It's not a buffet
 

It's not a buffet. We can't just eat our fill and then go back through the line and fill our plate up with some more good stuff we like.




Notice that it's signed by both MEC's






https://crewroom.alpa.org/UAL/ImageView.aspx?id=7887

November 30, 2012

Dear Fellow Pilots,

There has been much discussion about the consequence of voting “No” on the Tentative Agreement. Debate on this and other subjects is healthy and expected. But that debate should be based on facts, experience and informed opinion -- and not on conjecture or misstatements.

That’s why a Council communication that went out last Tuesday caught our eye. It suggested that US Airways flight attendants -- who have now rejected their second Tentative Agreement -- have bettered themselves with these “no” votes. Unfortunately, and as discussed below, the NMB has recessed this mediation and isn’t scheduling more meetings; management will not meet with them outside mediation; and they’re now still working under a bankruptcy contract.

The Council communication also asserted that, if ratification failed, the NMB would “immediately” restart the mediation process. All MEC members had several opportunities to hear directly from the NMB and ask the Board members questions. There was never any information presented that allows that conclusion. ALPA’s Representation Department and outside experts we’ve consulted have set out a more realistic understanding of the process followed by the NMB in the event of contract rejection.

In the event of a failed TA the Board generally recesses the mediation case in order to get more information about the reasons for its failure. Normally ALPA would survey the pilot group and leadership to determine the areas that need improvement in the failed TA. Then the JNC would receive direction from the MECs. Next, the NMB would be contacted and a status conference scheduled with the NMB. The JNC would meet with the NMB, review the case, and request the immediate resumption of mediation. Based on previous steps, this meeting would typically occur about 2-3 months from rejection of the TA. The Board would then contact UAL management to obtain its views. Afterwards, the Board and the mediators assigned to the case would determine when to schedule the resumption of mediation, and thereafter, future dates for mediation, if appropriate. It is typical for a revised TA to take more than six months to achieve.


Additional Information Provided by ALPA’s Representation Department
At our request, ALPA’s Representation Department provided other observations about its experience following contract rejection along with historical support for those observations.

► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and talks do not typically ramp up to intensive levels, if at all, until a few months later.

► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and is often influenced by the economic environment and the Company’s financial performance in the period after the failed TA. The Company is now also able to revisit any areas they wish to negotiate.

► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and more favorable than they actually are. It’s usually impossible to assess the net/net impact, or true Company cost, when costing information isn’t available and delays are factored in. Typically, savings from delayed pay increases, benefit improvements and work rule enhancements are used to offset the cost of the revised deal when it includes better terms and conditions.

► The return to negotiations/mediation following a failed TA is not immediate and They know that deals will rarely, if ever, be approved in the future and employees will always believe there is a better deal if they vote “no” the first time. As a result, it’s much more common for money to be moved around in the revised package than it is for money to be added to the package.

Here’s some more detail that may help explain the above observations:

Resumption of Negotiations/Mediation is Not Immediate
It’s very hard for the NMB to re-commence mediation until it has a clear understanding of the issues that caused a TA to be voted down. The Board knows that a Company isn’t going to simply make improvements in every important contract area. The Association surveys or polls to understand member views objectively in order to brief the NMB intelligently about the problem areas. That process takes some period of time. Once data is in hand, the two MECs will have to discuss and direct the JNC. These discussions and decisions sometimes take time as well. With MEC direction, the JNC meets with the NMB, which then seeks the Company’s views and willingness to meet. Internally the NMB decides on the best way to handle the case and decisions about meeting location and schedules are made. It’s customary for serious meetings to get underway months -- not weeks -- later based on the above-mentioned intermediate steps. It is typical for a revised TA to take 6 months or longer to achieve.

Results Following a Failed TA Are Often Problematic
It’s very difficult to make broad generalizations about the results of contracts negotiated after a failed TA -- both because situations are different and because, without detailed costing and valuation information, it’s impossible to accurately assess the changes. Here are a few recent examples:

(a)AirTran (Section 6) -- ATN pilots, under their independent National Pilots Association (NPA), began bargaining for a new CBA in the 2004 time frame. After approximately 3 years of virtually no progress, they entered into services agreement with ALPA for E&FA help and professional negotiator assistance. In the 2008 time frame, and with assistance from ALPA and the NMB, they reached a TA that was not ratified by members. The NMB recessed the case for the better part of a year before resuming mediation in early 2009. The NPA merged with ALPA in May 2009. In the fall of 2010 we reached a new TA that was ratified by members.

(b)Southwest (Section 6) -- After almost 3 years of negotiations, SWAPA completed a new collective bargaining agreement in the Spring of 2009 that was rejected by members because of inadequate international code-share language and unfavorable scheduling rules. A revised TA was reached and ratified in the Fall of 2009. The revised TA modestly improved international code-share and scheduling rules but pay components were reduced.

(c) AirTran/Southwest -- This was a package of 2011 agreements that included SLI issues and provisions related to transition to SWA rates and benefits. As to pay, a deal was first negotiated that brought all ATN pilots to SWA rates very quickly and provided certain protections for ATN flying. The MEC did not approve the deal based on their SLI-related concerns and refused to send it out to pilots. The second deal made very modest improvements to the SLI, but ATN pilots also move much more slowly to SWA rates and benefits over a period that extends until 2015. After the MEC rejected the first TA, the Company spent more time evaluating its earlier offer and concluded it had offered and agreed to a package that was too expensive.

(d) Pinnacle -- Prior to the Mesaba/Colgan transaction, Pinnacle pilots negotiated for more than 4 years before reaching their stand alone TA. The agreement provided substantial pay, work rule, scope and benefit improvements but was turned down by members. The NMB recessed the case for many months before calling the parties in for a status conference. There were informal meetings between Company and pilot representatives for a few more months seeking to narrow the open issues. Once open issues were narrowed, the NMB reconvened talks. But that new agreement was reached more than a year later during JCBA negotiations with Mesaba and Colgan.

US Airways Flight Attendants
Unfortunately, and contrary to the Council communication referred to above, the US Airways flight attendant contract rejection does not stand for the proposition that “good things come to those who wait.”

The NMB has now helped the parties achieve two TAs -- both of which failed to ratify -- over the course of the last 18 months. Each looked a little better on its face than the previous deal. Essentially, economic features were shuffled to move money into areas that were more important to AFA leadership. The Company used the delays to add some money to the contract but, it’s reported, without changing the net cost to the Company when they got the benefit of the delay.

The NMB has now recessed the case and is not scheduling meetings.

The AFA US Airways website, has the following:
“The airline’s flight attendants haven’t had a unified contract since US Airways and America West merged in 2005. The two groups still fly separately, under separate contracts, with different work rules and pay rates. US Airways’ pilots are in the same situation.”

November 1, 2012 AFA Update:
We have been advised by the Company that they do not intend to develop a proposal for a revised tentative agreement. The Company has indicated they are only willing to meet if directed by the NMB and are not willing to engage in negotiations outside of that process. Additionally, Doug Parker indicated at Crew News that the Company has no plans to put more money into the Flight Attendant Agreement.

United pilots are urged to come to Town Hall meetings where you can ask your questions about these subjects and hear directly from JNC members, pilot subject matter experts and professional negotiators and advisors.

In Unity,

https://crewroom.alpa.org/UAL/ImageView.aspx?id=7978

Captain Jay Heppner
Chairman, United MEC
https://crewroom.alpa.org/UAL/ImageView.aspx?id=7979
Captain Jay Pierce
Chairman, Continental MEC

I was pleased to see this was signed by both Jays, and I'm STILL trying to figure out why the SEA rep chose this particular argument to make his point. It's a CASE STUDY in why the premise that you should "never take the first offer" is fatally flawed. In my opinion, he shot any credibility he had by using this example as a reason to vote "No"

Well, that and this is far from the first offer.

The first offer was years ago. If I remember correctly, it was along the lines of Delta +$1 (their OLD pay rates), CAL work rules, and UAL's pathetic scope. We are many, many iterations later. This is just the first one where we get a direct voice.

I like this letter better, from sUA pilot Jerry Leber.
How did we get here? How to proceed?

Our contracts’ amendable dates were 12/31/08 for LCAL pilots and 12/31/09 for LUAL pilots. By our account the company’s delay tactics were largely to blame, but by all accounts the combination of two extremely different contracts was both painstaking and time consuming.

It is clear that the call for release to the NMB created a sense of urgency for all the parties and helped bring this negotiation to an AIP, but what is also clear is that our negotiators were in no position to close the deal in the all-important end-game. We all remember the more than three months it took for the parties to actually agree on exactly what they agreed to in the form of a TA. Anyone who has negotiated to buy a house or even a car knows that this is no way to secure the best deal possible.

The bad news is that it took 3-4 years past our respective amendable dates to achieve what almost everyone agrees is a disappointing TA, but the good news is if we turn it down that time-consuming effort of meshing two disparate pilot contracts doesn’t need to be repeated. All that remains is to fix some glaring and important flaws in this TA and we have far more leverage with the company than we did just a few months ago.

The most unacceptable item from a unionist perspective in this TA is LOA 25 in which a relatively small group of our brothers and sisters who were furloughed would be treated as second class citizens even though the financial impact of making them whole is very small on the company, but enormous upon these pilots' lives. These twice-furloughed LUAL pilots will have their longevity credit for the time they were furloughed limited unlike other pilots from LUAL, LCAL, DAL, NWA and other airlines because a very few want to preserve our furloughees' disadvantage for others imaginary SLI benefit and in doing so deny these furloughees and their families thousands of dollars of much needed and well-earned compensation that is meaningless to the company. There is an inspiring ground swell of support from the LCAL pilots to right this wrong because they recognize it as simply unjust. If there is one thing we should have learned over the years it is to never eat our young. Even if we discount the potential economic impact on such cannibalistic behavior to the Association, the cost in terms of fomenting never ending disunity alone should give us reason to pause. Have we not learned our lessons?

Another overarching problem with this TA was the failure to extract from the company their end of the grand bargain. Towards the end of the negotiation the MECs agreed to allow the JNC to submit a UAX 76 seat RJ proposal but only in return for Delta + compensation. The TA RJ proposal gives the company all the benefits of the DAL RJ proposal, but the shrinkage in UAX block hours and mainline growth that DAL pilots are receiving as a result of 88 717s entering their mainline fleets is just a hope in our contract. Our TA allows UAX to add 67 76-seat RJs without parking one 70-seat UAX RJ. All they would have to do is park enough 50-seaters to keep the overall UAX block hours steady. There are 75 older and very high-maintenance CRJ-200s that are the obvious choice. The rest of the 50-seat UAX fleet are relatively new and more standardized EMB-145s largely flow by favored partner ExpressJet. Only if at some future date UAL decides to order mainline E190/5s or Bombardier CS100s will United pilots enjoy the mainline job growth and UAX block hour shrinkage that our DAL counterparts now experiencing.

Did we get DAL + compensation in return for our UAX 76-seat RJ scope proposal? NO!

• We got DAL - 8.5% in 2013, -3% in 2014 and -3% in 2015, the year in which the DAL contract becomes amendable.
• While our B/C plan will be 1-2% higher our new long-term disability (LTD) plan will cost us $150-$221 a month out of pocket while DAL’s LTD is better and paid by the company.
• Delta pilots got two on-time contracts which are the equivalent of 100% retro pay while we are getting about 50% and still don’t have the exact accounting that our union promised prior to voting to avoid another bond debacle of mis-preconceptions of what is actually due. Vague charts are inadequate.
• Delta pilots got 5% of the equity in DAL while we are getting zero. Today this is worth about $30,000/pilot.

The rationale the company used and that we bought to rationalize this year delay in the DAL pay rates was their inability to add 76-seat RJs to the UAX fleet within a year. It is safe to say that United pilots are sick and tired of paying for management incompetence.

The solutions to these problems are very simple.

• Adjust the limit on UAX block hours to drop immediately and proportionally from the first UAX 76-seat RJ that is added, not the 154th.
• DAL pay from day one.
• United pilots receive 10% of UAL stock that is immediately sellable. The extra 5% would be to compensate for the substandard retro.

Finally, work rules. We need to be assured that the adoption of the CAL PBS system and many of their work rules are not going to destroy pilots’ quality of life. The average 5 hours/day definitely helps, but we also need the 3.5 to 1 trip rig that Delta pilots have enjoyed for years much sooner than a year after our seniority lists are merged. And finally, if forced junior-manning is as rare and unlikely as the sales pitch would have us believe then it begs a simple question. Then why is the company so adamant about having it? Removing it from our agreement would be a sign of good faith on their part that they truly want to build a better culture with their pilots. It would show that they are willing to use incentives such as ADD pay instead of continuing to depend on sticks.

That’s all great, but what leverage to we have?

The biggest lever we have is the company finally needs this agreement. Wall Street and the institutional investors who control UAL stock are clearly growing frustrated with the poor return on their investment and the prospects going forward especially when the financial and service comparisons with DAL are so clearly deficient. UAL’s superior network is still compelling, but the analysts have seen the exodus of premium customers away from United. It is clear to them that this TA and the integration of the pilot groups necessary for any UAL turnaround to begin. A strong NO vote would certainly shock airline analysts and could not be helpful to the UAL stock price.

At WHQ a myriad of IT projects including the migration from Unimatic to CAL’s Crew Management System (CMS) are on hold awaiting the pilot contract. The company needs to complete this migration by the end of 2013 ahead of the new FAR 117 Flight Time/Duty Time deadline. With the opening of new pilot bases and separate pilot groups the complexity and inefficiencies of the operation continue to grow and the company falls further behind in their pilot training backlog that can only be solved by getting pilots to fly more hours per month. The only plausible way to do that is for this manpower negative TA to pass.

The public call for release by the NMB got us this far, and that strike/release threat is far more credible now that the election is behind us. Labor was critical in the key state of Ohio and ALPA is a member of the AFL-CIO whose leader was in the Oval Office meeting with the President a week after his reelection. NMB Board member, Linda Puchala, personally told our MECs that she needs to know immediately if the TA fails what the pilots’ reasons for turning it down are. This clearly indicates that our contract is a high priority for the NMB and this Administration.

Finally, while the fears of UAL management wanting to shrink LUAL are warranted their ability to do so is limited by non-terminable protections in the TPA and the LUAL contract. The “replacement aircraft” provision in the TPA doesn’t expire like some provisions arguably may on March 31, 2013. This provision mandates that aircraft ordered after the legal merger, like UAL’s July 2012 737 order, will be flown by the pilots from the legacy airline whose planes are parked regardless of whether that plane is currently in that fleet. So if there is no TA by August 2013 when those 50 737-900ERs start arriving to replace the retiring LUAL 757-200s then LUAL pilots will fly those 737s and will be trained by LUAL instructors.

We are also protected by sections 1-F-1/2, the minimum block hour guarantee, of our contract and 1-C-1-d of our contract that limits UAX block hours to no more than UAL mainline block hours. We currently have grievances filed against the company for exceeding that contractual limit. If the company reduced LUAL mainline block hours they would have to reduce UAX block hours proportionally.

On September 11, 2001, the world changed for the airline industry and the pilots of United Airlines in particular. More than any other pilot group we sacrificed to save our company, we gave up over fourteen-billion dollars in concessions as well as the loss of our pensions for the promise of shared sacrifice, shared reward. We paid that price to retain some semblance of our work rules. Anyone who has seen the objective list of concessionary gives to the company in terms of both work rules and other areas realizes that life is going to be very different for the United pilots in the coming years if this TA is ratified. The reasons to vote yes are simply not compelling in terms of threat when one looks objectively at the very real and practical protections we have in place in our current CBA, T&PA, realities in the industry, and pressures on senior management. The reasons to vote yes are also often stated in a political context, i.e., “We need to move on.” Isn’t that exactly how the company and others have positioned us to get their way? The price of moving on at this moment will be staggering, the pain will be felt for the next six to eight years. The value received in the demonstration of a little more patience will be rewarded.

We have come a long way in this fight for what we are due. Our predecessors faced much more daunting prospect and far longer odds. We work for the world’s largest airline with and the best network. UAL has $7B in the bank and is profitable despite gross mismanagement. If we fail to take the slightest risk even when the circumstances are so favorable then we should not expect management to deal fairly with us in the future. This is a critical and defining moment that will determine what type of airline for which we will work for the rest of our careers.

Jerry Leber

While I agree with Captain Leber's sentiment I can not agree with his conclusions. I would offer as direct rebuttal my post located here.

The fight that most of us want to have is not a fight that can be won in Section 6 negotiations. It is a fight to change the framework from within which we negotiate all future contracts and how those contracts are protected from legal maneuvering by unethical managers. It will take a legislative solution to parts of the RLA and BK code amongst others. That is a fight I'm very willing to fight, just as soon as I get their boot off my throat. We must not only have the willingness to fight, but the capacity.

History is written by the victors, I can't wait to see what Flying the Line 3 has to say about us!

I think as a pilot group we have acted as true "bullies". We thump our chest in the good times, but are the very first to cave in the bad, when the chips are down.

As another previously posted, vote yes to a pay raise, and no for a payout.

If we would have followed his advice 10 years ago, we would never ended up where we are today.

Look what APA did in BK. They voted no for a voluntary pay cut. They may end up with little or no pay cut, and maybe a pay raise. IN BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!

Thank YOU!

We're not going to get more because Jeff is a "nice" guy.

We're going to get more by demanding more.

Gordon always said we left money on the table on the last contract, when asked why he didn't give it to us - he said, "You didn't MAKE me!"

Jeff has more money.

Jeff is under immense pressure from Wall Street (especially from Chase Manhattan) and the board to get this deal done.

You think we don't have leverage, you haven't been listening to the investors on the conference calls - "when are you getting this done so that you can start making money!"

The leverage we have is to say this fish stinks, bring us back another one!

Everyone who doesn't see that hasn't been paying attention.

There is always MORE - you just have to demand it.

Vote NO!

In order for you to vote yes, how much more money per year are you going to require? I'm guessing you want full retro, so add $1 Billion. Then you want DAL pay right away, and absolutely NO gives according to what I've read in other posts. Let's say that's another, what $500 million? Do you think the banks want Jeff to sign on for another $1.5 Billion just to get a deal? Sorry, but your opinion of how much leverage we have with the banks and how badly Jeff needs this deal isn't backed up by what I'm hearing and seeing. You are entitled to your opinion, but your assertion that "Everyone who doesn't see this isn't paying attention" carries absolutely zero credibility. It's your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

You don't get more by demanding more. You get more by having the leverage to back it up. Thank Wendy and Jay P. for giving that away right from the beginning.

My NO vote is not based on dollars.

Flying the Line 3 will say they WERE the best Chest Beaters in the industry!

IT will say they initially proffered phrases like:
"Industry Leading",
"we want released now",
"we have a 99% Strike Vote",
"Hats OFF",
"we'll bring them to their knees."

Then it will say the Chest Beaters backed up and used phrase like:
"It's the best we can get",
"the NMB will park us",
"we are worried about the CAL guys MEC Chair",
"We'll never recoup the time value of money if we vote 'no'"
"What's your back up plan if you vote 'NO'"
"It was Delta's fault for caving on the 76 seater scope"

Then Flying the Line 3 will say:
They beat their chest well and then folded. The Industry hasn't recovered since!

Institutional investment community clamoring for performance out of this merger.

1. Synergies of combining route structures with only 9 overlapping routes prior to the merger. Bethune said it was "checkmate" in the industry.
2. Economy of scale in operations. Elimination of unnecessary and redundant labor as well as management, particularlly in middle management.
3. Labor stability is worth roughly 30 percent of the stock price.

I would say that the glass is either half full or half empty. I say it's half full and I think we have consideable leverage. This was supposed to be the merger of the centuery. If the investment community wants dividends then that's great. Me too. We both have leverage on Jeff. Wall Street as well as labor feel cheated by Jeff.

ALPA sheaded all those strike votes and they used them for confetti for one of their RJ airlines TA's that got ratified.

Unfortunately most pilots do not even know what you are referring to when you mention "Flying the Line"and even fewer have read both books and of those who have read them it seems very few have learned much if anything from their history. The profession continues to act like deregulation never happened, that the RLA is written in stone and that the "associations" act in the pilots best interest. Management has read and fully understands our history and they use this knowledge against us every day.

They used to hand the books out to every new hire...hope that continues.
I agree and am quite sure management would love to drag out and deepen their very effective whipsaw even if they have to cough up some chump change for it.

Does anyone here really believe that the company cares how high the strike vote was? Do your honestly think that they acted differently with a 99% verse if it was 95% or 90%? The simple fact is all they care about is the 3 member vote of the NMB. Until they fear they are going to lose a second vote on that board they do not care about what we say in a strike vote or poll.

Those that have read Flying the Line know that the strike vote is more for the pilots than the company. The vote is to know you and your brothers will stand together. Our vote happened in the vacuum that each pilot group expected to see there current contract filled with only improvements. The complexity of having to merge them and then improve upon them was in my opinion overlooked by most.

Also for those that praise our pioneers that held the line and walked out do not insult them. The contract before you is not perfect, but the conditions in it are not in the same league as those that caused or members to walk out. To compare what we achieved in our TA to what was being offered before a strike was called is just outrageous. If you really hold those brave pilots in high regard do not diminish what they accomplished by using them as a catapult to correct your single issues with our TA.

Here are the links for the downloads to both volumes...

http://www.alpa.org/publications/Fly...The_Line_1.pdf

http://www.alpa.org/publications/Fly...he_Line_II.pdf

Excellent point.

Well stated, I would only add that it would be unfortunate if the lessons from these negotiations are lost in the rhetoric of the special interest groups.

It was widely held by some, that management would be motivated to be generous in this negotiations simply because they had the synergy money of the merger. Well, that proves not to be true, they are still who they are. They will grind down labor simply because they can. They are not worried about, banks, shareholders, employees etc. It is all about setting examples and their ego. It was the naive union representatives of a few years ago that delayed this negotiations with their false expectations that management would change their ways. Future union leaders need to understand the adversarial motivations of the other team.

The second lesson should be that leverage is everything. It is what drives management to cough up the golden eggs. Specifically, the threat of a withdrawal of services. Once it was clear that these would be tripartite negotiation with SLI implications, management knew our gun wasn't loaded.

Thirdly, we don't control how the table is set. Our friends at DAL determined for us how the RJ's would be handled, for now and for far into the future. They thought they got a good deal and maybe it was, for them, but their agreement cut the UAL negotiations off at the knees on this matter.

Lastly, somehow the NMB has become a much larger player than it has in the past. That is because we believe they are, or we have actually let them into the process far beyond their statutory role. At some point, transportation unions may have to take the NMB on, either in court or politically. The last strike was called during a Republican era with a conservative NMB. Labor has a legal right to strike, political appointees should not be able abridge that right.

Assuming that most of those that actually vote, understand the situation on the ground, and the leverage being what it is, not what they wish it was, this TA will pass, but the battle will continue.

Actually the last strike was Spirit Airlines in 2010 under this administration.

As stated above, the last airline pilot strike happened under an Obama-appointed NMB. Spirit was a pimple on the butt of the national economy, and after the company's management made some rather egregious demands, a Democratic majority on the NMB released both parties to self help. It was not a labor stoppage that was going to impact the national economy.

The last strike of any consequence, the Northwest mechanics' strike, did indeed happen under George W. Bush's administration. It was not a strike that labor wanted, however. Once Northwest had trained a cadre of replacement maintenance technicians, it signaled that it would not only accept but also desire a release to self-help, so that it could impose a concessionary contract on its mechanics and lay off a percentage of the work force. The mechanics responded to Northwest's imposition of self-help with a strike, which was broken within three months.

Strikes under the RLA do indeed happen under Republican administrations these days. But only if the release to self help is preferred by the company.

My reference was to the last UAL/CAL strikes, but as you alluded, we should look at all the labor conflicts that are governed by RLA.

If you truly believe that management has this much control of the government and that our only self help tool now is the strike, then we may as well give up. Forget about collective bargaining, take whatever the bosses want to give the peasants. Embrace John McCains arbitration idea.

I just don't agree, at some point politic meets the law. The RLA was designed to discourage strikes, not prohibit them.

************

Who the hell is the NMB?
The only tactic older and more successful than divide and conquer is to convince the enemy they’ve lost the battle before it begins.
Right now you are weighing and debating the intricacies of a proposed contract. That’s as it should be. I’m too old to vote so I’ll stay out of that fray.
But at some point you guys really need to understand that this is at it’s heart; a labor battle. Yes, you are labor. It’s time to doff your cute little pilot caps and don your coal miners’ helmets. In the real world it is accepted and understood that a labor-management dispute is a mutually adversarial relationship. It has evolved that ALPA now considers itself a fellowship or that they are some sort of fraternal organization.
Along with reading about the history of airlines and pilots, what is critical is an understanding of the NMB, who they are and what their real power is.
The amount of assumption and misinformation in this regard here on this board is astounding and does the most to undermine any strategic position you may decide to take. The more power you give them the more power they will take.

Obviously the extremely large **** sandwich you have been eating for the last decade wasn't enough. The company added some condiments to said sandwich and the MEC's dressed it up and put it on a fancy plate. I imagine you are just a hoot when buying a car.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

You are looking at this from the wrong side...

Pilots are actually the ones SELLING the car not buying it.

The Company is perfectly happy driving around in the old beater that gets decent gas mileage and doesn't have a monthly payment.

The REAL question is: How do you convince them that upgrading to a newer and less efficient car is worth taking out a car payment?

Absolutely pathetic. You're an ALPA guy, and you're trying to manage expectations downward. Why?

#ALPAfail

I don't think that analogy works in this case, as UA is losing a pile of money in synergies operating with 2 separate pilot groups. It partially worked in the DL TA case, but even there the company was trying to do the RJ trade.

Go to the NMB web site and look up the history of Presidential Emergency Boards (PEBs). You'll find that every railroad labor dispute in the past decade has been stopped by a PEB. That's because railroads are pretty much a monopoly, and a rail shutdown would have a direct, immediate, and serious effect on the national economy. The government will never allow another rail strike.

There have been a lot more airline strikes in the history of the RLA, but only because before the recent industry consolidation, other carriers could pick up the passenger and freight loads of the shut down carrier. If the NMB were to allow, United, American, or Delta to strike these days, it would have a similar catastrophic effect on the national economy, such as a passenger rail strike would impact the economy of the Northeast.

Northwest's mechanics were allowed to go on strike in 2006 because:

• Management had trained and had a readily available pool of replacement maintenance technicians to replace the strikers on Day 1 of the walkout.
• Management had received assurances that other unionized employee groups, pilots, flight attendants, and agents, would not honor the mechanics' picket lines.

Other than strikes by pimple-on-the-butt regional and boutique airlines, such as Spirit, there will be no ALPA "battle stars" issued in the foreseeable future. No Democratic administration would allow it. No Republican administration would allow it.

That's not the way it ought to be. That's the way is is. BTW, McCain's baseball arbitration idea would not be accepted by either side.

Your points are well made, however APA put major pressure on American in an effort to persuade them to negotiate a contract rather than force an abrogation on them by simply doing everything by the book. The companies plight became public and people started paying attention. It doesn't have to be done with a strike or being released.

We have done NOTHING to put ANY pressure on UAL. We haven't even tested the waters of pressure. They're giving freaking ontime checks away this month. AYFKM?

We have no idea what we might be able to achieve. We never even tried.

On the contrary, the UAL half of the New United tried exactly those tactics in 2008, in an attempt to force Tilton & Pals to reopen a concessionary contract two years before the exchange of Section 6 openers. Guess what happened? An injunction by a federal district court, followed by an even more damaging appeal order by the Sixth Circuit. I remind you that we're still under that restraining order. Damages awarded for violating an order of the federal judiciary could cripple the union's attempt to continue even basic functions such as pilot representation at system boards and day-to-day contract enforcement.

The most recent AA situation you cited happened within the auspices of a bankruptcy proceeding, when ostensibly American wanted to present a ratified pilot contract to creditors as part of a bankruptcy emergence plan. Please take a look at what the American pilots achieved by their work-to-rules campaign. Their bankruptcy "contract" lags both the Delta book and the proposed UAL TA by large margins, as one would expect in a reorganization proceeding. The fact of the matter is that AA's pilots got the shaft, but by staging their little work-to-rules campaign, it made the medicine go down easier. Now that illegal labor action can go down in the annals of pilot lore as another time when "we showed 'em!"

United is not (yet) in bankruptcy. It's in Section 6 negotiations. Any kind of shenanigans along the lines of what you propose are a violation of the legally mandated status quo. Before, we were discussing a legal strike. Now you seem to be pushing a very dangerous, law-breaking, scenario while ALPA is still in the horns of an injunction. This is one path, if we go down it, where there seems to be little prospect of either material or moral victory.

haha ha 000820B ho ho ho

I'm not "pushing" anything. Just pointing out what happened over there. I realize the implications of an illegal job action.

Not sure if many of your guys are aware of this, and I know this is not really an important part of your above post, but just to set the record straight we had 76 seaters taken from us years ago in BK with a gun to our head via 1113. We actually improved our Scope with our current contract but that was pretty easy considering our Scope sucked, but we did hold the line at 76 seats.

Our Scope is complicated and there was a formula for them to increase the number of 76 seat jets with mainline growth. Under our old contract they could have only added more 76 seaters if they parked 70 seaters. Well now they are adding more 76 seaters and parking 50 seaters vice 70 seaters. This issue has been very contentious with many of our guys. Frankly this does not bother me and I was furloughed due to weak Scope - the important number is mainline is growing from 55% to 65% of domestic flying - a solid improvement in my opinion.

Good Luck UCAL! :)

Scoop

I do not agree with your sentiment or tone and take considerable offense. To argue that one generation is better than another because the "depth" of their choices is greater is to slander your own child.

It is interesting that you can speak about the future with such certainty, I wish I had that crystal ball a long time ago I wouldn't be here now. If what you say is true, no more job actions, no ability to strike and no McCain style arbitration, then just what is it that labor can do to incentivize management to bargain with us? I can't think of anything, I guess you may as well save your union dues, it's everyone for themselves in that scenario, capitalist are not benevolent.

I would not use the AMFA strike as an example of anything. There will always be unions with poor leadership and great expectations. The IFFA strike at TWA, CAL "83" and the IAM at Eastern are classic examples of how not to fight a labor war.

I am sure you know that under the act a Presidential PEB is only temporary, 30 could be 60 days and it expires. Congress can then step in and force a settlement, probably some sort of arbitration. If they don't, you are legally free to strike just like a NLRA union . No doubt the courts would be involve as they were in the "85" UAL strike.

An airline PEB that I remember well was at Wein over the third man, there were others, AMR. I can't remember any that were not settled during the PEB period and subsequently there was a strike. I do recall the IAM strike in "66" where about two thirds of the airlines went on strike together. The world did not end, but it did result in legislation to prevent multiple airline strikes at the same time. In that case, the business men got to go where they needed to go, but the kids didn't make it to grandmas, no big deal. The war and economy was just fine.

Since we don't see this the same way, I would only add, and what others here have already pointed out, is that you don't know until you try. No point giving up early as we did in the 2003 bk contract. Just the exercise of threatening a strike and having congress force a settlement would be a seminal event in this country. There are a lot of steps in the process before that would happen, courts, politics etc. The only caveat in this strategy is that you better be ready to walk, you may be given the chance. Obviously, I believe the strike or credible threat is still a viable and powerful weapon.

There are a few axioms of a successful strike that most people who have run them will agree.

1) Have a major issue that unifies the striking group, B scale, outsourcing, union destruction or a unifying figure such as Frank Lorenzo, Henry Frick, Ferris etc. Just striking for more money is usually a loser.

2) Be clear that the group is educated and unified. The generals hate it when they lead the charge and when they look behind them, no one is there.

3) Have leadership that is smart, believe in what they are doing and clearly understand the limits.

Except for the last one, these element do not exist in the present circumstances, but I am ready for 2016.

Rick is that you!

Yes, it is a shame that times have changed. It's a shame that we don't have a labor situation tantamount to the 1950s and 60s, when one of three working men belonged to a union and most non-union shops tried to match the union scale, if they could, to keep the union out. In those days, the CEOs of major corporations earned approximately ten times more than their highest salaried worker; at one time in the 1970s I believe, the head of Delta Airlines earned slightly more than five times what his highest captain earned. But we've brought a lot of that on ourselves. It was a better time when a man named Romney ran a car company that manufactured tangible products and negotiated fair contracts with his laborers, rather than this era when his son made his fortune manipulating financial instruments and came within a whisker of the White House.

It's a shame that workers embraced Nixon's Southern Strategy, went along with the Reagan Revolution, and elected state legislators who enacted right-to-work (for less) laws, along with generous tax breaks for industries who were anxious to hire below the union scale. It's regretful that today's private-sector employees disparage teachers, cops, and firemen who have successful public-sector unions. Instead of being jealous of this last remaining vestige of successful unionism, they should try to emulate it. But, instead, they insist that if they have to take a haircut in their paycheck, so should those government employees.

You talk a lot about bygone days, of PEBs that were held on behest of nonexistent companies such as Wein. You talk of the Lorenzo, Ferris, and I think you forgot to mention Nyrop. Yes, there were some successful strikes against those bastards back then, and some that didn't work out so well. It helps if your strike lasts only 29 days, such as United's in 1985. It was not so nice if it lasted two years, such as Continental's. For better or for worse, times have changed. With airline consolidation, whether you like it or not, those days are over at American, United, and Delta.

Yes, I'm aware that a PEB has a term of only 60 days. Don't bet, even if the company and the union are intent on kamikaze tactics, that Congress will allow a strike to take place, though. Do you really think the mayors of New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, and the Congress critters who represent those districts, will let a strike impact air travel--and all of the jobs in those cities--just because a bunch of airline pilots want better pay and protection from having their jobs farmed out to commuter carriers? If you do, you're deluding yourself.

Airline pilots aren't terribly sympathetic characters when they're out on a picket line. The average Joe thinks we make twice or three times what we earn, have 20 days off a month, and a mistress in layover cities. Those big-city mayors and Congressmen, who tend to be Democrats, see little political advantage in allowing an airline strike to impact the economy of their cities--on behest of a labor group that tends to vote about 80% Republican. If you were Rahm Emanuel, who would you favor? The working-class mechanic or ticket agent who lives in your town, whose paycheck might stop if the pilots shut down United, or a bunch of GOP-voting pilots who live in the suburbs? Think about it.

You seem to long for the good old days. So do I. I liked the time when a Teamster, if he encountered a picket line on a delivery to the airport, would turn his truck around and take the load back to the warehouse. I liked the idea when American workers bought American cars from union assembly lines in Ohio and Michigan, not from non-union factories in Tennessee or Texas, or from abroad. I like the time when, if a large retailer such as Wal-Mart tried to keep a union on the property, the working class folks in town wouldn't shop there. Nowadays, Joe Unionized Pilot is unashamed to shop there.

I liked the time when pilots, mechanics, and flight attendants honored each other's picket line. Are you aware that in the current CAL contract, our vaunted 50-seat turbojet scope clause--regarded the second best in the industry after Southwest--has an anti-labor provision that prevents CAL ALPA from declaring a sympathy strike with another employee group? Look it up. (Fortunately, the United book, whose language this TA has adopted, doesn't have that clause.) But I'm not hopeful of that kind of labor solidarity ever returning, to our property or anyone else's. Not with the attitudes expressed by some of the copilots I fly with, who look down their nose and sneer at Linda Puchala because she was a flight attendant.

If you'll dig back into our historical archives, you'll realize that kind of camaraderie with other labor groups went the way of the dodo bird when United's pilots, fearing a break in their ranks, called off their 1985 strike and negotiated a back-to-work agreement that left their flight attendants--who had honored the pilots' lines--without a back-to-work agreement of their own. If you go back a little farther, you'll remember that some four years before the CAL pilots went on strike in 1983, they refused to honor the picket lines of their flight attendants. They were aghast that the FA union wanted the lead flight attendant to make as much as the second officer. How uppity of them!

This was just about the time when most pilots, being the white, middle-class, tax-averse, law-and-order Republicans that they were, decided to break ranks with other labor groups. This was just about the time when they fell head over heels in love with Mr. Reagan, and cheered when he fired those snippety air traffic controllers. How dare they engage in an illegal strike, those spoiled government workers!

And you're upset because what goes around comes around?

On another thread you wrote you were hired in "85", was that before October?

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/o...er/Bethune.png

Pat Friend, AFA Chair-person during the 1985 festivities, speaking to a closed session of the UAL-MEC, asked us to return to work as support amongst her flight attendants for honoring our picket line was crumbling fast and she recognized that the very existence of the UAL-AFA was in danger. I remember her emotional plea very well as there were a number of us that didn't have dry eyes as she spoke.

Unlike what you wrote, there was a significant amount of camaraderie between the two employee groups during the strike.