Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 2037251)

From the Con letter.

From 1979 (after deregulation) to 2002 (prior to bankruptcy) the average yearly cost of the pilots to United Airlines as a percentage of company revenue was 10.85%. Today we find ourselves at 7.5%.
2014 revenue = $38.9 billion
Current cost of pilots to company = $2.92 billion/year
Average cost of pilots to company @ 10.85% = $4.22 billion/year
This equates to an average deficit of $1.3 billion/year in wages and benefits to our pilot group. The TA sent to you is valued at just under $400 million/year.

Not only does the TA come up short of your expectations and direction, but also it fails miserably on the merits of total value. It is reasonable for us to expect more from any deal today. On value alone, the DAL opener stands hundreds of millions of dollars more per year above our TA. Clearly, the new leadership at DAL ALPA understands the leverage we have and how the positive confluence of events has provided us a very strong hand.

This TA does not bring enough value for the amount of leverage we are giving up. You deserve better. The deal was rushed; money was left on the table, and it fails to bring any QOL improvements or capture any additional jobs (an aircraft order). Today, with a single and unified pilot group and the current negotiating environment, our leverage is the strongest. We are recommending a resounding NO VOTE to this TA.

Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 2037564)

I guess because it is yet another example of an unfulfilled management promise. I thought Uncle Oscar's arrival put all that in the past.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 2037576)

the TA is valued by the pro side as $550 million per year.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 2037578)

Pay attention. The NSNB order was removed by ALPA, not management. The MC and NC wanted to have an agreement based on its own merit and not distract the pilot group with SJS. Smart move

Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 2037581)

Wrong. ALPA EF&A valued it at $380M/year. Here is how the MEC 'pro' letter characterized it.

This extension provides in excess of $1.1 Billion for the United pilots over the next three years in pay rates alone. This does not include any additional compensation or added value associated with other provisions in the tentative agreement.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 2037578)

Pay attention. The NSNB order was removed by ALPA, not management. The MC and NC wanted to have an agreement based on its own merit and not distract the pilot group with SJS. Smart move

Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 2037596)

It is apparent that it is you who isn't paying attention. It was never removed from MEC direction. Here is that part of their resolution.


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any agreement for the contract extension shall include the following items:
a) ALPA’s negotiation expenses shall be reimbursed by the Company to include any
expenses related to a Special MEC meeting required to consider an extension LOA
b) The timeline for completing negotiations not to extend past Friday, November 20,
2015.
c) The topics for discussion to include only those limited number of items listed in P.
Douglas McKeen’s October 2, 2015 letter:
i. Compensation
ii. Retroactive longevity for furloughees for pay and vacation
iii. MOU 22 replacement
iv. Reserve assignment process improvements
v. FRMS
d) A firm order for NSNBs on the United Mainline property flown by pilots on the United Airlines seniority list
e) The length of the proposed extension not to exceed two (2) years



The majority of the MEC simply approved the TA that didn't comply with their own direction.

The company was very close to a deal to buy NSNB aircraft, but it fell through at the last minute. Regardless, aircraft orders should have no bearing on our MR decision IMO.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 2037600)

That's NOT what you said. Your complaint was that this was MANAGEMENT not adhering to what was agreed to. Then you made some flippant comment about Oscar the savior. It wasn't management that removed it from the table, it was the NC. And I for one am glad they did.

Source for "management being close to an NSNB order that fell through". I haven't seen that reported anywhere

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 2037602)

IF there was an NSNB order in the TA, the response would have been that the pilots are funding the NSNB purchase by accepting a lesser total compensation package. The NSNB Paradox at its finest.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 2037607)

Agreed. Which is exactly why I (and the majority of the MEC) think it was a good move to separate the two issues