100 Seat A/C - Don't Grab For The Carrot!
 

Over at Delta we rejected our TA in July due to a myriad of issues, primarily concessions during positive financial times. We were also dangled a "carrot" in the form of bringing at least 20 EMB jets to the mainline, along with 40 more 737s. The 100 seat pay rates were disproportionally low compared to the rest of our categories. Our smallest A/C, the B-717, pays the same as a DC-9, one iteration of which was a 68 seater not too many years ago, and the backbone of the fleet was at 100 seats. One school of thought dictates that the lowest captain pay rate must exceed the highest F/O pay rate. Even with substandard pay, I expect the EMBs would have been welcomed if the other areas of our TA were not so onerous.

But we all need to remember that the airline will purchase the aircraft required to support their business pursuits. We should never trade away other areas of a contract for the promise of new aircraft. This is especially true in the 100 seat arena. Given the staffing challenges in the regional ranks, there is pressure to operate these aircraft on the main line. Embrace the capture of affiliate flying, but don't pay for it. Get the pay rates right. Take carrots off the menu!

There is not a pilot on property who is reaching for that carrot. We open SEC 6 in MAY. Our contract needs a lot more help then the 5 items being discussed.

If the company doesn't come to the table with a TA that literally blows every airline out of the water then we will be heading to SEC 6.

I expect the MEC to reject the proposal. Then I expect United management to go on an anti pilot/greedy pilot add campaign. They will tell pax and employees that the pilots are keeping us from flying to TLV and AKL and that we are going to have to differ acft orders if the pilots won't allow us to fly them. They will tell the FAs that there will be significant job loss due to no 100 seaters and the possible differing of acft.

Bottom line is I do not believe we will get to vote on anything by NOV 20th and we will spend the next however long being hated by all the employee groups because the pilots are destroying the airline.

Why did UAL "offer" the 100 seat in these talks?

1. Most have pointed out the current contract limits for 76 seats are or have been reached.

2. It is highly likely UAL has already made a contractual commitment to purchase the 100 seat airplanes and now needs an agreement to fly them with UAL pilots.

It's not a carrot because for the most part current UAL pilots are flying what they want to any way. The only thing that will change is the opportunity for many to fly Captain who currently are too junior to do so.

Now back in the day the 747-400 was held up as a carrot in giving away the small jets and the MEC did bite. No one in their right mind would say today's talks are comparable to those of the past.

Personally I believe the UAL MEC did the right thing to enter into these negotiations with UAL. As many have already stated why wait for as long as 3 years when improvements are possibly on the table today.

I agree with all except #2. They already have an agreement with the UAL pilots to fly the 100 seaters. They can order them right now if they want... no new agreement necessary. The pay scale is hideously low, but it is there.

I'll hold judgement until I see an actual proposal. At least wth this there shouldn't be any buried gems in the contract that are either not caught or not understood until after being ratified. At least the DAL guys caught wind of some serious concessions and voted accordingly.
I'm relatively happy with status quo. That being said, growth, reserve rule fixes, pay raises, righting some wrongs for furloughed guys and potential increase in QOL/extra $$ opportunities and I'm open to listening what the offer is.

"They already have an agreement with the UAL pilots to fly the 100 seaters. They can order them right now if they want... no new agreement necessary. The pay scale is hideously low, but it is there."

Only within the scope of the agreement. What if UAL has another idea in mind that's a bit unique (maybe it's not a straight "buy and fly" deal) or outside the current agreement? We'll hear a lot more in then next month and a half about what was proposed and I think you will see why they asked for the negotiations.


"I'm relatively happy with status quo. "

I always want more money and time off. ;)

C-11 had an update detailing some of the discussions and expanded on some of the issues the company is dealing with in regards to our scope. They're in a quandry right now of their own making.

1-C-1-g. The Company is allowed to have 255 total 70/76 seat jets at the feeders. Of those 255, up to 153 may be 76-seat jets. The Company currently has approximately 100 76-seaters and 155 70-seaters. In order to increase the number of 76-seat jets and the total number from 255 in the feeder fleet, the company must first place a NSNA on the mainline. Pay attention here: in order to place a NSNA on the mainline, the Company must have no more than 102 70-seaters.

So they can add the 100 seaters now but they'd have to dump 53 70 seaters before they could add a single 76 seat a/c anyway.

Fortunately the MEC resolution allowing extension talks forbid the NC from talking about Section 1 expressly.

Very interesting.... Thanks for posting. Hadn't seen the C11 update

As it should be!

How much leverage are we giving up in order to get a couple things fixed in a completely substandard contract? Once that leverage is gone, the company will stall the next contract.

"in a completely substandard contract"

Can you make a list of the "substandard" items for us.

Did you complete your contract survey?

The current contract is full of concessionary BS and draconian cuts compared to what we were used to. Prior to its ratification, there were hundreds of posts here, and on the "better" forum detailing them and explaining just how much we were giving up in an attempt to stop the whipsaw. Hard to believe you don't remember that.

I suggest you do your own research by using the search function. You can start with C2000 and go from there.

This is my take:

Airline managements see profits for the forseeable future, not uncertainty.
They dont want to share the profits, or as much if they dont have to-
They like known costs.
They are trying every past trick in the book to "get stable" amd keep costs linear
Sign today and get new jets, sign today and at the sacrifice of profit sharing, get the highest rates ever ( but u morons will really be funding ur own raise)
Sign today or else risk going in long negotiations.
Sign today and allow us to get an extension- blah blah blah and we will just make section 6 draaaaaaag out in the future.

Mgmnt doesnt want us to have a decent contract if negotiations stall amd we can hold certain items they desperately need to function and expand internationally.

The correct answer is, ill listen but my answer is going to be no u til u make me say yes... That simple

Record profits? Show me record appreciation

*Posted on the other thread.. but relevant here too*

Current Fleet plan (as of 23 July)
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 115
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 33
Total 70/76 seat ac = 186

Planned end of 2015
CRJ700 (70 Seats) - 109 [reduction of 6]
EMB170 (70 Seats) - 38
EMB175 (76 Seats) - 82 [increase of 49]
Total 70/76 seat ac = 229

Per 1-C-1-a(2)-(c)
up to 255 70/76 seat ac, of which up to 130 may be 76 seat. After 1 Jan 2016, up to 153 76 seat ac.

Per 1-c-1-g
IF the company adds a NSNB, company can go from 153 to 223 76 seat ac..
HOWEVER
Once the number of 70/76 seat ac exceeds 255, then the limit on 70 seat ac can not exceed 102.

The way I read it- if the company wants to add 26 larger RJ's next year (to the limit of 255), no problem.
If they want to add a 27th, Problem.

Has nothing to do with a NSNB. They can order it, we can fly it.
BUT.. if they are at 108 large RJ's (76 seater), they can't add another one TILL they start to reduce the number of 70 seaters down towards 102 aircraft. Basically a one for one add/remove.
[A total reduction of 45 aircraft!]

Question becomes- what (if anything) do they want? I have my opinion and most of you can probably see what they want. Next question- Are we willing to negotiate something for that?

Always
Motch

Old mako

"Look it up yourself" is a non-answer. After nearly 38 years at UAL I have yet to see one contract where people didn't called it substandard in one way or the other. The worst UAL contract UAL pilots have ever had was the BK and sadly this one is a big improvement over that one.

But my real point is many scream, "substandard," and "draconian" but yet can't really point to one thing in these categories. Personally the real issue isn't our contract it's the inherited lack of respect for it by management. Oh and don't forget most pilots don't even know how to look up their rights in the contract, let alone say "no" when it's needed.

So my question stands for the pilot who posted such words, "make a list for us of the "substandard" things which need to be fixed.

You should urge your union rep that the MEC should get out in front of these expected tactics and contact the FA and Mech's union leadership as well.

It seems that the same pilots who beat their chest for C2000 or better are the same ones that (privately) vote for concessions when the company can't manage a downturn in the economy. Contract 2000 doesn't seem like a viable long term solution. I'd rather lock in a good contract that we can keep through the next downturn.

No more suicides, divorce stories, etc. Lock in work rules that we vow to never give up. If the banks were too big to fail, I'd hedge a bet that no matter who is in office come January 2017 (and the next downturn), the second biggest airline in the world (85,000 employees and growing) is seen as too big to fail (liquidate).

So, subject to change with better information, but I see no problem in fixing major issues and increasing pay. This boom and bust cycle is not fun and we as an employee group are complicit is we push for contracts that aren't sustainable in a downturn. I understand that many of the most ardent union dudes say thats just how things work, but I've got to believe there is an alternative...

Your expectations sure have been managed well. Thinking like this not good.

Contract 2000 didn't lead to the CH11 of United...we could have worked for free and it still wouldn't have stopped the inevitable "restructuring". It is not your job to temper expectations because of fear...

This is NOT Skywest. The company does NOT want to work with us for the better.

WELCOME TO A REAL UNION. Never roll over.

Only the head in sand types thought Skywest acted I their best interest. Sad to see so many with Stockholm syndrome there.

This is a good deal, grab it while you can, Bathurst and his minions realized this when they exchanged your multi million dollar pension for some money now.

What deal is that? Why are you promoting something that hasn't even happened and nobody has seen yet?

Ummm......note the APC user name.

;)

Ahhhhhh. Makes sense now.

As for the laundry list you desire, you should know the negotiation damage done by commenting on forums. I will say the substandard items are born of a bankruptcy contract combined with a jcba where we were told we'll fix it next time. A jcba I might add that was the product of competing interests.

What would be the responses have been in 2003 if we were told don't worry, true contractual recovery occurs in 17 years?