Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
LC 153 Update 5 Dec 12 - Two Votes in One



I. TWO VOTES IN ONE
As expected, many of our pilots have communicated to us that they are pleasantly surprised, impressed, and even overjoyed by what they have read in the TA.

No...actually that hasn't happened. Not even once. In fact, we have yet to hear from a single pilot who believes this TA meets their expectations or is sufficient based on the actual contents of the TA. Not a single person.

Unfortunately, many of those who do support this TA do so for many reasons- few of which are out of support for the merits of the TA alone. That is a problem. That indicates that even though this TA represents the contract we could potentially be working under every day for a minimum of four years, our pilot group doesn't seem to care. And even worse, our pilot group lacks the confidence to fight for what we intrinsically feel we are worth.

We would like to make sure you are aware that when you vote for or against ratifying this TA, there are actually TWO distinct decisions involved in your vote.

The first decision you need to make is based solely on the merits of the TA: “Does this TA sufficiently represent the compensation, the respect, and the treatment I deserve as a professional pilot of what is to become the world's largest airline?” That should be a simple, logical, black & white, yes or no answer.

The second decision you need to make is where emotion, skepticism, hope, and a crystal ball come into play. Now you have to ask yourself: “Can we do better?” Obviously this question is a whole lot more subjective with a lot more factors at play. And this is the question that many of the supposed “factual” communications you've received are targeting.

We'd like to address just a couple of the misconceptions that we've encountered by pilots when making this second decision.

1. “I just want to get this over with!” So do we. The sooner this is over, the sooner we can get on with our normal lives. But do we throw in the towel just because we are tired? As we've said before, we have unprecedented leverage that most of us will likely not see again in our careers. This merger is not complete until we agree to a JCBA and an ISL. Should we throw this opportunity away just because we have lost interest or are worn down?

2. "If we vote this down we may be put on 'ice'.” That is definitely one possibility. It is also equally possible (or even more likely if the vote is close) that the company will quickly reengage. They know that they low-balled us with pay rates that lag behind Delta. They know that they are paying us pennies on the dollar for what they owe us in retro. They also know that if this fails, those- along with a few work rule improvements- are quick fix items.

This is a test. Actually it is more of a game for our management. The objective of this game is to spend as little as possible on our contract. Management hopes that this offer passes by as close to 50% as possible; anymore and they will come to the conclusion that they put too much on the table.

If this TA passes by a slim margin, they have won- successfully minimizing our value and our self worth. On the other hand, if this fails by a slim margin, it will give them an indication of how close they are and how much more they need to add to get this TA to pass.

While voting “no” will not necessarily get us the contract of our dreams, it will at least ensure that we don't foolishly leave anything on the table. Voting “no” on this first offer will also inject a dose of confidence into our pilot group and demonstrate our resolve and unity to management.

Furthermore, while you have seen examples of how negotiations have been drawn out when the first offer was rejected, we would like to offer you an example right from our own “backyard” of when the parties reengaged in short order. In October 2007, the Continental Flight Attendants, represented by the IAM, rejected their first offer. Mr. Smisek even threatened them that he would walk away from the table. Just a few months later they ratified an agreement that included the pay raises of the initial offering as well as a signing bonus that wasn’t previously included. Apparently it can happen.

Also, keep in mind that none of the examples included in the MEC communications mentioned the unprecedented situation we are in today. As we said above, we are the last component of this merger. Until we have a JCBA, this merger is not complete. We are in the driver’s seat. Don’t forget that!

3. “I'm worried what will happen when the TPA expires.” For those of you who hadn't noticed, anytime after March 31, 2013, the company can unilaterally terminate five provisions or the TPA, four of which have to do with flying protections. Our brothers and sisters on the L-UAL side are worried about an impending whipsaw. The reality is that they will not spontaneous combust, as they have been lead to believe. There are still backstop protections in their 2003 CBA (namely, section 1-F and a Supplemental Agreement dated October 9, 2007) that dictate the minimum block hours L-UAL can operate. In addition, based on their scope protections, if they reduce mainline flying by much, the company will be forced to reduce their outsourced express flying as well, and they don't want to do that.

There is also another game in play here (in addition to management’s “50% plus one” game). This game is to see how effectively management can divide and conquer our two pilot groups. By pitting us against each other, they know they can destroy any unity we have and take advantage of us in the process. The fear of a whipsaw plays right into their hands.

4. “I just want to get this SLI process done!” You want to knowingly settle for an inadequate contract so that you can suffer through the SLI process that is guaranteed to be just as trying and perhaps even more stressful? Assuming you actually enjoy (or previously enjoyed) your profession of flying airplanes, don't you think it would be much more pleasant (read: less tortuous) if you at least had a decent contract going into the SLI process? We can assure you that having a contract that you don't despise would help reduce the sting that about 90% of us are going to feel when that ISL is published.

And remember- we are supposed to be industry leading pilots at an industry leading airline lead by the best paid management money can buy. You won't ever be a leader by settling for second best.

II. GOOD NEWS AND BETTER NEWS
In our last update, we mentioned the little “gem” that effectively reduced our lump sum payout by about 6.2% (or $24, 800,000 total). The relevant language is quoted below from LOA 24:

“The Company will pay $250,000,000 of the $400M Amount (the “$250M Amount”) to pilots in connection with the effective date of the Agreement and in accord with Paragraph 3.E. and 3.G of this Letter of Agreement. The $250,000,000 shall be the total payment amount, and any fringe benefits or other payments that are legally or contractually required to be made or increased in amount because of the payments to individual pilots herein (e.g., defined contribution retirement contributions, social security, payroll taxes) shall not increase the Company’s financial liability beyond the $250,000,000.” [emphasis ours]

(This restriction applies to the second “tranche” of $150 at ISL as well.)

As it turns out, yesterday we were officially informed that this has been "reinterpreted" (renegotiated) with the company, and they will now be paying their share- as the employer- of the FICA taxes. This is good news because it means an additional 6.2% into our pockets. This is even better news because it proves that the company is not only willing to renegotiate but also that they are willing to reach deeper into their pockets

IV. STILL MAKING THE ROUNDS
We still have one more Local Council special meeting on Friday, December 7, in Oceanside for our pilots who live down south. The last four meetings have been great opportunities to hear your perspectives about this TA and have your questions answered.

The MEC/JNC roadshow will also be coming to LAX on Wednesday, December 12 and SFO on Thursday, December 13. These are the best opportunities to hear from the JNC and subject matter experts, as well as have your questions answered by them.


Rob, Mike, and Josh
 
While voting “no” will not necessarily get us the contract of our dreams, it will at least ensure that we don't foolishly leave anything on the table. Voting “no” on this first offer will also inject a dose of confidence into our pilot group and demonstrate our resolve and unity to management.

Wow, these guys are already starting to manage expectations should the TA be voted down. It's no longer about getting a contract of our dreams, it's mearly a check to be sure that we don't leave anything on the table. It sounds like they've figured out that there isn't much more to get out of management except a rearrangement if deck chairs and now they want to cover their bases in case the next ta is no better or worse than the first.
 
so it looks like we're going to get to put the USAir debacle aside as the reference for how not to merge two airlines shorty. This may well become the most embittered pilot group since Delta bought Western... Sad to see all the infighting and bitterness. ONLY WORKS TO HELP MANAGEMENT.

True when they say we're our own worse enemies.
 
Wow, these guys are already starting to manage expectations should the TA be voted down. It's no longer about getting a contract of our dreams, it's mearly a check to be sure that we don't leave anything on the table. It sounds like they've figured out that there isn't much more to get out of management except a rearrangement if deck chairs and now they want to cover their bases in case the next ta is no better or worse than the first.


So we should have taken the previous offer of DAL +1 to save us the headache, right? That way we would have been 100% sure that there was something left on the table, you spineless management wannabee.
 
Utter fools

Originally Posted by PBRstreetgang
This is gonna be interesting. Talked to a couple of UAL guys in the security line, word is to get DAL type contract they will have to give up 90 seaters......... and these guys thought it was OK.
Amazing!
PBR

TOTAL LIE!!! This was not said by UAL guys. You either givem to us and the f'ing 70s or we shut your a$$ down in due time.

Yep we sure are taking it back!
 
So we should have taken the previous offer of DAL +1 to save us the headache, right? That way we would have been 100% sure that there was something left on the table, you spineless management wannabee.

I'm sorry, did the company ever offer us DAL +$1? No. When our negotiating committee analyzed the offer that you speak of, it was quickly determined to have an overall cost well under that of DAL. So, what did they do? They flat out rejected it.

The current JCBA costs well exceed that of DAL beginning in 2014 and blow it away in the years that follow. Was it "worth the headache" to wait out and continue to negotiate with the company? Yes, that is the point of negotiations.

I don't put much weight in the LAX reps opinion, nor do I put that much more in any of the other Reps. They are all pilots, like myself, not professional negotiators. The opinions that I do seek are those of our hired, professional negotiators and attorneys. These guys have been through countless negotiations and have even taken airlines (such as Spirit) through strikes. I have talked to one of the them and read the information put out the collective group, and they make a very professional, unemotional appeal that taking this contract back to the table makes little sense and will, in all likelihood, lead to a cost neutral (or negative) 2nd TA.

Those are facts, from professionals. Not emotional garbage being spewed by either the "No" or "Yes" camps.

But, don't take my word for. Get to a road show or call your rep and see if there is an opportunity for you to talk to a negotiator or attorney.
 
Our "hired professional negotiators and attorneys" were the same guys that swore Contract '02 was the only option other then BK. Wow great track record there Mr Luby. Btw went to a road show and read everything that has been published. NO
 
I wish we could have a real-life "It's a Wonderful Life," but instead make it "It's a Wonderful Career," where you idiots get to see what life would really be like if you had your way and ignored the attorneys, professional negotiators, and other experts, and just did what your macho attitude lead you to do. We'd all be making $5/hr and working 26 days a month without labor contracts by now.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top