View Poll Results: What say you?
Yes
214
72.30%
No
82
27.70%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll
Extension TA Poll
01-12-2016 | 10:45 AM
#261
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Since Heidi's comments were put on the forum I think it's only fair that the following should be posted:
From another forum:
Comrades,
Since I sent out my article for discussion, I've received many responses. Many were supportive, but I also got some well written and compelling opposition responses too. At the end of last week I sensed a shift to voting yes by some people based on uncertainty in the news: The tremendous jitters in the stock market, the bad news from China, and the uncertainty after Oscar got a new heart installed. Hopefully he will be back to work sooner than later. Here's a good article from Doc who does heart swaps: Yes Uniteds CEO could return to work after heart transplant
Council Meeting:
Also, on Friday we had our council meeting here at SFO. I went into the meeting still a solid "no" voter, for the reasons I sent out. In spite of the bad news, I figure our own economy is not cratering, the China train wreck has been expected for awhile, we don't export much there anyway, and oil prices allow airlines a cushion to absorb any softness in bookings for quite awhile.
At the meeting our council officers opened with their reasons for voting no, which were pretty much outlined in the TA con paper. Then Greg Everhard, a member of the negotiating committee went through some slides explaining the TA in greater detail and we got to ask questions, he seemed quite up to speed and addressed most of the "viral" questions we've seen flying around on the email chains. Many questions came up about the Delta snap-up and the FRMS which obviously were not well understood by many pilots, myself included. After lunch Jay Heppner told the story of how the TA came about, and also gave more information about dealing with Oscar and then Brett Hart, how he's been mostly a conduit for Oscar since his heart attack. Then he answered questions for quite awhile. From my perspective, there wasn't any selling of the TA, just what I saw as honest efforts to help us understand it.
After the meeting I found some of my prior negative perceptions of the TA were no longer appropriate.
My take-aways from the meeting
Delta snap-up: In my nyet article I was wrong to cast the delta snap-up in such a negative tone after learning more about it at the meeting. My argument was mostly based on emotion and distrust, which are usually valid based on history here at UAL :-) Greg told us during his presentation that they (neg comm) keep in touch with the Delta guys and they definitely see our TA as a floor not a ceiling. Then later Jay told us that the delta guys called him and thanked us for the TA, that it will make things easier for them, especially us keeping the profit sharing, also their re-opener is based on our TA. So if the delta guys don't see it as a ceiling, how can I argue with that?
In truth, I suppose you could argue it both ways really, that the TA helps the DAL pilots whether the TA is ratified or not. After all, Delta shot down their TA last summer and we used the failed Delta TA as a template for our TA. We didn't exceed the rates, but our TA is close and didn't give up profit sharing to get it like they did.
Another consideration is incentive for Delta to make sure whatever compensation package they settle with their pilots is timed prior to our snap-up expiring on 1/1/18 and structured such that our company would have to match the cost to us. How much incentive? I don't know.
Regarding contract timing considerations, I prefer to keep on track for section 6 this year, and if Oscar really comes back and really is a decent CEO, maybe we could raise the bar ourselves soon after Delta gets their next contract. However, I have received valid arguments that getting the TA now would put us on better timing to let the DAL pilots do something for the rest of us to match and hopefully exceed. Its another case that could argue both ways.
FRMS: Since I've mostly been a domestic dog, this section was the least understood section for me. Greg explained it pretty well. I learned that the FRMS exemption template gives the company the ability to seek route authority without delay, that in the past potential new route opportunities have been missed and delayed without the ability of flight ops to say yes to a route.
When Jay talked about the FRMS negotiations, he said the company started out wanting a lot of flexibility, they wanted to fly to the moon and back single augmented, and several times we were ready to walk out of the talks, but then Dan interrupted, "but isn't that the way they did it?" referring to the way NASA staffed the first moon missions. Everyone laughed pretty hard at that one and somebody yelled, "But with THREE premium break seats!!"
The way the template is in the TA it is so man-power positive that it literally sets a new standard for our industry. Due to the huge improvements in rest rules before and after future ultra-long haul flying approved under the template, each new seat on a daily route could easily translate into the company having to have far more pilots than our current wide-body manpower models. The downside is that is doesn't apply to present FRMS approved routes.
The arguments against the FRMS not having extra premium break seat on fleets other than 777-200 was addressed at the meeting as well, basically they said the other fleets just don't complain about it so they didn't see a problem. They said the A350 rest sucks as designed now and that WILL have to be addressed by the CROC.
Of course FRMS would definitely have to be part of section 6 negotiations if the TA fails. The only downside is from what I heard, in the TA we got exactly what we asked for on the template. Will we be that successful again in section 6? It might be a point of leverage, but we also have to consider that until FRMS is agreed to, we will possibly miss out on other routes. Double augmented FRMS routes flown with big airplanes and the pilots required to staff them could create a lot of suction at the top of the seniority list.
Reserve improvements: When asked why there's no reserve improvements in the TA, Jay said at one point, "We didn't know what you wanted" and went on to talk about all the varied improvements people wanted, but that one person's "improvement" might be another's concession, there was little clear direction. Early negotiations included efforts to improve reserve, but it came back bigger than the TA we have now, because the company demanded trade-offs in other areas of reserve like the 10am first day callout, so Jay decided to pull it all off the table because he wanted no trade-offs which would be seen as concessions.
After the TA came out Jay said there was plenty more input from every domicile about what was wanted on reserve, and it all summed up into saying "Everyone wants to be a line holder" which got some good laughs. After that he said there were plenty of good ideas and that it would be worthwhile to pursue in a future reserve specific LOA, to maybe form a task force of pilots on reserve to come up with some direction at the MEC level.
Later in the meeting he suggested to one member who asked that he start council direction towards the MEC to get reserve improvements in a future LOA. Then at that point another member spoke up about reserve being a "choice" for pilots with more than a few years on the property, once a pilot has a few years of seniority, their continued being on reserve is by choice because they've traded seniority for pay scale or other factors. Jay added that years back when he was on reserve we were on call 24 hours a day with a 2 hr callout, with none of the provisions we have now.
When we got to the "new business" portion of the meeting later after Jay left, the member asking the questions about reserve did floor a resolution regarding the formation of a task group to drive reserve improvements, and the debate continued there too for a little while before we voted on it.
Note: An online post made by another member present at the meeting regarding our meeting characterized Jay's comments as ignorant of the previous pilot contract survey conducted by ALPA, but it was pretty clear to most of us present that it was the survey results themselves he was talking about. Everyone knows that there are two "camps" with significantly different viewpoints of reserve: commuters and locals. I haven't seen the survey results but the wants and needs of both are predictable, but opposing in some respects. Concerning the 10am start on first day of reserve, the company kinda screwed themselves into agreeing with the 18:00 – 24:00 reserve schedule check and part 117, it is a very valuable feature and its good we didn't give that up. I also heard from other sources that the number of reserve items that both sides were seeking was too much to resolved in the time frame allotted by the MEC.
NSNB order, CS100, E2 Rates with asterisks: At the meeting we got Jay and Greg to talk about the issues brought up in the internet circulating letter regarding the CS100 and the E2 being listed with an asterisk. Jay spoke about the NSNB order being removed from the TA process so the company would be able to negotiate the Canadians against the Brazilians for the best deal without advertising their preference in our contract language.
When asked about the CS100, he reminded us that Section 1 doesn't get modified, and the CS100 is already in the upa (see section 1-L-25) right there with E190, E195. The TA rates are above market: SkyWest & JetBlue.
When specifically asked why we didn't get the E2 paid more, Jay said, "Strategically? We want it on the property." He went on to say that the E-190 was down there (low rates) in the JCBA to begin with only to entice the company into buying them. All those jets are lumped together basically to get them on the property.
Doing a little research on the Embraer website I came up with the following comparison between the E-195 and the E-195-E2:
E-195 E-195-E2
PAX (dual class) 12+88 = 100 12+108 = 120
MTOG (1k lbs) 115.3 129.4
Payload (1k lbs) 30.7 35.6
Wingspan (feet) 94.3 110.6
Personally I think this is somewhat a molehill being pushed into a mountain for the sake of argument. I think the heartburn for some people is the "pay to productivity" of the E2 compared to the first generation E-Jets.
I can also see the problem how the E2 jets compare to similar capable short 737-500 or delta's 717, both of which are now pretty much obsolete going forward. Isn't it unrealistic to try to negotiate rates way above current 190-195 market rates for a jet that can't possibly be on the property until 2020? I'm not convinced of arguments on the leverage we would have regarding the E2 being a new type anyway. During full contract talks, everything would be up for negotiation so there would be pressure to lump it together with all the other small jets or make us offset somewhere else for it.
I think its actually quite ironic that the ONLY protest we see zooming around the internet about pay banding is about a vapor jet. Our decades long approach to pay scales (pay to productivity) got bastardized in the JCBA when we lost the battle on pay banding to the CAL way of doing it. A few of the pilots ***** about it, mostly 757-200 and 747-400, but I think it's going to damn near impossible to get rid of the pay banding scheme in future contracts.
It's pretty much institutionalized at this point. Somebody's ox will have to get gored to totally split things up again, and I haven't seen any real push to get it done. At our council meeting, mainline fleet pay banding wasn't even brought up. So I think banding the E2 is consistent with the disadvantages of the other pay bands.
I think we should win the battle for the 76+ seat range first, and once the jets are actually on the property THEN we'll have a stronger argument to ramp the rates up on it. We'll still have trouble doing it as long as other airlines like Jet Blue and Skywest are paying significantly less for the same jet though.
This issue does not affect my vote very much, and I actually see it as a positive really. I fully believe the 76+ seat battle must be won even if we have to treat it as a "loss leader" until we get enough of them onboard to start treating like the other fleets. The company knows that will eventually happen anyway.
Furlough longevity: One significant thing in favor of the TA is the retro checks the furloughed pilots will get for pay and vacation back to 2012. It's significant amounts, I heard some guys getting nearly $30k (before taxes of course.) I know some guys grumble about having to expend negotiating power to help furloughed guys, especially for time not working on the property even though not by choice, but there's no better way to create strong future ALPA members than to do so.
United pilots have a tradition of never giving up when it comes to our pilots that have been wronged. We have historically paid dearly for this tenacity, and frankly it has been worth it. This time we get this wrong fixed for free. If the TA gets voted down, is it real to expect those checks to double or triple as needed when we eventually get a contract? I'm guessing not. I would expect it would be part of the usual retro pot of cash foodfight. If I switch my vote this will be one of the major reasons for doing so.
Section 6 vs LOA's and MOU's: Previously I wrote that I don't want a system where the company continually "courts" the master chairman to do "side deals" like more LOA's and MOU's. It's a system ripe for corruption and misuse of power to OUR detriment if the wrong people get into position. I got a compelling response from a friend:
As for our discussion in regards to the TA, if you allowed me to set up a truly utopian and perfect negotiation tactic, I would negotiate each and every contract section before moving on to the next one. In other words, I would open only one section at a time. This would prevent either side from giving in one section only to take it back in another section. It is so much easier to get what you want when you keep it simple and short. THAT is what we got this time. A very brief opportunity to get more in the few areas that are settled WITHOUT having to give it all back somewhere in work rules or other areas. On top of this, we have the luxury of seeing the very first pattern bargaining in our entire careers.
I still think my concern is valid, but my friend does have a point. So.....
MAYBE THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS IS TO GET MEMBERSHIP RATIFICATION OF THE MEC CHAIRMAN - AFTER HE OR SHE IS PICKED BY THE MEC IN THEIR LATE NIGHT HOSPITALITY SUITE GAMESHOW.
Such a decision by the MEC does significantly affect our pay and working conditions, so just like the TA, we should have ratification.
Am I just a more affluent, Caucasian version of Hiroo Onoda??
Hiroo Onoda, an army intelligence officer, caused a sensation when he was persuaded to come out of hiding in the Philippine jungle in 1974. Refusing to believe that the war had ended with Japan’s defeat in August 1945, Onoda drew on his training in guerilla warfare to kill as many as 30 people whom he mistakenly believed to be enemy soldiers. Onoda, whose sole remaining companion was killed in a shootout with Philippine troops in 1972, held firm until two years later. He was only persuaded to surrender when his former commanding officer travelled to his hideout on the island of Lubang in the north-western Philippines and convinced him that the war had ended.
Driving home after the council meeting I found myself wondering if my prior assumptions have been wrong. That my previous arguments about doing business the CAL way, and the leopard not changing spots might not be so true either. During the meeting Jay told us about the differences since Smisek left, and Oscar's desire to clean house in the tower and fix the problems with employees and also fix the operation of the airline. All stuff that Smisek just paid lip service to. Jay said that before Oscar's heart attack, he had more conversation with him than the entire time prior with Smisek.
He also told us how the TA came to be, that it was Oscar wanting to show good faith and basically buy time to delay our section 6. We've all heard the various rumors that this whole thing started while Smisek was still in charge, that the company wanted to open the whole contract early with us. Regardless of how it started, we have this TA that wouldn't have happened with Smisek.
So I'm wondering if I been operating in such a f_ed up dysfunctional operation for so long, that if presented with a decent CEO attempting to make a change in the dynamic would my instinctive negative bias and distrust prohibit me from even recognizing it? Maybe Oscar is our Gorbachev? Maybe the leopard is changing its spots, just not the spots I expect to see first?
Of course time will tell, but so far this new CEO has put action in front of his words...this TA. Considering his personal situation after his life altering last six months, maybe he'll be even more motivated to make our company truly a better place to work. What happens with the other employee groups will soon tell us.
So am I switching my vote? I haven't done so yet. Right now I'd still prefer to go section 6, but I've come to the realization that this deal is ok if it passes. It really comes down to which we value more: the possible future gains in both money AND other fixes, by proceeding with section 6 later this year, or the money up front in this TA that puts our next contract talks on the back burner for an additional two years?
For now I'm paying attention to the debate, keeping an open mind and will make a reassessment of my no vote sometime before it closes.
Its a good thing we have an adequate period of electronic voting that allows switching. I remember the old days, and sometimes wishing I hadn't stuck the envelope in the mailbox so soon!
We have this TA in front of us, which I don't think is here other than to buy time on the company's part. That would be our concession to Oscar.
As before, these are just my personal opinions and I share for others to consider and debate. Feel free to post on forums etc.
Dasvidanya comrades,
Darin Bishop
From another forum:
Comrades,
Since I sent out my article for discussion, I've received many responses. Many were supportive, but I also got some well written and compelling opposition responses too. At the end of last week I sensed a shift to voting yes by some people based on uncertainty in the news: The tremendous jitters in the stock market, the bad news from China, and the uncertainty after Oscar got a new heart installed. Hopefully he will be back to work sooner than later. Here's a good article from Doc who does heart swaps: Yes Uniteds CEO could return to work after heart transplant
Council Meeting:
Also, on Friday we had our council meeting here at SFO. I went into the meeting still a solid "no" voter, for the reasons I sent out. In spite of the bad news, I figure our own economy is not cratering, the China train wreck has been expected for awhile, we don't export much there anyway, and oil prices allow airlines a cushion to absorb any softness in bookings for quite awhile.
At the meeting our council officers opened with their reasons for voting no, which were pretty much outlined in the TA con paper. Then Greg Everhard, a member of the negotiating committee went through some slides explaining the TA in greater detail and we got to ask questions, he seemed quite up to speed and addressed most of the "viral" questions we've seen flying around on the email chains. Many questions came up about the Delta snap-up and the FRMS which obviously were not well understood by many pilots, myself included. After lunch Jay Heppner told the story of how the TA came about, and also gave more information about dealing with Oscar and then Brett Hart, how he's been mostly a conduit for Oscar since his heart attack. Then he answered questions for quite awhile. From my perspective, there wasn't any selling of the TA, just what I saw as honest efforts to help us understand it.
After the meeting I found some of my prior negative perceptions of the TA were no longer appropriate.
My take-aways from the meeting
Delta snap-up: In my nyet article I was wrong to cast the delta snap-up in such a negative tone after learning more about it at the meeting. My argument was mostly based on emotion and distrust, which are usually valid based on history here at UAL :-) Greg told us during his presentation that they (neg comm) keep in touch with the Delta guys and they definitely see our TA as a floor not a ceiling. Then later Jay told us that the delta guys called him and thanked us for the TA, that it will make things easier for them, especially us keeping the profit sharing, also their re-opener is based on our TA. So if the delta guys don't see it as a ceiling, how can I argue with that?
In truth, I suppose you could argue it both ways really, that the TA helps the DAL pilots whether the TA is ratified or not. After all, Delta shot down their TA last summer and we used the failed Delta TA as a template for our TA. We didn't exceed the rates, but our TA is close and didn't give up profit sharing to get it like they did.
Another consideration is incentive for Delta to make sure whatever compensation package they settle with their pilots is timed prior to our snap-up expiring on 1/1/18 and structured such that our company would have to match the cost to us. How much incentive? I don't know.
Regarding contract timing considerations, I prefer to keep on track for section 6 this year, and if Oscar really comes back and really is a decent CEO, maybe we could raise the bar ourselves soon after Delta gets their next contract. However, I have received valid arguments that getting the TA now would put us on better timing to let the DAL pilots do something for the rest of us to match and hopefully exceed. Its another case that could argue both ways.
FRMS: Since I've mostly been a domestic dog, this section was the least understood section for me. Greg explained it pretty well. I learned that the FRMS exemption template gives the company the ability to seek route authority without delay, that in the past potential new route opportunities have been missed and delayed without the ability of flight ops to say yes to a route.
When Jay talked about the FRMS negotiations, he said the company started out wanting a lot of flexibility, they wanted to fly to the moon and back single augmented, and several times we were ready to walk out of the talks, but then Dan interrupted, "but isn't that the way they did it?" referring to the way NASA staffed the first moon missions. Everyone laughed pretty hard at that one and somebody yelled, "But with THREE premium break seats!!"
The way the template is in the TA it is so man-power positive that it literally sets a new standard for our industry. Due to the huge improvements in rest rules before and after future ultra-long haul flying approved under the template, each new seat on a daily route could easily translate into the company having to have far more pilots than our current wide-body manpower models. The downside is that is doesn't apply to present FRMS approved routes.
The arguments against the FRMS not having extra premium break seat on fleets other than 777-200 was addressed at the meeting as well, basically they said the other fleets just don't complain about it so they didn't see a problem. They said the A350 rest sucks as designed now and that WILL have to be addressed by the CROC.
Of course FRMS would definitely have to be part of section 6 negotiations if the TA fails. The only downside is from what I heard, in the TA we got exactly what we asked for on the template. Will we be that successful again in section 6? It might be a point of leverage, but we also have to consider that until FRMS is agreed to, we will possibly miss out on other routes. Double augmented FRMS routes flown with big airplanes and the pilots required to staff them could create a lot of suction at the top of the seniority list.
Reserve improvements: When asked why there's no reserve improvements in the TA, Jay said at one point, "We didn't know what you wanted" and went on to talk about all the varied improvements people wanted, but that one person's "improvement" might be another's concession, there was little clear direction. Early negotiations included efforts to improve reserve, but it came back bigger than the TA we have now, because the company demanded trade-offs in other areas of reserve like the 10am first day callout, so Jay decided to pull it all off the table because he wanted no trade-offs which would be seen as concessions.
After the TA came out Jay said there was plenty more input from every domicile about what was wanted on reserve, and it all summed up into saying "Everyone wants to be a line holder" which got some good laughs. After that he said there were plenty of good ideas and that it would be worthwhile to pursue in a future reserve specific LOA, to maybe form a task force of pilots on reserve to come up with some direction at the MEC level.
Later in the meeting he suggested to one member who asked that he start council direction towards the MEC to get reserve improvements in a future LOA. Then at that point another member spoke up about reserve being a "choice" for pilots with more than a few years on the property, once a pilot has a few years of seniority, their continued being on reserve is by choice because they've traded seniority for pay scale or other factors. Jay added that years back when he was on reserve we were on call 24 hours a day with a 2 hr callout, with none of the provisions we have now.
When we got to the "new business" portion of the meeting later after Jay left, the member asking the questions about reserve did floor a resolution regarding the formation of a task group to drive reserve improvements, and the debate continued there too for a little while before we voted on it.
Note: An online post made by another member present at the meeting regarding our meeting characterized Jay's comments as ignorant of the previous pilot contract survey conducted by ALPA, but it was pretty clear to most of us present that it was the survey results themselves he was talking about. Everyone knows that there are two "camps" with significantly different viewpoints of reserve: commuters and locals. I haven't seen the survey results but the wants and needs of both are predictable, but opposing in some respects. Concerning the 10am start on first day of reserve, the company kinda screwed themselves into agreeing with the 18:00 – 24:00 reserve schedule check and part 117, it is a very valuable feature and its good we didn't give that up. I also heard from other sources that the number of reserve items that both sides were seeking was too much to resolved in the time frame allotted by the MEC.
NSNB order, CS100, E2 Rates with asterisks: At the meeting we got Jay and Greg to talk about the issues brought up in the internet circulating letter regarding the CS100 and the E2 being listed with an asterisk. Jay spoke about the NSNB order being removed from the TA process so the company would be able to negotiate the Canadians against the Brazilians for the best deal without advertising their preference in our contract language.
When asked about the CS100, he reminded us that Section 1 doesn't get modified, and the CS100 is already in the upa (see section 1-L-25) right there with E190, E195. The TA rates are above market: SkyWest & JetBlue.
When specifically asked why we didn't get the E2 paid more, Jay said, "Strategically? We want it on the property." He went on to say that the E-190 was down there (low rates) in the JCBA to begin with only to entice the company into buying them. All those jets are lumped together basically to get them on the property.
Doing a little research on the Embraer website I came up with the following comparison between the E-195 and the E-195-E2:
E-195 E-195-E2
PAX (dual class) 12+88 = 100 12+108 = 120
MTOG (1k lbs) 115.3 129.4
Payload (1k lbs) 30.7 35.6
Wingspan (feet) 94.3 110.6
Personally I think this is somewhat a molehill being pushed into a mountain for the sake of argument. I think the heartburn for some people is the "pay to productivity" of the E2 compared to the first generation E-Jets.
I can also see the problem how the E2 jets compare to similar capable short 737-500 or delta's 717, both of which are now pretty much obsolete going forward. Isn't it unrealistic to try to negotiate rates way above current 190-195 market rates for a jet that can't possibly be on the property until 2020? I'm not convinced of arguments on the leverage we would have regarding the E2 being a new type anyway. During full contract talks, everything would be up for negotiation so there would be pressure to lump it together with all the other small jets or make us offset somewhere else for it.
I think its actually quite ironic that the ONLY protest we see zooming around the internet about pay banding is about a vapor jet. Our decades long approach to pay scales (pay to productivity) got bastardized in the JCBA when we lost the battle on pay banding to the CAL way of doing it. A few of the pilots ***** about it, mostly 757-200 and 747-400, but I think it's going to damn near impossible to get rid of the pay banding scheme in future contracts.
It's pretty much institutionalized at this point. Somebody's ox will have to get gored to totally split things up again, and I haven't seen any real push to get it done. At our council meeting, mainline fleet pay banding wasn't even brought up. So I think banding the E2 is consistent with the disadvantages of the other pay bands.
I think we should win the battle for the 76+ seat range first, and once the jets are actually on the property THEN we'll have a stronger argument to ramp the rates up on it. We'll still have trouble doing it as long as other airlines like Jet Blue and Skywest are paying significantly less for the same jet though.
This issue does not affect my vote very much, and I actually see it as a positive really. I fully believe the 76+ seat battle must be won even if we have to treat it as a "loss leader" until we get enough of them onboard to start treating like the other fleets. The company knows that will eventually happen anyway.
Furlough longevity: One significant thing in favor of the TA is the retro checks the furloughed pilots will get for pay and vacation back to 2012. It's significant amounts, I heard some guys getting nearly $30k (before taxes of course.) I know some guys grumble about having to expend negotiating power to help furloughed guys, especially for time not working on the property even though not by choice, but there's no better way to create strong future ALPA members than to do so.
United pilots have a tradition of never giving up when it comes to our pilots that have been wronged. We have historically paid dearly for this tenacity, and frankly it has been worth it. This time we get this wrong fixed for free. If the TA gets voted down, is it real to expect those checks to double or triple as needed when we eventually get a contract? I'm guessing not. I would expect it would be part of the usual retro pot of cash foodfight. If I switch my vote this will be one of the major reasons for doing so.
Section 6 vs LOA's and MOU's: Previously I wrote that I don't want a system where the company continually "courts" the master chairman to do "side deals" like more LOA's and MOU's. It's a system ripe for corruption and misuse of power to OUR detriment if the wrong people get into position. I got a compelling response from a friend:
As for our discussion in regards to the TA, if you allowed me to set up a truly utopian and perfect negotiation tactic, I would negotiate each and every contract section before moving on to the next one. In other words, I would open only one section at a time. This would prevent either side from giving in one section only to take it back in another section. It is so much easier to get what you want when you keep it simple and short. THAT is what we got this time. A very brief opportunity to get more in the few areas that are settled WITHOUT having to give it all back somewhere in work rules or other areas. On top of this, we have the luxury of seeing the very first pattern bargaining in our entire careers.
I still think my concern is valid, but my friend does have a point. So.....
MAYBE THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS IS TO GET MEMBERSHIP RATIFICATION OF THE MEC CHAIRMAN - AFTER HE OR SHE IS PICKED BY THE MEC IN THEIR LATE NIGHT HOSPITALITY SUITE GAMESHOW.
Such a decision by the MEC does significantly affect our pay and working conditions, so just like the TA, we should have ratification.
Am I just a more affluent, Caucasian version of Hiroo Onoda??
Hiroo Onoda, an army intelligence officer, caused a sensation when he was persuaded to come out of hiding in the Philippine jungle in 1974. Refusing to believe that the war had ended with Japan’s defeat in August 1945, Onoda drew on his training in guerilla warfare to kill as many as 30 people whom he mistakenly believed to be enemy soldiers. Onoda, whose sole remaining companion was killed in a shootout with Philippine troops in 1972, held firm until two years later. He was only persuaded to surrender when his former commanding officer travelled to his hideout on the island of Lubang in the north-western Philippines and convinced him that the war had ended.
Driving home after the council meeting I found myself wondering if my prior assumptions have been wrong. That my previous arguments about doing business the CAL way, and the leopard not changing spots might not be so true either. During the meeting Jay told us about the differences since Smisek left, and Oscar's desire to clean house in the tower and fix the problems with employees and also fix the operation of the airline. All stuff that Smisek just paid lip service to. Jay said that before Oscar's heart attack, he had more conversation with him than the entire time prior with Smisek.
He also told us how the TA came to be, that it was Oscar wanting to show good faith and basically buy time to delay our section 6. We've all heard the various rumors that this whole thing started while Smisek was still in charge, that the company wanted to open the whole contract early with us. Regardless of how it started, we have this TA that wouldn't have happened with Smisek.
So I'm wondering if I been operating in such a f_ed up dysfunctional operation for so long, that if presented with a decent CEO attempting to make a change in the dynamic would my instinctive negative bias and distrust prohibit me from even recognizing it? Maybe Oscar is our Gorbachev? Maybe the leopard is changing its spots, just not the spots I expect to see first?
Of course time will tell, but so far this new CEO has put action in front of his words...this TA. Considering his personal situation after his life altering last six months, maybe he'll be even more motivated to make our company truly a better place to work. What happens with the other employee groups will soon tell us.
So am I switching my vote? I haven't done so yet. Right now I'd still prefer to go section 6, but I've come to the realization that this deal is ok if it passes. It really comes down to which we value more: the possible future gains in both money AND other fixes, by proceeding with section 6 later this year, or the money up front in this TA that puts our next contract talks on the back burner for an additional two years?
For now I'm paying attention to the debate, keeping an open mind and will make a reassessment of my no vote sometime before it closes.
Its a good thing we have an adequate period of electronic voting that allows switching. I remember the old days, and sometimes wishing I hadn't stuck the envelope in the mailbox so soon!
We have this TA in front of us, which I don't think is here other than to buy time on the company's part. That would be our concession to Oscar.
As before, these are just my personal opinions and I share for others to consider and debate. Feel free to post on forums etc.
Dasvidanya comrades,
Darin Bishop
Holy. Moly. Someone needs a vacation.
=)
Just kidding Darin!!
01-12-2016 | 12:53 PM
#263
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
one of you complained to the moderator about me and now you cry when I do the same to you... hysterical . .. id rather there be no moderator and we tell each other exactly what we think of each other but the moderator (and one of you) is having none of it. this thread is about the TA... Andy started the name calling with his "angry militant pilots" statement (wonder whom he was referring to?) don't toss stones if you live in a glass house.. ever heard that before? now let's get back to the TA and the facts
01-12-2016 | 01:12 PM
#264
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
And you waste oxygen, gravity and real estate, yet I and the rest of our union will rally to defend your rights to the utmost. Union mates who you tar with the s word without understanding a thing about them.
01-12-2016 | 01:30 PM
#265
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
b52dthdlr, I did not report you to any moderators. I would have advised anyone against such an action in spite of your comment being so far out of line that it diminishes the very meaning of scab, strikebreaker, or whatever word you wish to use to describe people like me who are tired of the schizophrenic melodrama that is UALALPA.
I would not report you to moderators because I have behaved poorly on this and other forums more often than I care to remember. After I responded to your post, I stepped away from the keyboard and took a few hours off before properly responding to your post.
I have quoted this portion of your post because it shows how little you understand about LOA 25. The company complied with LOA 25 to the letter. Read paragraph 4. That was a carveout specifically effecting the 2172.
That carveout was not dreamt up by United management; it was done by ALPA pilots and agreed to/signed by both LUAL and LCAL ALPA MECs. Blaming this on United management is so far off the mark that I laughed when I read your post.
There are a lot of the 2172 still livid about the carveout. I'm not one of them anymore; there are more important things in life than to be upset about LOA 25. I used to be livid about LOA 25 but that emotion has long since left my body with respect to LOA 25.
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger. We could use a lot more deep thinkers like Pierce in the MEC.
I do find the entire LOA 25 kind of humorous. Back on my first furlough when ALPA was settling with the company on the no furlough clause, a bunch of us furloughees begged our representatives to get longevity credit for our time on furlough as part of the settlement. The response was that 1) it would cost way too much; ~$20 mil/yr (I don't remember the exact number) to give furloughees longevity credit and 2) the company might not want to recall furloughees if they had to pay them higher wages. In the end, the company and union settled the matter out of court where it benefitted the pilots who were still on property - furloughees saw nothing in the settlement.
The bond distribution was another low point of UALALPA. Both Northwest and Delta's furloughees got full shares of their bond distributions. I asked that a portion of the bond distribution be held back until all furloughees were offered recalls. No dice. I was told that since I was furloughed, there was no obligation to represent me. And big FU from UALALPA. It really sucked because there were periods during my first furlough where I lived in a storage unit or the backseat of my car in order to cut costs.
I've gotten beyond all of that now, but I've witnessed so many acts of incredible stupidity by UALALPA over the years that there isn't much that surprises me anymore. Too many angry shortsighted pilots who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. Sometimes it's felt like watching a small army of Don Quixotes come to life. Hats on hats off.
b52dthdlr, when I posted the angry pilots comment, it was a generic statement and not meant to be aimed at any individual on this board. I had no idea that it would elicit that kind of response from you. Calm down. There are far more important things in life than this. I guess it's time I took another very long break from here, as the tension on this subforum is surreal.
All the best to everyone. The next time you (generic) get home, take the time to spend some quality time with the family and tell them that you love them. Life's too short.
Frats,
Andy
I would not report you to moderators because I have behaved poorly on this and other forums more often than I care to remember. After I responded to your post, I stepped away from the keyboard and took a few hours off before properly responding to your post.
That carveout was not dreamt up by United management; it was done by ALPA pilots and agreed to/signed by both LUAL and LCAL ALPA MECs. Blaming this on United management is so far off the mark that I laughed when I read your post.
There are a lot of the 2172 still livid about the carveout. I'm not one of them anymore; there are more important things in life than to be upset about LOA 25. I used to be livid about LOA 25 but that emotion has long since left my body with respect to LOA 25.
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger. We could use a lot more deep thinkers like Pierce in the MEC.
I do find the entire LOA 25 kind of humorous. Back on my first furlough when ALPA was settling with the company on the no furlough clause, a bunch of us furloughees begged our representatives to get longevity credit for our time on furlough as part of the settlement. The response was that 1) it would cost way too much; ~$20 mil/yr (I don't remember the exact number) to give furloughees longevity credit and 2) the company might not want to recall furloughees if they had to pay them higher wages. In the end, the company and union settled the matter out of court where it benefitted the pilots who were still on property - furloughees saw nothing in the settlement.
The bond distribution was another low point of UALALPA. Both Northwest and Delta's furloughees got full shares of their bond distributions. I asked that a portion of the bond distribution be held back until all furloughees were offered recalls. No dice. I was told that since I was furloughed, there was no obligation to represent me. And big FU from UALALPA. It really sucked because there were periods during my first furlough where I lived in a storage unit or the backseat of my car in order to cut costs.
I've gotten beyond all of that now, but I've witnessed so many acts of incredible stupidity by UALALPA over the years that there isn't much that surprises me anymore. Too many angry shortsighted pilots who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. Sometimes it's felt like watching a small army of Don Quixotes come to life. Hats on hats off.
b52dthdlr, when I posted the angry pilots comment, it was a generic statement and not meant to be aimed at any individual on this board. I had no idea that it would elicit that kind of response from you. Calm down. There are far more important things in life than this. I guess it's time I took another very long break from here, as the tension on this subforum is surreal.
All the best to everyone. The next time you (generic) get home, take the time to spend some quality time with the family and tell them that you love them. Life's too short.
Frats,
Andy
01-12-2016 | 01:33 PM
#266
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
b52dthdlr, I did not report you to any moderators. I would have advised anyone against such an action in spite of your comment being so far out of line that it diminishes the very meaning of scab, strikebreaker, or whatever word you wish to use to describe people like me who are tired of the schizophrenic melodrama that is UALALPA.
I would not report you to moderators because I have behaved poorly on this and other forums more often than I care to remember. After I responded to your post, I stepped away from the keyboard and took a few hours off before properly responding to your post.
I have quoted this portion of your post because it shows how little you understand about LOA 25. The company complied with LOA 25 to the letter. Read paragraph 4. That was a carveout specifically effecting the 2172.
That carveout was not dreamt up by United management; it was done by ALPA pilots and agreed to/signed by both LUAL and LCAL ALPA MECs. Blaming this on United management is so far off the mark that I laughed when I read your post.
There are a lot of the 2172 still livid about the carveout. I'm not one of them anymore; there are more important things in life than to be upset about than LOA 25. I used to be livid about LOA 25 but emotion has long since left my body.
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger. We could use a lot more deep thinkers like Pierce in the MEC.
I do find the entire LOA 25 kind of humorous. Back on my first furlough when ALPA was settling with the company on the no furlough clause, a bunch of us furloughees begged our representatives to get longevity credit for our time on furlough as part of the settlement. The response was that 1) it would cost ~$20 mil/yr (I don't remember the exact number) to give furloughees longevity credit and 2) the company might not want to recall furloughees if they had to pay them higher wages. In the end, the company and union settled the matter out of court where it benefitted the pilots who were still on property - furloughees saw nothing in the settlement.
The bond distribution was another low point of UALALPA. Both Northwest and Delta's furloughees got full shares of their bond distributions. I asked that a portion of the bond distribution be held back until all furloughees were offered recalls. No dice. I was told that since I was furloughed, there was no obligation to represent me. And big FU from UALALPA. It really sucked because there were periods during my first furlough where I lived in a storage unit or the backseat of my car in order to cut costs.
I've gotten beyond all of that now, but I've witnessed so many acts of incredible stupidity by UALALPA over the years that there isn't much that surprises me anymore. Too many angry shortsighted pilots who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. Sometimes it's felt like watching a small army of Don Quixotes come to life. Hats on hats off.
b52dthdlr, when I posted the angry pilots comment, it was a generic statement and not meant to be aimed at any individual on this board. I had no idea that it would elicit that kind of response from you. Calm down. There are far more important things in life than this. At least in my life. I guess it's time I took another very long break from here, as the tension on this subforum is surreal.
All the best to everyone. The next time you (generic) get home, take the time to spend some quality time with the family and tell them that you love them. Life's too short.
Frats,
Andy
I would not report you to moderators because I have behaved poorly on this and other forums more often than I care to remember. After I responded to your post, I stepped away from the keyboard and took a few hours off before properly responding to your post.
I have quoted this portion of your post because it shows how little you understand about LOA 25. The company complied with LOA 25 to the letter. Read paragraph 4. That was a carveout specifically effecting the 2172.
That carveout was not dreamt up by United management; it was done by ALPA pilots and agreed to/signed by both LUAL and LCAL ALPA MECs. Blaming this on United management is so far off the mark that I laughed when I read your post.
There are a lot of the 2172 still livid about the carveout. I'm not one of them anymore; there are more important things in life than to be upset about than LOA 25. I used to be livid about LOA 25 but emotion has long since left my body.
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger. We could use a lot more deep thinkers like Pierce in the MEC.
I do find the entire LOA 25 kind of humorous. Back on my first furlough when ALPA was settling with the company on the no furlough clause, a bunch of us furloughees begged our representatives to get longevity credit for our time on furlough as part of the settlement. The response was that 1) it would cost ~$20 mil/yr (I don't remember the exact number) to give furloughees longevity credit and 2) the company might not want to recall furloughees if they had to pay them higher wages. In the end, the company and union settled the matter out of court where it benefitted the pilots who were still on property - furloughees saw nothing in the settlement.
The bond distribution was another low point of UALALPA. Both Northwest and Delta's furloughees got full shares of their bond distributions. I asked that a portion of the bond distribution be held back until all furloughees were offered recalls. No dice. I was told that since I was furloughed, there was no obligation to represent me. And big FU from UALALPA. It really sucked because there were periods during my first furlough where I lived in a storage unit or the backseat of my car in order to cut costs.
I've gotten beyond all of that now, but I've witnessed so many acts of incredible stupidity by UALALPA over the years that there isn't much that surprises me anymore. Too many angry shortsighted pilots who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. Sometimes it's felt like watching a small army of Don Quixotes come to life. Hats on hats off.
b52dthdlr, when I posted the angry pilots comment, it was a generic statement and not meant to be aimed at any individual on this board. I had no idea that it would elicit that kind of response from you. Calm down. There are far more important things in life than this. At least in my life. I guess it's time I took another very long break from here, as the tension on this subforum is surreal.
All the best to everyone. The next time you (generic) get home, take the time to spend some quality time with the family and tell them that you love them. Life's too short.
Frats,
Andy
01-12-2016 | 04:32 PM
#267
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
b52dthdlr, I did not report you to any moderators. I would have advised anyone against such an action in spite of your comment being so far out of line that it diminishes the very meaning of scab, strikebreaker, or whatever word you wish to use to describe people like me who are tired of the schizophrenic melodrama that is UALALPA.
I would not report you to moderators because I have behaved poorly on this and other forums more often than I care to remember. After I responded to your post, I stepped away from the keyboard and took a few hours off before properly responding to your post.
I have quoted this portion of your post because it shows how little you understand about LOA 25. The company complied with LOA 25 to the letter. Read paragraph 4. That was a carveout specifically effecting the 2172.
That carveout was not dreamt up by United management; it was done by ALPA pilots and agreed to/signed by both LUAL and LCAL ALPA MECs. Blaming this on United management is so far off the mark that I laughed when I read your post.
No doubt that LOA25 was a Jay Pierce request and JS went along. Neither thought it would pass the pilots. It did by 72%+ margin, which included a number of LCAL pilots.
There are a lot of the 2172 still livid about the carveout. I'm not one of them anymore; there are more important things in life than to be upset about LOA 25. I used to be livid about LOA 25 but that emotion has long since left my body with respect to LOA 25.
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger. We could use a lot more deep thinkers like Pierce in the MEC. There is no efidence that LOA25 improved the seniority integration of LCAL pilots. It did however stop the stealing of Captain seats by LCAL side at the hands of JP and JS.
I do find the entire LOA 25 kind of humorous. Back on my first furlough when ALPA was settling with the company on the no furlough clause, a bunch of us furloughees begged our representatives to get longevity credit for our time on furlough as part of the settlement. The response was that 1) it would cost way too much; ~$20 mil/yr (I don't remember the exact number) to give furloughees longevity credit and 2) the company might not want to recall furloughees if they had to pay them higher wages. In the end, the company and union settled the matter out of court where it benefitted the pilots who were still on property - furloughees saw nothing in the settlement.
The bond distribution was another low point of UALALPA. Both Northwest and Delta's furloughees got full shares of their bond distributions. I asked that a portion of the bond distribution be held back until all furloughees were offered recalls. No dice. I was told that since I was furloughed, there was no obligation to represent me. And big FU from UALALPA. It really sucked because there were periods during my first furlough where I lived in a storage unit or the backseat of my car in order to cut costs. Before you go blasting away at ALPA and the membership you'll have to remember that the company, you seem to have fallen in love with, actually furloughed you. As I recall the pilots provided medical insurance assistance to all furloughed that wanted or needed it. All United pilots were going through some difficult times and at different levels - the only victims were ones that made themselves victims.
I've gotten beyond all of that now, but I've witnessed so many acts of incredible stupidity by UALALPA over the years that there isn't much that surprises me anymore. Too many angry shortsighted pilots who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. Sometimes it's felt like watching a small army of Don Quixotes come to life. Hats on hats off. Good example of why it's important to be involved in the process, you know, go to meeting, understand the real issues, know who your elected reps are and what they are doing to represent you. The man you speak of should have worn a CLOWN SUIT 24 hours a day.
b52dthdlr, when I posted the angry pilots comment, it was a generic statement and not meant to be aimed at any individual on this board. I had no idea that it would elicit that kind of response from you. Calm down. There are far more important things in life than this. I guess it's time I took another very long break from here, as the tension on this subforum is surreal.
All the best to everyone. The next time you (generic) get home, take the time to spend some quality time with the family and tell them that you love them. Life's too short.
Frats,
Andy
I would not report you to moderators because I have behaved poorly on this and other forums more often than I care to remember. After I responded to your post, I stepped away from the keyboard and took a few hours off before properly responding to your post.
I have quoted this portion of your post because it shows how little you understand about LOA 25. The company complied with LOA 25 to the letter. Read paragraph 4. That was a carveout specifically effecting the 2172.
That carveout was not dreamt up by United management; it was done by ALPA pilots and agreed to/signed by both LUAL and LCAL ALPA MECs. Blaming this on United management is so far off the mark that I laughed when I read your post.
No doubt that LOA25 was a Jay Pierce request and JS went along. Neither thought it would pass the pilots. It did by 72%+ margin, which included a number of LCAL pilots.
There are a lot of the 2172 still livid about the carveout. I'm not one of them anymore; there are more important things in life than to be upset about LOA 25. I used to be livid about LOA 25 but that emotion has long since left my body with respect to LOA 25.
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger. We could use a lot more deep thinkers like Pierce in the MEC. There is no efidence that LOA25 improved the seniority integration of LCAL pilots. It did however stop the stealing of Captain seats by LCAL side at the hands of JP and JS.
I do find the entire LOA 25 kind of humorous. Back on my first furlough when ALPA was settling with the company on the no furlough clause, a bunch of us furloughees begged our representatives to get longevity credit for our time on furlough as part of the settlement. The response was that 1) it would cost way too much; ~$20 mil/yr (I don't remember the exact number) to give furloughees longevity credit and 2) the company might not want to recall furloughees if they had to pay them higher wages. In the end, the company and union settled the matter out of court where it benefitted the pilots who were still on property - furloughees saw nothing in the settlement.
The bond distribution was another low point of UALALPA. Both Northwest and Delta's furloughees got full shares of their bond distributions. I asked that a portion of the bond distribution be held back until all furloughees were offered recalls. No dice. I was told that since I was furloughed, there was no obligation to represent me. And big FU from UALALPA. It really sucked because there were periods during my first furlough where I lived in a storage unit or the backseat of my car in order to cut costs. Before you go blasting away at ALPA and the membership you'll have to remember that the company, you seem to have fallen in love with, actually furloughed you. As I recall the pilots provided medical insurance assistance to all furloughed that wanted or needed it. All United pilots were going through some difficult times and at different levels - the only victims were ones that made themselves victims.
I've gotten beyond all of that now, but I've witnessed so many acts of incredible stupidity by UALALPA over the years that there isn't much that surprises me anymore. Too many angry shortsighted pilots who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. Sometimes it's felt like watching a small army of Don Quixotes come to life. Hats on hats off. Good example of why it's important to be involved in the process, you know, go to meeting, understand the real issues, know who your elected reps are and what they are doing to represent you. The man you speak of should have worn a CLOWN SUIT 24 hours a day.
b52dthdlr, when I posted the angry pilots comment, it was a generic statement and not meant to be aimed at any individual on this board. I had no idea that it would elicit that kind of response from you. Calm down. There are far more important things in life than this. I guess it's time I took another very long break from here, as the tension on this subforum is surreal.
All the best to everyone. The next time you (generic) get home, take the time to spend some quality time with the family and tell them that you love them. Life's too short.
Frats,
Andy
One question all Yes votes should of asked but haven't is why didn't Jay H not demand that LOA25 be rescinded and all affected pilots made whole as a condition before any negotiations. If the company really needed the TA it would have settled it to start. I'm beginning to think Jay H wanted it in the TA to assure it's passage. With OM not likely to return to United in a meaningful way, Temp2 wanted the TA to solidify his position as the permanent Boss. Jay H may also be emboldening his resume for a life after United. The deal did come out of the blue and we should be asking why.
Last edited by AllenAllert; 01-12-2016 at 04:42 PM.
01-12-2016 | 04:50 PM
#268
UCH Pilot
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 776
Likes: 1
From: 787
The speculation is that this was a demand by Jay Pierce; another stall tactic. Whoever's idea it was, I give them kudos for a great strategy to drag out the JCBA and better position LCAL for the ISL. Many can curse Jay Pierce and his merger strategy, but he did exactly what he was supposed to do - represent the LCAL pilots and get them the best possible deal in the merger.
01-12-2016 | 04:59 PM
#269
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,043
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
One question all Yes votes should of asked but haven't is why didn't Jay H not demand that LOA25 be rescinded and all affected pilots made whole as a condition before any negotiations. If the company really needed the TA it would have settled it to start. I'm beginning to think Jay H wanted it in the TA to assure it's passage. With OM not likely to return to United in a meaningful way, Temp2 wanted the TA to solidify his position as the permanent Boss. Jay H may also be emboldening his resume for a life after United. The deal did come out of the blue and we should be asking why.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
