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.