/O Tara Cook, Council 170 Vice Chairman
F/O John Person, Council 172 Chairman
Capt. Scott Cornelison, Council 172 Vice Chairman
Capt. Bruce Bishop, Council 173 Chairman
F/O David Gourley, Council 173 Vice Chairman
Capt. Tom Howard, Council 178 Chairman
End Quote
What a crock of crap! It's not industry lerading scope! It permits the Company to fly 90 seaters configured to 76 seats.
This one too is a crock! "nor did it afford the company an additional means necessary to generate the revenue we required of them for our increased salary and benefit demands."
Why not just let everyone do our flying and get $1 for each block hour put into the UAL/CAL pilots retirement plan. This is the same line the company uses as to why they want the RJ's outsourced! Disgusting!
Item One: Tentative Agreement Pro Statement
The following is a reprint of the Tentative Agreement Pro Statement published earlier today by the majority of the CAL MEC Status Representatives who voted in favor of sending the TA to the pilots for your review:
PRO Statement
Scope
While we may have deprived the company from outsourced 76 seat jets in the past, that deprivation never rewarded our pilots with the ability to fly them, nor did it afford the company an additional means necessary to generate the revenue we required of them for our increased salary and benefit demands. Industry conditions, competitors and the NMB made it more or less inevitable that scope would have to be modified, if we were to make necessary economic progress in the JCBA.
Knowing our pilots' distaste for UAX 76 seat jets, we secured industry leading provisions related to this change, that would ensure United pilot jobs would be protected.
...
No one else can tell you how to vote. It is up to each individual Member In Good Standing to decide, after careful review and consideration of all available information, whether or not the Tentative Agreement is acceptable to you and your family.
Fraternally,
Capt. Jayson Baron, Council 170 Chairman
F/O Tara Cook, Council 170 Vice Chairman
F/O John Person, Council 172 Chairman
Capt. Scott Cornelison, Council 172 Vice Chairman
Capt. Bruce Bishop, Council 173 Chairman
F/O David Gourley, Council 173 Vice Chairman
Capt. Tom Howard, Council 178 Chairman
End Quote
What a crock of crap! It's not industry lerading scope! It permits the Company to fly 90 seaters configured to 76 seats.
This one too is a crock! "nor did it afford the company an additional means necessary to generate the revenue we required of them for our increased salary and benefit demands."
Why not just let everyone do our flying and get $1 for each block hour put into the UAL/CAL pilots retirement plan. This is the same line the company uses as to why they want the RJ's outsourced! Disgusting!
11-22-2012, 05:19 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by horrido27
Not sure how to post the link to the DAL Pilot Help Thread.. but asked and answered if their PWA will allow 2 man, unaugmented 9 hour Flight time trips. No at Delta, yes at United under this TA.
Good Job.
NO
Motch
Good Job.
NO
Motch
So, domestic turns? yes. 1 stop HI to mainline? perhaps. Unaugmented non-stop flights across the Atlantic? NO - not unless they are under 8 hours.
11-22-2012, 06:58 AM
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
^ I have NEVER stated it would be done for International (Global) flights.
The scenario I see is what HSLD pointed out.
CALFO , you state this is "a non issue".
Our job (and the Union's too..) is too see if there are scenarios that hurt us.
A crew is scheduled to fly EWR-LAX, sit for 1:30 and then do LAX-PHX. Flight time 8:30. Sit in LA about 1:30 (there are things that also happen with regards to crew meals at the 1:30 mark).
If this gets delayed.. the crew is still legal for a while. But if not, due to some sort of weather issue.. say "SWAP" is in effect.. certain rules get thrown out!
The crew could get re-assigned.. (as I see) and that could effect their end time and also their "pay".
Not to mention, 9 hour un augmented is manpower negative.
Motch
The scenario I see is what HSLD pointed out.
CALFO , you state this is "a non issue".
Our job (and the Union's too..) is too see if there are scenarios that hurt us.
A crew is scheduled to fly EWR-LAX, sit for 1:30 and then do LAX-PHX. Flight time 8:30. Sit in LA about 1:30 (there are things that also happen with regards to crew meals at the 1:30 mark).
If this gets delayed.. the crew is still legal for a while. But if not, due to some sort of weather issue.. say "SWAP" is in effect.. certain rules get thrown out!
The crew could get re-assigned.. (as I see) and that could effect their end time and also their "pay".
Not to mention, 9 hour un augmented is manpower negative.
Motch
11-22-2012, 07:08 AM
#18
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Originally Posted by HSLD
Copy the URL from your browser's URL bar and paste into your reply/post.
Regarding the flight time rules, the UA TA is FAR 117 compliant, the DAL PWA may not be in some areas (rumor alert). I'm not an expert on the DAL contract but I'd like to hear more about it from someone who is regarding FAR 117. FAR 117 goes into effect Q3 2013, however should the UA TA pass my understanding is that UA will be operating in compliance with the new rules as of date of signing.
My experience with 2 leg, 9+ hour flight time days was on the DC-10 flying Hawaii turns out of SFO. Having the FE onboard made it legal for 2 pilots to fly over 8 hours, and those are actually still the existing rules. In hindsight as long as you could plan the rest prior to the one day Hawaii turns weren't bad. In fact, one day trips off the west coast were the last time I had 21-22 day-off lines.
Under FAR 117 the ability to fly Transcon turns, or something like JFK-SFO-ORD (unaugmented), becomes possible. Every pilot needs to determine their fitness to fly and to operate a flight based on all factors. However, given the option and adequate safety margins I'll take the more efficient schedule any day.
Sorry for going off topic, I guess this more of a FAR 117 discussion.
Regarding the flight time rules, the UA TA is FAR 117 compliant, the DAL PWA may not be in some areas (rumor alert). I'm not an expert on the DAL contract but I'd like to hear more about it from someone who is regarding FAR 117. FAR 117 goes into effect Q3 2013, however should the UA TA pass my understanding is that UA will be operating in compliance with the new rules as of date of signing.
My experience with 2 leg, 9+ hour flight time days was on the DC-10 flying Hawaii turns out of SFO. Having the FE onboard made it legal for 2 pilots to fly over 8 hours, and those are actually still the existing rules. In hindsight as long as you could plan the rest prior to the one day Hawaii turns weren't bad. In fact, one day trips off the west coast were the last time I had 21-22 day-off lines.
Under FAR 117 the ability to fly Transcon turns, or something like JFK-SFO-ORD (unaugmented), becomes possible. Every pilot needs to determine their fitness to fly and to operate a flight based on all factors. However, given the option and adequate safety margins I'll take the more efficient schedule any day.
Sorry for going off topic, I guess this more of a FAR 117 discussion.
I've posted this question to the Delta Pilot group and what I've learned is what you posted.
So, basically.. As of Dec 2013, UAL will be allowed to do this. Delta will not. If DAL wants to, they will have to agree to an LOA.
On the UAL Side.. there are certain items of the TA that don't even come into play until the 9th bid month. The company has been pretty smart in the way they plan to implement this TA.
For Summer of 2013, they will still be allowed to build 12 day off lines paying 90 hours but scheduled to 75 hours.
Now as the 5 hr credit per day for biding starts, we're in the slow period. Fast forward a few months and as we start getting alittle busier.. we allow for 9 hr 2 man crew.
We are giving the company a semi blank check.
Just my opinion based on what I read in the TA and the (few) answered I've gotten from my union.
Motch
PS> I agree, the idea of 2 man flying 9 hrs is (in itself) not the worst thing in the world.. but you mentioned an FE onboard. While it was legally a 2 pilot operation, you had a third crewmember on board. So I (imagine) there may have been times that someone "napped".
11-22-2012, 07:36 AM
#19
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
[QUOTE=horrido27;1297122]Um.. lets see. We (CAL) have 21 -300's yet 41 -200's. Those -200's do some serious Atlantic flying and from a Continental Pilot standpoint, will (probably) be around longer than the -300's. Good call getting the -200's in a lower category than at Delta.
[Delta has the 757-2 banded with the 767-2, -3 and -3er.
Maybe you'd like to answer why we have an A380 payrate that is almost $100 more than the 74's?!
Not to mention, our 74 payscale is $20 less than Delta.
Industry Leading...
NOT
True - but the current plan at DAL is to replace a lot of those 757s with 737-900s which pay less. Overall this TA seems very close to what we have at DAL, a few things are a little better and a few things are not as good.
As a DAL guy my question is why not full longevity for furloughees? NWA guys did not have this prior to the merger and they were all brought up to 100% longevity. I have seen comments that longevity would be increased in the future - will this bring all furloughees up to 100%?
Scoop
[Delta has the 757-2 banded with the 767-2, -3 and -3er.
Maybe you'd like to answer why we have an A380 payrate that is almost $100 more than the 74's?!
Not to mention, our 74 payscale is $20 less than Delta.
Industry Leading...
NOT
True - but the current plan at DAL is to replace a lot of those 757s with 737-900s which pay less. Overall this TA seems very close to what we have at DAL, a few things are a little better and a few things are not as good.
As a DAL guy my question is why not full longevity for furloughees? NWA guys did not have this prior to the merger and they were all brought up to 100% longevity. I have seen comments that longevity would be increased in the future - will this bring all furloughees up to 100%?
Scoop
11-22-2012, 07:52 AM
#20
SLI best wishes!
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
The TA achieved some important CAL MEC strategic goals in Pay Banding: maintaining the 767-400 and 787 banded with the 777 and 747-400. We also finally placed the 757-300 into a higher band than the 757-200, alongside the legacy United 767-300.
I am a NO voter and I will take my chances that the arbitrators will see right through this...SLI is and should remain separate from the JCBA negotiations, it is shameful that some have chosen to pollute the process. Happy Turkey day everyone!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
