United and CAL SLI for furloughed pilots

[thruthemurk]

I believe there are protections in place for that. If you are on property, you cannot be furloughed and replaced by a furlough from the other carrier. I have been told that by many sources, and not on FI...LOL. I sure hope it's true. Can anyone chime in please...

Yogi

Ask the junior AWA pilots who had a job on the merger date with US Air. All of the US Air furloughees are back to work and those AWA pilots are now furloughed.

PS they were not even furloughed before the merge at any point.

 

[eaglesview]

The first carrier to go down the road of BK and A plan attack/loss? RUF kidding me? Did UA go bankrupt in 2002 or 1982? You are correct that the A fund wasn't really sold for anything, although I think the MEC/NC did go pretty soft in the end after all they gave up to protect the A fund, and the mounting evidence that it may not have been as underfunded as claimed. I see you didn't mention scope, presumably because you know Rez is correct on that. I'll add in the no-furlough off probation and min-pilot numbers. Dubo rolled on them first in Nov 2001, and Whiteford was all to eager to follow suit in ERP I and beyond to save the A fund that anyone with half a brain could see was part of the end game once he started down the concession road. The rest of the stuff that followed(EMB-170 sideletter, etc) was fruit of an apple that was rotten from the start because of the mentality from the top. You are right that UsAirways and United were the poster children for what not do in BK, but I can't really put the majority of the blame on national. Both carriers had history to look at with carriers like Braniff, EAL, PAA, and TWA. That said, while UsAirways has generally traveled the tougher road, United's MEC's have largely rolled over easier. Both gave up scope, but US ALPA struck a much better deal for their pilots than UA did, by an amazingly laughable margin. When it came to the A fund, the Airways guys did much more to fight the termination imo. Sorry for the small rehash of history, but to act like what happened to the airline (not the country) was unprecedented is silly to me.

What exactly does any of this has to do with a SLI for furloughed pilots? Probably little. This seems like something that will go to an arbitrator who quite frankly probably spend little time on that portion of the list compared to the attention it will get here. If we're talking about 'feeling good' about a particular sides argument, I suppose the CO furloughed guys will feel better about the fight their MEC puts up the UA ones will.

Unlike Rez your response is actually well thought out and makes sense. I was misunderstood. I meant UAL was the first post 9-11 carrier to go through the process. Hell maybe I am wrong on that to, I am sure if I am someone will correct me. We have had the honor/ misfortune of being the spear head the last couple of economic swings. We were heroes after contract 2000. (remember the "Delta dot?") We then were the zeros spearheading the downward spiral. "Heroes to zeros in no time flat." ( I think there is a Disney song with those lyrics)

Unlike you I do put more responsibility on ALPA national. We are self represented by pilot volunteers. We are not the professionals they are supposed to be. That is why we pay dues is it not. Did we roll over on scope??yup Did we get screwed by a side letter signed by ONE MEC officer? YUP Does that mean that the senior guys (of which I am not one) all secretly called him up and said sign that agreement to save us and screw the junior guys?? Kinda doubt that. The other carriers undoubtedly benefitted from us going through the process first just as we would have had someone else gone first.

Now back to the SLI. I do not think that just because the day an agreement may be announced that all of the years of service should mean nothing. I think that is a bunch of crap. A bunch of folks jump over them because the snap shot was taken on this date rather than that date. It is the same way I felt about the furloughed USAir pilots. In my opinion the argument, "you didn't bring a job to the merger" is weak. The furloughies nor the folks on the otherside have any control over that, but we will continue to feed on one another cause that is the culture. "I'm in , pull up the rope!!"

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

eaglesview,

I am sure that you have been around long enough to understand pattern bargaining. I remember Dal getting the rates on the 777 and maybe one other type (738?) that Ual used for contract 2000. And don't forget little ole nwa pilots for the lockout/strike of 98 to get the ball moving the correct direction again after the givebacks of the early 90s. Here is too pattern bargaining once again working in OUR favor after the last 10.

 

[eaglesview]

eaglesview,

I am sure that you have been around long enough to understand pattern bargaining. I remember Dal getting the rates on the 777 and maybe one other type (738?) that Ual used for contract 2000. And don't forget little ole nwa pilots for the lockout/strike of 98 to get the ball moving the correct direction again after the givebacks of the early 90s. Here is too pattern bargaining once again working in OUR favor after the last 10.

I agree with your assesmant of pattern bargaining. I can't comment on your last statement because I don't know who you are, therefore I don't know your meaning of "OUR."

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Better fire up that resume JR, you aint coming back any time soon. There is no way those bean counters at CAL will want anything to do with a Jurassic fleet of 74's and 320's. Once the UAL scope clause becomes the law of the land, CAL will park all the 73's save the -8's and -9's. CAL's looking for widebody lift in this merger. They're not looking to maintain a domestic structure the size of the combined UAL/CAL. Smigel has been fairly open about his disdain for domestic flying. You honestly think this abortion will create growth? You can't, there's no way you could possibly think that unless you really, really wanted to.

You can kid yourself as much as you like about retirements et al, but CAL won't keep CLE and UAL will probably shrink in IAD. There will be no growth for some time while "synergies" are created. Good luck. If we're all lucky you'll be married to LCC and CAL can go it alone. LCC has far more retirements than CAL so your growth fantasy has a better chance of coming to fruition there.

Considering you got hired at CAL in 2007-2008 I can see your fear. I hope it works out for all and there is growth domestically and internationally. As far as IAD shrinking...highly doubt it

 

[Furloughed80]

EWR and IAD both have a very high amount of O&D traffic. I also doubt there will be any type of reduction at either airport.

 

[Marko Ramius]

If Parker is in charge of the combined company, then there will be shrinkage in EWR and IAD. Parker's m.o. is not to reduce destinations, but to force the overwhelming majority of traffic to a given destination to flow over it's nearest hubsite regardless of whether it makes sense from a scheduling standpoint to the consumer(ie business traveler). He eliminated or drastically reduced a lot of the longer nonstops of out PHX/LAS/PHL/CLT/PIT after the merger. Several of those destinations had full flights, and several of the changes are far more inconvenient to the consumer-ie you used to be able to fly from say PHX-MIA on an afternoon nonstop flight, but now since you must travel over CLT or PHL you have to leave no later than 9-10 am. Parker did all of this without a hub like ORD or even DEN, so you can imagine what he'll do if he has them. I imagine EWR would get shaved more than IAD because UA's IAD service both West and Southbound is far more skeletal than CO's EWR service. If Tilton's running it, then I agree the changes wouldn't be nearly as dramatic although what flies the routes may be depending on the merged scope clause.

 

[Marko Ramius]

Unlike Rez your response is actually well thought out and makes sense. I was misunderstood. I meant UAL was the first post 9-11 carrier to go through the process. Hell maybe I am wrong on that to, I am sure if I am someone will correct me. We have had the honor/ misfortune of being the spear head the last couple of economic swings. We were heroes after contract 2000. (remember the "Delta dot?") We then were the zeros spearheading the downward spiral. "Heroes to zeros in no time flat." ( I think there is a Disney song with those lyrics)

Unlike you I do put more responsibility on ALPA national. We are self represented by pilot volunteers. We are not the professionals they are supposed to be. That is why we pay dues is it not. Did we roll over on scope??yup Did we get screwed by a side letter signed by ONE MEC officer? YUP Does that mean that the senior guys (of which I am not one) all secretly called him up and said sign that agreement to save us and screw the junior guys?? Kinda doubt that. The other carriers undoubtedly benefitted from us going through the process first just as we would have had someone else gone first.

Now back to the SLI. I do not think that just because the day an agreement may be announced that all of the years of service should mean nothing. I think that is a bunch of crap. A bunch of folks jump over them because the snap shot was taken on this date rather than that date. It is the same way I felt about the furloughed USAir pilots. In my opinion the argument, "you didn't bring a job to the merger" is weak. The furloughies nor the folks on the otherside have any control over that, but we will continue to feed on one another cause that is the culture. "I'm in , pull up the rope!!"

Actually, Airways was the first major airline to go through bankruptcy post 9/11. They emerged about 6 mos(?) or so after United entered BK. I would agree with you that other carriers benefited from previous bankruptcy lessons, but imo UA wasn't one of them when they had a chance to be. The general attitude of most UA pilots towards UsAirways BK1 and America West's near bk was more one of 'well it was bound to happen, and the rest will get stronger off the liquidated pieces'. Personally I felt that nature abhors a vacuum and that it would affect everyone else sooner or later, but that wasn't the prevailing sentiment.

Whiteford and Pressure sold a lot of hot plates in the ERP I to BK era, but they weren't really that pushing or believing BK as something eminent either. They basically believed that that UA was going to get their loans renegotiated no matter what, but that the rates wouldn't have been nearly as competitive as those available under the ATSB loan. They seemed to think that AA hadn't gotten such a good deal on their restructuring and that if UA got favorable rates that it could set them up very nicely in the eventual recovery vs. middling along. I do believe DL and NW among others were able to learn quite a bit from US and UA though.

As for national, while there are certainly things I put blame on them for. What happened at UA isn't really one of them to me. The whole thing came down to having the wrong people in charge of the MEC at the wrong time. Should national have intervened on the deal that gave Whiteford his Vice Chair spot? That put him in position to be put in as MC when certain people wanted someone who they thought was benign and malleable at a time when those type of political games weren't needed. Should National have invalidated his election as MC, even though there technically wasn't another candidate. I think we both know the answers to those questions is no, but that was the only way things were going to go differently outside of the pilot group waking up and recalling the MEC members who put Whiteford in there. And no that doesn't necessarily mean that Dubo wouldn't have sold junior pilots out. He started things off by rolling over on the scope and no-furlough expedited grievance in Nov 2001. The UA pilots had pretty good control over their destiny prior to Dec 2002, but they chose not exercise it. Can't run from it or blame it on national, too many pilots do that when they don't want to face their own mistakes.

As far as the SLI goes, our opinions really don't matter much. This thing seems destined for an arbitrator no matter what if it goes down. Constructive notice is pretty much an accepted concept in list mergers and I doubt that will change going forward. What those years of service will mean will be determined. What jobs are brought to a merger seems to be a pretty standard consideration as well. Dubo went to a lot of trouble to get Goodwin to admit in a SEC document what assets he considered surplus to the 2000-2001 UsAirways-UA merger attempt. Based on that, in spring 2001 they identified a number of UsAirways pilots (@1,500 I believe) that were considered surplus to the deal. Part of the point of that was to convince as many UsAirways guys as possible to go to AA as part of either the DC Air or 757 sale, but the bigger reason was to be able to show an arbitrator who UA felt should be on the bottom of the combined list. Either way get your popcorn ready. The more things change........ http://www.chipsplace.com/

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Is it me or is Dubo gaining a romantic Reaganesque status?

 

[Marko Ramius]

Is it me or is Dubo gaining a romantic Reaganesque status?

Not for me, which is why I noted that it was him who first looked the other way on the scope and no-furlough grievances in Nov. 2001. I doubt he would have looked out for the junior pilots on the lists, but I think he would have given away far less and gotten a whole lot in return for anything he did give up. Of the choices available at the time, he was the right one in my opinion-at least for another year or so. The rest of the MEC was too fractured for any other candidate to be truly effective imo. I certainly didn't feel romantic about it.

 

[JetsRforKids]

A-fund question

Since CAL still has an A-fund for the senior (frozen) pilots, is there any talk of United pilots trying to get a piece of it after a merger? Once the lawyers smell money I could see a group of pilots file a lawsuit to get some of their A-fund back. Also, most CAL guys seem to have 500-800K in their A-fund with little in the B-fund. I heard that United guys still have more than that it their B-fund. Any ideas?

 

[IAHERJ]

Since CAL still has an A-fund for the senior (frozen) pilots, is there any talk of United pilots trying to get a piece of it after a merger? Once the lawyers smell money I could see a group of pilots file a lawsuit to get some of their A-fund back. Also, most CAL guys seem to have 500-800K in their A-fund with little in the B-fund. I heard that United guys still have more than that it their B-fund. Any ideas?

I'm sure UAL pilots have more in their B-funds because CAL pilots have only had B-funds for around 5 years. Most captains have somewhere in the neighborhood of 150-200K in their B-funds to date(this varies with the individual's portfolio performance). I don't think that UAL guys would "go after" the CAL guys A-funds. It just wouldn't be right. The frozen funds should be separated and held aside for their retirement or unfrozen and once again offered to the combined pilot group with the new combined contract.

 

[contrail67]

I don't buy that a combined list would yield 1,000 extra furloughs. I saw once if CAL had UAL work rules, they would need an extra 800 plus pilots. Not even considering over 60 guys who would bail before a merger was consummated.

and combine that with a buyout of the top folks: everyone is back...work rules and buyout.
They would be stupid to not spend some money to buy the over 60 guys out to save the $$$ in the long run and average down on seniority pay.

 

[contrail67]

After the merger, the next 1000 guys will hit the street and you'll have nothing but photo's to show for your time at UAL. Not picking on you, the CAL furloughees will be in the same boat. Anyone on the street when this thing goes down should be shopping a new career.

And I doubt if you are even at a Major Airline...at least we have the photos....

 

[skywdriver]

I think one of the most important issues is, would the United pilots put up a fight to keep the scope that we currently have in our contract??? Because I think for the most part, CAL guys are not giving on scope.

 

[eaglesview]

I think one of the most important issues is, would the United pilots put up a fight to keep the scope that we currently have in our contract??? Because I think for the most part, CAL guys are not giving on scope.

I would love to say yes. The realist in me says the 70 seat agreement would be frozen at it's current level which would be a net percentage decrease of the new Continental/United airlines. To be clear That is not what I want but I think it's most likely the reality.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

No more RJ's no more 70s the cancer must be killed

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

No more RJ's no more 70s the cancer must be killed

Who is going to pay for it? I say the senior guys. They gave it away... they can get it back...

 

[skywdriver]

I would love to say yes. The realist in me says the 70 seat agreement would be frozen at it's current level which would be a net percentage decrease of the new Continental/United airlines. To be clear That is not what I want but I think it's most likely the reality.

Interesting idea, I actually never thought of that. I think the words "70 seater" are a non negotiable concept for most of the CAL guys. It wouldn't take that many from the other side to bring the majority against it. We could also put up a big fight to have 90-100 seats flown under mainline. Of course the company would like to outsource, but if the options are 50 seats, or 90-100 seats flown by UAL/CAL pilots, then they don't have a choice. I know from my mentor who has been at UAL for ages and is very involved in the union that UAL is ready for a fight, and a joint contract could be just the fight we need to make this outcome a good one for the pilots.

 

[contrail67]

When a merger is announced the company will want it to happen. 90-100 seaters a fight?...I would not even call it a fight. That flying will be done by mainline. Period. Outsourcing that flying will not be a determining factor if the merger happens and we should not be worried or feel we have to give up something for a merger to happen. Scope will not be released, and the merger will be just as productive with it still in the place it is/or restricted more.

Everyone on this board needs to realize that the ball is in our court on this one: merger. Remember, the executives will announce it...not the pilots.