Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)
-   -   United B737 base in SFO & IAD... when? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/73023-united-b737-base-sfo-iad-when.html)

Snarge 02-10-2013 05:48 PM

United B737 base in SFO & IAD... when?
 
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?

liquid 02-10-2013 06:08 PM


Originally Posted by Snarge (Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?


Two words: emotional impact

LAX Pilot 02-10-2013 06:10 PM


Originally Posted by Snarge (Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?

Probably immediately after SLI.

SpecialTracking 02-10-2013 06:15 PM


Originally Posted by Snarge (Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?

Let's see how the vacancy bid grievance progresses.

liquid 02-10-2013 06:22 PM


Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1349952)
Let's see how the vacancy bid grievance progresses.

I am assuming you're referring to a not yet filed grievance.

Lerxst 02-10-2013 06:43 PM

Prolly this one.....

To All,


I would like to thank all of those that have submitted their names to be included as signatories to the Individual Grievance that I am filing. Last week, I got in contact with C11 Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary Treasury to inform them that I would like to pursue an Individual Grievance and to ask for their assistance in the filing process.
This grievance is in the first step of a two step process. The Grievance was submitted to the C11 Grievance Committee Chairman last Thursday and we are working on a time to get together to iron out some of the details to strengthen the grievance. After the Grievance is finalized, it will be filed on Tuesday, February 12, and we will begin the second step in this process that we are about to embark upon.


The second phase of this grievance is the primary objective of this process. After the grievance is filed on Tuesday, I/we, with the assistance of council, will approach the court and seek Injunctive Relief at the end of this week or early next week. We will ask the court to grant the Pilots of United Airlines an Injunction against the Company to stop any irreparable harm that will be caused by UAL Bid 14-02 due to the company violating Sections 6 and Sections 8 of the United Pilot Agreement signed on 18 December 2012. With this, an agreed upon process of awarding vacancy bids can occur. United Airlines Management has violated the UPA by issuing Bid 14-02 and is discriminating against the Legacy United Airlines Pilots by disproportionately issuing and awarding a larger percentage of vacancy awards to only the Legacy Continental Pilots.


Over the course of this last week, I received constructive criticism on how to improve the grievance. I also heard many different opinions on the validity of this Individual Grievance and how to interpret the TPA, the Old Contract, what applies, what does not apply and how to interpret the integration of the two pilot groups.
The most important point of this issue is that this complaint is based upon basic contract law and I would like to direct your attention to my position. Several parts of the TPA, JCBA, Old Contracts from both sides are being misinterpreted and used incorrectly. When the UPA was signed on 18 December 2012, the UPA became the primary and sole governing document for all pilots at United Airlines. Any and all other MOA, TPAs, Letters of Agreement, previous contracts, etc, became null and void unless the UPA specifically addresses those documents. There are 2 "Integration Clauses" in the UPA that address this. Those "Integration Clause" are Section 25, Paragraph 25-B and LOA 26 Section A paragraph A-1. The 2 "Integration Clauses" read as follows:
"Section 25 - Duration
25-B Incorporation of Other Agreements
This Agreement and any Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding entered into by the parties after the date hereof constitute the sole and entire agreement between the parties while they remain in effect, and shall cancel all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Air Line Pilots Association prior to the signing of this Agreement."


"NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
A General
A-1 This LOA contains the full understandings and complete agreement of the parties regarding the implementation of the terms of the Agreement and the conversion from two separate collective bargaining agreements and two separate flight operations to a single pilot group operating a single operation under a single Agreement."


"In contract law, an integration clause, or merger clause is a term in the language of the contract that declares it to be the complete and final agreement between the parties. It is often placed at or towards the end of the contract."
Integration clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe that there is a group on the MEC that are not correctly interpreting the the UPA, TPA etc, in order to justify a process that they want to use as a means to an end. But, that interpretation is flawed as it violates the UPA and the violation of the UPA is going to irreparably harm many United Airlines Pilots.


The following (also attached above) is not my opinion but the opinion of one whom is experienced in contract law:


OPINION
re: LEC 11 Grievance
Here is my quick and dirty explanation of contract law as it applies to the LEC-11
grievance against the Company’s unlaterial imposition of the system vacancy bid. To be
honest, this is no more than law school contracts 101. The JCBA, notwithstanding the RLA,
is a just a contract. While the provisions can be complicated, the requirement of the parties to
abide by it is simple and is not mitigated by the RLA.
I. The JCBA
The JCBA is the controlling agreement of this grievance. It is the joint collective
bargaining agreement between ALPA and the Company – meaning, the primary purpose of
the JCBA was to join the interests of both Continental and United Airline Pilots as one pilot
group under ALPA. There is no greater intent of the JCBA than that. As such, because all
other agreements prior to the ratification of the JCBA did not join together the interests of
both CAL and UAL pilots, there is no other agreement that binds the parties beyond the JCBA
(see below, Section 25(B)).
A. Sections within the body of the JCBA
1. Section 6A: Section 6A provides that seniority governs bid awards for
system vacancies. Section 6A is not included among the provisions that are subject to
implementation in accordance with LOA 26, and therefore, it became binding on the parties
upon the effective date of the JCBA.
2. Section 8: Section 8 obligates the parties to a protocol of staffing of
vacancies, which are subject to LOA 26.
3. Section 25B: This is a very basic integration clause that
unambiguously states that prior extrinsic agreements are no longer binding on the parties of
the JCBA, and that the JCBA is the sole controlling document.
This Agreement and any Letters of Agreement and Memoranda
of Understanding entered into by the parties after the date hereof
constitute the sole and entire agreement between the parties while
they remain in effect, and shall cancel all Agreements,
Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding
and similar related documents executed between the Company
and the Air Line Pilots Association prior to the signing of this
Agreement.
B. LOA 26:
This is a very interesting, albeit poorly written, letter of agreement that provides the
protocol of implementation of several sections of the JCBA over the next few months.
Specifically, Section 8 is included among the provisions delineated by LOA 26 as requiring
expressed steps of implementation after the ratification the JCBA.
1. WHEREAS clauses: The “whereas” clauses of any document is an
introduction or preamble to a contract, and not a part of the contract’s operative provisions.
“Whereas” means literally “given the fact that,” and seems to be the way so many lawyers
think it is best to begin a contract, but it cannot create an obligation. Using “Whereas
Clauses” to make a false suggestion or intended perception of a legal right or interest, where
that right or interest is not given anywhere else simply doesn’t work because “Whereas”
clauses are never held to be binding. In the case of the LEC-11 Grievance, the whereas
clause of that states that “WHEREAS, certain aspects of flight the operations will
need to be kept separate prior to the merger of the seniority lists,” cannot bind the
Company, or the pilots, to a certain system of vacancy bidding.
2. Integration: Here, again, Section A, the first binding clause of LOA
26, unambiguously precludes the argument that any prior agreement applies to the
implementation process outlined in LOA 26
This LOA contains the full understandings and complete
agreement of the parties regarding the implementation of the
terms of the Agreement and the conversion from two separate
collective bargaining agreement and two separate flight
operations to a single pilot group operating a single operation
under [this] single [JCBA].
3. Implementation: In Section D, LOA 26 provides that:
a. Provisions not specified by LOA 26, unless otherwise the Joint
Implementation Team (“JIT”) formally provides otherwise
(according to the protocol outlined earlier in LOA 26), are fully
binding upon the effective date of the JCBA. Section 6
(vacancy bids are awarded according to seniority (without
consideration for pilot group)), therefore, is not subject to the
implementation plan set forth in LOA 26 and is fully binding
upon the Company.
b. “Until a provision is implemented, pilots will continue
operating under the provisions of their previous CBAs, or as
may otherwise be agreed by the Company and the Association.“
What is important here is what this clause does not say. First,
this clause does not obligate the Company to fill vacancies
according to either the L-UAL pilots’ or the C-UAL pilots’
previous CBAs. And it certainly does not obligate one pilot
group to the other pilot group’s previous CBA, or relegate either
pilot group’s rights and entitlements to those of the other pilot
group’s CBA. It states only that the pilots, themselves, are
obligated to their own previous CBA’s – not the Company, and
not the other pilot group. To interpret this statement any other
way would contract every other contractual provision related to
the intent of the JCBA, Section 6 of the JCBA, the intent of
LOA 26, Section A of LOA 26, and the following chart.
c. Chart of provisions covered by LOA 26 and each provisions
expected implementation, #102
102 [Section 8] Vacancies and Staffing Implementation to be developed by the Joint
Implementation Team (JIT) At SLI the JIT will
develop a process to provide for combined bidding
of vacancies
The most important point here is that it is the JIT who is
charged with implementation of Section 8 as it relates to
vacancy bidding. ALL implementation is to be developed by
the JIT and, then, at SLI, the JIT will develop the final process
for the combined bidding of vacancies. There is nothing in this
chart that provides for any other method of vacancy bidding or
implementation.
II. The TPA
There is no provision of the TPA that applies to the LEC-11 grievance.
A. Section 25B contains very typical, specific integration language. The parties
could have chosen either not to include an Integration clause, or include
provisions of the TPA as exceptions to the Integration Clause. They didn’t. It
is a blanket Integration clause that precludes the success of an argument by any
party to the JCBA that any agreement extrinsic to the TPA is binding.
B. LOA 25: There is language of the TPA that is specifically incorporated into
LOA 25, as it relates to new hires are furloughees. While it is true that
language from another source can be referenced and incorporated into a
specific provision, such reference is not incorporated into any other provision
(i.e., LOA 26, Section 6, Section 8) unless it appears in those provisions.
Further, what the language of LOA 25 does show is that when the parties
intended to incorporate the language of the TPA into the JCBA, they were fully
cognizant of how to do it. The mere fact that they did not choose to
incorporate any language of the TPA into LOA 26, Section 6 or Section 8
corroborates your argument that there was no intent of the parties that the
parties intended the TPA to play any role in the vacancy bidding process.
C. LOA 26, which sets for the specific obligations of the parties related to
implementation of Section 8 has it owns integration clause that, again,
precludes the success of any argument that the TPA has any application at all
to this grievance.


Respectfully Submitted,


XXXXXXXXXXX

Probe 02-10-2013 10:22 PM

English translation of the above grievance:

Hi your Honor:
Despite the fact that everything was agreed upon by both MEC's, I would like to file a grievance. I know it is legal, but I disagree. You see if little Johnny down the street gets a shiny new bicycle, I should also get a new bicycle, the same day. I tried to explain this to my Daddy, but he smacked me upside the head and told me to grow up. I told my Mommy, and she told me to ask Daddy. Since both seem to be unreasonable people, I hired my uncle Tommy the lawyer to seek justice.

This is all because I believe, in 6 months, little Johnny will also receive a new car when he turns 16. This is not fair. I am pretty sure my Daddy is not going to also buy me a new car, so I want justice. Even though none of this has actually happened yet, I want justice, now, because I believe it will.

Can you please give me what I deserve. Now. This is not fair. Little Johnny gets everything. Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Get over it. Get on in life. Or just get a life.

Probe 02-10-2013 10:28 PM

The best thing that can happen for both lUAL and lCAL pilots is for the SLI to be completed, no matter what the outcome. Both groups get to move forward in their careers, and their lives. Starting lawsuits and grievances now, is just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Life is not fair. I have friends that were born rich. Did I file a grievance with the mayor, the governor, the president, or Buddha because I should have been born the same? Of course not. I played the hand I was dealt. Anything else is complete, childish BS.

LeeMat 02-11-2013 01:29 AM


Originally Posted by Snarge (Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?

The word out is that IAD and SFO will continue to be l-ual until SLI.
The L-UAL B756 replacements start arriving in August. The B737 bids for these replacements will be out in March if UCH keeps their side of the deal. Again this just one of many rumors floating around. Logistics is that UCH will out source B737 training for the L-UAL pilots to no other than, you guessed it, UCH.

SpecialTracking 02-11-2013 05:30 AM


Originally Posted by Probe (Post 1350083)
English translation of the above grievance:

Hi your Honor:
Despite the fact that everything was agreed upon by both MEC's, I would like to file a grievance. I know it is legal, but I disagree. You see if little Johnny down the street gets a shiny new bicycle, I should also get a new bicycle, the same day. I tried to explain this to my Daddy, but he smacked me upside the head and told me to grow up. I told my Mommy, and she told me to ask Daddy. Since both seem to be unreasonable people, I hired my uncle Tommy the lawyer to seek justice.

This is all because I believe, in 6 months, little Johnny will also receive a new car when he turns 16. This is not fair. I am pretty sure my Daddy is not going to also buy me a new car, so I want justice. Even though none of this has actually happened yet, I want justice, now, because I believe it will.

Can you please give me what I deserve. Now. This is not fair. Little Johnny gets everything. Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Get over it. Get on in life. Or just get a life.

Kind of like squeezing out a big ole fat texan. It just makes you feel better when you write something like this doesn't it?

6blade 02-11-2013 06:16 AM

Such a high sense of entitlement on the LUAL side. Also what's up with all the north campus furloughed transfers wearing red ID clips? Another way to show someone that they are different? If you are not happy at LCAL, then find who forced you to take the offered LCAL position and get ****ed at them...., or think back to where you were prior to being offered a position at LCAL.

Sonny Crockett 02-11-2013 06:44 AM


Originally Posted by 6blade (Post 1350206)
Such a high sense of entitlement on the LUAL side. Also what's up with all the north campus furloughed transfers wearing red ID clips? Another way to show someone that they are different? If you are not happy at LCAL, then find who forced you to take the offered LCAL position and get ****ed at them...., or think back to where you were prior to being offered a position at LCAL.

Can someone explain the "RED CLIP" thing? I was given one and told that is was a way to identify who among the group were furloughed UAL brothers and sisters, now I read all this negative stuff about the "RED CLIP" not sure if a few RED CLIPPERS went out and cut some toe nails or what, either way I am back to the regular "Clear Clip".

SpecialTracking 02-11-2013 06:46 AM


Originally Posted by 6blade (Post 1350206)
Such a high sense of entitlement on the LUAL side. Also what's up with all the north campus furloughed transfers wearing red ID clips? Another way to show someone that they are different? If you are not happy at LCAL, then find who forced you to take the offered LCAL position and get ****ed at them...., or think back to where you were prior to being offered a position at LCAL.

Do you really think it is anti cal, or could it just be a sense of comradeship amongst the furloughees?

Snarge 02-11-2013 07:00 AM


Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1350221)
Do you really think it is anti cal, or could it just be a sense of comradeship amongst the furloughees?

The some of the UAL guys have a sense of entitlement... not unlike the DAL pilots....

The red clips were designed to allow the 2172/1436 to ID each other... however, with the UAL wings on the CAL pilot shirts, old school, orange crew bag tag and different demeanor... are the red clips even needed?

In addition, the first few months of UAL pilots going thru the CAL school house... were a little onerous if not cantankerous...

There is an unintended consequence of the red clips... trying to set yourself apart... can.... set yourself apart..... which helps enable divide and conquer....

SoCalGuy 02-11-2013 07:07 AM


Originally Posted by 6blade (Post 1350206)
Also what's up with all the north campus furloughed transfers wearing red ID clips?

I guess some like to make a "stand-out statement" with RED?? :rolleyes:

http://famousclowns.org/wordpress/wp...n-portrait.jpg

Dave Fitzgerald 02-11-2013 07:19 AM

As I've said before, the contract is the contract. Enforce it or don't give a **** to your peril. Doesn't matter what side you're on. Jeffy is already angry about the hotel debacle. Don't give him an inch.

Lerxst 02-11-2013 07:20 AM

The Stopover Store in IAH sells blue ones now.

Dr. Seuss was a brilliant man.

The Sneetches, by Dr. Seuss

Now, the Star-Bell Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.
Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small.
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And, whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
They’d hike right on past them without even talking.

--------------------------more Sneetch shenanigans-------------------


Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
The Fix-It-Up Chappie packed up. And he went.
And he laughed as he drove In his car up the beach,
“They never will learn. No. You can’t Teach a Sneetch!”

But McBean was quite wrong. I’m quite happy to say.
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day.
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches.
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether
They had one, or not, upon thars.

Short Bus Drive 02-11-2013 07:59 AM

WOW!!!!
People are reading too much into the red clip.
How about the "Ex-CON" stuff? How about the guys who are wearing the CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ties still?
Works both ways.
I wear my red clip, I have the old yellow Flight manual bag tag(because I wasn't given the new blue one), and an old United (tulip) bag tag because I wasn't given a new one...
And if I wasn't such a fashionista, I'd wear my blue overcoat, because s-CAL didn't pay for a black one (I am going to write off the one I bought on my taxes)...
Now for the pilots wearing old United wings with the CAL uniform.... that's a little over the top (IMO). I would wear my old United wing tie clip if it wasn't such a pain to remove/ put back on everytime I did my tie...

EWR73FO 02-11-2013 08:13 AM

Welcome to the new USAIR. This greviance is just the tip of the iceberg that the UAL MEC has planned. The contract is finished, the sUAL pilots got the lions share of retro pay, and are now focused on grieving any and all parts of the contract that they did not get to manipulate through the normal negoiating processes. sUAL has now proven that they have no intention of proceeding with an amicable integration or representing any pilots other than sUAL pilots. This attempt to circumnavigate the agreed upon bid process is nothing more than the sUAL MEC holding the sCAL pilots at gunpoint to get what they desired but refused to do so in order to start their self-righteous pity-party as a means to an end. :mad:

pilotgolfer 02-11-2013 08:19 AM


Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive (Post 1350277)
WOW!!!!
People are reading too much into the red clip.
How about the "Ex-CON" stuff? How about the guys who are wearing the CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ties still?
Works both ways.
I wear my red clip, I have the old yellow Flight manual bag tag(because I wasn't given the new blue one), and an old United (tulip) bag tag because I wasn't given a new one...
And if I wasn't such a fashionista, I'd wear my blue overcoat, because s-CAL didn't pay for a black one (I am going to write off the one I bought on my taxes)...
Now for the pilots wearing old United wings with the CAL uniform.... that's a little over the top (IMO). I would wear my old United wing tie clip if it wasn't such a pain to remove/ put back on everytime I did my tie...



I still have my ATA crew tag on my bag...right next to my orange United one. Is there a new crew tag for the combined airline yet?

Lerxst 02-11-2013 08:21 AM


Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive (Post 1350277)
WOW!!!!
People are reading too much into the red clip.
How about the "Ex-CON" stuff? How about the guys who are wearing the CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ties still?
Works both ways.
I wear my red clip, I have the old yellow Flight manual bag tag(because I wasn't given the new blue one), and an old United (tulip) bag tag because I wasn't given a new one...
And if I wasn't such a fashionista, I'd wear my blue overcoat, because s-CAL didn't pay for a black one (I am going to write off the one I bought on my taxes)...
Now for the pilots wearing old United wings with the CAL uniform.... that's a little over the top (IMO). I would wear my old United wing tie clip if it wasn't such a pain to remove/ put back on everytime I did my tie...


Good post. Just please keep in mind that the only pilots that have had their uniform paid for by the company are the sUA guys, every CAL pilot has had to pay for every piece (including the overcoat) since I've been here. Ridiculous to be sure, but it is what it is.

SoCalGuy 02-11-2013 08:58 AM


Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive (Post 1350277)
How about the guys who are wearing the CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ties still?

If you talking about the L-CAL "shiny ties", with subtle/now current UAL-Livery Globe embroidered on it......then yes.....those were former "Continental Airlines" ties. Until such time there's a Freddy-Gram dictating that we all are to wear the same/company paid for "suit", I guess we stick to what we have.

As far as the ID Tags go, at the end of the day, to each their own. Having recently spent time in IAH going through a "long course", there were plenty of "Red-Tags" abound. However, the one I couldn't help but noticing (felt bad for) was the guy who used a "red sharpie" to color his ID Clip. I honestly wondered when "Brother Bluto" would come rolling around the corner, next to the second floor coffee machine, and start issuing some kinda Delta-Chi handshake & Red ID Clip to this poor guy.

Snarge 02-11-2013 09:03 AM


Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive (Post 1350277)
WOW!!!!
People are reading too much into the red clip.

As I mentioned... the red clip and the negative perceived attitudes at the school house are connected... but I don't think it is that big of a deal...


How about the "Ex-CON" stuff? How about the guys who are wearing the CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ties still?
Works both ways.
Wow... so how do YOU define yourself? By them?


I wear my red clip, I have the old yellow Flight manual bag tag(because I wasn't given the new blue one), and an old United (tulip) bag tag because I wasn't given a new one...
And if I wasn't such a fashionista, I'd wear my blue overcoat, because s-CAL didn't pay for a black one (I am going to write off the one I bought on my taxes)...
So why actively choose the red clip if there are plenty of other passive indicators ?


Now for the pilots wearing old United wings with the CAL uniform.... that's a little over the top (IMO). I would wear my old United wing tie clip if it wasn't such a pain to remove/ put back on everytime I did my tie...
Some pilots were only given one pair of CAL wings with that creatively lacking square globe logo.... and the embroidered wings are too "MIL/Flying Club" stupid to even consider... would you feel better if they just wore no wings on the shirt? IMO....

SUX4U 02-11-2013 09:09 AM


Originally Posted by SoCalGuy (Post 1350318)
However, the one I couldn't help but noticing (felt bad for) was the guy who used a "red sharpie" to color his ID Clip. I honestly wondered when "Brother Bluto" would come rolling around the corner, next to the second floor coffee machine, and start issuing some kinda Delta-Chi handshake & Red ID Clip to this poor guy.

Wow, that is borderline pathetic that someone felt the need to use a sharpie to color the ID clip. Poor guy...

Short Bus Drive 02-11-2013 09:30 AM

can't delete post...

Coto Pilot 02-11-2013 09:31 AM

I think we should take it a step forward have the scabs wear a different color.

Short Bus Drive 02-11-2013 09:36 AM


Originally Posted by Snarge (Post 1350322)
As I mentioned... the red clip and the negative perceived attitudes at the school house are connected... but I don't think it is that big of a deal...

Wow... so how do YOU define yourself? By them?
? Just saying each side has their way of "identifying" who they "used to" work for.

So why actively choose the red clip if there are plenty of other passive indicators ?
'Cause it was free and I wasn't given anything else to clip my ID with while I was down there.

Some pilots were only given one pair of CAL wings with that creatively lacking square globe logo.... and the embroidered wings are too "MIL/Flying Club" stupid to even consider... would you feel better if they just wore no wings on the shirt? IMO....

I was only given one set of wings. They are on my jacket. We weren't given the option of ordering the shirts with the embroidered wings. So no wings on the shirt for me. Don't like them there anyway 'cause they get caught on the shoulder strap...

jsled 02-11-2013 10:27 AM


Originally Posted by EWR73FO (Post 1350289)
Welcome to the new USAIR. This greviance is just the tip of the iceberg that the UAL MEC has planned. The contract is finished, the sUAL pilots got the lions share of retro pay, and are now focused on grieving any and all parts of the contract that they did not get to manipulate through the normal negoiating processes. sUAL has now proven that they have no intention of proceeding with an amicable integration or representing any pilots other than sUAL pilots. This attempt to circumnavigate the agreed upon bid process is nothing more than the sUAL MEC holding the sCAL pilots at gunpoint to get what they desired but refused to do so in order to start their self-righteous pity-party as a means to an end. :mad:

Pot? meet Kettle. It is funny that you would accuse sUAL MEC of "circumnavigating" an "agreed upon process" and mention the retro pay issue in the same paragraph. (I thought it was a signing bonus, btw) ;) The retro pay issue was agreed to by the JNC, but the sCAL MEC wanted more. In fact they wanted HALF, even though sCAL has less pilots! I suppose by your above whining about how s-UAL got the "lion's share", you too would have been happy with half instead of the arbitration award which divided it proportionally. Your hypocrisy is epic.

Sled

jsled 02-11-2013 10:29 AM


Originally Posted by liquid (Post 1349947)
Two words: emotional impact

Yeah. Let's just open up SFO and IAD for bidding exclusively for sCAL pilots. Seems fair to me!

:rolleyes:

Sled

oldmako 02-11-2013 10:31 AM


Originally Posted by EWR73FO (Post 1350289)
Welcome to the new USAIR. This greviance is just the tip of the iceberg that the UAL MEC has planned. The contract is finished, the sUAL pilots got the lions share of retro pay, and are now focused on grieving any and all parts of the contract that they did not get to manipulate through the normal negoiating processes. sUAL has now proven that they have no intention of proceeding with an amicable integration or representing any pilots other than sUAL pilots. This attempt to circumnavigate the agreed upon bid process is nothing more than the sUAL MEC holding the sCAL pilots at gunpoint to get what they desired but refused to do so in order to start their self-righteous pity-party as a means to an end. :mad:

Considering how your J dicked up the JCBA process, and how he has tried to manipulate the SLI process, I'd say what goes around, comes around.

Have a swell day!
:D

Snarge 02-11-2013 10:33 AM


Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1350380)
Pot? meet Kettle. It is funny that you would accuse sUAL MEC of "circumnavigating" an "agreed upon process" and mention the retro pay issue in the same paragraph. (I thought it was a signing bonus, btw) ;) The retro pay issue was agreed to by the JNC, but the sCAL MEC wanted more. In fact they wanted HALF, even though sCAL has less pilots! I suppose by your above whining about how s-UAL got the "lion's share", you too would have been happy with half instead of the arbitration award which divided it proportionally. Your hypocrisy is epic.

Sled

Plus the CAL pilots got the profit sharing, whereas the UAL pilots did not??

Also, the retro was increased after the UAL pilots did the WH picket.... IIRC, only one CAL pilot showed up for that event....

jsled 02-11-2013 10:39 AM


Originally Posted by oldmako (Post 1350383)
Considering how your J dicked up the JCBA process, and how he has tried to manipulate the SLI process, I'd say what goes around, comes around.

Have a swell day!
:D

I say G-- DA-- James!!....spot on as usual. Where is the like button?

Sled


Lerxst 02-11-2013 11:21 AM


Originally Posted by Snarge (Post 1350384)
Plus the CAL pilots got the profit sharing, whereas the UAL pilots did not??

Also, the retro was increased after the UAL pilots did the WH picket.... IIRC, only one CAL pilot showed up for that event....

The Company initial retro was, surprise, 0 as they wanted a clean slate agreement. Negotiations got it to 200M where it languished for quite some time. BOTH Jay's had to approach the UCH Board to get them to force el Jefe into ponying another 100M. We are self-funding the final 100M by delaying the M5D credit until 1 year after OMD.

jsled 02-11-2013 11:38 AM


Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 1350404)
The Company initial retro was, surprise, 0 as they wanted a clean slate agreement. Negotiations got it to 200M where it languished for quite some time. BOTH Jay's had to approach the UCH Board to get them to force el Jefe into ponying another 100M. We are self-funding the final 100M by delaying the M5D credit until 1 year after OMD.

We (s-UAL) are getting M5D next month, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Sled

With the March Bid Period there are 29 new provisions scheduled for implementation per LOA 26. Most of these items are status quo at L-UAL but new to L-CAL. However, there are eight changes we would like to highlight for L-UAL pilots, some of which may impact how you wish to bid for March. L-UAL March Implementation Items:

1) 3-E: Training Pay increases. Training of less than five days and recurrent training (PC/PT) pay and credit 3.75 hours/ work day. Training of five days or more (i.e. transition) pay and credit 3.0 hours/calendar day

2) 3-F: Vacation Pay increases. 3.25 hours per day; credit will not apply until Aug 2013.

3) 4-A-2: Crew meals and Hotel Guidelines

4) 5-E-2-a: All pilots must verify they will fly each ID 36-15 hours prior to departure.

5) 5-G-2: M5D-Trips will pay average of 5 hours/day. This is pay only; credit will not be reflected in PBS until CMS.

6) 5-J: Changes to Crew Rest Facilities.

7) 11-F-1: Vacation slides starting with May vacation.

8) 20-D-3: New PBS Dispute resolution process

Lerxst 02-11-2013 11:45 AM


Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1350414)
We (s-UAL) are getting M5D next month, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Sled

We are all getting it for pay as a post process next month, but M5D for schedule preferencing doesn't begin until later this year.

I was thinking about something else and misspoke about the self-funding of the final 100M being tied to M5D, it is actually tied to the 3.5-1 rig that doesn't go into effect until OMD + 1 year.

jsled 02-11-2013 12:06 PM


Originally Posted by Lerxst (Post 1350420)
We are all getting it for pay as a post process next month, but M5D for schedule preferencing doesn't begin until later this year.

I was thinking about something else and misspoke about the self-funding of the final 100M being tied to M5D, it is actually tied to the 3.5-1 rig that doesn't go into effect until OMD + 1 year.

OH. OK. I agree that the 3.5-1 rig delay was a give to get the higher retro. Self funded is a stretch as M5D will take care of most egregious schedules.

Sled

Lerxst 02-11-2013 12:12 PM


Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1350431)
OH. OK. I agree that the 3.5-1 rig delay was a give to get the higher retro. Self funded is a stretch as M5D will take care of most egregious schedules.

Sled

Well, 100M is the price the JNC and UCH agreed would be quid for delaying the 3.5-1 quo.... I agree that the over/under on that valuation might be suspect. I just still have a fundamental problem with the fact that we had to delay/trade anything of value to achieve the full retro/bonus. But it is what it is. Cant wait for the 2.4% profit sharing to hit in a couple days.. Valentines dinner at Outback instead of Sizzler this year! :D

EWR73FO 02-11-2013 12:17 PM


Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1350380)
Pot? meet Kettle. It is funny that you would accuse sUAL MEC of "circumnavigating" an "agreed upon process" and mention the retro pay issue in the same paragraph. (I thought it was a signing bonus, btw) ;) The retro pay issue was agreed to by the JNC, but the sCAL MEC wanted more. In fact they wanted HALF, even though sCAL has less pilots! I suppose by your above whining about how s-UAL got the "lion's share", you too would have been happy with half instead of the arbitration award which divided it proportionally. Your hypocrisy is epic.

Sled

Funny? Funny? Starting down the hill towards lawsuit oblivion is funny? You say you had more pilots; we say we had been in negotiations longer. Your side won. Damn right we wanted more. Hypocrisy is having your MEC, your NC, and your MEC shove their heads so far up their arse they'll never see daylight during negotiations and then pulling out the grievance card after the fact to solve all of what ails ya. Not funny at all. Pathetic and nutless, but not funny.

EWR73FO 02-11-2013 12:20 PM


Originally Posted by oldmako (Post 1350383)
Considering how your J dicked up the JCBA process, and how he has tried to manipulate the SLI process, I'd say what goes around, comes around.

Have a swell day!
:D


You too. See you in court.

jsled 02-11-2013 12:44 PM

EWR73FO said

You say you had more pilots; we say we had been in negotiations longer.
Retro pay is based on money and time. Your side was owed less money (smaller raises) for more time. Our side was owed more money for less time. The JNC's formula awarded money to individual pilots based on money/time much the same as what ended up being the sUAL retro formula. The sCAL Mec objected. They wanted half the money for their pilots, so it went to arbitration.

Sled


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:09 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands