Cal mec jcba ta pro statement

[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.

 

[ChrisJT6]

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.

What did the CAL MEC do to stop the merger with a company/pilots that allowed 70ers? Nothing. So, when you see all the EMB175s/CRJ900s at your CAL hubs, remind yourself that you you lost your 50 seat scope a long time ago.

 

[Flopgut]

What did the CAL MEC do to stop the merger with a company/pilots that allowed 70ers? Nothing. So, when you see all the EMB175s/CRJ900s at your CAL hubs, remind yourself that you you lost your 50 seat scope a long time ago.

Not quite right. The arbitrator spoke to this and indicated the current situation is not in line with what he intended in his award that supported CAL scope. It has only been allowed up to this point because we are in negotiations. We vote this down? We can make the case that CAL scope is being violated right now. Additionally, sUAL scope is close to being violated. So if the sUAL pilots could manage to grow a pair and vote this down? jeff has instant scope problems.

 

[eaglesview]

Our "scope" problems with the RJ's will be nothing compared to our "scope" issues with CO.

 

[Flopgut]

You have officially gone off the reservation

 

[100/hour/5y]

LEC 153 Update for Monday, November 26th - We Get it

Monday, November 26, 2012

I. WE GET IT
We have thought long and hard, and we have realized something—we get it. For those of you who support this TA, it is not about the slap in the face of having pay rates that lag behind Delta’s by exactly a year. It is not about capitulating to 76-seat RJs and the trend of allowing larger RJs each time we negotiate a contract. It is not about the lack of retroactive pay that allows the Company to drag their feet at the expense of every one of us. No—it is not about any of those things.

What is driving you to support this TA is that you are afraid of what the future may bring. We get it—we are afraid of the future too!

We are afraid that we will be stuck with a contract that doesn’t compensate us appropriately for our level of professionalism. We are afraid that hindsight will reveal that we didn’t achieve as much in this TA as we could have. We are afraid that we will further erode our profession by establishing a precedent of never exceeding industry standard. We are afraid that ALPA’s strategy to success of pattern bargaining will become impotent. And lastly (and our biggest fear of all), we are afraid that this TA will drive such a giant wedge between the two pilot groups that the SLI process will seem pleasant by comparison.

The problem we see is that the rationale many are using to support this TA is that they “just want to get it over with.” While we understand and share everyone’s frustration and feel equally fatigued by the process, we aren’t quite sure why you would want to minimize and rush through such a huge undertaking. This is not a contract for the next few years—this is the contract that will define this new United pilot group forever. If it takes a few more months, then so be it. The short-term losses will be more than made up for by the long-term gains.

And by the way—for our L-UAL brothers and sisters who might stumble upon this update, please allow us to clarify one significant point: We have no secret agenda, no strategy to delay all of us getting a new contract, and absolutely no goal of perpetuating a whip saw! Our sole agenda is to secure a contract that will treat all of us as the safe and professional pilots we are. Period. End of story.

Those of us on the L-CAL side do have the advantage of knowing how this management team operates. Trust us when we are skeptical or think that something doesn’t seem right. We’ve seen it too many times, and we are trying to protect all of us.

Furthermore, this isn’t a race to the integrated seniority list either. We hear a lot of concerns about being the next America West/US Air. They are mired in SLI issues which prevent them from working on a JCBA. We have the benefit of learning from their mistakes and are working on the JCBA before we tread down that dark path of SLI. Quite honestly, if all of us were working under a contract that we truly felt was adequate and rewarding, who would really care if we didn’t have an integrated seniority list? We’d be too busy enjoying that warm feeling of confidence and respect to care about the Company’s ability to mix us together.

Lastly (and this is along the lines of a post script), you do realize that there is absolutely nothing you—or anyone else—can do to affect the outcome of the SLI, right? It will be decided by an arbitrator, and we would bet that just about everyone will wish they could vote “no” on the combined seniority list. That’s just the reality of it, so why fight with your professional brothers and sisters? How about we focus our frustration, anger, and fear towards management and make sure we are confident that the Company has reached as deep into their pockets as they can so that all of us can proudly put the United Airlines name on the cover of our new contract.

II. HITTING THE ROAD
As a reminder, in addition to the MEC/JNC road shows that are making their rounds starting this week, we are hosting our own special LEC meetings. Here are the schedules for both. All LEC 153 town hall meetings run from 1130–1400, and everyone is welcome.

November 28 and December 3
Gulliver’s
18482 MacArthur Boulevard
Irvine, CA 92612-1074
949-833-8411
Get directions
November 29 and December 5
Proud Bird Restaurant
11022 Aviation Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-670-3093
(The airport bus to Employee lot “E,” which is adjacent to the restaurant can be used.)
Get directions
December 7
Residence Inn San Diego Oceanside
3603 Ocean Ranch Boulevard
Oceanside, CA 92056
760-722-9600
Get directions

MEC/JNC Roadshows

LAX
December 12
Proud Bird Restaurant
0900–1300 and 1400–1800

SFO
December 13
SFO Airport DoubleTree
0900–1300

III. A WORD FROM YOUR SECRETARY-TREASURER
The upcoming TA vote provides a unique opportunity to explicitly direct your reps, committee members, and ALPA in general. You, as an individual ALPA member, will make a choice on whether this TA lives up to your expectations. As an ALPA rep, I cannot make this decision for you. It is my duty to provide you with clear and honest information about the choice you have. Clearly, a yes or no vote should not be based on fear. It should be based solely on your personal expectations using the best information you have available.

I am positive everyone will find flaws in this agreement, but I am also sure that everyone will find something they like. I have heard great arguments for both the yes and no votes. I will not advocate a yes or a no vote, but will do my best to provide clear information about the TA, so that each pilot can make his or her own decision.

Rob, Mike, and Josh​

 

[ACWild]

LEC 153 seems to be in touch with the majority of pilots that I've spoken to. At CAL, we have a history of taking the first offer that's presented to us. For once I'd like to see our group have some self-esteem and save the "yes" vote for a more appropriate TA.

 

[list2002]

NOW THIS is level headed: From UAL Chairman C27

November 26, 2012

VOTE YES OR NO; BUT DON’T VOTE OUT OF FEAR

By now you have had the opportunity to begin reviewing the proposed TA the MECs sent to you by a 12-3 vote at United, and a 7-4 vote at Continental. The ratification window opens November 30, 2012 (this is a change) and closes December 15, 2012…

While other venues exist to explain each section of the TA, this “Chairman’s View” does not. One issue that pervades much of the discussion that I’ve heard recently is the question “What happens if the TA is voted down?”

If the TA is not ratified by the UAL & CAL pilots in a combined vote there are a couple of possible scenarios that I think you should consider:

First, the world will come to an end and everything bad that could happen to UAL pilots will.

Second, if the TA is turned down, and I believe this is a far more realistic scenario, the NMB will immediately come to ALPA to begin a focused effort to determine what modification (s) would increase the likelihood of a TA that could be ratified. Early in that process, the NMB, UAL & ALPA will meet to determine a reasonable schedule for resumptions of negotiations as all of the Parties have already agreed to in the Transition and Process Agreement and the 2012 extension of same name:

TPA.2-K. Mediation for a JCBA. If the JNCs do not reach a tentative JCBA by
October 12, 2010, the Parties (unless they otherwise agree) will apply to the NMB no later than October 14, 2010 under Sections 5 and 6 of the RLA, for mediation
of the JCBA. If at any time the JNCs reach a tentative JCBA but it fails to be approved, ratified or executed under ALPA procedures, the Parties will apply for or resume the NMB’s mediatory services, unless they agree not to do so.

Our job now is to evaluate and assess the TA before us. Did reading it make you happy? Is this what you expected? Does this TA reflect improved career security? Is our profession advanced with this agreement? Does this TA adequately reflect the value that pilots bring to this airline? Are you content living with this TA for the next 4-+ years?

Don’t be afraid to vote no if the TA does not sway you on its merits. There is no set timeline; but there is a process to follow. The two NMB officials that I have talked with said that the dynamics are different in each case. Remember, the NMB’s mandate is to get two parties to an AGREEMENT, not a holding pattern. Every presentation that I personally heard from NMB members was about guiding the negotiations toward an agreement. If this TA is voted down by the membership, the NMB will accept their Congressional mandate and bring the parties back to the table for further discussions. They will pressure ALPA as well as UAL to get to a deal that will be ratified. The NMB recognizes that TAs are on occasion voted down. It is part of the negotiation process. When was the last time the NMB parked negotiations after a NO vote if neither party requested a period of no negotiations? The answer is never. If someone says the company will walk away from negotiations, have them read the TPA. No party wants to walk away from their duties related to this merger, least of all the NMB.

The plan to create the world’s largest airline must have a combined pilot group to become a reality. Management knows our ratification timetable, and they know the negotiation/arbitration timeline for securing a single Integrated Seniority List. Smisek has always had his own timetable for signing a JCBA, completing the ISL process, and reaping the full rewards of this merger. He has stalled at every opportunity for 2.5 years. His purpose was to fatigue and frustrate; to divide and whipsaw; in short, to make us feel vulnerable and act out of desperation. Is this TA the deal you want? If so, then vote yes. If it is not, then consider your perspective when answering the question on the picket sign.

It is doubtful that there is a lot of sand left in Jeffery’s hourglass. If there was, why would he have attempted to negotiate shortening the SLI process last January? Why did he refuse to permanently bridge the terminable clauses in the original TPA and instead insist that there was a TA in place prior to a March 31, 2013 deadline in TPAx? Why do we continue to slog through all the assimilation phases of what laughingly is called training these days? Why did Fred’s friends freak out, insisting that every pilot order midnight blues from M&H by December 1?

A NO vote on the TA will not transform Smisek. He is who he is…and by every measure, so far, he is a failure as a Legacy CEO. He has painted the planes faster than anyone I‘ve ever seen, but everyone knows that paint is only skin deep. I know he believes his own PR…but does anyone else, anymore? Every previous merger related initiative by Smisek can accurately be described as Not Ready for Prime Time. From the rush to get SOC to the pax reservation system; from pass policy to IPAD deployment; from the industry denounced scheme to train in fixed based simulators to the massive shift of control over pilots’ lives in this TA…NRFPT!

His mentors were the historical villains of our industry and Jeffery, unlike his peer at DAL, is stride for stride burning all the bridges to a successful merger. Richard Anderson, DAL CEO, made a business decision to pay a premium to his pilots in order to get everyone pulling on the same end of the rope…it worked just like in the story books. Wall Street knows it, the customers know it, and we all know it. Smisek must succeed in completing this merger or his only fan will be his mother. He cannot take UAL to the promised land of this merger except through the JCBA; so, what is that key to “his” success worth to you? How much sand is left in the hourglass?

Another doomsday “scary” argument that some are making is really, in my opinion, just an attempt to further intimidate you and question your realistic and reasonable direction to the MEC. Management will pull all the “good stuff” out of the deal if we attempt to renegotiate. Really? How much “good stuff” is to be found? Does this make sense? How could they ever expect any deal if there was no “good stuff”? If there are enough pilots between the combined United/Continental group that vote NO, management will be compelled to find out what needs to be fixed. Remember, despite a strategy to make you think otherwise, Smisek wants and needs an agreement so he can get the integrated pilot group and begin to fly as one airline. Management gains no economic or negotiating advantage by trashing the deal out of spite or perceived buyer’s remorse. This is a deal they have crafted; let’s not kid ourselves! They WANT this thing done. They’ll posture and intimate that the deal will be different, but in the end they will have to work with us for a re-negotiated deal.

In June, Doug Parker at USAIR said, "We are obviously disappointed that our flight attendants chose to vote against ratification of a new contract," Doug Parker, US Airways' Chairman and CEO, said in a news release. "This tentative agreement was the result of years of deliberate negotiations and was achieved with the instrumental assistance and hard work of the National Mediation Board (NMB). It was also unanimously approved by the AFA negotiating committee. We will now consult with the NMB and AFA leadership to determine the best steps going forward to one day reach a ratified agreement.” This is boiler-plate language and you can expect to hear something very similar if this TA is rejected.

Whether you vote to ratify or not is completely your choice and your responsibility. As unionists, I know the members of C27 are not reluctant to stand up on their hind legs and live their principles. Remember, parroting fear based arguments is just another way to sell something. The “Key Men” who founded our union analyzed the risks and decided to engage the enemy in a business-like manner that would define a profession. Today, the decision is yours.

Your vote should be on the merits of the TA –
don’t vote out of fear.

Jeffrey Berg
Chairman, Council 27 / UALMEC