Switched.
 

I was dead set against this agreement, for all the reasons listed on this forum and more.

Until I went to a roadshow, talked to the reps, and got the story behind the story.

If you think this agreement is inferior to Delta's(like I do), here's why:

We are fighting ourselves(pilot groups), we are fighting ALPA nat'l(Lee Moak), and we are fighting the NMB(Linda Puchala); not to mention the managament of this airline. With odds like that, plus comparing our Mgt. to Delta Mgt., this could have been a lot worse.

This agreement is a major disappointment to me. However, if we want to get what we want we have to even out this fight, and the first step is to unify the pilot group. (Even though as a UA pilot in the bottom half of the list, I am none too excited about SLI).

All our political capital has been spent. Our retro was going to be $0.00 until we got political pressure put on Smisek. By our own analysis, our contract is worth more than Delta's overall; so who will help us now when we turn it down? Everyone who is supposed to be on our side in DC is patting themselves on the back for helping us get what they see as industry leading.

After this we are on our own. Best for the pilots to be finally on the same side.

I like your facts about our position but still have not seen any FACTS about sli. Just opinions. It's been mentioned in other threads that the road shows have discussed the sli as non related, to an extent, when determining the sli. A snapshot has been taken and in the end it's up to the arbitrator should it come to that.

If you believe the mecs's when they discuss the merits of the ta, why do you and most others not believe them when they outline the process for the sli?

We funded our own retro by lagging DAL hourly rates.

And through other things as well. Glad to see that somebody gets it.

In spite of the flurry of Pro TA emails and Johnny Come Lately posters pushing this thing there's one thing no one has addressed so far, why all the regressive and concessionary BS in the work rules?

I don't see too many of them. Yes we now have 2 involuntary reassignment possibilities per year, but but with industry leading pay penalties. We kept the requirement for 3 pilots over 8 hours across the pond (both ways will have an IRO) even though the regs won't require it. We got 5/Day and leg by leg pay. Find anyone in the industry that has had THAT since the 80's. As the not-so-proud owner of the 10 hour 3days and 15 hour 4days every other trip, I am looking forward to seeing improved trips with this TA

The trouble is that the message hasn't been received by Jay P. and the CAL MEC. One must look no further than the pay banding debacle or the furlough carve out to see that the CAL side is and will keep hedging their bets and arguing for a new snapshot later down the road, even though the chances of that succeeding are slim. In the meantime, with new airplanes coming, more and more bids and junior captains, and uncertainty about a potentially expiring TPA, it would be rather silly of L-UAL pilots to ignore the SLI ramifications. Even if the JCBA has NO bearing on the SLI, the longer it takes the more CAL pilots get junior captain bids and the the less L-UAL airplanes there are. I can't imagine a scenario where UCH bumps Captains at LCAL that have already been trained, even if they could not hold their seat after the SLI.

In short, the whipsawing doesn't end until we are one group. The longer this takes, the worse it gets.

They have stated many times that there will be no bumping, no flush bid. Only vacancies will filled. No one on either side is going to get kicked out of seat.

Both sides have also stated that there are multiple snap shots involved in the SLI process not just one.

Time for some Henry McK?

I'm well into it.

What Retro? We're getting a signing bonus that's pennies on the dollar of the retro pay they've stolen from me since the contract expired... excuse me, became amendable 4 years ago.

Do you remember what was going on economically four years ago? My neighbor at the time was a finance guy involved in global investments for pension and other retirement plans for a well known company. He was scared to death and pacing the house in the middle of the night. What do you think the odds of keeping a premium contract would have been if you had it back then? Had you been sitting there with anything other than Contract 02 at that time, you would have taken a beating. Your retro losses are a figment of your imagination.

As a DAL guy the 6 weeks of vacation and 16% retirement look pretty good. For comparison we top out at only 5 weeks of vacation and are now at 14% going to 15% for retirement.


Scoop

I just have to ask because this has been a common refrain when talking to the L-UAL pilots: why does voting YES and getting past the SLI process mean we are going to be unified? Why is that the only way that can happen? I'm not asking to be a jerk or to stir the pot. I'm only trying to find out why, if this contract is not that great for L-UAL pilots either, just accepting it and is the best way to move on and unify the pilots?

Wouldn't it also show pilot unity if there was a strong, firm NO vote? "Sorry, this contract is unacceptable and we deserve better as this pilot group has shown with their vote."

I keep hearing we need to come together now so we can be unified for the next time. The next time? How often do we keep hearing "well, we'll be unified and stronger NEXT time?" We've been hearing that at L-CAL for a long time for various reasons. When are pilots going to take a stand NOW?

Getting past the SLI to me means more than being unified. It means that perhaps I too can have a shot at the left seat of all those "United" planes out there at our hubs. After 15 years of "juniority" I'm sitting 5 or 6 from the bottom on perpetual reserve in the right seat. I have not progressed a single number on the 756 right seat in 5 years. In fact I've moved backwards. 12 years ago I was a solid lineholder in the same seat. In 9 months we will commence the parking of 85 757's. That's not good news. The replacement aircraft are 737-900ER's, of which we have no simulators, no PI's, no training syllabus and no payscale. Pretty sure that training will be taking place in your training center in IAH, with or without us. Unified to me means having a fair shot at the progression that is taking place in "the other half" of United Airlines. That is why this SLI process needs to happen as rapidly as possible for sUALers like myself. Voted YES on November 30th. That, my friend, is as honest an answer as I can give you.

And it's a good honest answer. Unfortunately, the L-UAL pilots have seen several maneuvers by the CAL union leadership that makes them feel less than "unified". LOA 25, Pay Banding, profit sharing done outside of required try-party negotiations.... None of that is bringing any unity. As uaav8r points out, the next hurdle is the planes leaving L-UAL and where they go. Let's say Captain Pierce's past actions haven't left us feeling warm and fuzzy. And I haven't seen one L-CAL pilot stand up and suggest that they wouldn't fly the new planes if presented to them at L-UAL's expense. If this TA passes, we will get through the SLI with pretty much everyone being disappointed (the sign of a successful merger), and then we can move on. At that point, all events effect the pilot group EVENLY. As it stands now, one groups pain is usually the others gain. And it's been a smidge one-sided, wouldn't you say??

It has, to an extent. And yes, if most could, we would not fly the new aircraft. The problem is that the new aircraft are replacing the aircraft we are parking on a one-for-one basis. The same is true for the 787. We will finish parking all 767-200's sometime in 2013.

Our point is we understand and do see the transfer of assets possibly going to happen at LUAL. We have also seen this new aircraft order for a TA BS in the past also. It didn't end very well. Here, sign C02 and you can fly a shinny new 787.

A large number of us watched the CA seats we waited 9+ years for, disappear with age 65 as well as having Abbot tell us why he was slashing EWR flying and cutting even more CA seats to make it better for "commuters".

We just don't want the LUAL pilots to bite on a substandard TA in the hopes of eliminating said transfer. How disappointed do you we will ALL be if this TA is voted in and the SLI takes 18 months and the transfer happens anyway? Mgmt is gonna do what mgmt wants to do. All we can do is not bite on the division they have created so far.

If this TA passes, why would anyone think that there would be more unity the next time around?

Hopefully, there will be less division which will lead to unity. There certainly won't be one group trying to get a leg up on the other, at the expense of the other and the TA. Think of the profit sharing debacle, pay banding, leaks etc. For you guys to NOT recognize just how much of an obstacle JPOS has been to this effort either smacks of ignorance of the process or arrogance. Leverage lost if you will. You would see our point if on this side of the fence. We have certainly seen yours.

Unfortunately, by then the reality of this crappy TA will have set in. I fear that means we will have to put most of our capital into fixing all the concessionary work rule changes and loose language in the contract. We will again have to fight scope and cabotage. We will have to attempt to get the reserves out of indentured servitude. As a result, there will be minimal financial gains and we will again lag behind Delta. After that, I'll retire, still looking for that brass ring and big bag of cash I was promised under the Elroy Jepp statue in Denver.

There will always be hard feelings and that are going to be caused by this merger. Hard feelings that are both real and imagined it makes no difference.

The difference comes in when we are all on the same sheet of paper IE JCBA and ISL then it becomes impossible for management to use the separate pilot groups as leverage against each other. Whether we like each other or not.

Not the 737-900ERs that were ordered after the merger. They are intended as UAL 757 replacements but will be hard pressed to go there without a JCBA.

Thanks for the perspective. It's good to hear the thoughts and concerns of both sides.

I should have been more clear... the airplanes in question are the 150 that are coming in August and beyond to directly replace the L-UAL 757's, not the ones that you folks have coming now. What I see as different from the scenario you pose above is that in this case the new aircraft order wasn't generated to "sell" the TA. It has already occurred, and has been announced as all replacement airplanes. I think I can speak for all of us and say that nobody is happy about flying a 737-900 vs. a 757. Well, maybe a few.... I don't see that as a carrot dangling in front of us.

Personally, I am voting YES for this TA because I think in this economic, political, and global environment, it's a good TA. It may not be sexy with full retro and DAL payrates right away, but the overall value of the TA to me is very high. Stuff like 5/Day and Leg by Leg pay are HUGE wins. The more I read about it, and the rationale from the JNC of WHY they structured it the way it was structured, the better it looks to me. Yes there is definitely a risk for the L-UAL pilots to voting "no" with the TPA, but it goes beyond that for me.

I was under the impression that the SLI was mandated to take 180 days or less? I guess we could pull a USAirways East and pull out of the union if we don't like the arbitration, but I haven't talked to ONE pilot at UAL that wants that to happen... on either side. I look at DAL firing on all cylinders, and think the faster we can get on board with each other, the better.

Well, for one I would rather be represented by a one headed snake and see 1 vs. 1 a lot more advantageous than 1 vs. 2

I don't see the unity getting better.

Well said. While disappointed that we really never put any real pressure on the company,I cast a less than enthusiastic yes vote for all the same reasons. When you look at the T/A in totality, and if you have a shred of belief in your negotiating committee, from a purely business stand point there is no way you can come to any other conclusion than yes. If you are making your own interpretations without reading/watching videos/ talking to you P2P reps, or you are of the school of "always vote no on the first deal" (ridiculous) You are voting uninformed, no excuse for that as educated professionals, especially when such huge career implications are potentially on the line. If this deal is voted down, I will live with the majority. I hope however, that it is ratified and we can all get on with our careers in rightful fair seniority order.

We never had "unity" in the first place at either airline. We are just putting two fragmented groups together, and making one bigger fragmented group.

Unity isn't about hanging out at BBQs together. It means that the up and downside potentials are the same for the entire group. This vote isn't about having new buddies to go to the ball game with.

Wow thanks for pointing that out to us a320.

Show me the facts . . .

a lot of words that sound really terrible, but show me a careful analysis that backs this up.

Pennies on the dollar? It's the largest lump sum payment in the history of the NMB and ALPA that's not tied to bankruptcy exit.

I guess you're back to a yes vote?

It's not about line pilots; it's about the MECs. CAL's MEC resisted the call for release, leaked information to management during the negotiations, threatened to delay negotiations indefinitely unless their internal union demands were met, and generally focused on fighting over SLI issues which ultimately will be decided by a third party. Getting the TA passed will neuter the deleterious effects of having to fight internally as well as externally and will allow the union to present one voice to the company not two.

Actually already voted "No", but I can't stand it when people argue facts that simply aren't true. Nearly every comment I read from "No" votes are short, uninformed and slanderous with no real thought. Call me an "idealist", but I just want to hear some educated, level headed, and patient discussion. Back when you were in school you would never have raised your hand and said "Teacher geometry is stupid 'cuz I ain't never gonna use it" but somehow the internet makes everyone a genius willing to put everyone else down even if they haven't actually read the TA or even if they don't really understand the legal language, or even if they have no idea what the current contracts are. I went to a Road Show and when the ALPA rep started talking about Scope, he asked "who knows what our current Scope says" virtually no one raised their hand, but that was the issue nearly everyone raised their hand to say it was the most important one to the group.

It's not too late Joe..........to come back from the dark side ;)

Just like "shrinking to profitability" is not a good business plan for the company, "surrendering to fight another day" has not worked well for the profession. Led by ALPA, pilots have been fed the line that "we will get them the next time" or "this is all we can get now" implying that somewhere down the road pilots will be able to regain what they give up today to have some peace. Well how well has this philosophy served the professional pilot since deregulation in 1978? If you take the salary of a Delta 727 captain in 1978 and adjust it to provide that same purchasing power today it will make you cry. The highest paid pilots today, wide body pilots, are at least 20 percent behind this narrow body Delta captain working 75 hours per month and the gap between those flying comparable aircraft today exceeds 50 percent, and that does not take into account the increased number of hours flown by pilots today. What is the justification for taking anything that is in any way concessionary? It is insanity to continue doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different results. Sad.

Great history lesson and actually a lot of truth in it. But....Seeing as you don't have any skin in this game (are you CAL/UAL?) and all of the potential career decimating outcomes don't affect you one bit it would seem to me that your just pontificating here.

Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face?

I agree with your assessment of "living to fight another day", and have at times gone back and shaken my head over the 1978 pay scales. What I strongly disagree with is your assessment that this deal is "concessionary". I'm assuming you don't believe what ALPA is telling you, because if you did, you would agree that it's richer than DAL starting in 2014, which coincides with the Scope changes allowing 76 seats (which I understand was a decision by the NMB when they bought the company's argument that they needed two years to "catch up" to DAL's costs because they were 2 years behind in the merger process. The NMB gave them 1). You don't need to believe ALPA... JP Morgan did an analysis stating that the contract was worth $400 million more than the present costs for next year... the year BEFORE we pass DAL. And that doesn't include $400 million in retro. I'm sorry, but that is not a concessionary deal. It's simple math. There may be some concessions contained in it for both pilot groups, but that is simple negotiations, ESPECIALLY when you are dealing with 4 party negotiations. Show me any contract in HISTORY that hasn't had some "gives" in it. That's just the reality of business. If you are holding out for a TA that has NO gives on EITHER side, well.... good luck with that.

My point exactly! We've been hearing forever how "next time" we will stand up to management. L-CAL pilots have a history of voting in terrible contracts. From all I hear now, I haven't met one L-CAL pilot voting "YES" on this thing. Now it will most likely be the L-UAL pilots pulling a "CAL" and voting this thing in. Things will never change.

The problem is that no one has provided a solution. Just complaining. Voting NO isn't a solution.

There are some of us that think this is a good TA considering there were 4 parties with wildly differing goals at the table.

This post should be a message to the L-UAL guys. Sounds like almost ALL the L-CAL guys/gals are voting "No". The longer this thing goes on, the more L-CAL pilots there will be, and the less L-UAL pilots there will be. There is a very narrow window of controlling our own destiny here. I've seen enough of how Jay Pierce handles the L-UAL pilot's concerns to know whats in our own best interest.