gettinbumped

I find this whole thing absolutely fascinating. If for no other reason, it's not what we are normally accustomed to here at UAL. I'm curious to hear what the official offer is, though I think there is a better than even chance that we will never know.

I read Andy Collins C11 update, and though I thank him for explanations, I'm concerned because he is just dead wrong in some of his facts and assumptions. Revenue is most certainly NOT going up, and ticket prices have fallen to 20 year lows.

United Airlines continues to face unit revenue pressure amidst record earnings and margin expansion | CAPA - Centre for Aviation

Cheap Flights: Airfare Prices Decrease the Most in 20 Years

What bothers me about his post is that I feel like it's political enough that the facts are being ignored. This is dangerous in these types of situations in my opinion. It's obvious when you look at the way our MEC members voted that some people wanted to talk, and some didn't. I think that's healthy, but let's all be honest about what is happening in the world.

I've been giving a lot of thought to whether these negotiations are a good or bad thing. Not that my opinion matters 1 iota. I'm just an average line guy and will vote one way or another when given the chance depending on what the final deal is on the piece of paper. But I find the whole process interesting. Whats interesting about this is that we will actually be able to look back in time if we turn these negotiations down and do a cost analysis about whether we made the right decision or not... at least in terms of pure compensation.

HYPOTHETICAL here: I've heard rumors of what the pay numbers are. Doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, but just to do the math exercise, let's say it is a 15% raise, and then 5/5/5. That's 30% over the life of the contract plus the extension. We are due 6% already, so it's effectively a 24% raise over what we would have had with no extension. Let's say we accept the extension and we go 3 years past amenable date before we get a new contract. That extra 24% now gets extended out an extra year over what we have if we turn down the extension offer. Obviously if we were to get a retro/signing bonus in the next contract, your retro/bonus payment will be less because you're getting less of a raise because you are already 24% ahead of where you are right now.

Of course, if the economy continues to soften as it is now, and we end up in another recession, the company may very well be asking for concessions for survival during the next contract cycle. If that's the case, then it's always better to be negotiating from a higher number obviously.

It really boils down to, do we think we are going to have better leverage during a regular section 6 in the next couple of years than we do right now.

Scope is another interesting issue. Thanks to those who have counted the numbers of 70/76 seaters and brought this issue to the forefront. I am strongly in the "no give on scope" camp along with it seems everyone at this airline. But can there be adjustments to scope that actually benefit us AND the company? What if we allowed the 70 seaters to stay by adjusting Section 1 but in exchange required the parking of 150 extra 50 seaters? Net loss of 90 or so regional airframes. Is that a "good" deal for the pilots? I don't think it's as simple as a cut and dried "no negotiations on Section 1 will be permitted". It seems to me that the more room we have to move and be creative, the more opportunity we have to gain. That's the optimistic view, of course. Same with the Duty Limit issue. Discussing some adjustments there could open up some flying that we might not otherwise capture. Sure we are getting 787's at a rapid clip, but if you really think the company won't turn on a dime and park the 767-300's if they end up with what they determine to be "excess airframes" because they can't do the flying they planned, you haven't been around very long. This company parks jets just because they think the number sounds cool (94 737-300/500's didn't sound awesome enough, so let's throw in 6 747-400's just to make it an even 100). Fascinating times. I'm glad that smarter guys than me are making the decisions. I just hope that they, and we, keep an open mind because this really COULD be an opportunity. Or it could be another giant United turd. Time will tell. Fascinating.

I've enjoyed reading this thread to see everyone's different ideas, numbers, philosophies etc. Good stuff.

horrido27

^
Very well written Post!
Motch

UALfor25

You guys need to get a cup of coffee and read section 1. It's all already in there. And, yes, NSNB's are in there too. Already. It's all been previously paid for via previous negotiations. 70 seat scope. 76 seat scope. And how the numbers of the 2 can fluctuate. It's all there.

gettinbumped

I've read, and understand Section 1 thoroughly. I'm just raising the question of whether it's wise to completely close Section 1 to negotiation. Perhaps there is a way to IMPROVE Section 1 for us that still allows the company to benefit. Perhaps not, but it makes for an interesting thought process.

FirstClass

For the love of god, weren't any of you regional pilots? PLEASE, stop giving away scope so us lower forms of life can get the hell out of here. Regional pilots don't want these jets, what we want is to go to mainline.

UALfor25

If there were ways to IMPROVE section 1, I wouldn't suggest mentioning them on a loosely regulated, PUBLIC forum. I would suggest emailing your ideas to your LEC Chair and Vice Chair.

gettinbumped

What are you talking about? Can you point me to ONE post where someone said they wanted to "give away scope"?

gettinbumped

I agree with you Thor. I think the MEC's inclusion of a refusal to discuss Sec 1 will render this entire discussion moot. I can't see an agreement happening without that discussion. I'm not sure I would agree that you would have to assign a valuation to be able to determine whether a scope change is a give or a get. Scope is maneuvered in almost every Section 6, and sometimes thinking outside the box a little can yield some decent results (Scope Choke). It would have been interesting to see if there was a way through that would benefit us, but I don't think we will get past the initial discussion stages of an extension

FirstClass

Uh yeah the post I responded too.

gettinbumped

I didn't take it that way. Talking about capturing 100 seat flying at a mainline level here. If successful, every one of those jobs is new and will pull pilots up from the regional level to mainline. That's something worth exploring in my mind.