Cal mec jcba ta pro statement

[General Lee]

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]

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]

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

 

[RSRVWINDSURFR]

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]

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!

 

[Yuppyguppy]

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]

Quit posting your "fear papers". Anyone with half a brain can smell it a mile away

 

[Dan Roman]

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]

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]

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.