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!?!

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Hmmm. Loss of a couple days or loss of an upgrade or WB seat due to TPA exp. I don't know. Did CAL MEC sign an agreement not to take our replacement aircraft when 80 of LUAL 757s leave?

 

[Yuppyguppy]

It's not ALPA it's Jeff Lorenzo and Fred and friends that bother me. You do remember EAL and CAL right?

 

[100/hour/5y]

LAX LEC 153 Update for November 21st, The Big Picture

Wednesday, November 21, 2012



I. THE BIG PICTURE
For better or for worse, most of us have experienced the “Adrenaline” (technically epinephrine) rush triggered by a traumatic event. Your heart rate quickens, your react instinctively, and you become acutely focused. But after that initial high, the body eventually experiences a low period when the sympathetic response tapers off. That is when things calm down, your vision widens, and you can think a little more clearly. That is what we are experiencing now that it has been more than a week since the TA has been released. And now that the dust is settling, this is the time to view the TA from the “big picture” perspective.


Last week we presented you with our Dissenting Opinion, which explained why we voted against approving the TA. While the list of items we feel are either concessionary or inadequate was quite exhaustive, in our “big picture” view it really boils down to the four cornerstones- compensation, scope, retirement and work rules. With this TA, we are below the industry standard in both compensation & work rules and arguably at industry standard in both scope & retirement.


Having said that, we would now like to ask you to put that aside for a minute, take a few steps back (both in time and in perspective), and try to envision our collective “big picture.”


When negotiations resumed following the merger announcement, both MECs confidently touted that this was our opportunity to capitalize on our unprecedented leverage and develop an industry-leading contract for our industry-leading pilots of what was supposed to become our industry-leading airline. We knew that for this merger to be successful, our management would need our help. We knew that without the joint contracts that Mr. Smisek testified he could expeditiously achieve, this merger will never be considered complete. We knew we were in control.


So now we have to wonder- what happened? Where did we go wrong? Were we deceived? Did we deceive? Or did we fail? Honestly, we aren't sure. We still have that same leverage, yet we are looking at a TA that does not encompass the best of both individual contracts. Instead the TA we are looking at is middle of the road, and is even a couple steps below the bar in some sections. The truth is that we have yet to come across anyone who has confidently stated that this TA has met their expectations.


What we have seen is that unfortunately, this TA is not being measured on it's merit, but rather it is being considered on the basis of fear. Fear that if we vote this down, we will be parked. Fear that we will lose money waiting for negotiations to resume. Fear that the company will attempt to take back provisions it has already agreed to. And fear that one pilot group will be pitted against the other. While all the above are valid concerns- and it is important to be cognizant of them- most of those are worries that exist in any negotiation cycle. If we succumbed to them every time a contract became amendable, we would end up always biting at the first offer made to us and never get ahead.


We strongly believe that should this TA be rejected by the pilots as a whole, we will quickly reengage with the company and make worthwhile improvements in the process. They recognize that in order for this merger to be complete, they need us to have a joint contract. They know they are close. They know that we expect an industry-leading contract. It is up to us to make sure we receive everything we deserve and make this a contract all of us can work under for many years.


In the big picture- this TA will not only affect our combined pilot group, but it will determine the future of our union and the future of all professional pilots as well. We control the future of this airline and the future of airline pilots across the country. Now is not the time to settle for anything less than industry-leading.


II. TICKETS STILL AVAILABLE
With five “performances” scheduled throughout Southern California, seats are still available for our special LEC meetings in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Oceanside. We look forward to discussing the TA, answering questions and hearing your concerns. All pilots (both L-CAL and L-UAL) are invited, as are family members. After all- this affects them almost as much as it affects you!


Orange County - Gulliver's
Wednesday, November 28
Monday, December 3


Los Angeles - The Proud Bird
Thursday, November 29
Wednesday, December 5


Oceanside - Residence Inn
Friday, December 7


All times are 1130-1400. Please see our website for details.


III. I AM THANKFUL FOR...
In closing, it is also important to step back and look at all the things we are thankful for in the big picture- family, friends, health, safety, security, etc. Please take a moment to think about all you have to be thankful for and enjoy your Thanksgiving Day...where ever you may be.




Visit our website:www.LEC153.org


Robert McCartney
LC 153 Chairman
Robert.McCartney@alpa.org
949-LAX-153-1 (529-1531) Mike Seidner
LC 153 Vice Chairman
Mike.Seidner@alpa.org
949-LAX-153-2 (529-1532) Joshua Berlin
LC 153 Secretary-Treasurer
Joshua.Berlin@alpa.org
949-LAX-153-0 (529-1530)

 

[Crucianpilot]

Hmmm. Loss of a couple days or loss of an upgrade or WB seat due to TPA exp. I don't know. Did CAL MEC sign an agreement not to take our replacement aircraft when 80 of LUAL 757s leave?

Those a/c are being replaced with 737-900er's that UAL is flying. Not CAL.

 

[Flopgut]

It's not ALPA it's Jeff Lorenzo and Fred and friends that bother me. You do remember EAL and CAL right?

No pilot in this deal is going to end up as bad off as the guys hired in 85 at UAL made sure the old Frontier guys did, including you. You do remember that right? Us CAL guys should be just as worried about you, but we're not. So try to muster some self asteem and see this for what it is: A low ball offer.

Per IAH FO rep: The TPA does not expire because we have reached a TA. Beyond that, if we vote this down Pachula and the NMB will be back in the equation and will not allow a status quo change that takes us one step down the road Lorenzo took EAL.

There has not been one contract with these CAL MGT types go down where we have not been laughed at for leaving money on the table. It's the same thing this time.