The company can add the NSNB hulls anytime they want, what I take from Motch's post is that they need scope relief in order to make the hull swaps as it's not like trading in a used car. Ok, I'll buy that but how do we make sure it actually happens vice "oh never mind we're keeping the 50 seaters, look at all these new 76 seaters too!"

Can someone clarify how exactly we weigh into the whole FRMS factor of ULH 787 (and probably 773ER) flying? Why would we be opposed to more, longer range routes?

Grumble

I don't think we are opposed just that for now everyone needs to agree (FAA,UAL, ALPA) so that the FRMS can be adjusted. UAL might be requesting more latitude which may be good may be bad. My personal perspective is I want any reliefs very carefully spelled out in black and white so we don't have to wade through the grey area.

Agreed. This type of flying can benefit both sides so discussion is good. These new aircraft (787-9/10, A350 & 777-3er) can open up alot of new markets but ULH Flying brings new issues to the table. Rather have a workable agreement in place vs. canceling flights with 100's of pax stranded.

I do sometimes wonder if we are re-inventing the wheel. We can and should find out how DAL (ALPA) does it, and also reach out to see what AA has.

But in the end, I feel that this issue plus the Scope issue is why the company is looking for a deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqw0Gz9GahM

Always
Motch

There is already a workable agreement in place, the company just doesn't like it and chooses not to use it. That's their problem, not ours.

Can you point me where it has been stated that there will be no discussions and no changes to Section 1?

On the Oct 6 Blastmail, it mentioned 6 items, the last being the the 100 Seat NSNB Aircraft Order.
On the Oct 10 Blastmail, it mentioned 5 items, but still had a blurb about the NSNB Order.

Just have a hard time believing that they won't discuss the Section 1 issue.

Always
Motch

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
If there was a "workable" agreement, the company would not be discussing this issue and the Union would just walk away. Obviously, the Union is open to discussion because they must also see some issue.

Motch

The union decided to listen to a list, I don't think that automatically means they disagree with the particular agreement (LOA 30). There is no issue at all, the company just doesn't want to pay for the insurance policy upfront- they only want to pay for it if they actually use it. No issue whatsoever, they signed at the bottom of the MOU, right next to the union.

You guys need to check out the recent message that Council 11 put out about the extension talks. It answers most of the questions you've all been inquiring about.

MEC Resolution


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the MEC directs the Master Chairman and the Negotiating Committee to enter into discussions with the Company to explore a potential contract extension, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any agreement for the contract extension shall include the following items:
a) ALPA’s negotiation expenses shall be reimbursed by the Company to include any expenses related to a Special MEC meeting required to consider an extension LOA.
b) The timeline for completing negotiations not to extend past Friday, November 20, 2015.
c) The topics for discussion to include only those limited number of items listed in P. Douglas McKeen’s October 2, 2015, letter:
i. Compensation
ii. Retroactive longevity for furloughees for pay and vacation
iii. MOU 22 replacement
iv. Reserve assignment process improvements
v. FRMS
d) A firm order for NSNBs on the United Mainline property flown by pilots on the United Airlines seniority list.
e) The length of the proposed extension not to exceed two (2) years.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, should any items outside the list above (“c”) be brought up by the Company, the Negotiating Committee shall report back to the MEC for further direction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no relief of Section 1 of the UPA will be discussed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to keep the MEC fully informed, the Negotiating Committee shall update the MEC on the progress of these talks each week (i.e., Friday) or more often as needed, via ASPEN, teleconference, or meeting.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if no tentative agreement regarding a contract extension is reached by Friday, November 20, 2015, then no further negotiations on extending the UPA will take place prior to the normal Section 6 negotiations, which may begin as early as May 2016.

You should see an update from your LEC officers but they added no talk about section 1

^
Thanks..
Though, I look forward to seeing how this all plays out as the NSNB issue IS a Section 1 issue.

As far as Council 11 Blastmail is concerned. Please tell me how the 11000+ United Pilots who are NOT in C11 are suppose to know what they sent out?
Just went to ALPA.org and nothing there either.

Would be great if we could opt in to get all the council blastmails?
Then again, information is power~

Motch