Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Is It The Pay Houston ? >

Is It The Pay Houston ?

Search
Notices

Is It The Pay Houston ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-03-2016, 05:15 AM
  #71  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by jsled View Post
He was bumped off the 757 in Den. Went to 737 Cap in Den. Then Bumped off the 737 to 777 FO. Then awarded 737 Cap Den on 16-03V. He had grandfather rights under 8-C-6.
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops View Post
So at 4300 I am still not a den 737 cap right? Crap.
Obviously other LUAL pilots have become Den 737 Capt. Since the merger, Infact I think the guy you are so upset about (7400) is LUAL as is the guy JSLED is quoted above talking about, as is JSLED himself. So it must not be a conspiracy against all LUAL. It sounds as though you wish that a Flush Bid had occurred. That is not a CALALPA issue, I don't think the company would have ever agreed to that. Way too expensive. We had one at LCAL after contract 97 was signed, people moving everywhere. It would have been nuts with as big as the new United is. Your issue is with the merger, mergers are messy. It is best if they never occur.
sleeves is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 05:31 AM
  #72  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Default

Originally Posted by AllenAllert View Post
Your assumption that the UALALPA MEC attempted like CALALPA JP used JCBA and pay banding as a way to inflate the UAL side for SLI.
So you're saying LUALALPA wasn't attempting to put the 744 in a higher pay rate because the A350 (a plane not scheduled for delivery until after the JCBA amendable date) was banded to it in their proposal? Um... OK.
Just go back and look at the UAL/CAL side suggestions for integration. The final result was MUCH closer to the UAL side suggestion. Many on the low side of UAL senority didn't fair as would have been liked but the UAL side held to the New Merger Policy.
I actually agree with you there. CALALPA proposed an SLI that left many of us scratching our heads and probably cost many on the CAL side hundreds of numbers.

JP's shenanigans created the distrust and disunity that causes these little rants and tirades.
Both sides maneuvered to give their side an advantage. Your side won. It doesn't matter any more because it's over and we're all on the same list now. It's well past the time to move on.
XHooker is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 05:32 AM
  #73  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves View Post
Obviously other LUAL pilots have become Den 737 Capt. Since the merger, Infact I think the guy you are so upset about (7400) is LUAL as is the guy JSLED is quoted above talking about, as is JSLED himself. So it must not be a conspiracy against all LUAL. It sounds as though you wish that a Flush Bid had occurred. That is not a CALALPA issue, I don't think the company would have ever agreed to that. Way too expensive. We had one at LCAL after contract 97 was signed, people moving everywhere. It would have been nuts with as big as the new United is. Your issue is with the merger, mergers are messy. It is best if they never occur.
I think we both agree on your last point.

Here is the real gist on den. Not that it matter as it can't be undone.

The company opened a 737 base in Denver and it was staffed by cal pilots. Tpa, training restrictions, whatever. That's the reality. It was staffed by very junior (by lual history) cal pilots.

Fast fwd couple of years when lual can now bid the guppy in Denver post sli and it goes very senior. The junior cal guys are still there on the list. Fast fwd a little more and they shrink Denver and bump the junior most cal off the bottom of the list. Still very junior however. Fast fwd a little more and they bump the bottom of the 320 and close the 757 base in Denver. Because of the very junior bottom of the list basically the entire 757 base in Denver (cap and Fo) can now hold den 737 cap. Most take it (who wouldn't?) Also, there is the whole training debacle where guys aren't trained in time so they exercise the bump to wherever. The super junior 737 den cap position outlined above allows many to hold something they are way out of seniority for as a result.

Compare the 320 to the guppy. Junior 320 cap is around 4200 in Denver. Junior 737 cap is 7400. It is 100% due to the awarding to cal pilots den cap dramatically out of seniority. Same thing happened in Ord. Ord is different though because they have actually grown it so the seniority has normalized a bit. Denver has shrunk by almost half.
Scott Stoops is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 06:23 AM
  #74  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops View Post
I think we both agree on your last point.

Here is the real gist on den. Not that it matter as it can't be undone.

The company opened a 737 base in Denver and it was staffed by cal pilots. Tpa, training restrictions, whatever. That's the reality. It was staffed by very junior (by lual history) cal pilots.

Fast fwd couple of years when lual can now bid the guppy in Denver post sli and it goes very senior. The junior cal guys are still there on the list. Fast fwd a little more and they shrink Denver and bump the junior most cal off the bottom of the list. Still very junior however. Fast fwd a little more and they bump the bottom of the 320 and close the 757 base in Denver. Because of the very junior bottom of the list basically the entire 757 base in Denver (cap and Fo) can now hold den 737 cap. Most take it (who wouldn't?) Also, there is the whole training debacle where guys aren't trained in time so they exercise the bump to wherever. The super junior 737 den cap position outlined above allows many to hold something they are way out of seniority for as a result.

Compare the 320 to the guppy. Junior 320 cap is around 4200 in Denver. Junior 737 cap is 7400. It is 100% due to the awarding to cal pilots den cap dramatically out of seniority. Same thing happened in Ord. Ord is different though because they have actually grown it so the seniority has normalized a bit. Denver has shrunk by almost half.
This will play out soon enough in SFO. The junior 787 Captain pre fence-drop was in the 3000's. Now you better be in the top 500 to bid it. When they park the 400's there will be an opportunity for many 400 FO's to bump to 787 Cap that would be 2000 numbers from sniffing it today. In the meantime, a LUAL pilot with seniority of 3000 will stuck in the 737, A320 or 756 unable to bid to the 787 left even though there are pilots junior to them in the seat.

If it sounds like I'm complaining, I'm not. This is the way these things go sometimes, and in this particular case, the fences were a LUAL idea so it would be hypocritical of me to suggest they were "unfair". I look at our FA's and am glad that we as a pilot group managed to get past the arguing and move forward as one group.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 06:50 AM
  #75  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by baseball View Post

And by the way, ALPA National decided NOT to go after 76-300 pay originally (in SLI contract) because they thought the company was phasing out the airplane. Now that the airplane is staying and the fleet plan shows them hanging around we have an issue, hence the pilots upset over pay. It would have been a low cost item to include a 76 300 wide body pay rate during SLI contract 1, and just use the company's argument that it doesn't matter what we pay them if the airplane is going away. It was and is an oversight on the part of ALPA.

It's OK to be honest about it, but that's the fact jack. There have been other oversights on ALPA's part. It's just the nature of negotiating, sometimes the company gets one over on you.

We should have proper rates of pay for all known equipment and all possible types of equipment. Not just the equipment we have on property. In particular we should ignore the company's fleet plan when insisting on our rates of pay. The company has no idea what the fleet plan will look like in 2 months, let alone 2 years.
Where do you come up with this stuff? ALPA National? really? In Herndon? They didn't have jack squat to do with the 767-300 rate, or any other rate. The pay banding issue was a BIG one between the LCAL side and the LUAL side. It delayed the negotiations. In the end, LCAL won the day...not because of some collusion with the company, but because they could fold their arms and wait. No hurry. They had a decent contract, new aircraft coming in, and growth. LUAL could not wait. They were in stagnation, watching new Capt bids proliferate in their bases. If you don't like the 767-300 rate, bid off it. But please, place the blame where it belongs. Alpa National C'mon Man.
jsled is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 07:18 AM
  #76  
UCH Pilot
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
Default

Originally Posted by XHooker View Post
Both sides maneuvered to give their side an advantage. Your side won. It doesn't matter any more because it's over and we're all on the same list now. It's well past the time to move on.
No. They didn't "win". They proposed something in line with policy. We proposed something stupid. I asked one of the merger reps why we proposed that and his answer was "We won't get it if we don't ask for it."
svergin is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 07:20 AM
  #77  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by XHooker View Post
So you're saying LUALALPA wasn't attempting to put the 744 in a higher pay rate because the A350 (a plane not scheduled for delivery until after the JCBA amendable date) was banded to it in their proposal? Um... OK.


Both sides maneuvered to give their side an advantage. Your side won. It doesn't matter any more because it's over and we're all on the same list now. It's well past the time to move on.
The point I've been trying to make all along. It was not a contest!!!!!


The JCBA was not the place to fight for YOUR TEAM - it was the place to come together for the common good of ALL United points. CALALPA's JP turned it into a battle. There were some things the company would absolutely not go for and there were those things that CALALPA's JP hoped to increase the CAL side SLI position - it didn't!

Now, the UALALPA side did not try to put the 747 in a higher pay band to improve SLI position and as a fact they did not try to keep the 787/767-400 out of the pay band for the same reason. But to answer your exCAL counterpart as to why the 767-300 pay was so low - because the CALALPA side didn't want to put the 767-300 in that pay band to dilute the preceived gains with 787/767-400 inclusion. SAD THING was it didn't matter. Again, look at the final SLI determined by the arbitrator. However, it did keep a number of guys from making more money.

I say in plan English - the JCBA was not the place for SLI bargaining and posturing.

There were NO winners or losers. Just some guys fared better or less depending on their relative positions on the lists.

I don't know if we can actually blame any of this stuff on the employees as the initial statement of MERGER OF EQUALS by JS brought some inferiority issues to the forefront. It's possible it really resonated with JP and he couldn't help himself and caused him to lower the CALALPA MEC and pilots to his level of thought.
AllenAllert is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 07:24 AM
  #78  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves View Post
Obviously other LUAL pilots have become Den 737 Capt. Since the merger, Infact I think the guy you are so upset about (7400) is LUAL as is the guy JSLED is quoted above talking about, as is JSLED himself. So it must not be a conspiracy against all LUAL. It sounds as though you wish that a Flush Bid had occurred. That is not a CALALPA issue, I don't think the company would have ever agreed to that. Way too expensive. We had one at LCAL after contract 97 was signed, people moving everywhere. It would have been nuts with as big as the new United is. Your issue is with the merger, mergers are messy. It is best if they never occur.
The plug is an LCAL guy. 3/01 DOH with CAL. He also got back in on the 16-03V bid using grandfather rights. I'm not disputing the rest of your post. The bottom LUAL guy just above him is a 9/97 UAL hire. 15 and 19 years to be the butt plug on the Guppy....and that's "out of seniority"!! WOW. Den is the new Sea.
jsled is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 09:01 AM
  #79  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Default

Originally Posted by svergin View Post
No. They didn't "win". They proposed something in line with policy. We proposed something stupid. I asked one of the merger reps why we proposed that and his answer was "We won't get it if we don't ask for it."
I agree. Whether you call it winning or doing a better job of looking out for their pilots, the results were the same.
XHooker is offline  
Old 05-03-2016, 09:03 AM
  #80  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post

If it sounds like I'm complaining, I'm not. This is the way these things go sometimes, and in this particular case, the fences were a LUAL idea so it would be hypocritical of me to suggest they were "unfair". I look at our FA's and am glad that we as a pilot group managed to get past the arguing and move forward as one group.
And thanks to Richard Anderson for torpdeoing Smisek's post 9/11 wages new reality arguement in front of NMB. There's your true JCBA hero. All the key players and villains of those ludicrous days are gone or minimized. Ecstatic to move on like 95% of the people I work with. As for the 5% haters from both former sides, SLAM CLICK.

Last edited by intrepidcv11; 05-03-2016 at 09:19 AM.
intrepidcv11 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MikeF16
Delta
179
02-03-2016 08:22 PM
Schwanker
Delta
306
01-14-2016 11:09 AM
A321
American
89
01-28-2015 06:55 PM
Raidr17
Military
20
03-26-2014 12:45 PM
marlonmoneda1
Regional
82
02-13-2011 11:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices