In the matter of: UAL DRC vs CAL DRC
 

3 And what we think ALPA's position ought to

4 be, and what you ought to direct ALPA to do, is to

5 insist that the Company immediately fill 105

6 positions through bids that are available

7 exclusively to United pilots in the very bases,

8 equipments, and seats that the 105 Continental

9 pilots filled in the post September 6, 2013 period.

10 And similarly, because there were eight

11 United pilots who hadn't commenced training for

12 vacancies prior to September 6, 2013, ALPA should be

13 directed to seek the Company's immediate filling of

14 eight positions through bids made available only to

15 pre-merger Continental pilots in the bases,

16 equipment, and seats that the eight United pilots

17 who hadn't commenced training as of September 6,

18 2013 filled.

19 We are not -- and I want to be clear about

20 this. I think we were clear in our brief, and we

21 want to be clear to you so that there's no

22 misunderstanding. While we could have, I think,

rightfully asked for a remedy that would have

2 removed the Continental pilots from their seats and

3 rebid those positions based on the Integrated

4 Seniority List, we're not asking that that be done.

5 We don't blame those pilots for taking

6 those positions. It was not an action by the

7 Continental pilots that led to their sitting in

8 those seats.

9 And we don't think it would be appropriate

10 nor conducive to the kind of unity that we think is

11 critical for the ongoing operation of ALPA at the

12 merged United to be the engines that drive pilots

13 who are sitting in their seats from those seats.

14 So while we think it would be an

15 appropriate remedy, we are not asking for that

16 remedy.

17 Another component of a remedy that one

18 would normally seek in a case like this is back pay

19 for a certain number of pilots who had been deprived

20 of those positions because the Integrated Seniority

21 List was not used to fill them.

22 But under the dispute resolution

procedures, back pay is not available until the

2 Company has been presented with your award, and 15

3 days has gone by, and they haven't complied with it.

4 But out of an abundance of caution, we

5 think that your award ought to include a provision

6 in it that if the Company doesn't comply within 15

7 days of being presented the award, that they be

8 obligated to make back pay payments to the pilots

9 who eventually hold the seats that are -- that are

10 dealt with by your award.

11 And then finally, because we understand

12 the reality of labor relations between a union and a

13 company, we think your award ought to include

14 sufficient wiggle room to allow ALPA, as it's

15 advancing the position that we want you to direct it

16 to advance, to allow ALPA, after consultation with

17 the United DRC representatives, to resolve the case

18 without litigation in a manner different from what

19 you award, if, in the exercise of their best

20 judgment and their responsibility as a labor

21 organization, and, again, after consulting with the

22 United DRC representatives, they conclude that

another resolution is a better solution to more

2 quickly benefit the affected pilots.

3 So that's the shape of the award that we

4 think you ought to issue, an issue that we gave you

5 a proposed award along with our prehearing brief.

Always interesting reading. Especially the part where ALPA not be bound by any decision to back pay pilots denied captain seats or remove current captains from their seats, but allow the union and the company "wiggle room" to settle it with a side deal. Those deals never seem to go our way, but LUAL pilots are in complete control of our union now so it will be interesting to see if there's a different result.

Not factually supported.

No misunderstanding. You really want this option and think it appropriate, but don't want the repercussions. We are going to hit you, but don't hit back. You got your pin on?

To be clear, I hope guys get money out of this. Unlike some that were opposed to our profit sharing, I like when Pilots get money from MGT.
MGT has gotten enough.

And before someone starts thinking I am trying to protect my slot, I was trained well before SLI.

This is the repercussion of 3 years of dragging on the JCBA and SLI while you enjoyed great movement during horrible financial times. Your reps made it clear they'd be happy moving on forever in that situation and you boast often of your brave no vote to protect an already lost 50 seat scope....do you really think overuse of 50 seat aircraft is really doing well for our airline? Or is 50 seat scope a convenient issue to hide your nasty former whipsaw position. Now man up and deal with the repercussions of your actions...or throw around scary threats if thats how you must move on.
As for the brave slick tie...what are you doing to fix our unions issues? Work to fix the only group we currently have or shut your hole.

Sweet, let's give them E-195's next time. We need the company to succeed! Doubt you are this much of a tough guy in person. Haven't flown with a UAL guy yet who had the belief/cojones to insist that I only voted NO to stuff more upgrades. Would love to know how you would have forced Jeff to get away from the 'BK contracts are the new normal' mantra he stuck to for four years. Then again given your helpful scope attitude, you probably would have voted YES to DAL's BK contract.

It's amusing to watch you guys personalize this as if you have input or control of the outcome. Rant away brothers.

The TP&A contained language to dispute the process and application of the agreement and this dispute is the result of the company getting caught speeding on the implementation. The company created this dispute yet you want to fight each other, you guys are brilliant.

They are parking the 50 seaters as fast as they can. Overuse of the 50 seater?? Yes they are over used, they lose money so you want to give away bigger profitable airplanes to company's YOU DO NOT work for? The 50 seater were gonna be parked. We could have taken back that flying.

We were not dragging our feet. MGT. Controls the clock during negotiations. We were waiting for the right deal. We were offered Deltas deal before this merger mess and tuned it down. I guess you probably think that was just premerger posturing.
As for union work I have volunteered on committees in the past. Mine was lost due to the merger, not very many CAL types welcome now. So shut your hole.

First, I'm not the one making threats!
Second, I hardly suggested we give them E195s, but nice odd point. Most UAL guys are glad it's over. I personally don't ask CAL guys about their votes but I know how their LEC5 rep felt as he publicizes he would rather do just keep the one way movement going. FYI, albeit imperfect thanks to highly successful whipsaw; we have a non-BK contract!

Like I said, I hope they get The Money!!

Ah...NO.
Lame excuses for not wanting to be apart of the future of fixing our union...Glenn and Mark found a way to help...CAL guys. Did you speak up when your rep spoke of his pleasure to drag this on forever?
Today...we contract way more 50 seaters than our competitors. I want a scope that protects our jobs as much as our competitors is competitive.

Did you speak up in opposition to your reps position of exactly that?

And why would you be offended if a UAL asked you anyway? I said it to your MEC VC in person in public IAH Trng Ctr SEP 12...along with almost every class.

Weren't Glen and Mark elected after SLI and after we were one MEC?

Exactly. The we are not welcome in ALPA anymore is no good..it may be messed up but it is out union and CAL and UAL pilots must be involved to fix it and they are doing so in my opinion.

Don't have the beating a dead horse emoticon on this computer.....otherwise......

Give it up folks.

Lee

How many Committees are led by ex-Cal pilots? Glenn and Mark were elected in a base that is dominated with ex-cal types. Had l-UAL been the dominate vote they never would have been on the ballot.

You have some serious flawed logic when it comes to scope. " I want a scope that protects our jobs as much as our competitors is competitive." That is some genuine frontier gibberish. I think what you are trying and failing to say is that you want to protect jobs and make the company competitive.
First of all nobody told the company they needed to purchase those planes. The company screwed up by doing so, not the pilot group by refusing to allow larger planes in the past. By your logic all flying should be given away, just think how profitable they could be then. Or is it we should only give away the flying you no longer wish to do so that you can get a raise.
Secondly, if you are so concerned with being competitive, why not have us fly the planes at a rate that is competitive. At least it would be flown by pilots that have been trained by UAL, care about the UAL passengers and the well being of our company.
The company is coming for the 90-110 seaters next time. They have no intention of putting them on our property now because they know guys like you can be bought off. You are correct I voted NO. I will never vote yes for a contract that gives away scope or job protections.

If you are referring to Jason Barons comment, then you are taking it out of context. His comment was used not to delay negotiations but to influence your side to quit demanding the 747 get a higher pay scale, so we could move forward. Just because we disagreed with your position, does not mean stalling occurred as to drag out negotiations. You guys wanted your plane to pay higher, we did not, and a nasty battle ensued. This comment probably speed things up as it conveyed to your side that we were not going to relinquish on the point. If Jason wanted to stall negotiations he could have voted not to approve this contract at the MEC level. If Pierce wanted to delay this contract we would still not have one. Maybe you should have talked to your side and told them to agree with Jason sooner.

70 seaters were already at express before our JCBA vote yeah? I've never voted to give our flying away but don't crap on my legacy predecessors who saw their airline attacked and on the verge of going away after 9/11, as well as American. Bought off? How do you accuse anyone of being bought off as you also brag of your Junior manning 200% collections? Why would Jeff listen to you during negotiations as long as you'd take the money? Don't read my posts that hard...read our JCBA scope section though and compare...it is the best in the industry today. Yeah, I wish we still had all kinds of things but 70 seater ship sailed and think we have a better contract to force Small NBs than Delta that actually got em...ur right we can't force our company to buy planes.

You voted to give them 76 seaters this time. Almost a 10% increase. They have yet to hit the line but are coming. Junior. manning is meant to penalize the company for not staffing properly. It must be working as they are training people as fast as they can.

Btw, I would never pick up a trip for straight or double time with guys on involuntary furlough. I did not "brag" about it either just pointed out that I am prepared if I get knocked down to reserve or off my position, as one of your guys was wishing bad Karma on all of us JR Capt.

Actually I haven't been offended when asked if and why I voted no. Most UAL guys I've flown with have agreed that my logic had merit. But in your eyes I voted no out of greed cause I sucked up scab culture apparently.

You want a unified pilot group, right? You won't win over the pragmatic from L-CAL if you keep insisting we sat around in private high fiving each other over how awesome it is was that we were getting upgrades despite POS Contact 02. BTW, I told Jabba the Hut long ago that he was a waste of space for making the remarks your kind loves to tattoo on every CAL pilot. And Ben, sorry got no love for his bombast either.

I see you added this since my reply. Best in the Industry? You ever heard of Southwest? You might read their scope section. The 70 seat ship sailed but if you think this fight is over keep dreaming. Like I said they will come for bigger aircraft next time. There is gonna be another scare tactic on why you need to give it away (stick) and a fat raise or contract improvement for YOU (carrot) when you do.

You tell me Jason Barons sped up the JCBA process, you maybe right in a sick way as he sure got a s-load of sUAL yes votes every time he communicated..I've got nothing more.

Couldn't agree more.

I would much rather go back to abusing Staller/Carolsdanger. Plus he is on my side of the fence so the other side doesn't mind me kicking him while he is down.

Hi Staller.

Your measurement of scope is obviously "what size airplanes can your code share partner fly". So you measured the old 50 seat limit for jets at CAL, ignoring that they could fly larger turboprops that carried 78 people (Q-400) and Southwest. Well Southwest is an all guppy airline. They don't need feed because they don't service small communities. Southwest isn't flying passengers from numerous smaller markets to SFO to put them on a 747 to Sydney Australia. They service large cities in the US. Most express flights service small cities.

Also, pre merger, CAL code shared with United, so you were ok with United flying 747s and 777s with CAL passengers on them, but then you have a problem with 76 seat jets?

You have a very myopic view of what scope is. Right now, for major airlines, United has the best protections. Ask the experts and learn, and please quit making very simple observations about something that you are unfamiliar with as a whole. To me this is like passengers explaining turbulent as "air pockets". It shows me they don't understand.

This is the exact attitude that has led to 66% of domestic flights being outsourced. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...d_airlines.php. hey I am sure they are all small city's. Like Chicago-Boston or Chicago-Washington. United: First Embraer E175s to fly from Chicago in May No way a mainline pilot could possibly be used to those farm communities!You are wrong, a large portion of express is to and from Large cities like the ones above. In fact most of the explosive growth came at the expense of Major airlines giving flying away that used to be done by DC-9's, classic 737's, Fokker 100's etc. As the 175's come on line expect them to increase service to the larger cities even more. But hey, as long as YOUR jumbo flying is there that's all that matters. YOU don't want anything to do with those little planes. Let's sell that flying and then complain about regional pilots taking our flying. This is not a code share! Big difference between this and a code share.

The turbo prop's should be scoped too but there is a huge difference between turbo prop service and jet service. Any real pilot would know that. Even the passengers that explain turbulence as air pockets know that turbo props are never going to replace jets on a large scale, like when you lose 66% of the domestic schedule.

I wish I did not know anything about scope and how the lack of it effect pilots. Unfortunately, I have lived it for 20 years.

So how much pay are you willing to give up so that a pilot on the seniority list can pilot that 76 seat jet between Sioux Falls and Des Moines? Because these things do not happen in a vacuum, and it we want these protections, we will have to give to the company.

Contracts are negotiated. Get on the negotiating committee and make it look the way you want. We all get to vote on the tradeoffs, and this is one a vast majority of pilots agree with.

Welcome to democracy.

Attitudes didn't create this. Market forces did. If you want to fly those routes, Skywest is hiring.

How many more routes and jobs you gonna give away? All of them except yours right. It's all about the Jumbos. Attitudes did create this, it's why I will never vote to give up scope, cause I don't want to work for a regional again.

Vote no all you want. Your no vote won't stop market forces.

"His" will quite possibly go away if operations like NAI gain approval and Middle Eastern carriers succeed with their plans. It won't matter how we vote if we can't win in the marketplace.

He didn't give any jobs away, they were already being taken from us...the yes vote stopped the #1 threat to sUAL pilots.
I can't imagine how painful your brave scope fight was when you enjoyed ridiculous upward movement when every other carrier in the world suffered horrible economic times...you're the man and was fortunate to be hired at such an amazing airline!
Just curious, how much of your 20 years fighting scope as you say was at a Regional working for $24K/yr?

Aer Lingus A330's flying IAD-MAD for UAL? Hey bro, market forces. ANA starting a second NRT-ORD? Hey bro, must be market forces. Btw as sleeves pointed out the large RJ's aren't flying from Des Moines to Sioux City, but rather to our hubs from small cities like Dallas and New Orleans. Hey man, easily explained as market forces! Always love hearing the senior WB guy that buys the RJ feed koolaid UNTIL a commute gets wrecked. Once they got bumped by an RJ guy, it's full outrage featuring comments along the lines of "We should get priority for all seats cause we control the seats!" :rolleyes:

Funny, because I count over 30 cities served by Southwest that are now too small for us to serve with mainline service. Many of them are "small communities" you might remember serving on 737s or A320s like Indy, Kansas City, Nashville, etc. Without scope, the rest of the contract is worthless. Openers in a couple of years and expect another attack on our flying in exchange for pieces of gold. Some will learn from the past... some are condemned to repeat it.

Agree mostly but can u explain why with an equal or better scope than true/legacy competitors we aren't matching them in cities like the ones u mention. I see plenty of DAL AA mainline planes in those cities. DAL even has 757 service to some.

My upwards movement even if your premise is true, that it was at the expense of your group, was a short term event. We gave you protections in the TPA. Even if they had not existed, the eventual SLI would have balanced everything out. Giving away flying with the lack of scope will never come back... Ever. We have also set these company's up to take the next batch of flying with the 90 seaters being essentially the same plane.
While I flew at the regionals I supported mainline scope. I think you will find most regional pilots do. The job you give away is not only yours but their future job as well. Most want to fly here not there.

Now that we rebeat the crap out of our historical mud fight...I think you will find a significant amount of your new fellow pilots agree and will fight a bloody war over holding the line on 76 seaters.

You want to fly to Nashville and compete with DAL and SWA? OK, what jets and pilots are we going to use? What about station personnel? So what cities that we currently fly to would you like to take those airplanes from and stop flying to those cities? We do not have unlimited resources. We have to have someone fly to those cities on our behalf because we can't do it ourselves and make money.

Despite how lousy management has been with the integration, they do a decent job most of the time picking which cities to fly to and how to stay profitable on those with the resources we have.

With regards to United Express doing some hub-to-hub flying as well as larger cities, its done mostly because of aircraft routing for the RJs to improve their crew and maintenance scheduling and filling in the gaps in service. So we limit this with SCOPE to a percentage of mainline narrowbody block hours, etc to protect us.

You may not like the SCOPE we have, but its industry leading by all accounts for the big network carriers and we are hiring faster than we are retiring, and the SCOPE provisions get tougher in 2015 and especially in 2016.

No, I honestly can't explain it, other than our "industry leading scope" might not really be industry leading. That's just a guess because I can't think of another logical explanation.

I certainly expect that and hope our flag carrier brethren at DAL and AA don't fold either. It's a tough battle to fight alone.

How about using the planes and people we used back when we flew to those cities and competed against the exact same carriers? Our fleet size isn't fixed in stone.

You're probably right there.

That might all be true, but we did use mainline planes to all of those places in the recent past. The cat is out of the bag regarding 76 seaters, but we've got to hold the line somewhere or we'll become strictly flag carriers and that probably won't end well.

Easy. Its not linear.

I have friends at DAL complain about cities they fly RJs into and we fly mainline into. You can't just look at one or two cities. You have to look at the entire picture.

Yes SCOPE isn't perfect and its never going to be. Let's not let the quest for perfect SCOPE be the enemy of a good overall contract.

I think if and when we get a 100 seat jet on the property as a net increase guys are going to feel better about this. I'm just surprised that there hasn't been an order yet.