Cal mec response to ual mec

[rtmcfi]

While UAL/CAL ALPA measure their respective little weiners, Republic and SkyWest move into the former CAL bases with 70 seaters. You guys are hopeless....

 

[Chairman]

The 737 pays more than the A320 at Delta I believe. And, you just won't lump the 777 with the 75/76. It should be lumped with the 744, that way more pilots are paid at the top scale. You United pilots are blinded by ego, and your airline is the weaker of the two together. You guys may be the next USAir East pilots(idiots).

Lets go to a UPS pay scale ever plane pays on longevity and longevity alone! Problem solved right!

 

[waveflyer]

Lets go to a UPS pay scale ever plane pays on longevity and longevity alone! Problem solved right!

This^^^^


Maybe this bit of infighting is just what you need to get it done

 

[jetflier]

There has been a lot of discussion on the line at the big D about the 747 pay rate. Many feel that the if the pay rate should have been higher. I agree with the higher pay rate simply due to the larger size in pax and freight.

The 737 pays more than the 320 and the MD88/90 is paid less although the 88 seats 149 and the 90 159. Their is talk about correcting the narrow body pay rates during contract 2012 negot.

To get the pay rates at D corrected will cost negot. capital during contract 2012. If during the merger when the airline management wanted the JCBA ASAP in order to close the merger, both pilot groups could have achieved the higher pay scale with less negot. capital.

Management will always press time as a factor to close the deal ASAP, their bonuses depend on it. Take as long as needed to hash it out while in the drivers seat. It will be worth it in the long run.

 

[SlipItIn]

The issue here is not that the 747-400 get its own top category... The ISSUE is that the UAL MEC is trying to do an end around and get the top slots in the SLI by claiming the 747 as the top category.

United's pay sucks, their product sucks, their management sucks, their planes are garbage, their scope sucks and the majority of passengers hate to fly them. Go ahead and make the 747 the highest pay category in the "new Joint Contract". But as far as the SLI goes, treat it like a CAL 757... because that is all it currently pays and that is all it brings to the SLI table....

As far as the SLI goes your career expectations (i.e. CURRENT pay) and the relative seniority you bring to the table will rule the day. Thankfully all the UAL MEC has done is demonstrate how little you can trust them to do the right thing even this early in the game.

 

[whymeworry?]

If rogue elements of the UAL MEC (read the letter, they already agreed not to unband) want to play this tactic then they are going to royally screw their laid off pilots, not to mention their active pilots as well. We will have no choice but to scrap the TPA and start over if they chose to ignore the signed and agreed-upon terms This would mean we no longer hire their furloughed pilots... at earned longevity pay rates, I might add (something mgmt would be all too happy to oblige since they could bring in New FOs at yr 1 pay instead). Furthermore, if the TPA is scrapped, the CAL group will have the upper hand in an SLI arbitration due to stronger merger and fragmentation language in our contract vs theirs. Not our fault, that, like their tragic scope language they allowed into their contract, is a path UAL pilots set themselves on long ago.

I for one plan to contact my reps and ask that we offer to scrap the TPA if this is how UAL pilots want to play ball. We gave them loads in the TPA and we got diddly. Now they think they can try to railroad us? The UAL MEC has seriously miscalculated here. We can and will tie this up for years if necessary. I think

most CAL pilots agree we have the staying power to do so.

I fully expect mgmt to play this one to the hilt. Expect whipsawing to occur in backroom negotiations almost immediately.

Career expectations, Wendy? Seriously? Are you that disconnected from reality? Let's see, CAL is growing, recalling all furloughs, hiring, accepting new aircraft deliveries every month, has 25 WBs coming next year, (plus 35 firm options), has twice as many retirements as UAL, and has something you guys could only dream of, a real scope clause. Your 70 seat debacle far outweighs any benefits of a few more WBs (few more for now, that playing field is about to get leveled). In fact it directly led to the firing of 1437 of your own brothers and sisters in '08-'09 as the 70 seaters took over 737 routes. And it is undermining our own contract efforts as the new mgmt team seeks to spool up 70 seat flying (read all the recent route announcements). Now tell me again what does UAL bring to the table? Old 757s which are surely to get parked and a dinosaur (as beautiful and aircraft as it may be) called the 747? Anybody who doesn't think those aircraft will get permanently parked in the next 2-5 yrs is an Ostrich (read: head buried deep in the sand). There is a reason nobody is ordering the 748.

Nice job, Wendy Morse. What a leader you are proving to be.

 

[flyguppy]

The issue here is not that the 747-400 get its own top category... The ISSUE is that the UAL MEC is trying to do an end around and get the top slots in the SLI by claiming the 747 as the top category.

United's pay sucks, their product sucks, their management sucks, their planes are garbage, their scope sucks and the majority of passengers hate to fly them. Go ahead and make the 747 the highest pay category in the "new Joint Contract". But as far as the SLI goes, treat it like a CAL 757... because that is all it currently pays and that is all it brings to the SLI table....

As far as the SLI goes your career expectations (i.e. CURRENT pay) and the relative seniority you bring to the table will rule the day. Thankfully all the UAL MEC has done is demonstrate how little you can trust them to do the right thing even this early in the game.

1. Please tell me, IF the SLI argument DOES NOT USE the JCBA details, how can your first paragraph be true?

2. In your last paragraph, if the JCBA details ARE NOT used, would that not be the case?

3. Now, who wants to use the JCBA to influence the SLI arguments?

 

[whymeworry?]

1. Please tell me, IF the SLI argument DOES NOT USE the JCBA details, how can your first paragraph be true?

2. In your last paragraph, if the JCBA details ARE NOT used, would that not be the case?

3. Now, who wants to use the JCBA to influence the SLI arguments?

My understanding is that we were advised by leading merger experts and teams of lawyers that an arbitrator would not be able to ignore it even if language were drawn up otherwise.

Sort of like a judge asking a jury to ignore glaring evidence on a technicality. Once the cat is out of the bag, perception is influenced by EVERY detail, whether allowed in to the argument or not.

 

[whymeworry?]

While UAL/CAL ALPA measure their respective little weiners, Republic and SkyWest move into the former CAL bases with 70 seaters. You guys are hopeless....

Yep, UAL and their pathetic scope language muddied the waters on that issue. But we still have a contract. Mgmt will not be able to fly 70 seaters in without a protracted and ugly legal fight. Not to mention most feel we would be within our rights to shut the airline down if that were to occur.

I expect mgmt to capitulate in the end here. The meager cost savings, and I use the term "savings" loosely, simply isn't worth the fight to them. They are testing us, that's all. Expect more of it. If we were to give in on 70 seater flying in our hubs, they will test in other areas as well. But they will lose this fight nonetheless.

What could, happen, however, is they further expand 70 seat ops on the UAL side of the fence. What will that do for their "career expectation" Wendy loves to trump so much?

 

[flyguppy]

My understanding is that we were advised by leading merger experts and teams of lawyers that an arbitrator would not be able to ignore it even if language were drawn up otherwise.

Sort of like a judge asking a jury to ignore glaring evidence on a technicality. Once the cat is out of the bag, perception is influenced by EVERY detail, whether allowed in to the argument or not.

So, you basically are saying that the CAL MEC does feel it will influence the SLI, so they want to make sure the JCBA favors them.

Which make Pierce a liar when he says that (to paraphrase), 'The CAL MEC is doing what they agreed to do, leaving the JCBA and SLI as separate items.'

The whole point of the transition agreement separating the two was to avoid a USAir debacle. To keep them separate, get as much as possible in the JCBA, then move on to the SLI, which SHOULD NOT BE influenced by the JCBA.

Yet, the CAL MEC wants to limit gains, or make sure that gains are tied to their pre-merger equipment, instead of trying to get the best contract possible. All because they feel the JCBA is going to influence the SLI.

USAir II, here we come.

And please save me the argument of higher pay for the largest aircraft is "taking that money away from somewhere else". That's fine. Pay your numerous large 737s the same as the small ones, and we can redistribute that money so we can all get paid more too.

 

[SlipItIn]

1. Please tell me, IF the SLI argument DOES NOT USE the JCBA details, how can your first paragraph be true?

2. In your last paragraph, if the JCBA details ARE NOT used, would that not be the case?

3. Now, who wants to use the JCBA to influence the SLI arguments?

WADR:

1) SLI is based on final pre-merger snapshot.

2) SLI is based on final pre-merger snapshot.

3) Not me. The only reason the JCBA has any hope is because of the expectations CAL brings to the table--not the hopeless band of female-led surrender monkey's at the UAL MEC who laid off 1500 of their own with relaxed scope. Now they want to sell them out even further with the bogus 747 argument. What a bunch of scumbags.

 

[flyguppy]

WADR:

1) SLI is based on final pre-merger snapshot.

2) SLI is based on final pre-merger snapshot.

3) Not me. The only reason the JCBA has any hope is because of the expectations CAL brings to the table--not the hopeless band of female-led surrender monkey's at the UAL MEC who laid off 1500 of their own with relaxed scope. Now they want to sell them out even further with the bogus 747 argument. What a bunch of scumbags.

#1 and #2 - When are you being told that will happen?

#3 - CAL "The Savior" - "the UAL MEC who laid off 1500"? GMAFB already. Wait until you see your SLI position. That and your attitude will lead to a stroke for sure.

 

[mishap]

Wow, everyone needs to get a grip. This will all be worked out, and not by anyone on this board.

 

[SlipItIn]

#1 and #2 - When are you being told that will happen?

#3 - CAL "The Savior" - "the UAL MEC who laid off 1500"? GMAFB already. Wait until you see your SLI position. That and your attitude will lead to a stroke for sure.

1) Before the JC is signed and effective. So career expectations will be based off the current situation not the "new" post-JC situation.

2) You are probably right. But at least all I am asking for in the SLI is the same lifestyle and seniority percentage I currently enjoy with CAL and had the reasonable expectation of continuing. If the UAL guys felt the same this would be easy. But IMHO it seems most of the UAL pilots are treating this like some big windfall seniority-grab. UAL has been a basket-case for so long to think otherwise is kidding oneself--one or two "dress up the pig" profitable quarters does not change that... prior to the merger no one in their right mind would want to work there if you had any other options whatsoever. My take is the pre-merger UAL careers will come out of this better than they came into it... it gets harder to make that same argument for CAL pilots (IMO).

WADR flyguppy--you are not my enemy--good luck in all this--what is good for you hopefully is also good for me... :beer:

This is my last post on this... I respect and understand everyone's viewpoint (mine included) is swayed by what will most benefit them. It is just that my opinion is the correct one...

 

[UALRATT]

If it's "lunacy" to not allow the rules to be changed retroactively, so be it. Not sure what "TA" you are talking about. If you're talking about the protocol agreement, the merger closing has already taken place so that section is moot.

Section 3
Suspension and Resumption of Separate Negotiations and Mediation
3-A. Suspension of separate negotiations and mediation.​

Subject to Sections 2-K and 3-B, the Parties will suspend their present negotiations under the RLA for new separate collective bargaining agreements, and United and ALPA will jointly request the NMB to administratively close the current mediation between them.​

3-B. Resumption of separate negotiations and mediation.​

Continental and ALPA will resume their negotiations for a separate agreement under Section 6 of the RLA, and United and ALPA will jointly request the NMB to reopen their mediation for a separate agreement under Sections 5 and 6 of the RLA, (i) within thirty (30) days after termination of this Transition and Process Agreement, or (ii) at the option of any Party on fifteen (15) days notice to the other Parties, if by May 1, 2011 the Merger Closing has not taken place, or (iii) at any time by agreement.​

3-C. RLA.​

Except as specified by this Transition and Process Agreement, each Party retains its rights under the RLA.​

Section 4
Separation of Operations​

Continental and United will keep their flight operations separate until the
Operational Merger Date, or except as the Parties otherwise agree, specifically as follows:​

4-A. Collective bargaining agreements.​

The Continental CBA and United CBA will remain in effect for the respective Airlines and Pilot groups in accordance with the RLA except as modified by this Transition and Process Agreement or by the JCBA, or except as an Airline Party or Airline Parties and ALPA otherwise agree with respect to their particular CBA. Until the effective date of the JCBA, each of Continental and United will continue to operate under their respective Pilot CBAs as modified by this Transition and Process Agreement and by other agreements that may be entered into by ALPA and one or more Airline Parties with respect to their particular CBA.​

Lunacy is hijacking your own troops and holding them hostage under what they all will agree with is a substandard contract that must go. You've been haggling with the company since 2008 to do just that, and now you intend to prolong the process albeit unnecessarily.

The only person changing the rules on the fly is you. Even worse you are surprisingly confused or ill-informed of a document which you help crafted. According the SECTION 3 (thanks for posting it) resumption of separate negotiations may commence under any one of the following of which only # 2 is no longer applicable.

Transition and Process Agreement Duration: ~7/19/10 - Effective date of JCBA or Sec 13 or Otherwise agree. NOT THE MERGER CLOSING DATE (MCD)

The 3 conditions for Resumption of Separate Negotiations. (Section 3)

1. Within 30 day After the termination of the TPA.
Conditions for termination of TPA:
- Partial termination - No JCBA On or after 12/31/11 specific sections Sec 13A
- Complete termination - Whenever they shall agree to do so. Sec 13B
- Termination of Merger Agreement 15 day notice required Sec 13C

2. At the option of any party 15 day notice required, if by may 1, 2011 the Merger Closing has not taken place. (No longer applicable)

3. At any time by agreement.

Note Section 3C. RLA Except as specified by this Transition and Process Agreement, each Party retains its rights under the RLA.

Further more Section 10 requires "both parties to maintain a professional tone in all negotiations and communications concerning such subjects, and the senior officers of the Parties, will each be available to hear and discuss concerns of other Parties as to conformance with this provision." You public outburst demonstrates quite the opposite and leaves you in the undesirable position of being relegated to nothing more than an obstructionist.

As it is obvious with CALMEC goals in their next CBA, UAL pilots are about recovering the concessions including unbanding, made under the cold nozzle of the 1113 process. Not to conceding any more to anyone. Neither to management, CAL MEC or to you. Let me help you get back on the right radial. 360 is the heading to intercept and it's a course away from a VOR call Concession (CCN).

You might have no issue living under the current terms of your existing draconian CBA. I think those you represent will differ from that sentiment?

 

[Ex737Driver]

What if we give the 747 the highest pay rate but limit the number of UAL pilots currently on it to half? So take the top, what 200 UAL guys, and then mix in the 200 top CAL pilots. 1/2 of the top UAL pilots get the shaft and the other 1/2 gets ahead, 1/2 of the top CAL pilots get the shaft and the other gets ahead as well. The 747 pays the most of any other aircraft, the 400 or so positions are not exclusively UAL and we can all move along here.

 

[whymeworry?]

So, you basically are saying that the CAL MEC does feel it will influence the SLI, so they want to make sure the JCBA favors them.

Which make Pierce a liar when he says that (to paraphrase), 'The CAL MEC is doing what they agreed to do, leaving the JCBA and SLI as separate items.'

The whole point of the transition agreement separating the two was to avoid a USAir debacle. To keep them separate, get as much as possible in the JCBA, then move on to the SLI, which SHOULD NOT BE influenced by the JCBA.

Yet, the CAL MEC wants to limit gains, or make sure that gains are tied to their pre-merger equipment, instead of trying to get the best contract possible. All because they feel the JCBA is going to influence the SLI.

USAir II, here we come.

And please save me the argument of higher pay for the largest aircraft is "taking that money away from somewhere else". That's fine. Pay your numerous large 737s the same as the small ones, and we can redistribute that money so we can all get paid more too.

No, I'm not saying that. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just giving you a line pilot perspective from someone who has perhaps more insight into this matter than the average flightinfo lurker. This is a seniority grab, plain and simple. They want the top 400 slots BEFORE the actual integration starts.

 

[ualdriver]

Wow. The amount of misinformation on this thread is staggering, which I guess is par for the course for some of these flightinfo.com pundits. All we need is Wayback or JoeMerchant on here to add a few "ALPA sucks" posts and we'd have a quorum!

Just out of curiosity, how many of you actually have called your reps and asked about what is really going on?

 

[johnsonrod]

#1 and #2 - When are you being told that will happen?

#3 - CAL "The Savior" - "the UAL MEC who laid off 1500"? GMAFB already. Wait until you see your SLI position. That and your attitude will lead to a stroke for sure.

If you are a UAL pilot, I think you will be the one with a stroke. A 12 year guy at UAL will be placed next to 2007 hires at CAL. It happened at Delta and USAir via arbitration. Get ready for it. The only thing that softens a blow like that is a pay raise, via a new joint contract. So, stop screwing around with 747 payrates that benefit a few senior jerks that need to retire anyway.

 

[flyguppy]

No, I'm not saying that. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just giving you a line pilot perspective from someone who has perhaps more insight into this matter than the average flightinfo lurker. This is a seniority grab, plain and simple. They want the top 400 slots BEFORE the actual integration starts.

Please, enlighten me on how they are trying to grab the top 400 slots. Especially if the JCBA is NOT used to influence the SLI.

You think if they get a pay raise on the 747, then they are entitled to the top 400 slots on the SLI?

First time I've heard that one. So, how exactly does that work?