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

[Daddy69]

This TA is a pathetic JOKE!!!!! Just VOTE NO!!!

 

[Flopgut]

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!

 

[RT8VA]

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]

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]

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.

 

[nimtz]

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.

I agree that it will pass, but more like 55-65%. The demographics of YES voters will cause decades worth of discussion. It's clear to me the UAL MEC side has come out guns blazing on the guarenteed EAL II Scenario.

It will only take a matter of months for those scared into a YES vote to realize how screwed up parts of this POS are. The fact that any CAL work rule survives this merger shows how much we suck. We haven even gotten into us falling into ALPA's BOHICA on scope.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Don't know about that... Most of us CAL types can see where mgt is going with this. Yeah, it's a huge raise for sUAL, but wait til you see what happens to your schedule and the scope.

IMHO, this is too close to call. And since neither mgt or ALPA has a plan for a possible "no" vote, I'm seriously worried about a corrupted vote count.

 

[Dornier 335]

United pilot agreement allows for up to 255 large RJs

link

United pilot agreement allows for up to 255 large RJs

The tentative agreement between United Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) would allow for an increase in the number of large regional aircraft to 255 by 1 January 2016.

The number is based on the Chicago-based mainline carrier meeting a number of contractual conditions, including a "unique" block hour ratio, according to ALPA. It is split between 102 70-seat and 153 76-seat aircraft, and includes both regional jets and turboprops.

United will have 168 large regional aircraft in its United Express fleet at the end of the year, according to a stock exchange filing. This includes 115 Bombardier CRJ700s, 15 Bombardier Q400s and 38 Embraer 170s.

The airline also has an agreement with Republic Airways to increase the number of Q400s to 32 in 2013.

United would be able to add 70 new large regional aircraft to its fleet by 2016 under the proposed contract. The CRJ900, Embraer 175 and Q400 would be likely candidates for an order.

The tentative agreement also calls for the addition of "new small narrowbody aircraft" in United's mainline fleet, according to ALPA. These would have between 90- and 120-seats, and are included the contract's scope section.

Available aircraft with 90- to 120-seats include the CRJ1000 and Embraer 190/195, while the in-development 110-seat Bombardier CS100, which is scheduled for entry-into-service in June 2014, would also be available before 2016.

United could also look to the used market for small narrowbodies, as its competitor Delta Air Lines did when it subleased 88 Boeing 717-200s from Southwest Airlines-subsidiary AirTran Airways. However, there are few comparably sized fleets of similarly sized and relatively new aircraft available on the global market.

The tentative agreement also includes a hard cap of 450 regional aircraft that is again based on United meeting various stipulations in the contract. This would likely involve the reduction in 50-seat regional jets, which have high per passenger operational costs, as Delta did when it agreed to add mainline capacity in exchange for more large regional jets.

United has the largest fleet of 50-seat or smaller regional jets in the USA, with 352 of the aircraft. It also contracts with regional carriers to operate 21 turboprops with between 37 and 50 seats.

Pilots at United will vote on the four-year agreement from 1 December to 15 December. If ratified, it would be the first joint collective bargaining agreement at the airline since its merger with Continental Airlines in 2010.
The ALPA Continental and United master executive councils approved the tentative agreement on 14 November.

 

[eaglesview]

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

This is indeed an interesting thread ever since the above post was written. There have been countless posts berading the author for his view. The interesting part is that NOT ONE of these CO pilots that are thumping their chest said anything about how they would not allow that and would stand with the UA pilots. This is the same CO pilot mentality that has permiated that pilot group since the 80's. I thought that the mentality that permiated CAL while their pilots flew EAL routes while we were on strike was over. Not one CO pilot on this thread has shown that mentality is indeed dead.

Very interesting.

 

[Andy]

I agree that it will pass, but more like 55-65%. The demographics of YES voters will cause decades worth of discussion. It's clear to me the UAL MEC side has come out guns blazing on the guarenteed EAL II Scenario.

It will only take a matter of months for those scared into a YES vote to realize how screwed up parts of this POS are. The fact that any CAL work rule survives this merger shows how much we suck. We haven even gotten into us falling into ALPA's BOHICA on scope.

Unfortunately, many would rather live on their knees than die on their feet. UAL pilots will rue the day that they voted YES on this contract; they have no idea how bad the work rules suck.

On the CAL side, I flew with a 64 1/2 YO craptain who said he'd vote for any contract, no matter the terms, as long as there's retro. I'm sure most 62+ CAL pilots feel the same way.
I flew with another captain who said he knew of 3 other pilots at CAL who have already spent their retro checks on swimming pools. He was as disgusted with their poor financial planning as I.
And there are what - ~15% of the CAL seniority list that are scabs - I doubt many will be no voters.
How many post-1999 CAL hires are doing cartwheels over LOA 25 and its attempt to influence SLI? I'm sure that bought more than a couple of YES votes on the CAL side.

So I'll stand by my expectation of it passing by at least 80% overall and both CAL and UAL sides will have >50% YES voters.



A little more on the EAL II scenario. The TPA extension allows any party (management, CALALPA, UALALPA) to autonomously cancel section 7-C (Flying Ratios) of the original TPA any time after 31 March 2013.
That section is currently keeping a floor in place on cutting UAL flying. Once it's canceled, management can cut UAL flying to zero. And pierceofsh has played this card several times with UALALPA. he'll make a great replacement for fred.

 

[100/hour/5y]

FROM UAL 747 CA:Thirty Reasons to Vote No on the Tentative Agreement
1. Retro pay: The $400 million in Retro pay has been variously estimated as approximately 1⁄3 to 2⁄3 of what’s actually owed to us. United Airlines is the largest airline in the world and is sitting on a $7 billion + pile of cash. If we aren’t paid 100% of what we are owed it will be incentive for to delay in the next round of negotiations. 2⁄3 will be paid if and when T/A ratified and the other 1⁄3 after SLI.

2. Scope: The scope section of the TA opens the door for major RJ gains by the company yet only rewards the pilots in an unlikely scenario. Scope essentially comes down to two things in the new TA: numbers of aircraft and block-hour ratios. Currently, there are 555 RJs flying for UAX. After Jan 1, 2014 the company can actually fly more RJs. In fact, the company can fly 488 50-seaters and up to 255 70/ 76-seaters for a total fleet of 743 aircraft. While the block hours cannot exceed 120% of the block hours flown by single-aisle company aircraft (of which UAL has 543), that is a huge amount. What makes it worse is that the MEC scope video is misleading because it leads the viewer to believe that this ratio
will decrease to 68% over the life of the contract. This only applies if the company purchases a new mainline “small” narrowbody aircraft (E-190s, E-195s or CS-100s) and puts them into service, which is unlikely. This also applies to the “hard cap” of 450 RJs....the limit is triggered only with the addition of
the new small narrowbodies. Do we want to take that bet? In reality, this new scope proposal does not reclaim flying for the mainline yet allows the company to expand its RJ fleet to include up to 255 large RJs (153 of them can be 76 seaters).

3. Pay is 8% less than Delta on 1/1/2013

4. Longevity clause of LOA 25 opens up all furloughees at SLI to be stapled below 2008 CAL hires. Also has the potential for negatively affecting all UAL pilots in the SLI.

5. Pay banding is a violation of long-standing ALPA policy to use the Decision 83 concept of pay to productivity as the basis for pilot pay. The TA has the same pay rate for the 767-400 as the 747-400, despite weighing half (450,000 lbs vs. 875,000 lbs) and with a cruise speed 30 knots slower. Yet the TA has the 757-200 and 757-300 in different pay bands, despite a weight difference of only 18,000 lbs. Pay banding affects pilots who are already on their fleets. With very few vacancy bids, pilots cannot bid to another fleet. If the Company orders 747-800’s, where will they be banded?

6. Loss of right to downtown hotel: Currently ALPA alone determines downtown locations. Under the new agreement that language is removed and both the company and ALPA must agree on downtown location. If there is no agreement, the company will place the pilots where they want, such as back at the field or a less expensive property.

7. Loss of right to disapprove sub-standard hotels: The TA changes the current requirement to move hotels to a request, meaning that the Company must agree with ALPA’s “request” to move from an unacceptable property. The word “quiet” was removed from room requirement criteria.

8. Gutting of vacation drop: Under the present contract, a vacation drop pays the value of the trip and deducts the actual number of trip days from next year’s allotment. Under the TA the value of the trip is divided by 3.25 to come up with the number of vacation days. Vacation-dropping a 3 day trip paying 18 hours would cost 6 vacation days. A 7 day, 41 hour trip would cost 13 vacation days.

9. Reassignments into days off. The old limit was 16 hours, now from 24 to 35:59 hours domestically depending on what time the lost trip was scheduled to get in.

10. FMLA-you currently can use this year’s and next year’s vacation to cover your absence. The new agreement only allows you to use this year’s unused vacation to keep you in paid status for the care of an ill family member.

11. Loss of vacation days: Two days less for pilots with less than ten years or more than 25 years of longevity.

12. Domestic reserve short call-out now in writing at 2:30 maximum time to show time.

13. Gutting of reserve FIFO system. The Crew Desk would be allowed to bypass the FIFO system. The Company shall decide whether the assignment shall be made to a Long-Call reserve, a Short-Call reserve or a Field Standby (20-K-3-a).

14. After blocking in at the termination of a trip, a Reserve must check to see if he has been given an assignment or reassignment.

15. Reserves can be assigned a trip that exceeds their silo and flies into their days off both internationally and domestically.

16. A Short Call Reserve may be assigned a trip that requires days off to be disrupted, even if a Field Standby could be assigned the trip without disruption (20-I-6-c-(2)).

17. Cost for Long Term Disability. Today PDI is completely paid for by the company, and pays 55%. TA LTD pays 50%, and is 65% company funded, 35% by pilot. The LTD benefit is capped at $8000/month. Not the case with current PDI. Also has offsets reducing benefit as compared to PDI. Costs more, pays less. Helps company pay for pay rate improvements despite being inferior to Delta.

18. Significantly increased health insurance costs across the board - premiums, out of pocket yearly costs & co-pays up over 20% for PPO, HMO premiums that were usually zero will exceed PPO premiums and the annual escalation cap went from 7% per year to 9.25%. These higher employee cost in all health care areas help company pay for pay rate improvements despite being inferior to Delta.

19. Trip trading is becoming completely seniority based like inferior F/A system. Decrease of available trades and aggregate schedule quality.

20. No more 48 hours off after Pacific crossing. Only 24 hours free from duty after all global trips.

21. Double augmented flights can be flown by any combination from 1 CAP, 3 F/Os, to 3 CAP, 1 F/O at company’s discretion. This results in more flexibility for the company and will not result in more Captains but in fewer First Officers on augmented fleets. It is manpower negative.

22. Pilots from other domiciles may pick up flying in your domicile. More flexibility for the company and manpower negative slowing promotions and recalls.

23. If you call off sick list after 1200, crew desk decides if you will be charged sick time for the NEXT DAY as well.

24. No more domestic breakfast meals at outstations. The company will “pay” you $10 to cover a purchased meal to counteract low blood sugar in the morning. Today - $10 will hardly buy anything IF you can find a place that serves a breakfast. This move saves the company hundreds of thousand of dollars in not preparing your meal and not boarding the meal upline for your morning departure.

25. If a lineholder’s trip is cancelled, he can be reassigned to a reserve's trip up to 3 hours prior to departure. This is manpower negative and results in fewer promotions.

26. Duration--This concessionary agreement is not amendable until Jan 31, 2017, and does not include an elevator clause many pilots demanded. With the bargaining period, we likely will not have a new agreement until 2019 or 2020.

27. Increased requirements for doctor’s notes to get paid for sick leave.

28. Loss of one calendar day off in seven at home domicile. Changed to 24 hours off at home domicile in 168 hours, but only if haven’t had 24 hours off anywhere in preceding 168 hours.

29. Requirement to call Scheduling if deviating at the end of a trip, opening the door for reassignments. Essentially putting a lineholder on reserve.

30. Minimum five hours pay, averaged, for each day in a trip. This doesn't fix the problem of the 4 day trip with the 30 hour layover where you work your ass off the the other 3 days (flying 20 or more hours), and still don't get compensated for the day you're sitting around, away from home, not getting paid. The 5 hours of pay per calendar day should be a daily guarantee, not averaged.

 

[Full of LUV]

Ouch

FROM UAL 747 CA:Thirty Reasons to Vote No on the Tentative Agreement


8. Gutting of vacation drop: Under the present contract, a vacation drop pays the value of the trip and deducts the actual number of trip days from next year’s allotment. Under the TA the value of the trip is divided by 3.25 to come up with the number of vacation days. Vacation-dropping a 3 day trip paying 18 hours would cost 6 vacation days. A 7 day, 41 hour trip would cost 13 vacation days.

Wow, if this is true, seems like a huge concession.....ouch!

 

[Yuppyguppy]

If you guys over at CAL want to sign another extension of the TPA then I will be voting NO. Otherwise I have no choice along with all the other UAL brethren. CAL pilots have very little to lose and everything to gain from a NO vote at UAL pilots expense. The chity plane comment above is BS. 24 747s 52 777s and almost 40 767-3 compared to your 20 777 ands 16 767s and 2 787s. CAL was going bankrupt in 2010 like it or not and UAL bailed you out.

 

[nimtz]

If you guys over at CAL want to sign another extension of the TPA then I will be voting NO. Otherwise I have no choice along with all the other UAL brethren. CAL pilots have very little to lose and everything to gain from a NO vote at UAL pilots expense. The chity plane comment above is BS. 24 747s 52 777s and almost 40 767-3 compared to your 20 777 ands 16 767s and 2 787s. CAL was going bankrupt in 2010 like it or not and UAL bailed you out.

Not gonna bother changing your mind. No way I can fight the UAL MEC voices pounding your head with doom and gloom. I for one would gladly fight for the proper TPA extension that ensures the 900 delivers go straight to SUAL as currently planned. My Pro JPos reps are already facing a recall as we speak. We ALL have more to lose and less to gain if we sign off on this dud.

Fear as a group modivator is powerful, but usually leads to bad conclusions. Dig into this TA and it's clear that is the case here. And as towards your last comment as I will say to every dbag that spots that line, "Yeah thank the almighty Glenn Tilton saved both of our careers!"

 

[eaglesview]

If you guys over at CAL want to sign another extension of the TPA then I will be voting NO. Otherwise I have no choice along with all the other UAL brethren. CAL pilots have very little to lose and everything to gain from a NO vote at UAL pilots expense. The chity plane comment above is BS. 24 747s 52 777s and almost 40 767-3 compared to your 20 777 ands 16 767s and 2 787s. CAL was going bankrupt in 2010 like it or not and UAL bailed you out.

Keep it accurate Yuppy, I doubt either company was going bankrupt nor needed bailing out. Your a/c analysis is accurate but I would not include the 787 in the mix as that was not present when the snapshot was taken. Don't look for the CAL side to back us up in extending the TPA. Without that you are correct, CAL side has little to lose with a no vote.