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

[Yuppyguppy]

I'm still waiting for you guys to make a comment and commit to have an extension on the TPA. All I hear is crickets. Tough talk from guys who say vote NO but when the facts come out all you do is run. Figures. ME ME ME ME...screw the other guys it's all about ME! Makes me sick.

 

[list2002]

"I for one would gladly fight for the proper TPA extension" - Nimitz

You mean like that? Like 3 posts ago.

I haven't heard ONE CAL guy even ONCE mention how voting one way or another on this TA affects them on the SLI. Maybe because we don't have as much at risk as you mentioned it isn't brought up as much, maybe. But to think we are "doing cartwheels" and rallying a NO vote strictly for a seniority grab is insane.
The TA does not meet my expectations. NO vote. Simple as that.
But thanks for that perspective from the UAL side, this is why we gotta keep communicating.

 

[Flopgut]

I'm still waiting for you guys to make a comment and commit to have an extension on the TPA.

Doing some leg work now. I believe that because we have a TA, the TPA does not expire.

 

[RT8VA]

Extend the TPA I would be more then happy to do that, my opinion is this thing will turn around so fast no one will have time to worry but I would gladly extend the TPA again and again and again to protect your interests. The continued undertone that CAL pilots are voting no for SLI is a joke, all we want is a fair contract and it is there waiting for us if both of our pilot groups finish the fight that has dragged on for so long, Vote NO. If not dont complain when this contract sucks for the whole seniority list.

 

[eaglesview]

Doing some leg work now. I believe that because we have a TA, the TPA does not expire.

I believe you are correct re TPA. But I do think it expires if we vote this thing down.

 

[Crash Pad]

No dog in the fight.

How many 60+ pilots do you have on the list? What is the signing bonus?

 

[Stukadriver]

From another board; I removed the name:

TPA Protections No Longer Expire

Now that the MEC has reached a tentative agreement with the company, the protections in the Transition & Process Agreement (TPA) no longer have an expiration date. We are now free to vote on the merits of the tentative agreement without having to fear that if the TA is voted down the company will shrink the UAL side. They are prevented from doing this by these protections.

Here's the language from the February, 2012 Transition and Process Extension Agreement:

1. Section 13 (A) of the TPA shall be modified to read as follows:

Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough with regard to S- UA Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or after March 31, 2013, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date. Should the Company elect to terminate TPA Section 4- D pursuant to this paragraph, Paragraph 4 of this Extension Agreement shall also be terminated, effective on the same date that TPA Section 4-D is terminated.

The parties HAVE reached a tentative agreement, thus these provisions no longer expire.

If there is any disagreement, it would have to go to arbitration per Section 12 of the TPA, but the language is very clear and straightforward. It would be very difficult for the company to make a case that the intent of this paragraph, to provide incentive for the MECs to reach a tentative agreement, has not been achieved.

As to the argument that if the tentative agreement is not ratified, we no longer have a tentative agreement, that is not correct either. All that can be said is that the parties successfully achieved a tentative agreement prior to March 31, 2013, but it was not ratified. Going forward, the tentative agreement would require modification in order to be ratified by a majority of the combined CAL and UAL pilots.

In short, the three TPA protections will not expire and thus the concerns of some pilots are unwarranted.

Will the NMB Punish Us If We Vote No?

The other fear being widely promulgated is that the NMB will “park” us for a period of time if the tentative agreement is not ratified. This supposition is without merit. The NMB is the government agency charged with overseeing the Railway Labor Act, of which one of its primary purposes is “to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”

It’s quite likely that the NMB would give the impression that they might consider “parking” our negotiations, because that’s how they operate. Uncertainty is one of the most powerful tools they have at their disposal. In reality the NMB would make it a high priority to mediate contract talks between the largest airline company in the world and its pilots, and, if the TA were to be voted down, NMB member Linda Puchala told both MECs she would need to know immediately the reasons why. This clearly indicates resolving our JCBA is a priority. As the government agency charged with mediating transportation labor issues, the NMB has a vested interest in demonstrating its efficacy and credibility—a strong reason for them to stay closely engaged.

Those who hold up AMR or US Airways as examples of the NMB “punishing” parties are wrong in thinking that our situation is analogous. In AMR’s case, the APA held fast on 1992 wages + inflation, and the NMB considered this to be unreasonable. But after two years of close supervision of our negotiations, the NMB knows the parties very well, and knows that we have not been unreasonable at any point. And the US Airways situation has nothing to do with the NMB. It was brought on by the de-certification of ALPA followed by the DFR lawsuits over the integration of the seniority lists.

UAL Management Needs A Ratified Contract

Smisek needs a ratified contract as soon as possible for numerous reasons:

As the UAL 757s are replaced by 737-900s, per the TPA those aircraft have to be flown by UAL pilots, not CAL pilots, and they must be trained by UAL pilots as well. TK has not even begun to gear up for this training.

UAL has been unable to fill vacancy bids on 767s and A320s and is falling well behind in the training and instructor staffing that will be required if the T/A fails to be ratified according to managers at TK. The T/A’s negative manpower impact would easily resolve the looming manpower shortfall.

If the T/A fails to be ratified, UAL will have to hire pilots, including offering UAL furloughees who are flying at CAL the opportunity to move back to UAL, causing a “triple-training” requirement to fill the vacated CAL pilot seat.

If the T/A fails to be ratified, management will be faced yet again with the CAL pilot group not being included in the 2012 profit-sharing plan. This is a significant PR problem for the company.

The requirement to run two separate operations is preventing the company from going forward with the streamlining necessary to achieve the benefits of the merger. At the moment there are all sorts of IT projects on hold.

The domicile protections of the TPA prevent the company from opening new pilot bases, such as a 737 or 787 base in some of the biggest domiciles: ORD, IAD, or SFO.

UAL’s revenues and earnings continue to fall well short of expectations, and lag far behind Delta Airlines, in large part because Smisek has failed to live up to his promise to complete the merger in an expeditious manner. UAL stock is closely held by institutional investors who want a return on their investment and it is obvious, despite benefiting from the world’s best airline network, that the Shares and IT debacles were both caused by gross mismanagement and have cost these investors significant current and future returns.

On the 2012 Q3 earnings call Jamie Baker, an analyst with JP Morgan (UAL’s banker), was outspoken in his frustration with UCH management’s poor performance and lack of transparency regarding, among other things, the pilot contract. One of the few things management had to brag about on the call was the pilot T/A. UCH CFO John Rainey stated how important a pilot agreement was for resolving the other employee groups’ JCBAs and Smisek characterized the T/A as “competitive.”

What Happens if the TA Fails to be Ratified?

There is a lot of pressure to get this deal wrapped up. Most likely the NMB would step in quickly, but even if they did not, the company’s negotiators and the ALPA negotiators would get together in short order to make the TA more palatable, and we would have time and leverage to fix some of the biggest flaws in the TA. The idea that the company would ask for more concessions is just silly, because that would make ratification of a revised TA even less likely. We are on the one yard line, and it’s third down. Let’s not kick a field goal.

Cast your vote based on the merits of the TA, not out of fear.

Fraternally,

<Name >

Council 34, SFO

 

[PCL_128]

From another board; I removed the name and can't un-bold it for some reason:
TPA Protections No Longer Expire

Now that the MEC has reached a tentative agreement with the company, the protections in the Transition & Process Agreement (TPA) no longer have an expiration date. We are now free to vote on the merits of the tentative agreement without having to fear that if the TA is voted down the company will shrink the UAL side. They are prevented from doing this by these protections.

Here's the language from the February, 2012 Transition and Process Extension Agreement:

1. Section 13 (A) of the TPA shall be modified to read as follows:

Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough with regard to S- UA Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or after March 31, 2013, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date. Should the Company elect to terminate TPA Section 4- D pursuant to this paragraph, Paragraph 4 of this Extension Agreement shall also be terminated, effective on the same date that TPA Section 4-D is terminated.

The parties HAVE reached a tentative agreement, thus these provisions no longer expire.

If there is any disagreement, it would have to go to arbitration per Section 12 of the TPA, but the language is very clear and straightforward. It would be very difficult for the company to make a case that the intent of this paragraph, to provide incentive for the MECs to reach a tentative agreement, has not been achieved.

As to the argument that if the tentative agreement is not ratified, we no longer have a tentative agreement, that is not correct either. All that can be said is that the parties successfully achieved a tentative agreement prior to March 31, 2013, but it was not ratified. Going forward, the tentative agreement would require modification in order to be ratified by a majority of the combined CAL and UAL pilots.

In short, the three TPA protections will not expire and thus the concerns of some pilots are unwarranted.

Will the NMB Punish Us If We Vote No?

The other fear being widely promulgated is that the NMB will “park” us for a period of time if the tentative agreement is not ratified. This supposition is without merit. The NMB is the government agency charged with overseeing the Railway Labor Act, of which one of its primary purposes is “to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”

It’s quite likely that the NMB would give the impression that they might consider “parking” our negotiations, because that’s how they operate. Uncertainty is one of the most powerful tools they have at their disposal. In reality the NMB would make it a high priority to mediate contract talks between the largest airline company in the world and its pilots, and, if the TA were to be voted down, NMB member Linda Puchala told both MECs she would need to know immediately the reasons why. This clearly indicates resolving our JCBA is a priority. As the government agency charged with mediating transportation labor issues, the NMB has a vested interest in demonstrating its efficacy and credibility—a strong reason for them to stay closely engaged.

Those who hold up AMR or US Airways as examples of the NMB “punishing” parties are wrong in thinking that our situation is analogous. In AMR’s case, the APA held fast on 1992 wages + inflation, and the NMB considered this to be unreasonable. But after two years of close supervision of our negotiations, the NMB knows the parties very well, and knows that we have not been unreasonable at any point. And the US Airways situation has nothing to do with the NMB. It was brought on by the de-certification of ALPA followed by the DFR lawsuits over the integration of the seniority lists.

UAL Management Needs A Ratified Contract

Smisek needs a ratified contract as soon as possible for numerous reasons:

As the UAL 757s are replaced by 737-900s, per the TPA those aircraft have to be flown by UAL pilots, not CAL pilots, and they must be trained by UAL pilots as well. TK has not even begun to gear up for this training.

UAL has been unable to fill vacancy bids on 767s and A320s and is falling well behind in the training and instructor staffing that will be required if the T/A fails to be ratified according to managers at TK. The T/A’s negative manpower impact would easily resolve the looming manpower shortfall.

If the T/A fails to be ratified, UAL will have to hire pilots, including offering UAL furloughees who are flying at CAL the opportunity to move back to UAL, causing a “triple-training” requirement to fill the vacated CAL pilot seat.

If the T/A fails to be ratified, management will be faced yet again with the CAL pilot group not being included in the 2012 profit-sharing plan. This is a significant PR problem for the company.

The requirement to run two separate operations is preventing the company from going forward with the streamlining necessary to achieve the benefits of the merger. At the moment there are all sorts of IT projects on hold.

The domicile protections of the TPA prevent the company from opening new pilot bases, such as a 737 or 787 base in some of the biggest domiciles: ORD, IAD, or SFO.

UAL’s revenues and earnings continue to fall well short of expectations, and lag far behind Delta Airlines, in large part because Smisek has failed to live up to his promise to complete the merger in an expeditious manner. UAL stock is closely held by institutional investors who want a return on their investment and it is obvious, despite benefiting from the world’s best airline network, that the Shares and IT debacles were both caused by gross mismanagement and have cost these investors significant current and future returns.

On the 2012 Q3 earnings call Jamie Baker, an analyst with JP Morgan (UAL’s banker), was outspoken in his frustration with UCH management’s poor performance and lack of transparency regarding, among other things, the pilot contract. One of the few things management had to brag about on the call was the pilot T/A. UCH CFO John Rainey stated how important a pilot agreement was for resolving the other employee groups’ JCBAs and Smisek characterized the T/A as “competitive.”

What Happens if the TA Fails to be Ratified?

There is a lot of pressure to get this deal wrapped up. Most likely the NMB would step in quickly, but even if they did not, the company’s negotiators and the ALPA negotiators would get together in short order to make the TA more palatable, and we would have time and leverage to fix some of the biggest flaws in the TA. The idea that the company would ask for more concessions is just silly, because that would make ratification of a revised TA even less likely. We are on the one yard line, and it’s third down. Let’s not kick a field goal.

Cast your vote based on the merits of the TA, not out of fear.

Fraternally,

<Name >

Council 34, SFO

Pilots who think they know the law and the RLA better than lawyers and professional negotiators. Classic.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

After further review the past 2 days the TPA DOES EXPIRE if the TA is shot down.

 

[nimtz]

After further review the past 2 days the TPA DOES EXPIRE if the TA is shot down.

And your are still bending over to vote YES cause those CAL guys are out to steal your W/B seats! It's clear big bad ALPA has you completely terrified. Btw those sexy oceanic W/B seats lose a little bit of appeal when you can't get your days off restored because a blizzard hits ORD. Industry leading!?!