Ual mec update
12-11-2012, 11:29 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Ual mec update
Since the "NO" side is posting their updates here, I'll post the L-UAL Update we received. I noticed a lot of emotion, opinion, and speculation in F/O Salley's update. This is merely a Q and A to address the multiple false assumptions that are being spread in the "No" propaganda. And THIS is supposed to be the sales job?????
PS. L-UAL pilots take note. There is 20% of our Block Hours that is still below the UAX limit. How many 757's can you park in 20% with no replacements?
Tentative Agreement Update is another in a series of answers to recently asked questions. While the most frequently asked questions have been published and posted at www.unitedpilotagreement.com, new questions or questions asked in a different way often shed light on missing information or widely held perceptions that are not correct.
Q: How does the JCBA compare with the current books at UAL and CAL with respect to the number of hulls allowed in Express flying operations?
A: The JCBA provides for significant limits on the number of hulls in UAX operations that do not exist under the present UAL or CAL books.
Under the present UAL contract the Company is permitted to utilize an unlimited number of 70 seaters, an unlimited number of 50 seaters, and an unlimited number of Turboprops with 78 seats or below. As discussed below, the Company is limited only by the block hour ratio under which express flying scheduled block hours cannot exceed 100 percent of all Company flying mainline scheduled block hours measured only once per calendar year (and which provides approximately 20 percent headroom over present levels of UAX flying).
Under current CAL book, the Company can exceed 274 50-seat aircraft if it adds aircraft to the mainline fleet, but the number of 50 seaters (once added) is not reduced should the number of mainline aircraft be reduced. Because of new aircraft delivered to CAL since 2005, the maximum number of 50 seaters permitted today is 330 (although only 227 are in operation). In addition, there are no restrictions on the number of express carrier turboprops with seventy nine seats (Q400) or less.
By contrast, under the JCBA beginning in January 2014 50-seat aircraft are limited to ninety percent of single-aisle aircraft. In addition, starting in January 2014, 76 seaters (including the Q400) are allowed, but are capped at 130 and the total number of 76 and 70 seat aircraft cannot exceed 255. Beginning in 2016, the 76 seaters are capped at 153 and the total number of 70- and 76-seat aircraft may not number more than 255. And while after January 2016 the Company can ultimately increase the number of 76 seaters to 223, it can do so only if (1) the Company adds no fewer than 88 New Small Narrowbody aircraft to its mainline fleet and (2) reduces the number of its 50-seat hulls to no more than 125. The Company also then may not operate more than 102 70-seat aircraft. An increase in 76 seaters above 153 also triggers a significant reduction in the 1-C-1-F block hour ratio (discussed below) consistent with the reduction of UAX total hulls and a net increase in total single aisle hulls at mainline.
Q: How do the UAX block hour restrictions in the JCBA compare with those on the current UAL and CAL books?
A: There are presently no express carrier block hour limits in the CAL book. The UAL block hour limits are, as stated above: block hours scheduled for UAX cannot exceed 100 percent of the scheduled block hours for all UAL mainline flying (measured once a calendar year). The JCBA limits UAX scheduled block hours (excluding 37 seat turboprop) to 120 percent of scheduled block hours of single-aisle mainline flying (and are measured on a rolling twelve month basis, rather than once in a calendar year). In addition, this 120 percent ratio is reduced on a weighted basis depending on the number of 76 seaters at UAX above 153. For example, if the Company has 223 76 seaters in UAX operations, the scheduled block hours in these operations may not be more than 68% of the mainline single-aisle aircraft scheduled block hours.
Q: I recently attended a Town Hall meeting and have reevaluated my position on the TA. How do I change my vote?
A: You may re-enter the balloting website. Only your last vote will be counted. Your most recent vote will become final at 10:00 a.m. ET on Saturday, December 15, 2012.
Q: When will the official results of the vote be communicated to the pilot group?
A: The vote will close at 10:00 a.m. ET on Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012. Results will be available to the pilots on Saturday shortly after ballot certification by ALPA National and after the respective MECs are informed. The results can be expected via email and text messaging if you have opted-in to text notification.
Q: Will we know who votes how? Will it be broken down by different bases or by CAL versus UAL?
A: TA balloting is conducted in compliance with the Ratification Balloting Procedures contained in the ALPA Administrative Manual. As such, members' votes are cast in secrecy to protect their right to a private decision.
The TA Ratification Ballot will be conducted with both CAL and UAL pilots voting as a single group. Information released will include total # of ballots cast FOR/AGAINST ratification, their associated percentages, as well as the percentage of participating members compared to total eligible voters.
Q: I am on LTD, why can't I vote?
A: Pilots on sick/LTD leave can choose to be Sick Inactive or an Active member thus each case is different. A Pilot may or may not be eligible to vote depending on how he/she has chosen to manage their membership. Please Contact Membership Services: [email protected] or 1-888-FLY-ALPA, Option #3.
Q: Can spouses attend the town hall meetings?
A: Yes. In fact, it is encouraged that spouses and significant others attend meetings, review supplemental information and have their questions or concerns addressed.
Q: Expectations were for industry leading pay and I don’t see that in the TA:
A: In total value, this TA matches Delta in 2013 and exceeds Delta’s contract in 2014. This is a merger contract resulting from tripartite negotiations. The UAL or CAL MECs would have individually chosen to spread the value inside individual CBAs differently. The value, industry leading value, is not just in Compensation, but also in Scope, work rules, Retirement, Insurance and other items spread throughout.
Q: How much added flexibility does the concept of “add pay” give the company? How could ALPA sign off on something that is clearly manpower negative?
A: Add pay is simply an algorithm for compensation and is not manpower negative. The TA includes a series of steps that the company must take, in order, to cover open flying. The “add pay” in that framework is a negotiated win to compensate affected pilots. To be clear, the TA, in aggregate, is manpower positive.
To clarify why the TA is “manpower positive,” here is a comment from one of the scheduling/manpower SME’s:
If the TA is ratified, United will require a significantly higher number of pilots to fly its schedule. Manpower planning is based on credit hours, not block hours. This TA greatly increases the amount of credit time in the schedules. For example: the increase in vacation from 2.8 to 3.25 hours per day along with the increase in vacation days for about half the sUA pilots increases credit time by almost 200,000 hours if all pilots have their maximum accrual available. Just calculating it very roughly, let’s assume that only half of that increase occurs. 100,000 hours would translate to more than 100 pilot jobs created from just that provision alone. All the other provisions that create more credit time add up to even more significant amounts. Remember that sCO doesn’t have ANY “soft” time in their schedules under their current agreement. When added together the credit increases alone, even after accounting for potential increases in productivity on the sUA side due to incentive pay and the ability of pilots to waive certain provisions, result in an increase of (conservatively) 200 – 600 pilot jobs in addition to planned retirements. That doesn’t take into account the restrictions on productivity introduced by having a tighter line construction range and lower Line Production Averages. This TA is definitely manpower positive from a pilot point of view.
Q: Why do many of the contractual wins, such as the 3.5 to 1 duty rig, take so long to become effective under the TA?
A: It depends. In some cases the negotiated implementation date is driven by the transition to L-CAL’s Crew Management System (CMS) for the scheduling of flight crews. CMS is not ready for the addition of s-UAL pilots at this time and must be modified to calculate the new contractual limitations for all pilots. CMS must be ready for the FAR117 effective date of 1/1/2014 which motivates the company to have it done early so that any issues can be fixed before the deadline. Aspects of the TA will become effective as the infrastructure is built to support it, per the schedule in the Implementation LOA. The delay in 1:3.5 rigs was a negotiated point made to increase the amount of Retro pay, and because the impact of M5D will have a more immediate positive effect on our schedules.
Q: How and why did the language change from current United book regarding engineering and test pilots?
A: The past practice at s-UAL of test pilots relocating aircraft all over the world will come to a stop with this JCBA. Ferry flying will belong to line pilots only. Test pilots will retain legitimate flight test and flying requiring their specialized training, such as 3-engine ferry flying on the 747.
Q: What is GSI equipment and how will that affect how we are paid?
A: GSI is a GPS bases system that registers aircraft movement to record block time for legality purposes (i.e. Duty Time). Pay time is calculated using brake release only.
Q: UAL listed in their market filing $454 million for pilot merger/contract expenses. Assuming this is referring to the $400 million for the retro/bonus pay for pilots, what is the extra $54 million for?
A: As UAL’s Third Quarter results stated, “This charge [$454 million] also includes costs associated with changes to existing pilot disability plans negotiated in connection with the agreement in principle.” There is an associated cost to the company to transition from unfunded STD/PDI programs to a funded LTD program. That is the bulk of the additional $54 million charge.
Q: Do you have to turn a wheel to get a “work day” counted?
A: With M5D (min 5 hours pay/day), you get 5 hours minimum (averaged) for each calendar day, regardless of whether you sat in a hotel or deadheaded all day. Under the JCBA, a calendar day is measured from 0100-0059.
Q: What language, if any, exists to protect the West Coast to Pacific flying for the West Coast bases? (other than the LOA protecting SEA from closing for 2 years)
A: The TA and current books have no such protections, but those trips are naturally most efficient when flown with west coast crews.
Q: Reverse assignments (formerly called junior manning) – how do I know the Crew Desk has complied with the steps?
A: Any time the company covers flying with Steps 5-8 they will be required to generate a report to the SSC outlining their compliance with the Steps. Additionally, as pilots we will be able to see whether the flying was made available as SRM at the required time for the appropriate amount of time.
Q: I cannot find a 30-in-7 restriction in this contract. What prevents UCH from scheduling a 4-day on 1 day off 4-day on pattern? High time 4-day trips with the current book guarantees 2-3 days off.
A: FAR 117 eliminated most of these block time restrictions and replaced them with duty restrictions- science has determined that duty makes you tired, not block time. 30 in 7 was replaced with a limit of 60 hours duty in 168 hours. That limit would prevent what you are describing.
Q: In what section of the TA will I find when the pay clock starts. Currently we get paid when brakes are released and all doors are closed.
A: 3-C-3-b For purposes of Section 3-C-3-c, “actual pay hours” for a Flight shall begin when all cabin and cargo doors are closed and the parking brake is released and shall end when the aircraft arrives at a passenger unloading point and the first cabin or cargo door is opened.
In the Dec 8 TA Update, we included rebuttal remarks to a widely circulated “TA Concessions” compilation. One of the responses to a hotel statement was not as complete or accurate as it could have been. We have, therefore, included a response from the UALMEC Hotel Committee Chairman, Pete Pellegrino.
Unsigned Statement: Under the TA, ALPA can no longer disapprove a hotel. Without disapproval rights ALPA will no longer be able to require the company to canvas for a new hotel or force a change to the new hotel within 60/90 days. Any disagreements must go through a new Dispute Resolution Process (“DRP”) and shall not be subject to grievance procedures. The TA changes the current requirement to move hotels to a request meaning that the Company must agree with ALPA’s “request” to move from an unacceptable property. If the company disagrees with ALPA’s “request” the matter goes to the DRP. The dispute resolution process will likely result in a splitting of the baby at best, you win one, we win one, as the arbiters wish to remain employed. The Company to date has not once disapproved a property under the current language, changes in hotels have been the result of ALPA disapprovals.
Response: Incorrect. Now when we disapprove a hotel the process must be resolved on a tighter timeline rather than letting the company drag it out.
Reply from UALMEC Hotel Committee Chairman: The unsigned statement is largely inaccurate. It is true that the Hotel Committee cannot disapprove in the same manner as provided in the current UAL book paragraph 4-B-1-b-(2). Under the TA, when a hotel is disapproved, the committee will have to make a request based on a number of pertinent factors; examples include contractual violations, guideline violations and complaints. If a solution cannot be found a move should occur. If there is a disagreement, the DRP is triggered and both parties will make an argument at the MC/SRVP level. If unsuccessful it will go quickly to an arbitrator. Depending on the dispute, a section 17 grievance will be filed. The unsigned statement suggests the "request" is just the committee chair asking their buddy in procurement to do them a favor. This is not true. Nothing is guaranteed when an arbitrator decides a case. But the win-one, loose-one argument is nonsense. Lastly, it's true that no committee member can ever recall a written disapproval from the company triggering current 4-B-1-b-(2), the company has disapproved of vendors because of cost verbally with no regard for CBA, guideline rights, your rest, or safety. This is something they will not be able to do now with the guideline statement "cost in relation to market". The company will have to recognize the cost of doing business in
PS. L-UAL pilots take note. There is 20% of our Block Hours that is still below the UAX limit. How many 757's can you park in 20% with no replacements?
Tentative Agreement Update is another in a series of answers to recently asked questions. While the most frequently asked questions have been published and posted at www.unitedpilotagreement.com, new questions or questions asked in a different way often shed light on missing information or widely held perceptions that are not correct.
Q: How does the JCBA compare with the current books at UAL and CAL with respect to the number of hulls allowed in Express flying operations?
A: The JCBA provides for significant limits on the number of hulls in UAX operations that do not exist under the present UAL or CAL books.
Under the present UAL contract the Company is permitted to utilize an unlimited number of 70 seaters, an unlimited number of 50 seaters, and an unlimited number of Turboprops with 78 seats or below. As discussed below, the Company is limited only by the block hour ratio under which express flying scheduled block hours cannot exceed 100 percent of all Company flying mainline scheduled block hours measured only once per calendar year (and which provides approximately 20 percent headroom over present levels of UAX flying).
Under current CAL book, the Company can exceed 274 50-seat aircraft if it adds aircraft to the mainline fleet, but the number of 50 seaters (once added) is not reduced should the number of mainline aircraft be reduced. Because of new aircraft delivered to CAL since 2005, the maximum number of 50 seaters permitted today is 330 (although only 227 are in operation). In addition, there are no restrictions on the number of express carrier turboprops with seventy nine seats (Q400) or less.
By contrast, under the JCBA beginning in January 2014 50-seat aircraft are limited to ninety percent of single-aisle aircraft. In addition, starting in January 2014, 76 seaters (including the Q400) are allowed, but are capped at 130 and the total number of 76 and 70 seat aircraft cannot exceed 255. Beginning in 2016, the 76 seaters are capped at 153 and the total number of 70- and 76-seat aircraft may not number more than 255. And while after January 2016 the Company can ultimately increase the number of 76 seaters to 223, it can do so only if (1) the Company adds no fewer than 88 New Small Narrowbody aircraft to its mainline fleet and (2) reduces the number of its 50-seat hulls to no more than 125. The Company also then may not operate more than 102 70-seat aircraft. An increase in 76 seaters above 153 also triggers a significant reduction in the 1-C-1-F block hour ratio (discussed below) consistent with the reduction of UAX total hulls and a net increase in total single aisle hulls at mainline.
Q: How do the UAX block hour restrictions in the JCBA compare with those on the current UAL and CAL books?
A: There are presently no express carrier block hour limits in the CAL book. The UAL block hour limits are, as stated above: block hours scheduled for UAX cannot exceed 100 percent of the scheduled block hours for all UAL mainline flying (measured once a calendar year). The JCBA limits UAX scheduled block hours (excluding 37 seat turboprop) to 120 percent of scheduled block hours of single-aisle mainline flying (and are measured on a rolling twelve month basis, rather than once in a calendar year). In addition, this 120 percent ratio is reduced on a weighted basis depending on the number of 76 seaters at UAX above 153. For example, if the Company has 223 76 seaters in UAX operations, the scheduled block hours in these operations may not be more than 68% of the mainline single-aisle aircraft scheduled block hours.
Q: I recently attended a Town Hall meeting and have reevaluated my position on the TA. How do I change my vote?
A: You may re-enter the balloting website. Only your last vote will be counted. Your most recent vote will become final at 10:00 a.m. ET on Saturday, December 15, 2012.
Q: When will the official results of the vote be communicated to the pilot group?
A: The vote will close at 10:00 a.m. ET on Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012. Results will be available to the pilots on Saturday shortly after ballot certification by ALPA National and after the respective MECs are informed. The results can be expected via email and text messaging if you have opted-in to text notification.
Q: Will we know who votes how? Will it be broken down by different bases or by CAL versus UAL?
A: TA balloting is conducted in compliance with the Ratification Balloting Procedures contained in the ALPA Administrative Manual. As such, members' votes are cast in secrecy to protect their right to a private decision.
The TA Ratification Ballot will be conducted with both CAL and UAL pilots voting as a single group. Information released will include total # of ballots cast FOR/AGAINST ratification, their associated percentages, as well as the percentage of participating members compared to total eligible voters.
Q: I am on LTD, why can't I vote?
A: Pilots on sick/LTD leave can choose to be Sick Inactive or an Active member thus each case is different. A Pilot may or may not be eligible to vote depending on how he/she has chosen to manage their membership. Please Contact Membership Services: [email protected] or 1-888-FLY-ALPA, Option #3.
Q: Can spouses attend the town hall meetings?
A: Yes. In fact, it is encouraged that spouses and significant others attend meetings, review supplemental information and have their questions or concerns addressed.
Q: Expectations were for industry leading pay and I don’t see that in the TA:
A: In total value, this TA matches Delta in 2013 and exceeds Delta’s contract in 2014. This is a merger contract resulting from tripartite negotiations. The UAL or CAL MECs would have individually chosen to spread the value inside individual CBAs differently. The value, industry leading value, is not just in Compensation, but also in Scope, work rules, Retirement, Insurance and other items spread throughout.
Q: How much added flexibility does the concept of “add pay” give the company? How could ALPA sign off on something that is clearly manpower negative?
A: Add pay is simply an algorithm for compensation and is not manpower negative. The TA includes a series of steps that the company must take, in order, to cover open flying. The “add pay” in that framework is a negotiated win to compensate affected pilots. To be clear, the TA, in aggregate, is manpower positive.
To clarify why the TA is “manpower positive,” here is a comment from one of the scheduling/manpower SME’s:
If the TA is ratified, United will require a significantly higher number of pilots to fly its schedule. Manpower planning is based on credit hours, not block hours. This TA greatly increases the amount of credit time in the schedules. For example: the increase in vacation from 2.8 to 3.25 hours per day along with the increase in vacation days for about half the sUA pilots increases credit time by almost 200,000 hours if all pilots have their maximum accrual available. Just calculating it very roughly, let’s assume that only half of that increase occurs. 100,000 hours would translate to more than 100 pilot jobs created from just that provision alone. All the other provisions that create more credit time add up to even more significant amounts. Remember that sCO doesn’t have ANY “soft” time in their schedules under their current agreement. When added together the credit increases alone, even after accounting for potential increases in productivity on the sUA side due to incentive pay and the ability of pilots to waive certain provisions, result in an increase of (conservatively) 200 – 600 pilot jobs in addition to planned retirements. That doesn’t take into account the restrictions on productivity introduced by having a tighter line construction range and lower Line Production Averages. This TA is definitely manpower positive from a pilot point of view.
Q: Why do many of the contractual wins, such as the 3.5 to 1 duty rig, take so long to become effective under the TA?
A: It depends. In some cases the negotiated implementation date is driven by the transition to L-CAL’s Crew Management System (CMS) for the scheduling of flight crews. CMS is not ready for the addition of s-UAL pilots at this time and must be modified to calculate the new contractual limitations for all pilots. CMS must be ready for the FAR117 effective date of 1/1/2014 which motivates the company to have it done early so that any issues can be fixed before the deadline. Aspects of the TA will become effective as the infrastructure is built to support it, per the schedule in the Implementation LOA. The delay in 1:3.5 rigs was a negotiated point made to increase the amount of Retro pay, and because the impact of M5D will have a more immediate positive effect on our schedules.
Q: How and why did the language change from current United book regarding engineering and test pilots?
A: The past practice at s-UAL of test pilots relocating aircraft all over the world will come to a stop with this JCBA. Ferry flying will belong to line pilots only. Test pilots will retain legitimate flight test and flying requiring their specialized training, such as 3-engine ferry flying on the 747.
Q: What is GSI equipment and how will that affect how we are paid?
A: GSI is a GPS bases system that registers aircraft movement to record block time for legality purposes (i.e. Duty Time). Pay time is calculated using brake release only.
Q: UAL listed in their market filing $454 million for pilot merger/contract expenses. Assuming this is referring to the $400 million for the retro/bonus pay for pilots, what is the extra $54 million for?
A: As UAL’s Third Quarter results stated, “This charge [$454 million] also includes costs associated with changes to existing pilot disability plans negotiated in connection with the agreement in principle.” There is an associated cost to the company to transition from unfunded STD/PDI programs to a funded LTD program. That is the bulk of the additional $54 million charge.
Q: Do you have to turn a wheel to get a “work day” counted?
A: With M5D (min 5 hours pay/day), you get 5 hours minimum (averaged) for each calendar day, regardless of whether you sat in a hotel or deadheaded all day. Under the JCBA, a calendar day is measured from 0100-0059.
Q: What language, if any, exists to protect the West Coast to Pacific flying for the West Coast bases? (other than the LOA protecting SEA from closing for 2 years)
A: The TA and current books have no such protections, but those trips are naturally most efficient when flown with west coast crews.
Q: Reverse assignments (formerly called junior manning) – how do I know the Crew Desk has complied with the steps?
A: Any time the company covers flying with Steps 5-8 they will be required to generate a report to the SSC outlining their compliance with the Steps. Additionally, as pilots we will be able to see whether the flying was made available as SRM at the required time for the appropriate amount of time.
Q: I cannot find a 30-in-7 restriction in this contract. What prevents UCH from scheduling a 4-day on 1 day off 4-day on pattern? High time 4-day trips with the current book guarantees 2-3 days off.
A: FAR 117 eliminated most of these block time restrictions and replaced them with duty restrictions- science has determined that duty makes you tired, not block time. 30 in 7 was replaced with a limit of 60 hours duty in 168 hours. That limit would prevent what you are describing.
Q: In what section of the TA will I find when the pay clock starts. Currently we get paid when brakes are released and all doors are closed.
A: 3-C-3-b For purposes of Section 3-C-3-c, “actual pay hours” for a Flight shall begin when all cabin and cargo doors are closed and the parking brake is released and shall end when the aircraft arrives at a passenger unloading point and the first cabin or cargo door is opened.
In the Dec 8 TA Update, we included rebuttal remarks to a widely circulated “TA Concessions” compilation. One of the responses to a hotel statement was not as complete or accurate as it could have been. We have, therefore, included a response from the UALMEC Hotel Committee Chairman, Pete Pellegrino.
Unsigned Statement: Under the TA, ALPA can no longer disapprove a hotel. Without disapproval rights ALPA will no longer be able to require the company to canvas for a new hotel or force a change to the new hotel within 60/90 days. Any disagreements must go through a new Dispute Resolution Process (“DRP”) and shall not be subject to grievance procedures. The TA changes the current requirement to move hotels to a request meaning that the Company must agree with ALPA’s “request” to move from an unacceptable property. If the company disagrees with ALPA’s “request” the matter goes to the DRP. The dispute resolution process will likely result in a splitting of the baby at best, you win one, we win one, as the arbiters wish to remain employed. The Company to date has not once disapproved a property under the current language, changes in hotels have been the result of ALPA disapprovals.
Response: Incorrect. Now when we disapprove a hotel the process must be resolved on a tighter timeline rather than letting the company drag it out.
Reply from UALMEC Hotel Committee Chairman: The unsigned statement is largely inaccurate. It is true that the Hotel Committee cannot disapprove in the same manner as provided in the current UAL book paragraph 4-B-1-b-(2). Under the TA, when a hotel is disapproved, the committee will have to make a request based on a number of pertinent factors; examples include contractual violations, guideline violations and complaints. If a solution cannot be found a move should occur. If there is a disagreement, the DRP is triggered and both parties will make an argument at the MC/SRVP level. If unsuccessful it will go quickly to an arbitrator. Depending on the dispute, a section 17 grievance will be filed. The unsigned statement suggests the "request" is just the committee chair asking their buddy in procurement to do them a favor. This is not true. Nothing is guaranteed when an arbitrator decides a case. But the win-one, loose-one argument is nonsense. Lastly, it's true that no committee member can ever recall a written disapproval from the company triggering current 4-B-1-b-(2), the company has disapproved of vendors because of cost verbally with no regard for CBA, guideline rights, your rest, or safety. This is something they will not be able to do now with the guideline statement "cost in relation to market". The company will have to recognize the cost of doing business in
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
