Expressing our opinions on various contract areas is a lot different than the idiots who attempted to organize a sick out on united pilots forum... I think we all understand this board is public... At least the smart ones.

You're right, one cost us all money and jobs while the other a select few for a period of time. Public or private/public, the company still gets a sentiment making that 50+1 all the easier.

Good, then fix all the **** that they agreed to in 2012 that still has not been implememnted completely and all of the other irritants first, then we'll listen. Otherwise see you @ sec 6 openers. :mad:

Sorry man, I just don't get it. They haven't complied with the last contract, so we are going to show them, by negotiating harder? And, gosh darnit, we aren't going to accept pay raises to extend the contract for 2 years.

That'll show 'em.

Just to show them, I am going all out, and am going to hold my breath until I turn purple. They won't have any option other than caving in to full contract negotiations.

I really, really don't understand the logic here. Sorry for the sarcasm.

Here are some salient points to consider:

1. We fought for and paid for our last contract to be negotiated

2. We continue to fight for current enforcement of the contract. While this is normal and standard practice for labor unions, it does seem rather odd at the both the volume of grievances and their expense.

3. The sections of the current contract that require constant surveillance and vigilance in enforcement are not cheap. However, the awards to the pilot are pennies on the dollar. This amount of enforcement activity has not served as a deterrent to the company for violating the contract.

Some questions to consider:

1. If the Europeans succeed in essentially abrogating all US Airline Contracts by shoving their interpretation of "open skies" down our throats and both the US Government and ALPA fail to protect our careers what is the current contract worth? What is an extension worth? What is a new contract worth? How much time does it buy us before the entire bottom falls out of the US airline industry and everyone from SWA to DAl to UAL nullifies our agreements.

2. What aproach gives us the most bang for the buck, extension or new contract?

3. Is ALPA considering drastic changes in the entire document, or just looking to solidify current book and incorporate grievance awards and other subsequent LOA's into the agreement?

4. What are the companies goals and motivations behind an extension?

Has contract compliance and enforcement been better/worse with Jackson Martin and Tom Stivala out of the picture?

Out of curiosity what parts of the contract are not being complied with currently?

There were 'only' 36 grievances filed in the 3rd qtr. So yes, we have a compliance problem. We also have leverage to extract some coin and make the furlough longevity issue right. Show me the money.

Aren't grievances often not won? It's not like we are provided a run down by ALPA of each grievance that is filed and the outcome. Those could be for anything from an unapproved expense report to a pickup time dispute. Hardly mass non compliance.

The inference is large sections of the agreement aren't being complied with. Wouldn't those create group grievances? I'm curious as to what sections are not in compliance. Wouldn't the MEC and LEC be alerting the rank and file to these non compliant sections?

Quite a few. You must not be on reserve :o

Which specific provisions? Not much left in red of the color coded contract.

Then agian I do not think we should be in a rush to add stuff like a day starting at 0100 and involuntary junior manning, but thats just my two cents.

I do read the updates. Someone mentioned 36 grievances filed. In the updates we may hear of one or two wins in the grievance process. It would be nice to see a score card of the grievances filed and the reason along with the decisions and awards. As far as I have been able to find over the years I have not seen such a document. If it is out there then please point me in the right direction.

Where are the wholesale non-compliance issues? I am really interested in what sections of the contract, as has been stated in this thread, are outstanding and non-compliant. If it is reserve issues I would like to know those also. Fortunately I am not on reserve but we are all most likely all a bid or downturn away from reserve.

System Board Awards are here. That's a start.

http://ual.alpa.org/Committees/Griev...6/Default.aspx

How about a zillion pay roll issues??
Asst CP in DC told me that he spends two-thirds of his time fixing payroll shorts.

I don't see how this is a problem with contract LANGUAGE.

We have some leverage at this moment. Use it for a couple shillings and the myriad of other contract issues will never be resolved in a timely fashion during section 6.

Not a language problem, it's a compliance problem. When they don't pay you according to the contract and you have to file a pay claim, I know you'll agree that's an issue.

SWA pilots turned down their TA!

It's our turn let's not sell ourselves short this time around

Contract 2000 plus is must along with retirement, vacation and sick time improvements !

There is also a serious issue with Reserve abuse. Although everything is legal the intent is being violated big time. I don't think it's a coincidence that this abuse has popped up only within the last 6 months and now it's one of the 5 items being discussed in the extension. They are trying to beat 1/3 of the group into a yes vote.

How awesome! No raise since 2012 and now.....

"Southwest expects discussions under the National Mediation Board to resume in spring 2016. Its pilots will continue working under their current agreement until a new deal is reached."

I do agree with the SWA pilot's decision. Code share language was scary. However, I will judge any deal our NC might reach on it's own merits. I don't care if DAL and SWA voted no.

I was referring to the SWA pilots. Not us.

I usually agree with you, but not here. How does full section 6 negotiations somehow create more leverage?

If we are still negotiating past the amendable date (usually by years!!!!) the company is the one with the leverage. They are saving big $$$$ every day we are negotiating. WE get coerced into another substandard contract because - we are tired of being underpaid.

Presumably they will still need whatever they are seeking now. They need something badly enough that they are (allegedly...) willing to spend money early. We can either cash in that leverage on a few items now or try to use it to prod them into an agreement on the full CBA during Sec6 later...and hope the leverage still exists. The one thing we can be sure of is that if we cash in now, that 'leverage' won't exist in the future -- we'll be hoping additional leverage materializes.

I'm not necessarily against these negotiations, but I see absolutely ZERO reason to entertain ANY concession. We are in growth mode - nearly every one of us has the opportunity to make additional money with an upgrade. We all have two 3% raises coming over the next 15 months. A growing number of pilots are in their first 12 years and are thus getting pay raises each year. It's not like the stagnant post 9/11 era! If we can't resist selling pieces of our contract NOW, then we are hopeless.

Edit add:
When/If I have the opportunity to vote on a TA from this negotiation, I will make my decision based on several considerations.
My assumptions are:
- If we vote 'No', we will enter Sec6 as previously planned
- The leverage that exists today will most likely still exist when Sec6 negotiations begin
- Voting 'Yes' will extend Sec6 negotiations by ~1-2 years (on top of the extension + estimated 3 yr process) - meaning no new CBA until ~2022'ish'
- The company will use whatever changes we allow in the most harmful way possible to the pilot group (worse than any scenario I can predict)

Given the above, I will look very closely at the things that are NOT being addressed in the negotiation and subsequent TA. Am I willing to wait 6+ years (vs 1-3) for improvements in these things? I'm going to go back through the materials we were provided when we voted on our current CBA for a full explanation of all sections. Off the top of my cranium I can think of Sick Leave, Vacation Credit per day, Training Credit per day, Reassignment rules, etc...

I also expect ALPA to explain WHAT the company wanted, WHY they wanted it so quickly, and HOW badly they want it. IOW, I want a feel for the nature and amount of leverage we really have. This should be easy to explain, and any obfuscation will make me VERY wary. Without a solid understanding of the companies desires and our leverage I will vote NO.

Finally I'll consider the merits of the TA. In short, are we extracting the maximum benefit from the leverage we have and from the modifications we agree to make. If this isn't a slam dunk then I'm voting NO. It's worth noting that I need to do a lot of study, research, and discussion about FRMS & MOU22, and the impacts of their modifications. That has begun.

I view this process the same as the old saying "I refuse to belong to any club that would have me as a member". Honestly, I expect to be thoroughly underwhelmed by whatever proposal the company pushes across the table. Take your best guess and divide by 3. I just don't think they have it in them to offer enough compensation to get my attention. The catch 22 is that the more money they offer, the more suspicious I'll be that they are pulling something over on us.

I see you are on the 756? Which base?
I bid reserve (although I can hold a line) for a bunch of reasons...
I have not been abused. They've called me here and there with illegal assignments (less than the contractual call out), I call them back, say it's not contractually legal, and I am not waiving it. No problems, they remove it.
I actually went "non qual" today because of landings...
Last trip was Sept. 4 as an extra IRO, and last landed August 12th....

I'm willing to hear the offer, but I don't think the final product will be enough for me to vote in favor of extending a jcba born from a bankruptcy contract. Section 6 will not create more leverage but will make available the areas in need of improvement versus the topics the company wishes to discuss. They came to us. That in itself cost them more $$ then what I would accept. That $$ can be translated into a contract on time, or a costlier contract after the amendable date. When the company wants something, time moves at warp speed. Although not on the same scale, remember bankruptcy and how fast the contract was shoved down our throats and implemented?

I think we all have a great opportunity in the future for our contract. It might be in the form if an extension or not. The one truth in this is if we stand together and keep our eye on the goal, we will benefit more than not.

I don't take exception with anything you've posted here. Your logic and reasoning, though it differs from mine, is certainly plausible. The one thing I feel needs to be addressed in your post is your math. You say that if we don't accept an extension you're looking at Sec 6 in 1-3 years (and you're assuming it will be an improvement and not a concession.... not something I would personally bet the farm on based on a descending economy). But if we DO accept an extension it would be 6+ years. Let's keep apples to apples here and say that the timeline for a section 6 is going to be the same regardless of when it's negotiated. So you are looking at 1-3 years, or 3-5 years. Not 6+. It's only a 2 year extension.

Just a quick point. It's not "illegal" for them to call you and ask you to come early for a reserve assignment. It's allowed, but they pay you add pay to do it. But you certainly can (and did) turn that down

The last two sentences are DEFINITELY important for all of us to keep in mind, whether we are pro extension or not.

There are few 'knowns', so assumptions are required. My rationale assumes a cost of 1-2 years time to giving away/selling leverage. I think that's fair. To your point that the companies financial position may turn south between now and a normal Sec6 CBA, I suppose you could weight that as a cost to voting NO, though I don't think it would change my calculus much.

With only 3 legacies, I don't expect to have a credible strike threat anytime soon. If that's true, we'll need some other way to compel the company to reach an agreement. Without leverage we will negotiate for a LONG time. I'm not counting on being able to play the NMB like we did last time....and even if we could, I don't think we'd get the contract we deserve. In this environment it'll be absolutely critical to use every piece of leverage to its potential. That means we have to identify it, correctly value it, and effectively use it at the negotiating table. We can't afford to squander any leverage...and this expedited timeline already raises red flags.

I agree with everything you've said. There is a very complicated cost risk analysis that needs to be done. SWA turned down their TA after waiting 3 years. And that was an OBVIOUS move. It was horrible. Now they are looking at spring before they even MEET again. So nothing for probably another year minimum. What's strange is that in the BEST negotiating environment in recent history DAL and SWA have been handed DOG TA's. This suggests to me that leverage is a fickle beast not easily understood. Let's say in 2012 SWA had been offered a 25% pay raise over 2 years, which would have brought them to 2014. They negotiate from there and it takes another 3 years. At least they would have been +25% EACH YEAR for those 3 years. Plus any future raise % would have been on top of that already higher number.

Of course that's the easy part. Pay is always straight forward. It's the details in the rest of the deal that's the rub. It's an interesting exercise but it sounds like it's dead anyway so not important.

Definitely agree that assumptions need to me made to play oh your scenario. But to be fair you should make the same assumption for both situations. A 1-3 year TA negotiation time should be applied to both scenarios. Not really level if you're saying a no extension section 6 is 1-3 years but if we get an extension then section 6 after would be 6+ years from now. It should be 3-5. Just need to stick to the same assumption of time in either scenario to compare accurately

I can't really think of anything they want other than scope relief (NO) and some replacement for MOU 22 that they think can bully us into extending. The only scope relief I would agree to would be big RJ's flown on UAL property.

MOU 22 seemed kind of silly. Pay us extra, to be extend, automatically? Sounds good in theory, but in practice it incentivises us to be late. Plus they can't figure out how to do add pay reliably.

All that being said, I would prefer to NEVER go into full section 6 negotiations. The pilots always lose. We always wait for multiple years, only to get another dissappointing contract.

I think most of us want the same thing. The issue is how we get there. I think we'll see some clarity shortly. The gesture of an extension was not a benevolent one when you consider it originates from the minds who wanted to end the flying/bunky FO positions.

??? :confused: I didn't get that memo....what does that mean?

The company was going to stop using seperate flying/bunkie line numbers for bidding as a work around to our grievence win on LCAs moving the flying FO to bunkie vs displacing. It has been talked about for a while on ualpilot forum and addressed in a C-12 blast mail.

Changes to FRMS and a replacement for MOU 22. That's what they want. Greater long haul completion factor reliability. I'm down with that. Just show me the money. Pay raise, fuloughees made whole, reserve tweeks, and some new jets. This COULD be good....or not. Just have to wait and see.

As for Section 6....you are spot on. The SWA contract has been amendable since 2012. They've been stuck in Sec 6 for years. The airline biz has been pretty good during this time...LUV stock has quadrupled since 2012. So where is their leverage? HA. They just voted down a TA, and Mgt says they'll get back to negotiations next Spring. Daaaang. Yeah...let's just hold out for Sec 6....Not :rolleyes:

Ditto… what you said.

I think some are underestimating what the company will want in exchange for some cash now and some planes later.

Along with relaxation in the long haul duty day, I smell TWO pilots doing EU flying from both EWR and IAD. After all, that how it was done at LCAL and today's UA resembles LCAL more than it does LUAL. After all, we will have relaxed our position on fatigue issues. And if they could secure that, forget about upgrades for several years. They would instantly be overstaffed. They'll come in with a long wish list and we'll beat our chests and make them capitulate on one or two so we can assuage our "brain surgeon" egos and talk tough in ops, but we'll eventually agree to the rest. And since those the items they REALLY wanted anyway, they win. Again.

I would also expect them attempt to significantly dilute profit sharing. Its been said here forever, they think long term while we think about next year. We are truly our own worst enemies. For example, I laugh now when I read all the complaining about reserve abuse when we HANDED it to them in the current agreement because of how well we were played during the whipsaw days.

And in a few years, after we've given away work rules and QOL items (in exchange for an increase in hourly pay), they'll come after the "cushy" hourly rates (which WE paid for) during the next economic downturn. Why? "because we gotta save the company!"

Pessimistic as always, James.

Feel ya James. Obviously, I would hope augmentation rule changes and profit sharing dilution would be deal killers. But they will come after the same sheet be it in extension talks or Sec 6. SSDD

EXCELLENT POST! I hope everyone goes into this like you are. If and when a proposal comes out, I will come back and re-read this post.

I say we swing for the fence whether it be this month or in Sect 6. We're already getting two raises the next two years. They can buy new planes today, nothing in our agreement prevents that. That's a giant shiny red herring with wings purely designed to sway the voters on the bottom third, hell maybe even bottom quarter of the Sen list. We give them an extension for a few shekels now, they'll drag their feet forever on the next one. I smell a rat.

When have they EVER come to us with hat in hand? Remember "On Top, On Time"?? Remember what they did to us TWICE in bankruptcy. Different players, sure. But the same mindset.

AA and USAir, the last two holdouts on PBS, now get to "enjoy" PBS. These guys never let up. We always do.