• 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 mec jcba ta pro statement

CAL EWR B737

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Posts
652
Total Time
15,000
Today is Wednesday, November 21, 2012 and there is one item for your review.

Item One: Tentative Agreement Pro Statement

The following is a reprint of the Tentative Agreement Pro Statement published earlier today by the majority of the CAL MEC Status Representatives who voted in favor of sending the TA to the pilots for your review:

PRO Statement

Throughout the lengthy four party negotiations which culminated in the Tentative United Pilot Contract Agreement, your MEC shared the high expectations of the majority of our pilots. We acknowledge from the start, that it is disappointing that we did not secure equity or full retro pay. It is also disappointing that our hourly pay rates do not catch completely up to Delta's from the start. With that said, we believe that overall, as viewed from the present time to the amendable date, as well as from cover to cover, the Tentative Agreement is Industry Leading. Additionally, while falling short of full retro pay, the lump sum is the highest amount ever achieved by any pilot group in an ALPA contract, and it is dramatically higher than what management believed was acceptable as recently as last July.

The JCBA negotiating environment was difficult on a number of levels. First, the merger required the negotiations to start with two drastically different contracts, both of which are severely concessionary and unsatisfactory. Second, having two distinct MEC's created additional logistical and political issues from the beginning of the process to the end. Third, the National Mediation Board was heavily involved during much of the process. Fourth, the Railway Labor Act is designed to amend and make gradual adjustments to contracts. It was neither designed, nor intended, to merge two drastically different contracts together, while simultaneously recovering from draconian concessions.

Upon first reading, absent any briefings or explanation, the Tentative Agreement leads to many questions, and it can also lead to many assumptions. Because the TA is so lengthy and complex, it is important for every pilot to read the educational materials, view road shows and the TA website, and directly ask for clarification about any sections which he or she continues to find unclear or confusing, rather than simply making assumptions or believing rumors. Questions can be submitted on the Tentative Agreement website www.unitepilotagreement.com

Scope

One of the primary cornerstones of our contract is Scope. In an era of complex joint ventures, Open Skies agreements, and the potential for cabotage and foreign encroachment, Scope governs our careers like no other section of our contract. Scope is about protecting and enhancing United pilot careers, which is much more complex than simply the size of individual regional aircraft used to support our mainline flying. Continental pilots had the same 50 seat RJ limit in 2001, yet Continental was the very first airline to furlough pilots after 9/11, and regional Continental Express flying exploded during the 2000's.

We believe that the Scope contained in the TA is arguably the leading Scope agreement in the Industry, and without equal when compared to other peer Legacy Network Carriers. While our TA closely mirrors Delta in some aspects, it exceeds them in its breadth of protections for our pilots. Additionally, it far exceeds US Airways, and what was recently negotiated at American. Further, the TA Scope provides fixes to the weaknesses in our current CAL Scope and that of UAL.

While we may have deprived the company from outsourced 76 seat jets in the past, that deprivation never rewarded our pilots with the ability to fly them, nor did it afford the company an additional means necessary to generate the revenue we required of them for our increased salary and benefit demands. Industry conditions, competitors and the NMB made it more or less inevitable that scope would have to be modified, if we were to make necessary economic progress in the JCBA.

Knowing our pilots' distaste for UAX 76 seat jets, we secured industry leading provisions related to this change, that would ensure United pilot jobs would be protected. We achieved this by virtue of an Industry Leading block hour ratio, tied to our single aisle aircraft. No other carrier has this level of protection at the present, and for our pilots it starts at Date of Signing.This provision also creates a balance of flying between our single aisle aircraft and UAX operations, something that we did not have at CAL, which allowed our single aisle flying to shrink, while CalEx flying exploded following 9/11. This potential is now corrected, by virtue of this new ratio. It also fixes the problem the UAL pilots suffered, which allowed their 737's to be parked and replaced by regional jets. The only way UAX can grow under the new TA, is for our single aisle flying to grow, and conversely, if we begin to shrink our single aisle flying, so too will UAX. An important part of this is that the Widebody growth we expect to experience in the coming years is exempted from this ratio, so UAX will not be able to grow via mainline Widebody growth.

We believe that a huge win for our pilots in this TA is to contractualize the acquisition of our “gap in gauge” aircraft (this is reflected in the New Small Narrowbody Aircraft requirement). Whether or not the company chooses to extend their options that will trigger this purchase remains to be seen, but if they do, it will trigger a landslide of additional protections for our pilots. These include the purchase of the new aircraft, tightening of the block hour ratio and the immediate reduction of 50 seat aircraft, with no mechanism for their return. If they choose not to take that path, then they will operate at a strategic and numerical disadvantage to DAL, and we will still have our block hour protections.

Management used large Q400 turboprop aircraft to exploit our current Scope provisions. TA Scope limits large turboprops, because they are counted just the same in the limits and ratios as jets are.

Another new restriction and limitation in the TA Scope is that 80 percent of all UAX flying must be less than 900 statute miles.

The TA codeshare provisions came from our CAL book and have been effective for the last seven plus years, by requiring reciprocity in all such arrangements. TA Scope also corrects a problem that was brought to us by the UAL scope section, by requiring the company to fly its own aircraft in the market on joint ventures. The Aer Lingus JV made an example of the weakness of current UAL book Scope. In essence, under TA Scope, the company cannot receive revenue from these arrangements if they are not also generating revenue from our flights, using our pilots.

This TA also takes what we learned from our current merger situation, and codified the bulk of the protections from our contract and those negotiated in the Transition and Process Agreement. While we don’t foresee another round of big mergers in our future, this TA will ensure that we will be sitting at the table having already achieved the protections we would want at that time, should such an event occur. It also strengthens our fragmentation language, by encompassing our Guam operations, which were essentially left on the outside of our contractual protections existing in our current Scope section.

There are new furlough protections in this Scope TA that were not previously available to our pilots. As a brief overview of these protections, they include the 76 to 70 seat conversion requirement if a single current seniority list pilot is furloughed (a tremendous economic disincentive for the company to furlough), a staffing formula that must be met prior to a furlough, two separate merger no furlough protections, and a requirement for job opportunities in the event of a fragmentation.

Finally, the Retained Management Rights clause in our current and past contracts' Scope sections has been removed from the entire contract. This clause has been cited by management in various arguments and System Boards.

When looking at TA Scope in its entirety, we believe that it is Industry Leading, and that it also provides improved job protections for our pilots, over andabove our current Scope protections.
 

CAL EWR B737

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Posts
652
Total Time
15,000
Compensation

Another cornerstone of the contract is Compensation. The TA provides initial hourly pay rate increases of 12 percent to 22 percent at Date of Signing, and eventual hourly pay rate increases of 32 percent to 44 percent, for all current equipment types except the 767-200's, which are rapidly leaving our fleet. While most of us admittedly look at Section 3 of a new contract TA first, hourly pay rates are not the only component contributing to your bottom line in a mature airline pilot contract's Total Pilot Compensation each month.

Recent Continental contracts have provided very little opportunity to receive Credit, or “Soft” pay time every month. This will change substantially with provisions in the new TA, including a minimum pay of 5 hours per calendar day average over an entire trip, known as M5D. Most other airlines, including Legacy United current book and Delta, have a Duty Period Minimum pay, but this TA secured what we believe to be a generally more valuable DAILY Minimum pay of 5 hours. The DAILY minimum is more valuable because United flies so many 2 duty period 3 and 4 day trips with limited flight hours. The Duty Period Minimum would only provide a minimum pay of 10 hours for those two duty periods, while the M5D provides a minimum floor of 15 or 20 Pay hours every 3 or 4 work days.

Unlike Continental Contracts '97 and '02, and in addition to the M5D Rig, the TA contains Duty Rig and better, viable Trip Rig provisions. Your time is valuable, and you should receive a minimum, fair amount of Pay Hours for any given amount of time away from home. Rigs also encourage the Company to schedule pilots more efficiently. In the case of trips in which more efficient scheduling is not possible, the Rigs will provide a substantial number of additional Credit/Soft Pay hours, and substantially higher Total Compensation, than the actual Hard Hours actually flown would pay by themselves.

Additionally,the TA contains many new opportunities for a pilot to earn Add Pay and Premium Pay, which are contained in Sections 5 and 20, including Senior Man Pay, Late Pay, Day Off Pay, and various other Reassignment pay provisions. Reserve pilots receive Rigs and also have opportunities to receive Add and Premium pays.

B-scales for new pilots were the scourge of the industry from the early 1980's to the mid 1990's. Unfortunately, despite the fact that B-scales had disappeared at most other airlines by the late 1990's, every CAL pilot hired under both C'97 and C'02, was hired under a B-scale. The FO pay ratios did not become reasonable until 6th year and after. The B-scale has been eliminated with this TA. The first year TA pay is a 95 percent increase over C'02 current book first year pay.

The TA restores International Override of $6.50 per hour for Captains and $4.50 per hour for First Officers. Training pay increases to 3.75 hours per day for all recurrent and other training less than 5 days, and 3 hours per day for training 5 days or greater other than recurrent.

PTC, or Protected Time Credit, is a line guarantee protecting a lineholder for the pay value of all trips awarded in Monthly Schedule Preferencing (aka PBS), or through subsequent trip trading, including any deadhead and rig time.

The TA achieved some important CAL MEC strategic goals in Pay Banding: maintaining the 767-400 and 787 banded with the 777 and 747-400. We also finally placed the 757-300 into a higher band than the 757-200, alongside the legacy United 767-300.

Per diem will increase at Date of Signing and throughout the duration of the TA. Crew meals are restored, with extensive provisions. Additional types of expenses will now be reimbursed, including uniform cleaning and Global Entry. If required to appear in person for a new passport, visa, etc, a pilot will now be paid one hour of Add Pay.

The TA also allows all pilots to participate in Profit Sharing, with no sunset date.

We believe that the TA is Industry Leading in Total Compensation for United pilots over the term of the Agreement.

Retirement and Insurance

The TA increases the Defined Contribution plan company contribution rate to 16 percent from the 12.75 percent of C'02. Additionally, the TA requires equal representation on the Investment Committee, instead of 2 ALPA members and 3 from management.

Unlike C'02, the TA requires that pilots and their dependents will be eligible for medical benefits on date of employment. Medical and Dental plan cost shares are 80% company /20% pilot by plan, and the Medical, Dental and Vision plans are locked-in by the TA. C'02 provides no input or transparency in rate setting, while the TA provides complete transparency and direct ALPA input. Generally, the TA provides for better insurance coverages at reduced cost to the pilot.

Pre-65 and Post-65 retiree medical plans are patterned after current legacy United plans, with a one year transition option for CAL pilots to use the Bridge Medical Option. C'02 provided only pre-Medicare benefits, while both Before and After Medicare benefits are in the TA. Additionally, the TA now places Before Medicare in the same risk pool as active pilots, to reduce cost. A new RHA VEBA has been created to accumulate tax advantaged funds to pay for retiree healthcare.

The Long Term Disability is patterned after the CAL LTD. Maximum monthly LTD benefitincreases from $7500 to $8000 per month, or $96,000 per year tax free. A pilot will now have the option to preserve 120 hours of Sick Leave when going to LTD. The plan will now provide unlimited coverage for cognitive or psychological disorders, subject to medical review. There is a new 12 month LTD benefit for substance abuse, which is even available to pilots not enrolled in the plan.

All pilots who are not currently enrolled in LTD, who hold a 1st Class Medical, will be allowed back into the plan at Date of Signing. The LTD plan under the TA provides for easier re-entry upon return from leaves of absence, and for continued LTD payments until training commences. Finally, no premiums are due once a pilot applies and awaits LTD benefits.

We believe that the highest DC plan contribution percentage of our peer global legacy airlines, combined with the overall Retirement and Insurance package, is Industry Leading.
 

CAL EWR B737

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Posts
652
Total Time
15,000
Work Rules

CAL C'02 resulted in extremely onerous concessions to Work Rules and Scheduling. Chronic, often severe understaffing has combined with inadequate contractual provisions, to result in unsatisfactory quality of life for many, if not most CAL pilots, most of the time. Inadequate staffing often results in Overall Solution Constraints, Splat, reserve abuse, and other undesirable outcomes.

The TA addresses these shortfalls in many ways, which we believe are Industry Leading. The TA contains much more stringent Manpower Requirements and Vacancy and Displacement provisions in Section 8. Manpower Requirements (formerly Staffing Formula) are now by aircraft type, instead of systemwide, and also include planned MAC flying. There is a requirement for a minimum of 12 percent reserves in Airbus and 737, and 14 percent for all other aircraft. Changes in Line Production Averages (LPA) in Section 5 also have a significant impact on Manpower Requirements.

The TA eliminates the CAL-style “System Bid.” Instead, there will be Vacancy Bulletins and Bidding and Displacement Bulletins and Bidding that will be run on a Category (BES) basis, instead of systemwide, as needed. The TA will make it easier and faster to advance, and harder and slower for the Company to displace and furlough.

Section 5 Hours of Service and Section 20 Allocation, Assignment and Scheduling of Flying contain the bulk of the TA Scheduling provisions. Some components of these sections directly impact Compensation in addition to quality of life, and these were mentioned previously, including the M5D Rig, and the 2:1 Duty Rig and 1:4 (1 year after OMD 1:3.5) Trip Rig. Maximum LPA is 84.0, reduced with a furlough, and there is a 92 hour Cap, with required repair, unless the pilot waives. Pay equals Credit during Monthly Schedule Preferencing (MSP), the new term for PBS.

Open time is allowed after MSP, and Trip Trades with Open Time will be seniority based. Except for Line Check Airmen giving line checks, Captains may not fly as FO, unless both pilots consent. 2 Captains and 2 FO's must be staffed on flights scheduled over 16 hours. Layovers require 9 hours behind the door in the hotel room, and those scheduled longer than 14 hours require a downtown hotel.

There is extensive language regarding Crew Rest, which will never again be in Economy or Economy Plus. Deadhead is in First or Business if a Global Flight, and Economy Plus at a minimum if a Basic Flight (50 states, Canada, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, Bermuda, South America north of 15 degrees.) There is Premium Pay in the event of a middle seat Deadhead.

The TA provides many other opportunities for Add/Premium Pays, including 100% for Senior Manning, 50, 75, and 100% incentives for certain open pairings, and 125% for Inverse Reassignment. The Company must use volunteers with 100% Add Pay, even if it creates a conflicting trip drop, before Inverse Reassignment.

All Reserves are on a 13 hour Long Call to start, and all reserves are released to a trip at Pickup or Assignment. There is no leveling for Reserve Aggressive Pickups. A 73 hour Reserve MPG increases for Short Call or Airport standby. All Rigs apply to Reserves, and there are numerous opportunities for increased MPG and Add Pay. Basic Reserves (generally 737 and Airbus) have one Flexible Day Off with limited assignment rights. Global Reserves have six Hard Days Off, one Flexible Day off and the remainder Regular Days Off. FDO's and RDO's are not the same as CAL movable days off, in that they cannot be moved to sit Reserve, and a trip cannot be assigned on them.

Once on a trip, Reserves are protected by the same Reassignment rules as lineholders. The TA also does not allow continuous rolling, in which a reserve is rolled more and assigned another trip after the last leg. First In First Out prevents the junior reserves from always rising to the top of the list for call out. As mentioned above, the TA also requires a greater minimum percentage of reserves than CAL has operated with under C'02.

The TA Work Rules are lengthy and extremely complex, because they are so critically important. Because the starting point for most of them was UAL book, many provisions are currently unfamiliar to CAL pilots. FAR 117 will also lead to many changes, especially in duty limits and augmentation. This brief synopsis in no way takes the place of the comprehensive educational materials and Town Hall briefings. As always, if you have questions, please ask.

Conclusion

The TA contains enhancements to provisions for the Flight Instructors, pilots in Training, Guam pilots, Moving, and other sections, in addition to those achieved for the four cornerstones.

Your MEC received many hours of Briefings by the JNC, Subject Matter Experts, and attorneys, and many questions were answered. We also spent many hours debating the pros and cons of the TA. A majority of Status Representatives believe that the TA and its overall value is worthy of your consideration. Given the size of the increase in value to our pilots, and the uncertainty associated with future negotiations, we believe that we had a responsibility to our pilots to allow you to decide whether or not the Tentative Agreement would meet your needs.

No one else can tell you how to vote. It is up to each individual Member In Good Standing to decide, after careful review and consideration of all available information, whether or not the Tentative Agreement is acceptable to you and your family.

Fraternally,

Capt. Jayson Baron
Council 170 Chairman

F/O Tara Cook
Council 170 Vice Chairman


F/O John Person
Council 172 Chairman

Capt. Scott Cornelison
Council 172 Vice Chairman


Capt. Bruce Bishop
Council 173 Chairman

F/O David Gourley
Council 173 Vice Chairman


Capt. Tom Howard
Council 178 Chairman





That is all for today. Thank you. We wish you and your families a Happy Thanksgiving holiday.

Fraternally,

Chairman Captain Jayson Baron


Vice Chairman First Officer Tara Cook


Secretary-Treasurer Captain Tim Boyens
 

100/hour/5y

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

nimtz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
1,442
Total Time
?
Jayson the number one reason this thing will pass is FEAR from the UAL guys. You helped perpetuate that with your BS nuclear threat during the pay banding spat. It is the same type of fear that your buddy TS employed in Contract '02. You'll deny it, but it will be the truth. Your rapid transition from 'hard core unionist' to JP's lapdog will forever weigh down my trust towards ALPA in the years ahead. Real integrity exists in the LEC's of IAH and LAX as shown above.
 

100/hour/5y

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

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
 

Continental

Farting on your Jumpseat
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Posts
180
Total Time
IRO
Simple fact Jayson. You did not bring our 4 cornerstones to industry leading as you promised. Instead you voted yes on a subpar contract. You are a failure in every aspect and always will be.
 
Last edited:

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Industry leading scope? Really? DL did get 70 more 76 seat RJs, but that was tied in with 88 717s(the mythical 100 seater with first class seats). Then throw out 200 plus 50 seaters, allow current 70 and 76 seaters to fill in for the mandatory outgoing 50 seaters, and then throw those 88 717s on the current 76 seater routes. That's called TAKING BACK regional flying, at $195 an hour in the left seat by 2015. Then throw in a ratio that protects the mainline flying, and gives more INTL and domestic (AK) protection. Your TA has nothing concrete about taking anything BACK, and I don't see any orders yet for E190s or anything in the 100 seat range to recapture anything. That doesn't appear to be industry leading.....


Bye Bye---General Lee
 

RSRVWINDSURFR

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Posts
173
Total Time
10k+
General,
Opening the floodgates on 76 seaters is hardly "taking back" anything. Face it, DALs scope sucks. Ours is about to suck even worse if enough LUAL guys buy into this garbage and vote this TA in.
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
General,
Opening the floodgates on 76 seaters is hardly "taking back" anything. Face it, DALs scope sucks. Ours is about to suck even worse if enough LUAL guys buy into this garbage and vote this TA in.

Sorry, but you already have "those type planes." Management got around the CAL scope by putting UA Express E170s into EWR. UAL has had "66 seaters" for a long time, and they are also the same size as DL E170s, but with fewer seats. CAL's scope had a huge gap in it called the Dash-8-400. That plane sent 737-500s in EWR packing towards Russian airlines looking to replace old Tupolev planes. It's just true. You've had these planes for awhile, you just had different configurations. DL scope did allow more 76 seaters, but at the same time put a cap on 50 seaters (to 125 from over 300), capped 70 and large props, and capped 76 seaters WHILE securing 88 717s to push 76 seaters down to current 50 seat markets. You can't say the same, and have no current plans to recapture any regional flying. Good luck.



Bye Bye---General Lee
 

RSRVWINDSURFR

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Posts
173
Total Time
10k+
Sorry, but you already have "those type planes." Management got around the CAL scope by putting UA Express E170s into EWR. UAL has had "66 seaters" for a long time, and they are also the same size as DL E170s, but with fewer seats. CAL's scope had a huge gap in it called the Dash-8-400. That plane sent 737-500s in EWR packing towards Russian airlines looking to replace old Tupolev planes. It's just true. You've had these planes for awhile, you just had different configurations. DL scope did allow more 76 seaters, but at the same time put a cap on 50 seaters (to 125 from over 300), capped 70 and large props, and capped 76 seaters WHILE securing 88 717s to push 76 seaters down to current 50 seat markets. You can't say the same, and have no current plans to recapture any regional flying. Good luck.



Bye Bye---General Lee

All of what you said above is true. Not disputing any of it. BUT, you guys didn't take anything back. You were handed a raise 7 months before amendable date in exchange for selling out on scope. The 50 seaters would have taken care of themselves. You guys sold out, and now the NMB is telling us DAL scope is industry standard. I wish DAL pilots could've held the line. But hey, if the LUAL pilots vote this in out of fear, we will not have even achieved the low bar the DAL pilots set. That will be truly pathetic.
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
All of what you said above is true. Not disputing any of it. BUT, you guys didn't take anything back. You were handed a raise 7 months before amendable date in exchange for selling out on scope. The 50 seaters would have taken care of themselves. You guys sold out, and now the NMB is telling us DAL scope is industry standard. I wish DAL pilots could've held the line. But hey, if the LUAL pilots vote this in out of fear, we will not have even achieved the low bar the DAL pilots set. That will be truly pathetic.

Again, some of what you say is true, but at least 300 of the 50 seaters had leases extending through 2016, and that means they most likely would have gotten their expensive mx checks done, and could have been extended had oil prices dropped between now and then. This way, over 200 were going to be dumped, and then the larger RJs would have to cover for those 50 seaters on their routes, allowing mainline 717s to come in and recapture current 76 seat routes. So, we DID take something back---regional routes, something UAL is NOT doing. It's a gap in your "industry leading scope."

As far as holding the line, there was an opportunity to lower the total number of RJs, add a ratio to keep mainline flying larger in number compared to DCI, add tougher INTL and AK scope, and ADD 88 717s to take back regional routes. There aren't any other opportunities out there left to pick up 88 "100" seaters in 3 years, and those planes pay well too ($195 an hour left seat in 2015---by then they will all be on property). Let's hope you can figure out a creative way to better your overall scope too.



Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Last edited:

RSRVWINDSURFR

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Posts
173
Total Time
10k+
Our NC apparently thinks if they call it "industry leading" enough times people might be dumb enough to believe it. Our pay on 100 seaters is also WAY below DAL's. VOTE NO.
 

Lear70

JAFFO
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Posts
7,487
Total Time
4abeer
I'm still trying to figure out how the total compensation is "industry leading".

You can go to a 5 hour min day and have other Trip and Duty rig protections that all kick in about the same amount, but the average Delta day is around 5.5 hours of credit last time we checked (right towards the end of their negotiations). Not their contract min protections, but what the Delta guys are ACTUALLY CREDITING.

So lower pay rates than Delta plus better rigs BUT rigs that are LOWER than Delta's average day STILL don't yield a "total compensation package" that's "industry leading".

Not to mention, when you restrict a company with rigs, they tend to build right AT or just slightly MORE credit than the rigs to make sure they don't trigger them. If that makes your fleet more efficient, then you won't see more hiring until attrition takes into account that increased efficiency (which is why Delta isn't hiring in 2013 even though they are retiring several hundred people - they're going to use the attrition to bring staffing where they need it then start interviewing towards the end of the year for 2014 hiring - last unofficial info we heard).

Scope is better, won't argue that, although not fantastic, but neither is Delta's. Further, tying Scope to SNB (Small Narrow Body single-aisle) block hour restrictions isn't a new idea - AirTran has had that in their CBA since contract 2000. Your restrictions are SLIGHTLY tighter than ours, but not enough to boast about it as a new idea.

In short, it's not a TERRIBLE CBA, and isn't a bad place to start and hope the industry and country overall are in a better position economically when you re-open Sec 6 next time, but I wouldn't tout it as "industry leading". The MEC would probably get much more traction calling it what it is - the best they can do right now and look forward to a better bite at the apple after a few more years of profitability when the economic outlook is better overall.

Just a thought from the cheap seats (outside looking in previous NC experience). Best of luck to you guys!
 
Last edited:

Yuppyguppy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
934
Total Time
8000+
For those of you that don't know Garth he is a well respected DEN pilot that has been doing ALPA work non-stop for his entire career! He is also not one to put things out frequently so please take that into consideration when you read his well though out letter.


I’ve been reluctant to join the fray, as my time is consumed by caring for a terminally ill family member. However, I’ve read and heard opinions that bother me to the point of speaking out.

This pilot group has fought long and hard through many difficult years and circumstances. Millions have been spent on picketing events, newspaper ads, lawyers, advisors, lobbyists, and flight pay loss. We have battled intransigent managements, prodded a reluctant NMB, and have worked through differences with some CAL pilot representatives seeking to advantage CAL pilots to our (and the eventual combined group’s) detriment. Finally, we find ourselves in possession of a TA and face an important decision.

I have worked through the TA, have read others’ pros and cons and reasons for voting, and plan to attend a road show and watch a the TA videos. There are many things I like and at least a handful of items disappoint me. Most importantly, I am left with the conclusion that our MEC and its agents have obtained the best agreement possible, given the opportunities and challenges presented.

Having served on the Merger Committee, RCRC (predecessor to Domestic Code Share Committee) and SPSC, related issues have drawn my attention. I suffer no delusion that I’m some prominent expert on any subject. But like most pilots, I have opinions…

In February of 2008, the UAL and CAL merger committees met in Manhattan (the negotiating committees met as well) to discuss strategies to best navigate the pilots through contract negotiations and seniority integration. The result was a protocol intended to place the JCBA before and apart from seniority integration considerations and activities. The fallout at US Airways created by the arbitration award commanded our attention, and our goal was to prevent SLI considerations from denying the pilots a JCBA. The protocol was slightly amended and implemented when the two airlines finally announced their intent to merge in 2010.

However as we’ve seen, SLI-related considerations inevitably poisoned the well and served to delay the creation of negotiating proposals. Pay banding was embraced by certain CAL MEC members as some clever method to cloud the issue of widebody jobs. Foot-dragging persisted while equipment bids were published, new bases were announced, and CAL pilots were trained to fly new aircraft. Even the just cause of obtaining furloughee longevity credit for pay, vacation, etc., was resisted for SLI “gain”. Sadly, the JCBA TA is impacted by this foolishness and the byproduct is lost money, benefits, and seat movements, NOT A DIFFERENT SLI OUTCOME. In my opinion (an opinion consistent with past seniority awards), arbitrators will focus on pre-merger equities when fashioning a list. They will give little, if any, consideration to the contents of the JCBA. So to me, the pay bands and partial longevity restoration issues are disappointing but not a basis for TA rejection, given present reality.

As an MEC member I was heavily involved in the debate surrounding “regional” jets in 1996 and 1997. My outspokenness led to my appointment as “token radical” to the newly created Regional Carrier Review Committee (RCRC). I’ll skip the history, but I can safely say that I have always held very aggressive views regarding scope and outsourcing, and I lament the inept handing of these issues by major airline pilot groups over the last 16+ years. While I am disappointed that 76 seat Express aircraft are permitted in the TA, I am confident that Section 1 restrictions, along with regulatory and economic influences, will result in a smaller regional airline role. As an aside, I expected a huge battle with management over international scope. But apparently the protections on the upper end were easier to secure. Section 1 was to be (and is) my primary vote consideration and I have sufficient comfort with its contents.

Finally, and I’m sorry for the length, I want to chime in on our present situation. Ramifications of rejecting the TA are a real and relevant factor to consider. Considering and discussing them does not constitute fear mongering or lacking certain anatomy. We are accustomed to gathering facts and recommendations when faced with a decision, and deciding how to vote should be no different.

There is much debate centered on the likely outcome should the TA be rejected. Given where we’ve been, and the recent behavior exhibited by management, the NMB, and CAL MEC leadership, I can only conclude that little good will come out of a rejection. In my opinion, a lengthy delay will occur before we see TA2, and any new TA will not contain significant improvements. In the mean time United Pilots, furloughed and active, will lose money and face more stagnation and inequity. Keep in mind we would have to reach consensus with a CAL MEC that may be content with status quo (and expiring TPA provisions), before engaging with a likely “patient” NMB and a management team that understands the situation.

There are real and significant gains for the combined pilots in the JCBA TA. After weighing these gains against the disappointments, and after considering vote ramifications, I intend to vote for the TA.

Garth Thompson
 

Continental

Farting on your Jumpseat
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Posts
180
Total Time
IRO
Quit posting your "fear papers". Anyone with half a brain can smell it a mile away
 

Dan Roman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Posts
2,815
Total Time
19000
Right wrong or indifferent, whenever issues like this arise, the abrasive angry name callers always turn out to be wrong and the pragmatic reasonable faction (like Garth) always turn out to be the one's who were right.
 

list2002

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Posts
323
Total Time
***
What a level headed letter, dividing the future pilot group, it's union and justifying a yes vote as everyone else's fault but the voter's.
 

calfo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Posts
204
Total Time
13.5K
UAL voted in the large RJ's already... Delta said "Me too!" and got theirs. Now, it's being forced down CAL's throat.

No F-ing way, as far as I'm concerned.

It's amazing how delusional and self-serving the UAL side is... How it's everybody else's fault why they're going to vote yes on this TA. "It's the CAL pilot's fault... they want our flying." "It's CAL management's fault... they want to give us the crappy CAL pilot work rules."

UAL voted in large RJ's - you parked your guppies and furloughed 1400 pilots because of them - and, of course - blamed us for the nonsense of being "right-sized" for the merger.

I would love to see SOMEBODY put forward a TPA extension! Maybe that would get the UAL people to take off their blinders and look at this TA for the substandard crap that it is!

Funny how the UAL MEC is doing nothing to extend the TPA... all they seem to like doing is promoting the fear on the UAL side for a yes vote.
 
Top