Contract extension AIP bullet points
11-21-2015, 07:31 PM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Position: EWR 777 FO
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by ugleeual
I agree with Svergin's post... If you don't like reserve WB rules then bid to NB and hold a line... Can't have it both ways.
11-21-2015, 07:52 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by Flytolive
There are no changes to the reserve system. Both sides wanted their preferred reserve items, but there was not enough time. No scope changes and no NSNB or other aircraft orders. All this is confirmed.
So this deal leaves current scope in place for four more years? That also sounds good.
11-21-2015, 08:01 PM
#113
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
And a 100 seat order..... Which will mean MANY new pilots junior to you. How do you get reduced career progressions? With the FRMS changes we can actually fly SFO-TLV and AUK
11-21-2015, 09:05 PM
#114
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: 756 CAP
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Pro2nd
I can't. Was hired onto the 756 and have a 2 year seat lock. Try again.
11-21-2015, 10:59 PM
#115
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by oldmako
From Webster -
Definition of INCENTIVIZE
transitive verb
: to provide with an incentive <would incentivize employees with stock options>
The company WANTS something from us. The current agreement prevents them from using the 787 on routes they would like. If this agreement (as is purported) is turned down, the company will still want, and need that relief. They bought those planes to be operated on specific, long haul routes and they are currently prevented from doing so. This is leverage, plain and simple. Those of you who think that their need will not encourage them to return to the table surprise me.
Once upon a time there were a whole bunch of brand new 747-400's parked in the desert because of restrictive contractual language. They didn't sit there too long. What is so different this time? I guess that was too long ago for most to remember.
Definition of INCENTIVIZE
transitive verb
: to provide with an incentive <would incentivize employees with stock options>
The company WANTS something from us. The current agreement prevents them from using the 787 on routes they would like. If this agreement (as is purported) is turned down, the company will still want, and need that relief. They bought those planes to be operated on specific, long haul routes and they are currently prevented from doing so. This is leverage, plain and simple. Those of you who think that their need will not encourage them to return to the table surprise me.
Once upon a time there were a whole bunch of brand new 747-400's parked in the desert because of restrictive contractual language. They didn't sit there too long. What is so different this time? I guess that was too long ago for most to remember.
Once upon a time, we refused to fly 50 seat jets. They were "beginner jets' for "beginner pilots". 15 years later, when those jets took half of our domestic feeder flights, be beeaached and moaned about all of our domestic flying being outsourced.
Now, we want to make it painful and expensive to fly LAX to SYD and SFO to TLV? Really?????
Those are dream routes for airline pilots. That is the ultimate carrot why most of us became airline pilots.
If we make it difficult, expensive, and unreliable, it will be outsourced to a Star Alliance partner in a heart beat.
And we will beeaach, this is BS!!!!!! They just outsourced more of our flying!!!!!!
Look at our history. Do we really want to repeat it?
"Yes" vote. Only because "Hell yes" isn't an option.
11-21-2015, 11:06 PM
#116
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
If we vote "yes", we get some good stuff that we are otherwise not entitled to .
The company gets some good stuff, that will help us keep some very, very, very lucrative routes. For the company, and US!
If we vote "no". We get squat. The company outsources LAX to SYD to Air NZ. We complain a lot about it. In 2019, we are still getting 2016 pay rates. ALPA is telling us how screwed up the company is for not negotiating in good faith. 2020, we get a new contract, 4 years late. No retro.
"Yes" is a win win.
The company gets some good stuff, that will help us keep some very, very, very lucrative routes. For the company, and US!
If we vote "no". We get squat. The company outsources LAX to SYD to Air NZ. We complain a lot about it. In 2019, we are still getting 2016 pay rates. ALPA is telling us how screwed up the company is for not negotiating in good faith. 2020, we get a new contract, 4 years late. No retro.
"Yes" is a win win.
11-21-2015, 11:21 PM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by Probe
If we vote "yes", we get some good stuff that we are otherwise not entitled to .
The company gets some good stuff, that will help us keep some very, very, very lucrative routes. For the company, and US!
If we vote "no". We get squat. The company outsources LAX to SYD to Air NZ. We complain a lot about it. In 2019, we are still getting 2016 pay rates. ALPA is telling us how screwed up the company is for not negotiating in good faith. 2020, we get a new contract, 4 years late. No retro.
"Yes" is a win win.
The company gets some good stuff, that will help us keep some very, very, very lucrative routes. For the company, and US!
If we vote "no". We get squat. The company outsources LAX to SYD to Air NZ. We complain a lot about it. In 2019, we are still getting 2016 pay rates. ALPA is telling us how screwed up the company is for not negotiating in good faith. 2020, we get a new contract, 4 years late. No retro.
"Yes" is a win win.
11-21-2015, 11:43 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
One other thought. DAL and SWA have been negotiating with leverage out the bottom for YEARS and neither have come anywhere CLOSE to this deal.
11-22-2015, 03:28 AM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
[QUOTE=gettinbumped;2014904]
Every one of the SFO pilots and the vast majority of the IAH pilots have the option to bid something else and not sit reserve if they so choose.. That option hasn't always been the case, but right now, there are bids a plenty to every domicile.... except maybe DEN. And SEA =)
Vacancies are worthless if the pilot is seat locked.
Originally Posted by SteelerNation
Every one of the SFO pilots and the vast majority of the IAH pilots have the option to bid something else and not sit reserve if they so choose.. That option hasn't always been the case, but right now, there are bids a plenty to every domicile.... except maybe DEN. And SEA =)
11-22-2015, 05:06 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
The aircraft that would comprise the ULR flying are on order. They are coming. Could they be cancelled or deferred? Yes, but at a price. United management view these aircraft as a financial opportunity in markets that we have not served in the past. All the above are in our favor and should create leverage on our behalf. I'm afraid in this case, some would use this to turn the leverage in management's favor.
Most realize the offer of 100 seat jets for what it is, a shiny new jet carrot. Rightly, most say if the company needs those jets, they'll buy them with or without our vote. It is becoming apparent that the new carrot in the tent for some is ULR flying. So, who's holding the carrot? If you believe that with a TA rejection, United would walk away from the table, cancel future ULR flying plans and revenue opportunities never to revisit them again, you have just transferred any and all leverage squarely into management's lap. The carrot transferred to management makes the acceptance of a substandard contract for years into the future more palatable. It makes a smaller pay raise more acceptable with thoughts of wide body flying.
If you feel that with aircraft orders on the book and ULR flying plans with revenue opportunities for UAL, management would return to the table for another bite at the apple rather than forego those opportunities, you have placed the leverage on our side. United ordered these aircraft as part of their aircraft refleeting plans, but they also knew well in advance where they would utilize these assets. Since United is making money with their current assets, one would assume they would not cancel the orders for their replacement. We would not lose positions.
The one who has the need will seek a to return to the table for a solution. If this was a regular Sec 6 and United was enjoying a cheap contract, I would agree they would drag this out for years and a no vote would prolong an agreement even further. In a nutshell, NEED cost $$$.
Most realize the offer of 100 seat jets for what it is, a shiny new jet carrot. Rightly, most say if the company needs those jets, they'll buy them with or without our vote. It is becoming apparent that the new carrot in the tent for some is ULR flying. So, who's holding the carrot? If you believe that with a TA rejection, United would walk away from the table, cancel future ULR flying plans and revenue opportunities never to revisit them again, you have just transferred any and all leverage squarely into management's lap. The carrot transferred to management makes the acceptance of a substandard contract for years into the future more palatable. It makes a smaller pay raise more acceptable with thoughts of wide body flying.
If you feel that with aircraft orders on the book and ULR flying plans with revenue opportunities for UAL, management would return to the table for another bite at the apple rather than forego those opportunities, you have placed the leverage on our side. United ordered these aircraft as part of their aircraft refleeting plans, but they also knew well in advance where they would utilize these assets. Since United is making money with their current assets, one would assume they would not cancel the orders for their replacement. We would not lose positions.
The one who has the need will seek a to return to the table for a solution. If this was a regular Sec 6 and United was enjoying a cheap contract, I would agree they would drag this out for years and a no vote would prolong an agreement even further. In a nutshell, NEED cost $$$.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
