Boeing Aviator

December 3, 2015

Captain Glenn Johnson, Council 5 Captain Representative

First Officer Mark Leneski, Council 5 FO Representative

First Officer Phil Wenzel, Council 5 Secretary/Treasurer

United Local Executive Council 5 Air Line Pilot’s Association, International 9550 W. Higgins Road, Suite 1000 Rosemont, Illinois 60018


Dear Glenn, Mark, and Phil:

We write to you as a broad cross-section of very concerned Council 5 pilots regarding the recent Agreement-In-Principle (“AIP”) negotiated by the Negotiating Committee and the company. As you know, some information regarding the AIP has been made public to both the pilot group and the press. We fully recognize that this AIP may not achieve all of the goals of a full Section 6 negotiations process, but it would be naive to suggest that it does not represent a substantial amount of economic value to the pilot group. We feel that an agreement with this kind of potential future economic value should be decided by the entire pilot group, as has recently occurred at other major airlines.

This letter is not intended to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the AIP. It is a request of you, our elected representatives, that an AIP of this magnitude should not be decided solely by the MEC. It should be affirmed and presented to the pilots, along with any supporting factual data and information for a membership ratification vote. As our elected representatives, we have great faith in the decisions you make that affect our careers. In the matter of this AIP we would like all United pilots to be fully informed and have the opportunity to decide its fate.

As you know, with over 12,000 pilots at United Airlines, there is certainly no one “correct” answer in this debate and every pilot’s opinion on the matter is valid. Most recently we witnessed failed contract ratification processes at both Delta and Southwest and we have also witnessed a successful contract ratification process at FedEx. In all 3 cases, the pilots collectively decided their future and we believe that United’s pilots deserve the same opportunity. Further, it could be argued that if the pilot group ultimately decides to not ratify a Tentative Agreement on this issue, then the leverage created out of that situation would be greater than if the MEC were to reject the TA without sending it to the pilots.

We all understand that there are times where the MEC should, as a body, not send a Tentative Agreement to the pilot group for membership ratification. For example, if there were an agreement that was concessionary in nature from the current contract and absolutely not in line with our union’s long term strategic goals (e.g., an obvious degradation to the terms of our Scope section such allowing the company to outsource flying with greater than 76 seats). That does not appear to be the case here. It has been 3 years since the United Pilot Agreement went into effect and as a result, the line pilots would be voting on this contract extension with their eyes wide open to both the positive and negative aspects of the contract.

In closing, we strongly request that you, as our elected representatives, vote at the MEC level to allow the pilot group to decide the fate of this critical career issue.

Sincerely,


Michael De Santis
EWR B756 Captain

Robert Slovitsky
EWR A320 Captain

David Dahl
EWR B737 Captain

James LaRosa
EWR B737 Captain

Peter Faller
EWR B777 First Officer

Neal Schwartz
EWR B737 Captain

Flytolive

Who are these guys and why should the pilots of C5 care what they think? Why have representatives?

jsled

Representatives need direction. I know I have let my reps know how I feel. Send it out...let's have a vote. I don't need big brother looking out for me.

Flytolive

Big brother? Here I thought they were our elected representatives. I agree that they should send it out if they think that is in our best interests.

Membership ratification is an important check in our ratification process, but if it becomes a substitute for the role of our representatives then the company will take full advantage of a more direct relationship with the pilots.

If not for our MEC unanimously disapproving the FDP extension LOA we would not be looking at the AIP.

svergin

I'm sure for every email the LEC reps get just like this they get one asking them to vote it down without hesitation if they think we can do better in Section 6.

They will do their job, and then we will have our say. But if it passes the MEC its passing the membership.

Truth.

gettinbumped

I agree with you. I hope that it ends up going out for MR if for no other reason than the usual reason an MEC might keep it from MR is to "send it back" to be fixed and re-submitted. As that isn't one of the options on the table during this negotiation, it should be left to the majority to decide in my opinion.

The one thing that upsets me about our MEC is that I think many time politics influence the votes more than the direction of the membership. It's disheartening for the average line pilot when you hear one council doesn't agree with another and we all KNOW that there are sore feelings from this election or that election etc. I hope the MEC can put all that to the wood shed and just do what's best for the pilots they represent..... whatever that is

buscappy

keep hoping. many (not all) men and women who run for union offices are political types - and egos and power trips can take priority over representing the constituents. happens in all political organizations.

gettinbumped

Sadly, I agree.

Half wing

These six guys were looking at the best way to get new Teslas. This letter was what they came up with.

Probe

Elected representatives? The MEC? Bwahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!

We all wish they were elected, as well as ALPO national. Unfortunately it is an old boys club, mafia style. We have no input. Our two highest levels of representation are decided in a back, smoke filled room. Our dues pay for the room, the expensive cubans causing the smoke, the Porterhouse they just ate, and the Scotch they are drinking. Other than that, we have no input.

All that being said, JH appears to be getting results.