Slats Extend

TO: All pilots both L-UAL & L-CAL - PLEASE FORWARD AND POST ON ALL FORUMS
RE: One last pitch to "no" voters for unity.
Please read this email. At the end, I hope you'll change your vote to YES.
While I'm not an "insider" I have stayed involved and believe I have formed a good understanding of events. I ask that you read this letter with an open mind. Sorry if its long, but this is a subject of utmost importance, and this vote will decide which of two very different futures we face.
If you're a "no" voter so far, I think you might be doing so based on either incomplete or erroneous information about our situation. I assume you're making the best decision possible based on what you have to work with, but it’s just that....what you have to work with. Please allow me to present some information and opinion you maybe haven't heard yet. Afterwards, if you discount what I say, thanks in advance for your consideration.
Also, do not be swayed by the very few, but very loud people who are against this TA for political reasons. To further political futures, they evidently want other persons in the union structure to fail. That is their right, and beyond the scope of this letter.
I'm not going to debate the nuts and bolts of the TA:
I know its late in the process, but I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF ATTENDING A TOWN HALL OR OTHER MEETING TO LEARN ABOUT THE TA. At least talk to the P2P volunteers (who take an oath of neutrality) at the airports and at your local council meetings. Especially if you are upset about any particular issue. Talk to someone about it. You may learn that your "showstopper" provision operates differently than your thought it did and is actually a positive. There have already been many items that when complained about, turned out to already be in our present contract!
The TA has some items that we don't like but are stuck with. Are you totally against the pay banding or the lost dry cleaning stipend? Maybe you don't like all the flexibility or "add pay" items? Voting no won't make those things disappear in a subsequent TA if this one is voted down. Sorry! Many things like these were INSISTED UPON by the JNC of one pilot group or the other, and will continue to be something you'll just have to live with...unless you resign from the company of course. Many changes to the L-CAL work rules were needed for the company to be in compliance with the upcoming FAR 117 provisions.
The TA is not a bad deal. That said, it isn't an awesome deal either. The TA is a decent deal. Especially considering it's a merger deal of two very different pilot groups with their own history, needs and expectations. By definition, it's going to require all of us to keep an open mind and not instantly assume that something different is worse. Sometimes different is better. Some of the P2P volunteers that have really spent a lot of time learning the details of the TA, if asked in private for their own personal opinions, seem to like it.
Of course this TA has items we don't like, but generally those items are offset by some positives.
For example, the provision of "involuntary junior manning" THAT WAS FORCED UPON US BY THE NMB can only be put upon someone after the company has offered sweet deals to everyone else that could possibly fly it and then if you are forced into one of the TWO yearly events that you could be given, you will be compensated at 225% of your normal payrate. We lost the ability to say no to those rare occasions, but got industry leading reassignment pay, industry leading requirements for the company to accept ANY volunteer from any Base, and industry leading restrictions on when to get us back home.
The TA is the first step to ending the L-CAL / L-UAL whipsaw that threatens us all:
Look at what's been going on over at USAir. Neither side is happy and there is little hope of contractual improvement like ours. Management is in no hurry to fix it, the low labor cost more than makes up for the dysfunction!
Arguably the most important feature of our TA is that it removes downside future risk for ALL pilots and will put a stop to management favoritism and whipsawing that has gone on since our merger started. Both pilot groups must put a quick and certain end to management operating our airline on the USAir model. Coming into this merger, the L-CAL pilots had stronger merger protections in their contract than the L-UAL pilots did, and thus the L-CAL pilots have been enjoying upgrades and new airplanes to the frustration of L-UAL pilots.
The 99% strike vote proved that a vast majority of ALL pilots, both L-CAL and L-UAL, value the fundamental union principle of unity. However, there are stories of a very small minority of L-CAL pilots espousing a "no" vote for the purpose of completing the harvest/demise of L-UAL to take their jobs, concluding with delusions of negotiating an exclusive contract for the L-CAL pilots that is far richer than the TA. If brains were explosive, these people wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.
Each of us, when confronted with this type of scab mentality and its ignorance of history and union principles, has a duty to confront this cancerous thinking and set these few individuals straight in no uncertain terms that they are wrong. Their divisive beliefs and behavior cannot be tolerated if we are ALL to succeed.
Keep in mind the very nature of a whipsaw is that it cuts both ways, and while less likely there are scenarios in which L-UAL ratios on United Express block hours would require expansion of the L-UAL side if management decided to gain further expansion of United Express. Just because the L-CAL pilots are favored now doesn't mean that the L-UAL pilots, wouldn't negotiate something in the future to undercut L-CAL to save themselves if forced to. We've already seen the L-CAL pilots unilaterally agree to the extra-contractual $40 million profit sharing.
WHEN ONE SIDE BENEFITS WHILE THE OTHER SIDE FEELS THEIR FUTURE IS IN DOUBT, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER....MANAGEMENT!
IF THE TA IS TURNED DOWN, YOU SHOULD EXPECT FURTHER RATCHETING DOWN BY MANAGEMENT, WITH EACH SIDE EVENTUALLY FIGHTING TO PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER.
It doesn't matter which side is which.
The sooner we get the JCBA and SLI process completed and behind us, the sooner we can start working together for OUR mutual benefit, instead of working to Jeff Smisek's and Glenn Tilton's mutual benefit. Management has been dumping sand in our gears from the beginning and it’s about time it stopped.
How the TA that should never have happened....DID!
Let's start at the the beginning. It's important to know the story of how we got this TA to begin with. That way you can understand what little option we have going forward. This TA didn't come about in the traditional sense and this has been anything but a normal contract cycle. This TA was pretty much made possible by effort on the L-UAL side, but both MEC's and their JNC's were involved and did a lot of work too.
Back when Wendy Morse was UALMEC chair, negotiations started out somewhat normally, the company told everyone they expected deals by the end of 2010 but soon the date came that triggered NMB mediation. For a long time negotiation languished under the NMB's mediator assigned to our case, Pat Simms. The company was in no hurry, sending low level personnel to represent them and taking long periods of time to evaluate things passed to them etc. It was clear from the start that a deal was not going to come anytime near the December 2010 mentioned by senior management in public.
Granted, our side was dysfunctional from the beginning too. The CAL side insisted on pay banding from the outset and made it clear that there would be no moving forward without acceptance of such. Meanwhile the expansion and perceived favoritism of the CAL side was starting to ramp up while the UAL side was still reeling in stagnation from the parking of the entire 737 fleet and the furlough of 1437 fellow pilots that was a condition of beginning the merger. This favoritism and divide between the groups was reinforced when the CAL pilots accepted an extra-contractual $40 million in profit sharing from the company.
As as Jay Heppner took over UALMEC chair in January of 2012, our prospects for a new JCBA in 2012 were pretty dim, with the company pretending to negotiate by trading proposals back and forth on various minor sections of our contract. They were milking the railway labor act to its full advantage with no end in sight.
Later that spring though, L-UAL pilots started seeing MEC updates to get their financial houses in order, to start saving for a "rainy day." Remember the surprise? Soon we found out why, Heppner was planning to light a fire under the asses of everyone by requesting a release from mediation.
What wasn't publicized was that for some time prior, the L-UAL legislative committee chair had been cultivating relationships with important members of our government in both legislative and executive branches, as well as a very effective lobbying firm. She had enlisted the concern and help of these people who, throughout the entire process applied pressure on key individuals that frankly made this TA materialize where none should or could have. Though effective, this plan had a limited window of opportunity based on several external political issues such as presidential election timing, congressional recesses etc. Time was of the essence and our window of opportunity would not stay open much past the summer.
If you remember, the CAL side was reluctant to get on board with the plan, Pierce and the CALMEC put out a very luke warm letter about it initially, while most L-UAL pilots were hooting "it's about time we did something like this!" The CAL pilots kept telling us that we'll never get released. As Pierce, Heppner and Moak were in France for an IFALPA conference we started a campaign to terminate ALPA PAC and DCO to pressure Moak into getting himself and Pierce to look at the plan. Moak essentially did little to speed things up. Even after getting Pierce to consider the plan, and CALMEC getting the full briefing, they seemed to remain skeptical as they announced their support. Eventually Moak sent a letter to Linda Puchala, chair of the NMB, requesting a proffer of arbitration, which would then lead to release and 30 day cooling off period etc.
After this, the negotiations got more serious as our "friends" made calls here and there in support of our situation. It's no coincidence that the chair of the NMB herself took over responsibility for our case. This forced the company to get more serious; Mike Bonds and Doug McKeen, the company's top two attorneys took over negotiations on their side.
Sometime in June, Delta announced their new agreement, that was negotiated AHEAD of schedule, and it contained significant financial improvements for their pilots but also set a new and somewhat more flexible benchmark on scope. Our negotiations quickly centered on using this agreement to our advantage as much as possible.
Our ONLY true power against the company's continual delay in negotiations comes from the possibility of us going on strike after getting released and the 30 day "cooling off." With our friends applying pressure to move our case along, the threat of our eventual release became credible. That is the only thing the company responded to.
Lee Moak. Not very helpful, and time will prove worse most likely. As the summer dragged on, so did our negotiating progress, and our request for release got zero public response from the NMB. It was time to ratchet up the heat a bit, but Moak had to be constantly prodded to do anything on our behalf. Moak seemed adverse to conflict and escalation the entire time. Reluctantly he issued a second letter to NMB on our behalf, but it was like he was sending the letter with a wink and a nod to signify that it was ok for NMB to ignore it.
Remember the "end game" negotiations in New York June 4-15? During that time Moak put out a third letter requesting release, and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka also wrote a letter in support of our case. Again these letters only were produced after much effort by the legislative chair. What really drove those long nights and extra days of talks was our friends pressuring Puchala to make progress. The main hang-up was scope during this time.
It's really difficult to express the amount of work that key individual pilots were doing behind the scenes to maintain the continued support of our friends. Their success in this regard can only be termed as amazing, especially considering the amount of very powerful, highly financed and superbly connected special interests they had to compete against for attention in the government power structure.
There was a break after the 4th of July holiday, and negotiations later in July, but they started to stall out again in late July as they got down to the big ticket items again: scope and pay.
This is when our friends on the hill really helped apply pressure that resulted in a deal. The company was contacted directly to provide "briefings" of their "merger" progress in light of their statements made during congressional testimony and how the merger would be completed by the end of 2010. The White House picket conducted by the UALMEC was actually a highly coordinated event that resulted in almost immediate pressure on the NMB to get the United deal done. "Why are those pilots picketing in front of the White House!?" Pressure was also applied on the company directly to get the deal done. Soon afterwards an AIP was announced. The effectiveness of that picket event and the pressure applied was confirmed later in the leaked retro term history, showing an additional $250 million materialized soon after.
We thought we were on our way to a full language TA....but we were wrong!
After the AIP was announced the NMB left the parties alone to work out final language, but the company soon stalled and back-peddled on previously agreed to items. Again we planned another White House picket, as well as airports around the system, planning to be out there every day until a TA was produced. The NMB immediately re-engaged, and asked us not to picket. Puchala then stayed involved, presiding over the entire process until the TA was completed. The mistake of leaving the company alone and unsupervised illustrates the single most important concept of this letter:
THE COMPANY ONLY CAME TO THE TABLE AND MADE PROGRESS WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO. THE ONLY REASON THEY WERE FORCED TO IS BECAUSE THE NMB WAS PRESSURED TO GET OUR DEAL DONE. THE COMPANY WASN'T THERE FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL BENEFIT, THEY NEVER ACTED LIKE THEY NEEDED A DEAL AND THEY SHOWED ZERO INTEREST IN NEGOTIATING ANY FASTER THAN THEY WERE FORCED TO.
FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND A HALF AFTER THE MERGER WAS ANNOUNCED, WE RELIED ON THE BELIEF THAT SMISEK NEEDED A DEAL FOR SYNERGY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER EXTERNAL PRESSURE TO GET THE DEAL DONE, AND NOTHING HAPPENED.
It is important to realize that this TA was not a mediated deal. This TA was basically an arbitrated deal. Let me repeat this. The NMB arbitrated our TA, not all in one big deal in the traditional sense, but as a series of individual decisions when the parties couldn't come to terms. There was absolutely no way we could have insisted on anything deemed to be excessive by NMB, get released and eventually go on strike.
How was the arbitration binding? The lever against us was the power to park us, to let us sit, and against the company NMB had the power to release us and the possible risk of us going on strike. Why else would there be the gag order forced on both parties? NMB didn't want pushback from either side while they presided over everyone.
IF WE VOTE THIS TA DOWN, MORE $$ WILL NOT APPEAR:
Saying "no" shouldn't automatically be our answer no matter what, that's what kids do. Many current "no" voters suggest we'll get a better TA soon enough to make up for the $1.3 million in pay collectively lost each day compared to the original TA. Some suggest you should always reject the first offer.
"NO" has already been the answer numerous times already!
Remember the original Delta +$1 plus outrageous scope gives?? Remember that red herring offer of "expedited negotiations" along with the small print binding arbitration?? Remember the "end game" negotiations in New York before 4th of July? What about the next "end game" later in July?
You personally didn't get to say "no" all those times, but rest assured "no" was being said on your behalf right up to the point where "no" didn't make sense anymore, and "yes" did, by those in a much better position to judge than we were.
There won't be a better TA with more money if this one is rejected, not anytime soon. L-UAL pilots are rightly concerned about the protections they have in the TPA expiring and their side's steady decline accelerating. The L-CAL LAX council officers have suggested that 1-F provision in the L-UAL pilots contract will protect them, but many people have already written about the absurdity of that argument.
Based on everything I have learned, this is the ONLY deal we will get in any sort of realistic timeframe. Even an equal deal with re-arranged items, will probably take until 2014 or later. Jay Pierce told the P2P guys this, and Jay Heppner has been using a similar timeframe in other meetings with pilots. There will have to be a process to poll the pilots to find out what they want changed, find out what the company wants to change and then re-schedule negotiations from there.
Our political help is not there anymore, our "friends" have moved on:
Now that we have a TA that is slightly better than Delta, our "friends" on the hill consider our problem solved, and have moved on to other issues. If we vote to reject the TA, we won't have political help in Washington like last summer. That is a simple fact. Consider also how killing the TA will ensure that we will have tremendous trouble enlisting their political support for the next contract cycle!
Those suggesting a quick turnaround on another, better TA should consider how the company didn't negotiate or add money to the deal unless forced to by the NMB. Ask what pressure can be applied to NMB now?
The answer is none. If we picket the White House we'll look like spoiled overpaid prima-donnas who turned down 30% raises in a recession while the country was facing the fiscal cliff. The company will issue a press release highlighting the A380 payrates and how we turned down all that money and still want more. Count on it.
The company would love to see us vote this TA down. There are parts they would like to change to THEIR advantage. Did anyone notice they are reporting less profit lately than last year? They'll argue that we should be given a deal that is less than the one agreed to last summer.
Synergy? They don't need no stinkin' synergy! They're getting about 85% of the merger synergy even with separate pilot groups. They probably figure what they miss on the synergy, they make up for by whipsawing a divided pilot group to lower costs. Notice they haven't made any progress with joint contracts with other groups either?
Smisek may be under pressure to improve a lot of things operationally, but a new pilot contract isn't one of them. The UCH Board of Directors just looks at the Profit and Loss statement, and they aren't screaming at Smisek to increase the pilot costs by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Turn down the TA and the company won't meet with us unless the NMB tells them to, JUST LIKE THEY DID AFTER THE INITIAL AIP announcement, and all the years before last summer.
NMB has deemed our deal industry leading and it doesn't matter what we think:
The NMB values this deal to be better than Delta's. Linda Puchala thinks this is a good deal for us, it's essentially the one SHE came up with! What motivation would she have to help us after we shoot her deal down?
Think about it. We went over her head and made things difficult for her. At one point as she addressed the joint MEC's, she is reported to have exclaimed, "Leave me alone and let me do my f__ing job!" Of course we assume she'll be professional, but if we kill the TA, she'll be free to make a point by taking her time, letting us stew over the the deal we turned down. Remember, this lady is a former flight attendant and former AFA president. No matter how fair she tries to be, she has been dealing with pilots for a long time and probably cannot help but be influenced by her experience. From what I understand we pushed her as far as anyone could possibly dare.
For those of you "Standing On Principle" and concerned that this TA doesn't represent the compensation, the respect and the treatment you DESERVE as a professional aviator for the world's largest airline, I have only one simple answer, and you're not going to like it:
In the end, it doesn't matter what YOU or ANYONE thinks we deserve. The NMB controls the whole process, ensuring outcomes only marginally better than those that came before. If the TA gets voted down, expect to live with your present contract for a long time, until we're ready to accept the TA, or something essentially similar but only with different trade-offs.
The reality we face, in this current environment of increasingly bigger and more consolidated mega-airlines, is that the NMB and the administration it reports to, has essentially assumed god-like power. That means for us, trying to achieve gains, the best we can hope for are contracts incrementally better than whatever "comps" the NMB chooses. In our case Delta was the chosen comp and that was what we got, incrementally better than Delta.
Please consider voting YES on the TA, changing your vote if needed:
At work you demonstrate the ability to comprehend complex information and make reasonable decisions to maximize positive outcome for yourself (and those you care for) and also minimize the negative. This is one of those decisions.
Hopefully "no" voters can work through the emotion and find some way to evaluate the TA rationally as a decision with costs and benefits. This is not the time to want the TA to pass, yet express your protest for whatever reason with a "no" vote. The results will not include a breakdown by L-UAL and L-CAL percentages, so your protest vote will be drowned out by the overall results. I suggest you make the following choice as you vote:
The TA is really a choice about what kind of life you want to live going forward from this Saturday.
Do you want to move forward towards a unified pilot group, with ALL pilots working together under a contract significantly better than their old ones, or do you want to keep on fighting the company and eventually each other while we all toil with industry lagging pay and work rules?
If you've already voted "no," please consider changing it to YES, all you have to do is log back in like you did the first time. If you haven't voted yet, please do.

Thanks for reading and good luck to us all,

Darin Bishop
B-767 CAP SFO L-UAL

tkhayes90

Still a NO

tailwheel48

Interesting letter. Some rewriting of history - "the parking of the entire 737 fleet and the furlough of 1437 fellow pilots that was a condition of beginning the merger" - really? Which merger was that? USAirways?

The notion that the CAL pilots want to vote this down because they'll benefit in the SLI is bizarre and conspiratorial. All the NO voters I know, just want a better deal for everybody!

Still a solid NO vote!

gettinbumped

The theory here is that it was to right size for ANY merger that would get old Glenn his money. Not saying I agree with that it not.

I don't think it appropriate to suggest that CAL pilots necessarily want to vote this down to benefit in the SLI. However, the fact remains that for the two groups, the risks of a NO vote are HUGELY skewed towards one side. More importantly though is what he is saying about LEVERAGE. Do we have ANY going forward? How will those that control our future (NMB, Washington) look upon a pilot group that turned down a muti-billion dollar deal on the brink of a fiscal cliff. To assume that ANYONE in this country thinks we deserve a better deal than the one we are voting on is arrogant in the extreme. Like it or not, the opinion of the NMB and the lawmakers in Washington matters

For those that don't know the author, he is rather famous for his militant stance. He's definitely not a "company stooge"

gettinbumped

And your plan for an improved TA going forward is.......? What? I have yet to hear a good one yet

gofastmopar

Still a "yes"...thanks for interesting info ...

Regularguy

For you CAL pilots the selling and furloughing was done to make sure regulators would approve any merger, whether it be CAL, USAIR or any other airline.

Now I have noticed something on these blogs. It appears a large majority of the very vocal NO voters from CAL are in the 5 - 10 year seniority. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Speedtape

So even if what you say is true (it isn't)
It doesn't improve your case. So you were throwing people and equipment overboard to make the company attractive to anyone out there ?
How does that then justify a windfall for your junior guys? Sounds like they should be happy they have an airline to return to.
Sorry to sound harsh, but you're voting in a POS that all of us have to live with.
Watcha gonna do when the arbitrator doesn't buy your story either.
Then you'll have to live with this contract, AND no windfall

SpecialTracking

The used car salesman won't tell you about the deal down the road. Why?

untied

Are you kidding?

Renegotiate. That's what people do when a TA gets voted down.

Pretty simple.