• 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 response to ual mec

flyguppy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Posts
130
Total Time
8000
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.


No stroke here. I have a pretty good idea in my own mind what this is going to end up looking like. And, for a 16 year UAL guy, it's not an ideal scenario. I've always been a "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" kind of guy.

Not fretting over it, unlike some.
 
Last edited:

Dan Roman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Posts
2,815
Total Time
19000
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?

Most true post on here.
 

RT8VA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Posts
167
Total Time
8800
Does CAL not have different rates within there own 737 fleet. Kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth a bit isn't it!
Seems to be a little misunderstanding as to how cal pay works on this issue. This is not considered separate airplanes for staffing so you can fly both small and large narrow body 73's, there is a blended rate for dead heading and vacation on the 737. Our smaller 737's are not a sub base so all 737 pilots can fly both. Since the 747 and 777 will be different equipment that is a different issue, not irrelevant just different.

Some one else mentioned paying the a320 more then the 737 which makes no sense it all since it is smaller so the same or by the ual argument must be paid less.

ok guys and gals go back to fighting about stuff you don't have the facts on it's like watching a cable news show on this thread
 

eaglesview

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Posts
1,350
Total Time
13,000
Seems to be a little misunderstanding as to how cal pay works on this issue. This is not considered separate airplanes for staffing so you can fly both small and large narrow body 73's, there is a blended rate for dead heading and vacation on the 737. Our smaller 737's are not a sub base so all 737 pilots can fly both. Since the 747 and 777 will be different equipment that is a different issue, not irrelevant just different.

Some one else mentioned paying the a320 more then the 737 which makes no sense it all since it is smaller so the same or by the ual argument must be paid less.

ok guys and gals go back to fighting about stuff you don't have the facts on it's like watching a cable news show on this thread

In the first paragragh you are correct, well done.

Second paragragh, it would depend on which of the 737's "we" (i'm UAL) are talking about. The 320 is larger then the 500 and 300. When you get to the big guppy (an oximoron i know,) then I don't know the answer.

The third paragragh is right on if I am reading your sarcasm correctly. Let's move the F*&K on.
 

bizicmo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Posts
880
Total Time
+1000
Are the 767 also banded with the 777 and 747 still? If so, if the decision to unband the 747 for a higher payrate goes through are we also going to unband the 767 for a lower payrate?
 

Captain X

Who is John Galt?
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Posts
948
Total Time
Doing?
Can someone clarify something for me please? There is a UAL CBA 2003 and then there is LOA 05-01 (UAL Bankruptcy Exit LOA).

Was CBA 2003 ratified by pilot vote or imposed by a bankruptcy judge?
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Posts
11
Total Time
11000
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. .

although this is a theoretically possible outcome of the SLI, I wouldn't bet on it. merger policy has changed since Delta and USAir and United will be the guinea pig. "every case turns on its own facts."
 

JI Gone OH

Scope is NOT for Sale
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Posts
180
Total Time
10000
although this is a theoretically possible outcome of the SLI, I wouldn't bet on it. merger policy has changed since Delta and USAir and United will be the guinea pig. "every case turns on its own facts."

I'm assuming that you're referring to how the furloughed guys will be integrated into the new list, right? If so, regardless of the fact that you now have to somehow consider longetivity in merging these guys, the "career expectations" of someone that wasn't employed or on property when the merger took place is still pretty dire. If you're expecting that an arbitrator is going to place an unemployed/furloughed pilot above a working one on an ISL, I think you're in for a disappointment. I'm not saying that it's fair, but I don't think that's how the chips are going to fall. JMO...
 
Last edited:

EWR_FO

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Posts
415
Total Time
14,000
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?

The problem with your argument is you apparently don't understand that what you brought to the table, when this merger was announced, is your starting point for negotiations. It's really that simple. UAL, unfortunately for them, does not distinguish between a 747 and a 777 for pay purposes. Period. It's too late to change that now for the purposes of the merger. I realize that is a bitter pill to swallow but that's reality.

No one is going to pay Donovan McNabb what they paid him ten years ago because he doesn't bring that skill set to the table anymore, UAL is no different.
 

Hvy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Posts
315
Total Time
17,000
No one is going to pay Donovan McNabb what they paid him ten years ago because he doesn't bring that skill set to the table anymore, UAL is no different.[/QUOTE]

It is people like you that are going to cause hate and discontent between our pilot groups with your statements. Sad...but I guess that's what we get when a forum is anonymous. People's true character shines through.
 

EWR_FO

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Posts
415
Total Time
14,000
No one is going to pay Donovan McNabb what they paid him ten years ago because he doesn't bring that skill set to the table anymore, UAL is no different.

It is people like you that are going to cause hate and discontent between our pilot groups with your statements. Sad...but I guess that's what we get when a forum is anonymous. People's true character shines through.
[/QUOTE]

No hate here, just not going to stand by and watch a small group of people artificially inflate their seniority. Nothing more-nothing less.
 

eaglesview

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Posts
1,350
Total Time
13,000
No one is going to pay Donovan McNabb what they paid him ten years ago because he doesn't bring that skill set to the table anymore, UAL is no different.

I think this might take the cake as the dumbest analogy so far on FI.
 

EWR_FO

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Posts
415
Total Time
14,000
I think this might take the cake as the dumbest analogy so far on FI.

You, of course, think the UAL starting position in this merger should be their pre-bankruptcy contract- correct? Sorry but you don't get credit for what used to be, no matter how much screaming and pouting you do.
 

St. Nic

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
658
Total Time
1
The UAL pilots control the merger... End of story. Longevity cannot be ignored either. Buckle up. This is going to be a rough ride, thx again to ALPA
 

Hvy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Posts
315
Total Time
17,000
You, of course, think the UAL starting position in this merger should be their pre-bankruptcy contract- correct? Sorry but you don't get credit for what used to be, no matter how much screaming and pouting you do.

Your stance is EXACTLY what the ALPA Merger Policy tries to avoid and what the two pilot groups signed an agreement promising that they would NOT do. You are mixing the JCBA with the SLI. It is the wrong thing to do. We are supposed to be working TOGETHER to get the best possible contract. You are already maneuvering for position on the SLI. They are to be kept separate.
 
Top