• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

CAL ALPA: UAL's Contract Dissenting opinion is out!

100/hour/5y

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Posts
188
Total Time
lots
Friday, November 16, 2012

I. WHY WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS TA- A SECTION BY SECTION OPINION
SECTION 1- SCOPE
While the language that guides our scope restrictions has been tightened up, the fact that we are moving from 50-seat to 76-seat aircraft with respect to Express Flying carries a huge price tag and moves us further away from our goal of limiting not just the quantity of outsourced flying, but the quality of outsourced flying as well. One of the most consistent expectations we saw from previous polling data of our pilots was to “hold the line” with respect to outsourced flying. This TA does not accomplish that.

Even though there is a hard cap on the number of “regional” aircraft, these new generations of airplanes are no longer merely “feeder” aircraft that provide traffic from smaller outstations to hubs as they were intended to do. They now have the capability of operating segments that are longer than three hours, provide mainline passenger comfort, and first class seating.

It's important to note that while there is a formula that limits the number of 76-seat aircraft (1-C-1-g), this TA still allows the company to operate up to 153 76-seaters at 120% of our mainline single-aisle block hours, should the company elect to not exercise its right to increase 76-seaters. In other words, while most of us look at the grand total (“what's the limit?”), there's no proof that they intend to reach that limit, and if they don't, there's no requirement for them to reduce the block hour ratio.

SECTION 2- DEFINITIONS
This section is fairly straight-forward, however, we are concerned that the plethora of conditional statements- you know- those “if’s”, “and’s”, or “but’s” that the company has used in their favor in the past- still exist throught the TA. We would like to have seen more definitive language.

SECTION 3- COMPENSATION
The most glaring failure of this section is that we trail behind DAL by a year in pay rates. While excuses abound, there is no justification for this. And even though we theoretically exceed them after their amendable date (assuming they don't complete a new TA as quickly as they recently did), we will potentially never catch up to them when you factor in the time value of money.

We also failed to achieve one of our commitments to the pilot group, which was demanding 100% retroactive pay. This is a huge loss for our pilots who have suffered under a contract that thus far has been in effect for twice as long as it was supposed to last. We have been working longer under a contract beyond its amendable date (approaching four full years) than we have worked while it was in force (three years and eight months). This also removes any precedent for expedited negotiations in the future.

SECTION 4- EXPENSES
A little “nit-picking” here, but without a definition of “breakfast” or “meal”, we can only imagine which flavor of cereal we are going to end up with as our “breakfast” or how nutritious that bagel dog “meal” will be.

Secondly, there are a couple of omissions from our current contract. Particularly in light of the impending uniform change, this TA removes the inclusion of “five uniform shirts/blouses” that was included in the uniform allotment in Contract '02. Reimbursement for passport and visa fees is also missing- unless you are required to show up in person, in which case you receive an hour of pay for your time- but nothing for the fees themselves.

SECTION 5- HOURS OF SERVICE
Fair is fair, and this is one area where we can actually note some improvements (of course, they are all relative- based on our prior concessionary contract). Full credit towards line construction for things such as vacation, training, and deadhead is one of the few bright spots in this TA.

Section 5-C (Deadhead) is one area where we expected to borrow from the UAL contract, but ended up with something closer to ours. Deadheading pilots should be booked in the highest cabin- regardless of the length of flight. Furthermore, “...at time of booking...” is ripe for manipulation by the company and should be worded more specifically.

Also, while a pilot will receive add pay if required to sit in a middle seat, the process of submitting a pay claim and having to provide evidence (5-C-1-j) places the onus on the pilot rather than the company.

Another practically unbelievable loss in this TA can be found in Section 5-D: Deadhead Deviation. Whereas in our current contract, the pilot simply notifies Scheduling of his intent to “fake deadhead” and is not liable for reassignment unless the company can make direct contact, in this TA, the pilot is on the hook and has to verify he has not been reassigned. This amounts to a free "reminder" to the company and practically a solicitation for reassignment, and if they don't have a reassignment ready to go, the pilot can be told to wait around for up to three hours while they come up with a reassignment! To expand- when the operation falls apart (which happens all too often), Scheduling simply changes a pilot's last leg to a deadhead to keep it legal, then sorts it out later- sometimes days later. By requiring the pilot to check in with Scheduling, they now have the ability to keep him captive (quite literally) until they figure out what to do. This will cost pilots many extra days away from home and essentially treated as reserves. This is a huge loss!

We hate to see the words, “The company may...” because we all know that translates as, “If it benefits the company (to the detriment of the pilot), the company will...” We find this term under 5-E-2-b-(4), where “the company may increase any report time...” Yes, it may count as duty time, but it also counts as time we are at work and not being paid for our work.

Another big point of contention we have with this TA is the reserve system. For starters, still having only 12 days off (in a 30-day month) is still too few. Taking into account that a lineholder (averaging 5 hours of pay per day) will theoretically have at least 14 days off on average (80 hours of credit), our reserves should have the same. Instead, they will be scheduled for more days (18) for less credit (70 hours). To make matters worse, if you are a “global” reserve, you just went from having 4 movable days in our current contract, to having 6 days that are not “holy” and thus subject to assignment. Can you say “concession”?

“M5D.” Learn this term as it is a new buzzword and one of the big gains in this TA. We admit it- we've finally found something that makes us think this is a “mature” contract. So, being the good sports that we are, we'll put one checkmark in the “win” column.

Of course, we are still skeptical. Our company hates to pay us for not working, so we suspect they won't. For those trips that currently credit less than five hours per day (mostly domestic 737 and 757 trips), we foresee Scheduling doing some shuffling. Yes- you will have a more productive schedule (which, again, is a win), but you will earn every penny of it.

SECTION 8- STAFFING
Uh oh. Here we go again- that dreaded staffing formula. We have always been told that if the company actually followed this formula, we would be severely understaffed. Nonetheless, here it is again.

Take a close look. At first it seems like an improvement- going from our current “10% reserve” to either 14% or 12% based on the fleet. That's an improvement, right? Not quite. In our current contract, the “scheduled block hours” is divided by 83:30 (an assumed average per pilot), whereas in this TA, the total block time is divided by 87:. This means that not only is the assumed average higher, but that amounts to a 5% reduction in pilots. Furthermore, the charter hour divisor is now also 87 hours, compared to 65: in our current contract. We realize that this change was made to account for the increased credit values, but when it all washes out, it means that we will continue to be severely understaffed, as we have been for years.

SECTION 9- TRAINING
“A lineholder shall self-schedule recurrent ground school training on a day off...” (9-B-4-a). Need we say more?

We do think that travel to and from recurrent training being booked in first class is a nice touch. Now why couldn't that language be included for “operational” deadheads where pilots are actually involved in flying real airplanes with real people in them?

Traditional GSR and ASR CBTs are not considered “distance learning” and therefore completed on your own time, on your own dime.

SECTION 11- VACATION
“Thank you for your 30 years of service. You don't need an extra two days, do you?” We get it- a minor change that only affects a very few pilots, but still have to wonder why they bothered to change this.

SECTION 13- SICK LEAVE
Unfortunately, no real improvements here. Still accumulate 5 hours/month, which is completely inadequate and deters pilots from actually using sick leave when legitimately sick. Hope you aren't sick more than 12 days during the year!

Furthermore, whereas in our current contract, proof of illness was only required for “reasonable cause” or if it occurred in conjunction with a vacation or holiday. In the current TA, “The company may require a doctor's note before paying such sick leave” (13-A-5). The company would never abuse that, now would they?
PAGE 1
 
Last edited:

100/hour/5y

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Posts
188
Total Time
lots
PAGE 2

SECTION 20- SCHEDULING
There's so much here, that we're going to list them bullet-point style. Follow along!
20-C-1-c: “catastrophic failure” of PBS leads to a rerun and extended deadlines. Yeah- that'll never happen. And we will end up putting our lives on hold while we wait for the delayed results.
20-C-4-d: the company gets to pick PBS vendors. We're sure they'll find something better that costs less.
20-D-3-b: PBS Dispute Resolution Committee- “We know it's flawed, but the trips you should have been awarded have already been given away. Sorry. How about some 'Availability Days'?”
20-F (and beyond): we are all still essentially reserve pilots with advance assignments.
20-F-1-a-(3): can be reassigned to a phone availability period that starts up to four hours earlier than your original report time. In our current contract, it cannot start earlier than your original report time.
20-F-1-a-(8): can be reassigned to a trip that departs three hours earlier (or at 1800, whichever is earlier), up from two hours in our current contract.
20-H-5-b-(5): “The company's determination of 'acceptability' may change.” Yikes!
20-H-7: Visiting reserve. A euphemism for “system reserve.” Prepare to be deadheaded all over the place.
20-K: Scheduling of Reserve Crews. We have a fundamental problem with the fact that seniority does not ever enter into the equation. We recognize there is a demographic of pilots who actually like to take advantage of being senior on reserve, and we respect that. Unfortunately, this TA does not. In addition, all the old abusive rules from our current contract are still here. Very disappointing.
20-K-6-f: we've spent years fighting against double duty periods for reserves, and now we've not only condoned it, we've made it contractually approved. What happened to safety?
20-L: Reassignments. Still allows free reign by the company to reassign a pilot into a day off. Unacceptable. And if you are a widebody fleet, your first day lost is not subject to restoration (20-N-1-b).

SECTION 22- RETIREMENT
We can almost say with confidence that this is the one cornerstone that is actually industry leading. Our only gripe here is that there is not a single attempt to improve the situation for those who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars to the frozen pension plan. That is a disappointment to those who have served the company longest.

SECTION 24- INSURANCE
Some improvements, some losses. Overall neutral.

LOAs & MOUs
While we won't delve through all the Letters of Agreement nor the MOUs, there are two specific items we would like to point out.

The Implementation Schedule and Process is disappointing. While we recognize that many changes take time to implement, there are too many items that are beneficial to our pilots that are delayed until the third full bid period or even as long as nine months later.

Throughout contract negotiations your JNC had a disagreement with the company about how many reserves would be required to staff the airline. To solve this disagreement the JNC made a bet with the company in the form of the Reserve Reset LOA. If the reserve staffing level exceeds 16.6% ALPA will become liable to pay the company money, up to $30 million per year (based upon how far above 16.6% staffing). While it would be extremely costly to purposely keep staffing above 16.6% just to win the bet, we find it risky to put ALPA money and possibly work rule changes in jeopardy to see who is right.

Captain Eric Hunter
Council 171 Chairman

Captain Robert McCartney
Council 153 Chairman

First Officer Ben Salley
Council 171 Vice Chairman

First Officer Mike Seidner
Council 153 Vice Chairman
 

gangdev

Move without hesitation
Joined
May 23, 2004
Posts
127
Total Time
9.5k
Is there still no insurance available for the first six months?
 

IAHERJ

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Posts
930
Total Time
hmmm?
Insurance from day one. 61 an hour now and 68 an hour to start in 2014
 

list2002

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Posts
323
Total Time
***
The first year pay and insurance had to go up that high to sucker some new hires in if this TA passes.
 

Yuppyguppy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
934
Total Time
8000+
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab
 

johnsonrod

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Posts
4,218
Total Time
8000+
Just go tell Smallsack to POUND SAND. He's too busy primping his beautiful hair in the mirror to care about your career or your ability to pay your mortgage....
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab

Just like fred is hoping you'll do... Nice job.
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab

So wait, which way are you voting?



Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Last edited:

nimtz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
1,442
Total Time
?
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab

Been reading this opinon a lot today. UTTERLY pathetic. Fred and his minons are going beat our collective heads for at least the next 6 years with this POS. Gonna be some serious culture shock for the brain surgeons when they begin to realize that the language allows them to selectively bend you over in ways even a regional pilot would find unacceptable.

Btw you sure dropped your scope tough talk fast.
 

jbDC9

member
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Posts
596
Total Time
22,000
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bullsh!te injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Friends of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab

Wow. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and read the TA. It sucks. Take the blinders off and realize that most of us CAL guys couldn't give two sh!ts about a "seniority and seat grab". We want this nightmare of Fred and Jeffies POS '02 to be done; we just want a good contract... better pay, work rules, scope, etc. For you UA morons who think the CAL side wants to delay to supposedly improve the SLI, you're just clueless and beyond hope.

UTTERLY pathetic. Fred and his minons are going beat our collective heads for at least the next 6 years with this POS. Gonna be some serious culture shock for the brain surgeons when they begin to realize that the language allows them to selectively bend you over in ways even a regional pilot would find unacceptable.

Yep. And when YuppyGup realizes that he helped vote this POS in with his "YES!" vote, he'll be crying for his mommy to make the beatings stop... pathetic indeed.
 
Last edited:

Continental

Farting on your Jumpseat
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Posts
180
Total Time
IRO
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab

Don't think for once second that JEFF and Fred wont park those planes anyway due to circumstances beyond companies control. Its allowed in the contract your so willing to approve. I had heard that UAL pilots are real pilots who will stand up to mgt. Guess you should get your knee pads out your next in line! Your about to get a rude awakening.

I'm sure all your furloughed brothers appreciate your willingness to sell out. You "scab like mentality" will fit in nicely here. After all it's all about you isn't it?
 
Last edited:

The Drizzle

I is a Airline Pilot!
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
1,062
Total Time
7500
btw you sure dropped your scope tough talk fast.

burn

yep. And when yuppygup realizes that he helped vote this pos in with his "yes!" vote, he'll be crying for his mommy to make the beatings stop... Pathetic indeed.

iceburn


i'm sure all your furloughed brothers appreciate your willingness to sell out. You "scab like mentality" will fit in nicely here. After all it's all about you isn't it?

wicked ice burn
 

flygirlqt

Legal Eagle
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
515
Total Time
------
So much for the all powerful unionist Brain Surgeons. It seems like they are collectively soiling themselves with management intimidation and rhetoric while the lcal pilot see the TA for what it is worth.

Well it worked like a charm the last couple of times for management at the all mighty United.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
I really do feel for the 2172... That being said their biggest problem is UAL ALPA. If JP says it was mgt that wanted to deny them full longevity, we can't doubt him. JP and CAL ALPA do not have a history of allowing our junior pilots to be thrown under the bus. If anything, this is further evidence of that being true. The same can't be said for JH and UAL ALPA. His comment about "obvious resistance" is nebulous BS.

Additionally, I'm of the opinion that mgt was behind not allowing full longevity for UAL cross overs to gain some votes on the CAL side. Mgt knows 80% of CAL pilots will say no; However, stirring up some SLI worries among the junior CAL pilots and feeding them some "protection" language? Yeah, that will score them some votes. Junior CAL guys/gals: Don't take the bait!
 
Last edited:

RT8VA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Posts
167
Total Time
8800
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab


I must of missed where you guys were upgrading, or where you had any new planes coming over the last fifteen years. Read between your own lines, CAL pilots before age 65 had all of this and now that five years has gone by we are getting it back and you want to steal some of it. Congrats to you Guppy you just proved the point that you brought nothing to this merger but a bunch of old planes and now you think were the ones trying to steal seniority priceless. There is a reason our 98 hires are flying as captains on the 757 and yours are reserve FO's. I cant wait to see what you say when an arbitrator sees through your argument and you are stuck with this Chitty contract because of a myopic paranoid view. I wish I was supprised by your attitude or total lack of awareness as to what the seniority progression was at CAL pre age 65 which was pre merger.
 

ATRCA

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
835
Total Time
tons
Yes and more bases and planes and captain upgrades when Jeff parks the UAL 757s and lets CAL fly those routes. I'll have to vote yes just to stop the bull******************** injustices. And don't think for one second that Jeff, Fred, Freinds of Fred, wont do it. Game over. You will be out voted. The contract lacks but I won't let you get a seniority and seat grab

Clown! You deserve this POS!
 

Andy

12/13/2012
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
3,101
Total Time
121312
Been reading this opinon a lot today. UTTERLY pathetic. Fred and his minons are going beat our collective heads for at least the next 6 years with this POS. Gonna be some serious culture shock for the brain surgeons when they begin to realize that the language allows them to selectively bend you over in ways even a regional pilot would find unacceptable.

Btw you sure dropped your scope tough talk fast.

I'm voting no on this pierceofshii contract. But look at your quote below from another thread.


I don't think JP is the head of Network Planning just yet so not sure he pulls the levers on EAL II. Giving your MEC a pass on boning 1437 members based on Stockholm Syndrome is pretty pathetic.

Like it or not, pierceofshii has a lot of UAL pilots concerned about block hour ratios vaporizing with the end of that provision in the TPA (31 Mar 2013) and being dissembled much like EAL. After all, jeff's simply FLIBS. UAL pilots are so concerned about this that they're willing to vote for this pierceofshii TA.

Again, I'm voting NO but this pierceofshii will likely pass by at least 80%, including a majority of CAL pilots voting in favor of it.

So it's a Pyrrhic Victory for both pilot unions. Management wins. Again.
 
Top