Contract extension AIP bullet points
12-23-2015, 10:56 PM
#551
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
So at first it was 2 years... Now it is 3-5. Peddle fear much?
Btw, if a big event happens, they'll take every penny back in a couple of months.
This one isn't free. Not by a long shot. The question is if it is worth what we are giving up. Free isn't a particularly good descriptor.
I respect your yes vote as well, but I disagree.
Btw, if a big event happens, they'll take every penny back in a couple of months.
This one isn't free. Not by a long shot. The question is if it is worth what we are giving up. Free isn't a particularly good descriptor.
I respect your yes vote as well, but I disagree.
I will make you a deal. Vote yes on this, and if DAL goes above us pay wise, I will ask my LEC to forgo "me too" pay raises for enhanced work rules.
For me, this TA gives us a little leverage, but takes away a bunch from management. I see no downside.
12-24-2015, 04:25 AM
#552
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
A furloughee post from the other forum.The Company has played ALPA masterfully in this extension.
They have focused this extension on pilots who focus solely on the hand dangling a shiny $$$ object of in front of them in the hope they won't notice whats going on with the other hand (FRMS, no trip trade or reserve rule improvements, an ambiguous DAL me too clause). This in NOT your normal negotiating cycle. This is a time of record profits that are projected out for the next 4 years. DAL has told their shareholders they expect to make $22B over the NEXT 4 years! The Company would like nothing more to push off a full negotiation until an amendable date of Feb 2019 in the hope the economy turns south by then and we return to an extended negotiation cycle. All the while, we will have buyers remorse over a 13/0/2% pay raise over what we've already negotiated in 2012.
Historically, the Company has NEVER come to the pilots before a contract amendable date because they haven't had to. They have had no fiscally responsible reason to do so because it just meant opening up their wallets during a time of shoestring profits. WHY are they doing it now?! On the horizon now is a new era of ULR flying that won't work for the Company under the current contract work rules. FRMS is the linchpin in this discussion and for those that think it doesn't apply to them, for those that have a 15+ year career in front of them, pay attention because what we, as a union, sign away with this extension, will affect you for decades to come. This is a no kidding OPPORTUNITY to trade what the Company really wants in exchange for improvements to a contract that currently has over 16,000 PDRs. We are a union of 12,000 and not independent contractors only out for whats best for ourselves. Sometimes we don't get to have the instant gratification of retro paycheck but need to pause and hope my small part of this agreement may help fix a substandard contract going forward. The rallying cry when the last contract was signed was "we'll get things fixed in the next contract". Well, that time is NOW. This job is not all about the pay check.
The notion that everyone can be off Reserve in the next year is absurd. Ask a DCA 756 pilot how that G line feels at 35%. Reserve rules are important to everyone because, at some point in your career, you're going to feel the shiny point of the scheduler's spear when you're told to report to FSB even though they already have more than enough pilots to cover the day's flying.
I fully understand the monetary aspect of getting a retro paycheck now as the overriding aspect of this agreement but the correction of LOA 25 is a given in any agreement going forward now that those not affected by it understand the abhorrent agreement that carved out a few to help shape an ISL argument.
For those doing public math with their retro numbers, they may be a bit high as they only start from Dec 2012. From another post:
Assume 70 hr/month x 12 months (840 hrs / year)
2015 12 yr longevity - 8 yr rate difference
144.24 - 138.28 = 5.96 $5006.40
2014 12 yr rate - 7yr rate
140.04 -131.24 = 8.8 $7392.00
2013 12 yr rate - 6yr rate
129.07 - 117.67 = 11.40 $9576.00
or a total salary of about $21,974 and a 16% PRAP contribution of $3,516 for a total of $25,490 to be paid within 120 days of a signed TA
Thats for an individual who has been on property since 2012. Thats a best case scenario and its a sliding scale downward from there. Your mileage may vary.
The Pro/Con statements will be out on the 29th. They will offer some great insight into what the MEC discussed and why it was a 13-7 vote to allow this agreement to go to the pilots. Just because it goes out for a vote doesn't mean its a WIN. Look at what the DAL pilots thought of their offer from the company when they voted it down 2-1. Read the DALPA openers to their Company and see if you wouldn't want a piece of that pie going forward. DAL came back to the table a short 6 months after getting voted down because they also need relief from their contract and will be will to pay for it in other areas.
In Jan, the UAL MEC will have a new Chairman and, possibly, a new NC. The only one running for office as of now is Todd Insler, the current Grievance Committee Chairman, who is 27-1 against the the Company in front of an arbitrator. Perhaps, it may be in our collective best interest to let a new MC experienced in confronting the Company to guide the next round of negotiations that can start in earnest next Spring. The next contract won't take 3-5 years because the ULR flying relief is needed as we get more and more 787s on property and the new routes start in Mar 16.
We are at a contract crossroads that this group of professional pilots have NEVER SEEN BEFORE. I urge everyone to pay attention to the ENTIRE TA and understand all aspect of what we're signing up for when we vote. Is this verbiage iron clad or does it allow the Company wiggle room in what they've 'promised' not to do (reference our current contract with regard to FSB for starters). Please don't vote with your wallets only because what the Company has offered to the LOA 25 group is a rounding error for the whole of this agreement.
Hav
1437/2172
They have focused this extension on pilots who focus solely on the hand dangling a shiny $$$ object of in front of them in the hope they won't notice whats going on with the other hand (FRMS, no trip trade or reserve rule improvements, an ambiguous DAL me too clause). This in NOT your normal negotiating cycle. This is a time of record profits that are projected out for the next 4 years. DAL has told their shareholders they expect to make $22B over the NEXT 4 years! The Company would like nothing more to push off a full negotiation until an amendable date of Feb 2019 in the hope the economy turns south by then and we return to an extended negotiation cycle. All the while, we will have buyers remorse over a 13/0/2% pay raise over what we've already negotiated in 2012.
Historically, the Company has NEVER come to the pilots before a contract amendable date because they haven't had to. They have had no fiscally responsible reason to do so because it just meant opening up their wallets during a time of shoestring profits. WHY are they doing it now?! On the horizon now is a new era of ULR flying that won't work for the Company under the current contract work rules. FRMS is the linchpin in this discussion and for those that think it doesn't apply to them, for those that have a 15+ year career in front of them, pay attention because what we, as a union, sign away with this extension, will affect you for decades to come. This is a no kidding OPPORTUNITY to trade what the Company really wants in exchange for improvements to a contract that currently has over 16,000 PDRs. We are a union of 12,000 and not independent contractors only out for whats best for ourselves. Sometimes we don't get to have the instant gratification of retro paycheck but need to pause and hope my small part of this agreement may help fix a substandard contract going forward. The rallying cry when the last contract was signed was "we'll get things fixed in the next contract". Well, that time is NOW. This job is not all about the pay check.
The notion that everyone can be off Reserve in the next year is absurd. Ask a DCA 756 pilot how that G line feels at 35%. Reserve rules are important to everyone because, at some point in your career, you're going to feel the shiny point of the scheduler's spear when you're told to report to FSB even though they already have more than enough pilots to cover the day's flying.
I fully understand the monetary aspect of getting a retro paycheck now as the overriding aspect of this agreement but the correction of LOA 25 is a given in any agreement going forward now that those not affected by it understand the abhorrent agreement that carved out a few to help shape an ISL argument.
For those doing public math with their retro numbers, they may be a bit high as they only start from Dec 2012. From another post:
Assume 70 hr/month x 12 months (840 hrs / year)
2015 12 yr longevity - 8 yr rate difference
144.24 - 138.28 = 5.96 $5006.40
2014 12 yr rate - 7yr rate
140.04 -131.24 = 8.8 $7392.00
2013 12 yr rate - 6yr rate
129.07 - 117.67 = 11.40 $9576.00
or a total salary of about $21,974 and a 16% PRAP contribution of $3,516 for a total of $25,490 to be paid within 120 days of a signed TA
Thats for an individual who has been on property since 2012. Thats a best case scenario and its a sliding scale downward from there. Your mileage may vary.
The Pro/Con statements will be out on the 29th. They will offer some great insight into what the MEC discussed and why it was a 13-7 vote to allow this agreement to go to the pilots. Just because it goes out for a vote doesn't mean its a WIN. Look at what the DAL pilots thought of their offer from the company when they voted it down 2-1. Read the DALPA openers to their Company and see if you wouldn't want a piece of that pie going forward. DAL came back to the table a short 6 months after getting voted down because they also need relief from their contract and will be will to pay for it in other areas.
In Jan, the UAL MEC will have a new Chairman and, possibly, a new NC. The only one running for office as of now is Todd Insler, the current Grievance Committee Chairman, who is 27-1 against the the Company in front of an arbitrator. Perhaps, it may be in our collective best interest to let a new MC experienced in confronting the Company to guide the next round of negotiations that can start in earnest next Spring. The next contract won't take 3-5 years because the ULR flying relief is needed as we get more and more 787s on property and the new routes start in Mar 16.
We are at a contract crossroads that this group of professional pilots have NEVER SEEN BEFORE. I urge everyone to pay attention to the ENTIRE TA and understand all aspect of what we're signing up for when we vote. Is this verbiage iron clad or does it allow the Company wiggle room in what they've 'promised' not to do (reference our current contract with regard to FSB for starters). Please don't vote with your wallets only because what the Company has offered to the LOA 25 group is a rounding error for the whole of this agreement.
Hav
1437/2172
12-24-2015, 09:29 PM
#553
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by Flytolive
A furloughee post from the other forum.The Company has played ALPA masterfully in this extension.
They have focused this extension on pilots who focus solely on the hand dangling a shiny $$$ object of in front of them in the hope they won't notice whats going on with the other hand (FRMS, no trip trade or reserve rule improvements, an ambiguous DAL me too clause). This in NOT your normal negotiating cycle. This is a time of record profits that are projected out for the next 4 years. DAL has told their shareholders they expect to make $22B over the NEXT 4 years! The Company would like nothing more to push off a full negotiation until an amendable date of Feb 2019 in the hope the economy turns south by then and we return to an extended negotiation cycle. All the while, we will have buyers remorse over a 13/0/2% pay raise over what we've already negotiated in 2012.
Historically, the Company has NEVER come to the pilots before a contract amendable date because they haven't had to. They have had no fiscally responsible reason to do so because it just meant opening up their wallets during a time of shoestring profits. WHY are they doing it now?! On the horizon now is a new era of ULR flying that won't work for the Company under the current contract work rules. FRMS is the linchpin in this discussion and for those that think it doesn't apply to them, for those that have a 15+ year career in front of them, pay attention because what we, as a union, sign away with this extension, will affect you for decades to come. This is a no kidding OPPORTUNITY to trade what the Company really wants in exchange for improvements to a contract that currently has over 16,000 PDRs. We are a union of 12,000 and not independent contractors only out for whats best for ourselves. Sometimes we don't get to have the instant gratification of retro paycheck but need to pause and hope my small part of this agreement may help fix a substandard contract going forward. The rallying cry when the last contract was signed was "we'll get things fixed in the next contract". Well, that time is NOW. This job is not all about the pay check.
The notion that everyone can be off Reserve in the next year is absurd. Ask a DCA 756 pilot how that G line feels at 35%. Reserve rules are important to everyone because, at some point in your career, you're going to feel the shiny point of the scheduler's spear when you're told to report to FSB even though they already have more than enough pilots to cover the day's flying.
I fully understand the monetary aspect of getting a retro paycheck now as the overriding aspect of this agreement but the correction of LOA 25 is a given in any agreement going forward now that those not affected by it understand the abhorrent agreement that carved out a few to help shape an ISL argument.
For those doing public math with their retro numbers, they may be a bit high as they only start from Dec 2012. From another post:
Assume 70 hr/month x 12 months (840 hrs / year)
2015 12 yr longevity - 8 yr rate difference
144.24 - 138.28 = 5.96 $5006.40
2014 12 yr rate - 7yr rate
140.04 -131.24 = 8.8 $7392.00
2013 12 yr rate - 6yr rate
129.07 - 117.67 = 11.40 $9576.00
or a total salary of about $21,974 and a 16% PRAP contribution of $3,516 for a total of $25,490 to be paid within 120 days of a signed TA
Thats for an individual who has been on property since 2012. Thats a best case scenario and its a sliding scale downward from there. Your mileage may vary.
The Pro/Con statements will be out on the 29th. They will offer some great insight into what the MEC discussed and why it was a 13-7 vote to allow this agreement to go to the pilots. Just because it goes out for a vote doesn't mean its a WIN. Look at what the DAL pilots thought of their offer from the company when they voted it down 2-1. Read the DALPA openers to their Company and see if you wouldn't want a piece of that pie going forward. DAL came back to the table a short 6 months after getting voted down because they also need relief from their contract and will be will to pay for it in other areas.
In Jan, the UAL MEC will have a new Chairman and, possibly, a new NC. The only one running for office as of now is Todd Insler, the current Grievance Committee Chairman, who is 27-1 against the the Company in front of an arbitrator. Perhaps, it may be in our collective best interest to let a new MC experienced in confronting the Company to guide the next round of negotiations that can start in earnest next Spring. The next contract won't take 3-5 years because the ULR flying relief is needed as we get more and more 787s on property and the new routes start in Mar 16.
We are at a contract crossroads that this group of professional pilots have NEVER SEEN BEFORE. I urge everyone to pay attention to the ENTIRE TA and understand all aspect of what we're signing up for when we vote. Is this verbiage iron clad or does it allow the Company wiggle room in what they've 'promised' not to do (reference our current contract with regard to FSB for starters). Please don't vote with your wallets only because what the Company has offered to the LOA 25 group is a rounding error for the whole of this agreement.
Hav
1437/2172
They have focused this extension on pilots who focus solely on the hand dangling a shiny $$$ object of in front of them in the hope they won't notice whats going on with the other hand (FRMS, no trip trade or reserve rule improvements, an ambiguous DAL me too clause). This in NOT your normal negotiating cycle. This is a time of record profits that are projected out for the next 4 years. DAL has told their shareholders they expect to make $22B over the NEXT 4 years! The Company would like nothing more to push off a full negotiation until an amendable date of Feb 2019 in the hope the economy turns south by then and we return to an extended negotiation cycle. All the while, we will have buyers remorse over a 13/0/2% pay raise over what we've already negotiated in 2012.
Historically, the Company has NEVER come to the pilots before a contract amendable date because they haven't had to. They have had no fiscally responsible reason to do so because it just meant opening up their wallets during a time of shoestring profits. WHY are they doing it now?! On the horizon now is a new era of ULR flying that won't work for the Company under the current contract work rules. FRMS is the linchpin in this discussion and for those that think it doesn't apply to them, for those that have a 15+ year career in front of them, pay attention because what we, as a union, sign away with this extension, will affect you for decades to come. This is a no kidding OPPORTUNITY to trade what the Company really wants in exchange for improvements to a contract that currently has over 16,000 PDRs. We are a union of 12,000 and not independent contractors only out for whats best for ourselves. Sometimes we don't get to have the instant gratification of retro paycheck but need to pause and hope my small part of this agreement may help fix a substandard contract going forward. The rallying cry when the last contract was signed was "we'll get things fixed in the next contract". Well, that time is NOW. This job is not all about the pay check.
The notion that everyone can be off Reserve in the next year is absurd. Ask a DCA 756 pilot how that G line feels at 35%. Reserve rules are important to everyone because, at some point in your career, you're going to feel the shiny point of the scheduler's spear when you're told to report to FSB even though they already have more than enough pilots to cover the day's flying.
I fully understand the monetary aspect of getting a retro paycheck now as the overriding aspect of this agreement but the correction of LOA 25 is a given in any agreement going forward now that those not affected by it understand the abhorrent agreement that carved out a few to help shape an ISL argument.
For those doing public math with their retro numbers, they may be a bit high as they only start from Dec 2012. From another post:
Assume 70 hr/month x 12 months (840 hrs / year)
2015 12 yr longevity - 8 yr rate difference
144.24 - 138.28 = 5.96 $5006.40
2014 12 yr rate - 7yr rate
140.04 -131.24 = 8.8 $7392.00
2013 12 yr rate - 6yr rate
129.07 - 117.67 = 11.40 $9576.00
or a total salary of about $21,974 and a 16% PRAP contribution of $3,516 for a total of $25,490 to be paid within 120 days of a signed TA
Thats for an individual who has been on property since 2012. Thats a best case scenario and its a sliding scale downward from there. Your mileage may vary.
The Pro/Con statements will be out on the 29th. They will offer some great insight into what the MEC discussed and why it was a 13-7 vote to allow this agreement to go to the pilots. Just because it goes out for a vote doesn't mean its a WIN. Look at what the DAL pilots thought of their offer from the company when they voted it down 2-1. Read the DALPA openers to their Company and see if you wouldn't want a piece of that pie going forward. DAL came back to the table a short 6 months after getting voted down because they also need relief from their contract and will be will to pay for it in other areas.
In Jan, the UAL MEC will have a new Chairman and, possibly, a new NC. The only one running for office as of now is Todd Insler, the current Grievance Committee Chairman, who is 27-1 against the the Company in front of an arbitrator. Perhaps, it may be in our collective best interest to let a new MC experienced in confronting the Company to guide the next round of negotiations that can start in earnest next Spring. The next contract won't take 3-5 years because the ULR flying relief is needed as we get more and more 787s on property and the new routes start in Mar 16.
We are at a contract crossroads that this group of professional pilots have NEVER SEEN BEFORE. I urge everyone to pay attention to the ENTIRE TA and understand all aspect of what we're signing up for when we vote. Is this verbiage iron clad or does it allow the Company wiggle room in what they've 'promised' not to do (reference our current contract with regard to FSB for starters). Please don't vote with your wallets only because what the Company has offered to the LOA 25 group is a rounding error for the whole of this agreement.
Hav
1437/2172
Last edited by jsled; 12-24-2015 at 09:51 PM.
12-25-2015, 07:01 AM
#554
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,610
I believe Munoz gave marching orders to his VPs to improve labor relations with the unions... That guidance didnt mean giving away the farm or mean company is desperate (like many think). IMO this is a one time good deal... If we turn it down his VPs, who are anti Union, will smile and say "I told you so Boss"... and we'll be tied up in full contract negotiations for many years... With the outcome not being any better... Possibly worse if economy tanks.
12-26-2015, 05:24 AM
#555
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 777 Cap
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by ugleeual
I believe Munoz gave marching orders to his VPs to improve labor relations with the unions... That guidance didnt mean giving away the farm or mean company is desperate (like many think). IMO this is a one time good deal... If we turn it down his VPs, who are anti Union, will smile and say "I told you so Boss"... and we'll be tied up in full contract negotiations for many years... With the outcome not being any better... Possibly worse if economy tanks.
Spot on.
12-26-2015, 11:03 AM
#557
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by syd111
Wow, that Munoz sure got a lot done in that week or 2 he was here.
12-26-2015, 11:20 AM
#558
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by jsled
Ol' Hav doesn't even mention the vacation RETRO. He's owed 2 weeks per year @ 3.25 per day. That's 136 hours @ an average $138/hr.
LUAL used DOH for vacation longevity calculations so all the LUAL pilots, including furloughed pilots, are already "whole."
Thus, vacation restoration is only an issue for previously furloughed CAL pilots. Even then, the previously furloughed CAL pilots only get retro back to the signing of the UPA.
12-26-2015, 11:28 AM
#559
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Flytolive
It's amazing how desperate many pilots are to believe the believe the best about management and the worst about our union.
It isn't Stockholm Syndrome to possibly see some good in this agreement, or something of mutual benefit.
It's also not unprecedented for a new CEO to make an effort to quickly distance himself from the old one and change the tone.
12-26-2015, 11:39 AM
#560
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Flytolive
It's amazing how desperate many pilots are to believe the believe the best about management and the worst about our union.
This is politics pure and simple at the MEC level. Both sides have legitimate arguments for this thing to pass or fail.
My concern is with the people that want this to fail so badly that the only rational argument for them is that anyone who is a yes voter, must be an idiot and/or in management's pocket.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
